Various Notions, Volume 3: Senator Obama and the Zeitgeist; Senator Coleman's Singing Voice; British Elections; and more....

NORM IS NOT SO PRETTY IN PINK

I recently posted the paragraph directly following this one as a comment on Anoka Flash's political blog-site "centrisity" (the link to which can be found at the end of this short topic of discussion). Well, to be completely honest, for the purposes of clarity I have made some minor changes to the first sentence of my comment as it appears on this blog-site. I don't normally cross-reference my own comments, but I decided to make an exception this time around because I greatly dislike the ridiculous new re-election ad for Republican U.S. Senator Norm Coleman that is presently running on television outlets in and around the state of Minnesota. Al Franken, the comedy writer and actor, as well as political commentator, will likely be Senator Coleman's Democratic opponent in November. (Polls taken recently suggest that the race will be a close one.) Mr. Franken may have his shortcomings, political and otherwise, be he is a far, far better choice for the post than is Senator Coleman, who was until recently joined at the hip to the Bush Administration. Here's my comment:

"U.S. Senator Norm Coleman has a stupid new re-election television ad out, which postulates that he is "An Independent Voice For Minnesota." Until quite recently, of course, Senator Coleman was so lock-step with the Bush Administration--on very nearly everything--that he would have pranced about the Senate floor in a pink tutu while singing 'Happy Days Are Here Again' if Dick Cheney requested it of him. I shall be voting for Mr. Franken in the autumn election, warts and all, thank you very much."

p.s. If you've got the time and inclination, check out the "centrisity" site (http://centrisity.blogspot.com/). It's a good one.

FEELING BLUE, MR. BROWN?

As of late Thursday night, the BBC reports that over half of the votes cast in the local elections held in England and Wales have so far been counted. The result looks bad for Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Labour Party, which has thus far received approximately 24% of the total vote. The Liberal Democrat Party is presently at about 25%, and the Tory Party is presently at about 44%. (The remaining 7% or so has gone to other minor parties.)

Many British media outlets speculated that the Labour Party would have to receive 29-30% of the overall vote in order to avoid heavy levels of further erosion of confidence in the party itself in general, and in Prime Minister Brown in particular. It does not look as though that has happend (at least it doesn't look that way right now).

Conversely, the Tories are presently rather jubilant, as they were hoping to take at least 40% of the overall vote in order to show that the results would not simply suggest an anti-Labour tendency, but also a pro-Tory tendency across much of the country. Right now, it looks as though they will achieve their goal, and then some.

Speculation is swirling regarding whether the Tories can unseat Labour in the southern city of Reading, which is the sole big city in the heavily-populated south-east of England that still has a Labour-controlled city council, outside of London.

Speaking of London, the results of the London mayoral race (between Mayor Ken Livingstone of the Labour Party and Boris Johnson of the Tory Party) will not be available until late in the day on Friday, or perhaps as late as the weekend if the vote is as close as it is expected to be.

THE OBAMA ZEITGEIST, or, HOLDING A MIRROR UP TO OUR OWN COMPLICATED NATURES

I'm not a big believer in either the importance or accuracy of most political polls (especially, but not exclusively, during this odd and exciting American election cycle), but the NBC/WSJ poll released this week (the full results of which can be read at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24390690/) is an eye-opener in that it suggests that the association between Senator Obama and Revered Wright, so prevalent of late insofar as U.S. national media coverage is concerned, is actually well below Senator McCain's perceived ties to President Bush as far as candidate liabilites is concerned.

According to the poll, the top three concerns among registered voters across the United States are as follows:

1.) Senator McCain's ties to President Bush is a concern for approximately 43% of American voters.
2.) Senator Clinton's proclivity to alter her positions on various policy issues is a concern for approximately 36% of American voters.
3.) Senator Obama's remarks regarding the "bitter"-ness of some rural Americans is a concern for approximately 34% of American voters.

Though Senator Obama's association with the Reverend Wright came in at #4 in the poll, it was nearly a dozen points behind Senator McCain's ties to President Bush. The Wright-scenario was also several points behind Senator Clinton's perceived "flip-flopping" (I hate that term, but we carry onward...) on issues for the apparent purposes of political expediency. Yet the media has been obsessed with the Wright story of late, which, by the way, came on the heels of the media's previous obsession, Senator Obama's "bitter" comments.

What is going on here? Well, a number of things may be occurring, one of which is the fact that many Americans are now waking up the reality that Senator Obama does indeed have flaws, which is to suggest that he is a human being. Given the almost messiah-worshipping nature of the news coverage he received during his (admittedly) extraordinary run of a dozen-or-so primary and caucus victories in mid- to late-February, and given that he is now being scrutinized by those same media outlets to farcical levels, it also suggests that many in the media are playing the age-old game of build-'em-up and knock-'em-down, almost despite themselves. (The levels of cognitive dissonance presently on display regarding this issue on American news stations, and in American print- and online news sources, is palpable; very few people seem willing to admit that they're playing a major role in the recycling of this old cliche.') And, of course, issues of ethnicity and socio-economic class are coming into play, as well.

Yet perhaps the largest role in these ("bitter"; Reverend Wright; lapel flag pins) fixations might be explained by another intellectual and emotional frustration that very few people own up to: confusion. In this case, the media (and a fairly substantial chunk of the American population, as well) has a pretty good handle on what types of voters are concerned with Senator McCain's perceived ties to President Bush, and why. These groups also have a pretty good handle on what types of voters are concerned with Senator Clinton's perceived stance-switching on major issues, and why. But we're all still a bit confused with what to think of Senator Obama simply because he is still very new on the national (and international) political scene. The majority of Americans perceive him to be an intelligent thinker, a gifted speaker, and an individual with a certain unique integrity in that he chose to take a job as a community organizer post-law-school instead of becoming a mega-bucks lawyer. And he has clearly tapped into a certain very current American (and geopolitical) zeitgeist.

But he is also complicated. He has many non-controversial, rather "normative" friends, of course, but he has a few very controversial friends, as well. He doesn't agree with everything these latter folks say, but unless one of them calls his integrity into question in a very public and rather dismissive manner (such as was the case with the Reverend Wright's comments this past week), he seems to stand by even his most controversial of friends.

He also has a tendency to shy away from political expediency on a surprisingly consistent basis, including this past week, when both Senator Clinton and Senator McCain called for a summer "holiday" from the national gas tax, which has received warm applause at rallies and considerable support in both national polls and those taken this week in the upcoming primary states of Indiana and North Carolina. Senator Obama has responsed to the "gas tax holiday" idea by stating (correctly) that such a monkeyshine will save American taxpayers very little money, and cost Americans a lot insofar as roads and infrastructure are concerned. (With the present price of gas over $3.50 a gallon nationwide, this did not immediately help boost his poll numbers, and it probably won't help boost them any time soon, either.)

I do not know if the United States is ready, at a general level, for someone like Senator Obama to be its president. Like people in many, many countries throughout this world, we Americans are openly derisive of political pandering, but we gobble it up like candy and ask for more when it comes down to it. Senator Obama seems to genuinely detest pandering, at least a lot more than most politicians, which we are initially attracted to but then quickly shy away from. And we don't like to view ourselves as the complicated human beings that we are--and find ways to celebrate that fact--as much as we prefer to define ourselves and others in narrow, rather generic terms ("nerd," "punk," "jock," "princess," "bitch," "idiot," "normal," "weird," "fighter," "winner," "wimp," "loser," etc., etc.). Senator Obama doesn't call himself a "fighter" and he doesn't care to seem like a "normal," Average Joe sort of guy, either, which, again, seems refreshing initially, but ultimately uncomfortable to people who would rather exist in such simplistic paradigms.

So I don't know if Senator Obama will be our next president. (After all, Senators Clinton and McCain are talented, experienced politicians in their own right.) But I have the sense that he would be a good one, if elected. And, given how he took pains to defend Reverend Wright, despite the political fallout, for many weeks--until Revered Wright repaid his loyalty with his recent, very public repudiation of Senator Obama--I've got a good sense that anyone with whom Senator Obama is a friend is most likely a pretty lucky person.

If that isn't an indication of strong character, I don't know what is.

IS JOHNNY MAC THINKING THUNE?

My recent picks for the top five Obama running-mate choices remains as it was several days ago: 1.) Joe Biden; 2.) Wesley Clark; 3.) Sam Nunn; 4.) Bill Richardson [he's also my #1 choice for Secretary of State]; 5.) Kathleen Sebelius.

If Senator Clinton were to somehow pull a rabbit out of her hat and win the Democratic nomination, her list presently consists of one choice: Barack Obama.

I still say that this Democratic group is far more impressive than the Republicans from which Senator McCain has to choose.

Speaking of the Republican side of things, this was a particularly awful week for anyone associated with President Bush, given his horrific new approval ratings. So I am going to do what I was too wimpy to do on Monday and change my top five McCain running-mate choices to reflect a more up-to-date picture of things, and better reflect my own "sense" of where things are heading as we near the conventions:

1.) John Thune. (He's quite conservative but not tainted by Bush associations; he's young [47]; he's not very experienced but also not a neophyte at foreign policy, as he is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee; he won political capital for winning an election victory over Tom Daschle, the man who was at that time the Democratic Senate Minority Leader; he's kept his nose clean and his head down; who cares if he's from South Dakota? No one else seems incredibly impressive, so he's wiggled his way into the top slot.)
2.) Tom Ridge. (His previous association with President Bush may hurt him.)
3.) Sarah Palin. (I still don't think it matters that she's from already-conservative Alaska.)
4.) Kay Bailey Hutchison. (She's been out in force for Senator McCain this week.)
5.) Tim Pawlenty. ("The nearer your destination, the more you're slip slidin' away....")

Falling out of the top five, but still a dark horse candidate: Rob Portman. (Things just keep looking worse and worse at the Budget Office....)