Fareed Zakaria has written a thought-provoking (and, to my mind, quite compelling) article in the June 30, 2008 edition of Newsweek magazine regarding what type of Iraq-oriented speech Senator Obama should give relatively soon to avoid "being prescient about the war in 2002 and yet being overtaken by events in 2008." In fact, Mr. Zakaria provides his own lengthy, in-depth example of such a speech. The following are exerpts from the "speech," which, among other things, seeks to placate both the left-leaning American viewpoint as well as the growing, pragmatic center-oriented American viewpoint:
"...The surge has produced a considerable decline in violence in Iraq. General Petraeus has accomplished this by using more troops and fighting differently. Perhaps more crucially, he reached out and made a strategic accommodation with many Sunni groups that had once fought U.S. troops. To put it bluntly, he talked to our enemies. These reversals of strategy have had the effect of creating what General Petraeus calls 'breathing space' for political reconciliation. And he has always said that without political progress in Iraq, military efforts will not produce any lasting success.
"He is right. All today's gains could disappear when American troops leave--and they will have to leave one day. The disagreement I have with the Bush administration is that it seems to believe that time will magically make these gains endure. It won't. Without political progress, once the United States reduces its forces, the old mistrust and the old militias will rise up again. Only genuine political power-sharing will create a government and an Army that are seen as national and not sectarian. And that, in turn, is the only path to make Iraq viable without a large American military presence....
"...I have often said that we cannot give a blank check to the Iraq government. And I believe that congressional pressure--the growing frustration of Democrats and Republicans--was an important factor in getting the Iraqi leadership to start moving on outstanding political issues. I believe that we must continue to keep that pressure on the government in Baghdad. The best pressure remains the threat of troop withdrawals. But the obvious corollary is that were the Iraqi government to take decisive action, we should support it by altering the pace of our drawdown...."
Now, some people on the left will surely complain if Senator Obama gives a speech in which he suggests both that the Iraq invasion was indeed the wrong move (such a suggestion appears in Mr. Zakaria's "speech") and that, given the conditions today, we need to take a view similar to the one provided above. Indeed, there has been a lot of recent complaining by left-leaning bloggers that Senator Obama has become "too conservative" in the last few weeks. This is, of course, ridiculous. Democrats lean left during their primary process (just as Republicans lean right during theirs), and the nominees run to the political center-ground during much of the general election season. That's part of how elections are won in this big, politically-diverse country. It's a very integral part of American history and politics, it's happened time and again, and anyone who doesn't understand it, though potentially clever, is nonetheless politically ignorant and myopic.
Just look at a calendar and watch the news--we're now in the general election season. So "lefties" and "righties" are bound to get a bit angry at Senator Obama and Senator McCain for "pandering" to more independent-minded voters. But while such "pandering" does happen, it is also the case that taking a proactive, pragmatic, and in some ways centrist view regarding such issues as Iraq, health care, energy, and the economy will most likely not only increase a given candidate's chances to win the general election, but also open the door a bit more widely for bi-partisan support once the election is over, and therefore action can be taken more broadly and quickly than if a candidate tacks too far in one political direction or another on one of those critical issues.
Senator Obama was right about Iraq in 2002. But that does not mean that simply re-delivering the guts of his 2002 Iraq speech is the right move, politically and otherwise, in 2008. If he is to prove to wavering "independent" voters that he is "presidential," he will indeed need to take some firm stands on difficult issues, but he will also need to recalibrate some of his political stances so that they are legislatively viable. The Iraq war is a case in which the latter scenario would benefit him greatly, particularly if he reminds voters that his judgment was correct six years ago, but he recognizes that reality is reality, so by voting for him one would be voting for someone who can bring his solid judgment to bear on a very complex issue. In a sense, reminding folks of his mindset combined with re-calibrating his stance to deal with the changing situation will allow more people to put their faith in his ability to pull off something very tricky indeed: bringing U.S. troops home (and concentrating on fighting al Qaeda elsewhere), while also avoiding a catastrophic fallout in Iraq.
Senator Obama did not wish to start the Iraq war in the first place, so we know that his judgment is solid. If he plays his cards right, he could eventually help end it, given much patience (his and ours), intelligence (his and ours), and a new sort of judgment: the judgment to know when to put pressure on the Iraqis via the threat of accelerated troop withdrawals, and when to reward them for progress with a temporary slowdown of troop withdrawals. Very few people will be thrilled with the process (certainly the far left and far right will hate it), but it may--just may--turn into something most folks might think of as being rather miraculous: a relatively acceptable end to a misguided and tragic enterprise. The fact that such a possibility even exists is reason for us to (very carefully) employ Senator Obama's favorite word in the context of the turbulent Middle East: hope.
For the text of the entire "speech," go to: http://www.newsweek.com/id/142642
Monday, June 30, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
A Hazy Shade Of Summer
Am I (already) bored with the presidential election cycle? I find myself sitting at my computer--right now--meaning to type something pithy about the electoral process as it is playing out before our very eyes...perhaps focusing on certain strategies employed in particular ways by both the Obama and McCain camps this week...and yet I can't bring myself to get fired-up about much of anything insofar as that's concerned. (I've purchased my weekly allotment of political material--magazines and such--this past week, but read only about a third of it, and I've found myself reacting to it in a generally indifferent, if occasionally mildly interested, manner.)
Why is this? Am I increasingly displaying the types of inward symptoms others I know have reported they've been feeling of late--that "they" (of which I might be a part) are simply electioned-out? Have there recently been too many "critical primaries," too many "strategically-important caucuses," too many "strategy sessions" by painfully focus-group-friendly television pundits over a too-lengthy period of time? Is it simply a natural, very human reaction to shove all of this weighty import to the back of one's mind for a little while, in order to re-charge one's internal batteries? Has this exhausted, "pooped-out" sense of things (as a friend of mine might say, "You look like you're out of poop...") taken me over?
Maybe. After all, during June I've begun avoiding the types of television shows ("Road to the White House" and the like) I found interesting for the first several months of 2008. I've also found myself putting the more academic-oriented political and/or historical material I often read on the shelf, in favor of cottage mysteries by characters like Agatha Christie's Belgian sleuth Hercule Poirot who mutter very twee, relatively contradictory phrases such as, "See you, my friend, there is no time to lose. The Continental express leaves Victoria at 11 o'clock. Do not agitate yourself. There is plenty of time." Another of my recent favorite "ejaculations" (as Dama Agatha would call it), this one by another character, was the following: "Say no more! Nobody loves me! I shall go into to the garden and eat worms!" (Well, who wouldn't?)
Maybe that's it (the necessity for taking a break; not the worms). It's summer, after all, and, judging by what my neighbors and I have been doing of late, we want to giggle a bit more now that it's warmer, and laugh a bit more, and meander around the local roads on our bicycles, and support our chosen major league baseball team as they win several games in a row (or make a big, false act out of being "depressed" about them if they've lost several games in a row). We want to drink our beer cold (even the British Mrs. Hasslington, who suggests that "...it's presently too humid for sensible people to get worked up about politics...," prefers her beer ice cold during a Minnesota summer) and wander about the local shops in a zombie-like, almost Zen-like state, accidentally bumping into other zombie would-be-shoppers, in a very slow-motion version of human bumper cars--"bumper people" as seen through a foggy, feel-good haze.
Oh, the madness of presidential politics will return, my friends. It'll be here quite soon again indeed. In the late summer, "Presidential Election Insanity, Phase II" will be everpresent, and it will carry into the autumn at levels of increasing intensity that will make "Phase I: The Nominating Process" look like mass human hibernation by comparison. People will become politically interested and invested again, and politicians will feel the scrutiny to the point where they may do the oddest things in order to alleviate the pressure (I can't wait to see what happens on that front), and political money will be flying all over the place, and fights will break out over politics in the U.S. and, by extension, worldwide, and we'll all have a ringside seat.
So for the next several weeks I will keep blogging as I keep one eye (at least) on politics, even in my present, rather sedated state one could term "Summer Slow-down." That will prepare me for the historic autumn ahead, to the extent that anyone could possibly be prepared for the zaniness that is sure to commence....
Let the madness begin again, but not just yet, because I feel as though I need a cold beer right now--the Minnesota Twins are trying to win their ninth game in a row, you see.
Why is this? Am I increasingly displaying the types of inward symptoms others I know have reported they've been feeling of late--that "they" (of which I might be a part) are simply electioned-out? Have there recently been too many "critical primaries," too many "strategically-important caucuses," too many "strategy sessions" by painfully focus-group-friendly television pundits over a too-lengthy period of time? Is it simply a natural, very human reaction to shove all of this weighty import to the back of one's mind for a little while, in order to re-charge one's internal batteries? Has this exhausted, "pooped-out" sense of things (as a friend of mine might say, "You look like you're out of poop...") taken me over?
Maybe. After all, during June I've begun avoiding the types of television shows ("Road to the White House" and the like) I found interesting for the first several months of 2008. I've also found myself putting the more academic-oriented political and/or historical material I often read on the shelf, in favor of cottage mysteries by characters like Agatha Christie's Belgian sleuth Hercule Poirot who mutter very twee, relatively contradictory phrases such as, "See you, my friend, there is no time to lose. The Continental express leaves Victoria at 11 o'clock. Do not agitate yourself. There is plenty of time." Another of my recent favorite "ejaculations" (as Dama Agatha would call it), this one by another character, was the following: "Say no more! Nobody loves me! I shall go into to the garden and eat worms!" (Well, who wouldn't?)
Maybe that's it (the necessity for taking a break; not the worms). It's summer, after all, and, judging by what my neighbors and I have been doing of late, we want to giggle a bit more now that it's warmer, and laugh a bit more, and meander around the local roads on our bicycles, and support our chosen major league baseball team as they win several games in a row (or make a big, false act out of being "depressed" about them if they've lost several games in a row). We want to drink our beer cold (even the British Mrs. Hasslington, who suggests that "...it's presently too humid for sensible people to get worked up about politics...," prefers her beer ice cold during a Minnesota summer) and wander about the local shops in a zombie-like, almost Zen-like state, accidentally bumping into other zombie would-be-shoppers, in a very slow-motion version of human bumper cars--"bumper people" as seen through a foggy, feel-good haze.
Oh, the madness of presidential politics will return, my friends. It'll be here quite soon again indeed. In the late summer, "Presidential Election Insanity, Phase II" will be everpresent, and it will carry into the autumn at levels of increasing intensity that will make "Phase I: The Nominating Process" look like mass human hibernation by comparison. People will become politically interested and invested again, and politicians will feel the scrutiny to the point where they may do the oddest things in order to alleviate the pressure (I can't wait to see what happens on that front), and political money will be flying all over the place, and fights will break out over politics in the U.S. and, by extension, worldwide, and we'll all have a ringside seat.
So for the next several weeks I will keep blogging as I keep one eye (at least) on politics, even in my present, rather sedated state one could term "Summer Slow-down." That will prepare me for the historic autumn ahead, to the extent that anyone could possibly be prepared for the zaniness that is sure to commence....
Let the madness begin again, but not just yet, because I feel as though I need a cold beer right now--the Minnesota Twins are trying to win their ninth game in a row, you see.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Thoughts (Political And Otherwise) While Cycling
Thoughts while riding my bike through the neighborhood....
* I'm not much of a Lewis Black fan, but I admire what he said about George Carlin after the great comic's death--particularly his notion that Mr. Carlin was a superb anthropologist, with which I agree entirely. Stated Mr. Black of Mr. Carlin: "He was pulling us out of the '50s mentality, which persists today. Somehow, it won't let go. He pointed in the direction and said, 'Can we please move on?' He did his best to try to help us grow up as a people. He said, 'Can we mature a little? Can we be smarter than we're acting?' I think he was a great anthropologist. He was studying us while we were still wandering around."
* I must remember to tell my readership about the thought-provoking article titled "The Big Sort" in the (often center-right) magazine The Economist. It deals with the increasing trend on the part of Americans to live next to like-minded people, which would at first thought seem a fine and natural thing, but upon second thought seems less wonderful. (The tag line to the article is "This makes the culture war more bitter and the politics harder," which we come to learn means "more polarized.") The article, which I recommend as a conversation-starter (and perhaps argument-igniter, which I'm all for, given the lack of political discussions engaged in by people of opposing viewpoints in the U.S., according to both a study quoted in the article and my own anecdotal American experiences vs. my time in Europe), can be found at: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11581447
* It seems to me that I've passed six coffee shops in the last twenty-five minutes, though I may have passed one of them twice. On balance, I consider the proliferation of coffee shops in both the U.S. and many places abroad a good thing. It will get more and more strangers talking to each other, particularly those who dislike the bar/pub scene.
* I recognize a lot of the people walking out of the local convenience store to their cars; they're carrying one or two items apiece and are from my neighborhood, which is only a mile away. Now they seem to be driving home. Look at how crowded the roads are. Why would they want to drive to the store, with the traffic as it is, when they can cycle on the very-wide side of the road or walk on the sidewalk, both of which are far less crowded? And given the price of gas these days.... I really hope they worked late and are simply stopping at the store on the way home, which would make perfect sense. Otherwise, well, I often don't understand mass physical laziness. I shouldn't think too much about it, however, lest I utter it aloud and am accused of being a "left-wing elitist."
* Ah, leave it to the bookstore crowd to cycle to their favorite shop. Last autumn, one or two cycles were to be found tied to the cycle racks at this big bookstore. Today there are well over a dozen. That's good, I suppose, except it means that it will be far more difficult to squeeze my cycle into the rack now....
* I like fellow cyclists, except the ones who are under the impression that they are the heir to Lance Armstrong. (You know who I mean.) I hate to burst their collective bubble, but whatever they are, it's surely the case that they are not in the same cycling universe (let alone league) as Lance Armstrong and his fellow professionals.
* Wouldn't it be wild if Senator Obama chose very-Rocky-Mountain-oriented Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer as his running mate, and Senator McCain chose popular Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate? They may or may not be the best running mate selections for each candidate, but a strong case could be made for adding each of them to their parties' presidential tickets, and it's surely the case that the demographic battles, electoral map, campaign strategies, and even (if to a lesser extent) policy issues would shift in interesting ways if they were the running mates. At any rate, whether they're the best choices or not, they'd contribute greatly toward giving us an exciting election season.... Meanwhile, The Times (of London) is still evidently obsessed with the idea of my state's governor, Tim Pawlenty, being the running mate for Senator McCain -- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4187549.ece -- which is also not out of the question, particularly the closer we get to the Republican National Convention, which is to be held in my current hometown of Saint Paul, Minnesota.
* That reminds me that I ought to make my formal running mate endorsements sometime in the next week or two. I think I'll do just that.
* Yes, it does indeed look as though my selections for AL and NL batting champions for 2008 are in the running to win those titles. (Joe Mauer, from my Minnesota Twins, is presently a very close third place in the American League, and Lance Berkman, from the Houston Astros, is in second place in the National League.)
* I'd better start watching where I'm going a bit more closely as I head home. I don't want anyone to think I'm one of those people who speculates about politics, sociology, and sports as he cycles around the local roads....
* I'm not much of a Lewis Black fan, but I admire what he said about George Carlin after the great comic's death--particularly his notion that Mr. Carlin was a superb anthropologist, with which I agree entirely. Stated Mr. Black of Mr. Carlin: "He was pulling us out of the '50s mentality, which persists today. Somehow, it won't let go. He pointed in the direction and said, 'Can we please move on?' He did his best to try to help us grow up as a people. He said, 'Can we mature a little? Can we be smarter than we're acting?' I think he was a great anthropologist. He was studying us while we were still wandering around."
* I must remember to tell my readership about the thought-provoking article titled "The Big Sort" in the (often center-right) magazine The Economist. It deals with the increasing trend on the part of Americans to live next to like-minded people, which would at first thought seem a fine and natural thing, but upon second thought seems less wonderful. (The tag line to the article is "This makes the culture war more bitter and the politics harder," which we come to learn means "more polarized.") The article, which I recommend as a conversation-starter (and perhaps argument-igniter, which I'm all for, given the lack of political discussions engaged in by people of opposing viewpoints in the U.S., according to both a study quoted in the article and my own anecdotal American experiences vs. my time in Europe), can be found at: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11581447
* It seems to me that I've passed six coffee shops in the last twenty-five minutes, though I may have passed one of them twice. On balance, I consider the proliferation of coffee shops in both the U.S. and many places abroad a good thing. It will get more and more strangers talking to each other, particularly those who dislike the bar/pub scene.
* I recognize a lot of the people walking out of the local convenience store to their cars; they're carrying one or two items apiece and are from my neighborhood, which is only a mile away. Now they seem to be driving home. Look at how crowded the roads are. Why would they want to drive to the store, with the traffic as it is, when they can cycle on the very-wide side of the road or walk on the sidewalk, both of which are far less crowded? And given the price of gas these days.... I really hope they worked late and are simply stopping at the store on the way home, which would make perfect sense. Otherwise, well, I often don't understand mass physical laziness. I shouldn't think too much about it, however, lest I utter it aloud and am accused of being a "left-wing elitist."
* Ah, leave it to the bookstore crowd to cycle to their favorite shop. Last autumn, one or two cycles were to be found tied to the cycle racks at this big bookstore. Today there are well over a dozen. That's good, I suppose, except it means that it will be far more difficult to squeeze my cycle into the rack now....
* I like fellow cyclists, except the ones who are under the impression that they are the heir to Lance Armstrong. (You know who I mean.) I hate to burst their collective bubble, but whatever they are, it's surely the case that they are not in the same cycling universe (let alone league) as Lance Armstrong and his fellow professionals.
* Wouldn't it be wild if Senator Obama chose very-Rocky-Mountain-oriented Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer as his running mate, and Senator McCain chose popular Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate? They may or may not be the best running mate selections for each candidate, but a strong case could be made for adding each of them to their parties' presidential tickets, and it's surely the case that the demographic battles, electoral map, campaign strategies, and even (if to a lesser extent) policy issues would shift in interesting ways if they were the running mates. At any rate, whether they're the best choices or not, they'd contribute greatly toward giving us an exciting election season.... Meanwhile, The Times (of London) is still evidently obsessed with the idea of my state's governor, Tim Pawlenty, being the running mate for Senator McCain -- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4187549.ece -- which is also not out of the question, particularly the closer we get to the Republican National Convention, which is to be held in my current hometown of Saint Paul, Minnesota.
* That reminds me that I ought to make my formal running mate endorsements sometime in the next week or two. I think I'll do just that.
* Yes, it does indeed look as though my selections for AL and NL batting champions for 2008 are in the running to win those titles. (Joe Mauer, from my Minnesota Twins, is presently a very close third place in the American League, and Lance Berkman, from the Houston Astros, is in second place in the National League.)
* I'd better start watching where I'm going a bit more closely as I head home. I don't want anyone to think I'm one of those people who speculates about politics, sociology, and sports as he cycles around the local roads....
Monday, June 23, 2008
Give 'Em Hell In The Afterlife, Or Wherever You Are, George.
GEORGE CARLIN, THE KING OF THE COURT JESTERS, IS DEAD
I remember reading "Hamlet" for the first time when I was about fourteen and thinking that Yorick, the long-dead court jester whose bare skull Hamlet holds in the graveyard in Act 5, Scene 1, was probably a genius. The reverence with which Hamlet handles Yorick's skull after discovering its identity, and the longing nearly every Hamlet I've seen on stage displays when he asks the skull where "your flashes of merriment that were wont to set the table on a roar" went, suggest something much more (and far deeper) than simply light-hearted wit; it suggests a sort of lost genius.
But, putting aside the fact that he was a fictional character for a moment, Yorick was of a different era--one in which a court jester could be a court jester, and very little else. (Perhaps if he had fallen out of favor with the royal court, he might have scraped by as one of the grave-digging clowns of the same graveyard scene.)
Due partly to the era in which he lived, George Carlin was a liberated court jester--a liberated Yorick. He was funny in a whimsical manner, to be sure, but he was also biting and political, and his humorous observations (certainly not always "jokes") were multi-layered and meant to provoke a strong response. He might start off in "safe" territory for mixed crowds (then again, he might not), but you just knew it wouldn't be long before he would stick a metaphorical knife in the sides of all the would-be aristocrats and cruise-control middle class folks and, yes, even his fellow jesters, including himself.
What was best about Mr. Carlin, even beyond watching him dismantle the slovenly comfort of what he often saw as unearned mass affluence, was watching him--and ourselves--get high on whatever ideas were coming to his mind at any given moment. When he started riffing on whatever theme he'd happened upon, his audience often started reeling in the excitement of being swept away on an extended tangent by an intelligence that was as sharp as it was distinctly, innovatively "American."
It's no wonder that, later this year, he was set to receive the Mark Twain award for excellence in American humor. Though never a fan of the idea of "heaven," he's probably having a beer with Mr. Twain...somewhere...right now.
Here are some Carlin-observations that strike me as being politically appropriate and provocative to the present cultural atmosphere...certainly, they are not for, say, hard-core Mike Huckabee fans, or anyone so sensitive/myopic that they cannot take being offended:
--"I keep hearing that America lost its innocence on 9/11. I thought that happened when JFK was shot. Or was it Vietnam? Pearl Harbor? How many times can America lose its innocence? Maybe we keep finding it again. Doubtful. Because, actually, if you look at the record, you'll find that America has had very little innocence from the beginning."
--"In the United States, anybody can be president. That's the problem."
--"Bush calls the al Qaeda people cowards, and says, 'They like to hide.' Well, isn't that what the American Continental Army did during the American Revolution? Our beloved patriots? They hid. They hid behind trees. Then they came out, killed some British soldiers, and ran away. That's what you do when you're outnumbered and have less firepower than the enemy.... Bill Maher may have stretched the point when he said that air force pilots who release their bombs from hundreds of miles away are cowards; flying combat jets doesn't attract many cowards.... However, I will say this. Getting out of the Vietnam war through daddy's connections and then not living up to your end of the bargain is probably a form of cowardice."
--"I don't like ass-kissers, flag wavers, or team players. I like people who buck the system. Individuals. I often warn kids: 'Somewhere along the way, someone is going to tell you that there is no "I" in team. What you should tell them is, maybe not, but there is an "I" in independence, individuality, and integrity.... Avoid teams at all cost. Keep your circle small. Never join a group that has a name. If they say, 'We're the So-and-Sos,' take a walk. And if, somehow, you must join, if it's unavoidable, such as a union or a trade association, go ahead and join. But don't participate; it will be your death. And if they tell you you're not a team player, just congratulate them on being so observant.'"
--"The Secret News: Announcer (whispering), 'Good evening, ladies and gentlement, it's time for the Secret News. Here it is:
All people are afraid.
No one knows what they're doing.
Everything is getting worse.
Some people deserve to die.
Your money is worthless.
No one is properly dressed.
At least one of your children will disappoing you.
The system is rigged.
Your house will never be completely clean.
Most teachers are incompetent.
There are people who really dislike you.
Nothing is as good as it seems.
Things don't last.
No one is paying attention.
The country is dying.
God doesn't care.
Shhhhh....'"
--"Have you heard people talking, or read what they've written lately? Isn't it awful? Some people tell me that, in the future, everyone will speak the same langauge. Well, that may be, but no one will speak it well."
And here's a Carlin tangent that just about says it all regarding his skills of invention:
"No one ever wrote this sentence before: On the Feast of Saint Steven, I was driving my hearse to the wholesale liverwurst outlet when suddenly a hermaphrodite in a piano truck backed out of a crackhouse driveway, and, as my shoes caught fire, I pirouetted across Boris Karloff Boulevard, slapping the truck driver six times in the loins with a Chattanooga road map, even though he was humming 'The Pussycat Song.'"
I don't know where all of that came from, but there's something both surprising and invigorating in it. Alas, provocateur George is dead. We knew him well.
I remember reading "Hamlet" for the first time when I was about fourteen and thinking that Yorick, the long-dead court jester whose bare skull Hamlet holds in the graveyard in Act 5, Scene 1, was probably a genius. The reverence with which Hamlet handles Yorick's skull after discovering its identity, and the longing nearly every Hamlet I've seen on stage displays when he asks the skull where "your flashes of merriment that were wont to set the table on a roar" went, suggest something much more (and far deeper) than simply light-hearted wit; it suggests a sort of lost genius.
But, putting aside the fact that he was a fictional character for a moment, Yorick was of a different era--one in which a court jester could be a court jester, and very little else. (Perhaps if he had fallen out of favor with the royal court, he might have scraped by as one of the grave-digging clowns of the same graveyard scene.)
Due partly to the era in which he lived, George Carlin was a liberated court jester--a liberated Yorick. He was funny in a whimsical manner, to be sure, but he was also biting and political, and his humorous observations (certainly not always "jokes") were multi-layered and meant to provoke a strong response. He might start off in "safe" territory for mixed crowds (then again, he might not), but you just knew it wouldn't be long before he would stick a metaphorical knife in the sides of all the would-be aristocrats and cruise-control middle class folks and, yes, even his fellow jesters, including himself.
What was best about Mr. Carlin, even beyond watching him dismantle the slovenly comfort of what he often saw as unearned mass affluence, was watching him--and ourselves--get high on whatever ideas were coming to his mind at any given moment. When he started riffing on whatever theme he'd happened upon, his audience often started reeling in the excitement of being swept away on an extended tangent by an intelligence that was as sharp as it was distinctly, innovatively "American."
It's no wonder that, later this year, he was set to receive the Mark Twain award for excellence in American humor. Though never a fan of the idea of "heaven," he's probably having a beer with Mr. Twain...somewhere...right now.
Here are some Carlin-observations that strike me as being politically appropriate and provocative to the present cultural atmosphere...certainly, they are not for, say, hard-core Mike Huckabee fans, or anyone so sensitive/myopic that they cannot take being offended:
--"I keep hearing that America lost its innocence on 9/11. I thought that happened when JFK was shot. Or was it Vietnam? Pearl Harbor? How many times can America lose its innocence? Maybe we keep finding it again. Doubtful. Because, actually, if you look at the record, you'll find that America has had very little innocence from the beginning."
--"In the United States, anybody can be president. That's the problem."
--"Bush calls the al Qaeda people cowards, and says, 'They like to hide.' Well, isn't that what the American Continental Army did during the American Revolution? Our beloved patriots? They hid. They hid behind trees. Then they came out, killed some British soldiers, and ran away. That's what you do when you're outnumbered and have less firepower than the enemy.... Bill Maher may have stretched the point when he said that air force pilots who release their bombs from hundreds of miles away are cowards; flying combat jets doesn't attract many cowards.... However, I will say this. Getting out of the Vietnam war through daddy's connections and then not living up to your end of the bargain is probably a form of cowardice."
--"I don't like ass-kissers, flag wavers, or team players. I like people who buck the system. Individuals. I often warn kids: 'Somewhere along the way, someone is going to tell you that there is no "I" in team. What you should tell them is, maybe not, but there is an "I" in independence, individuality, and integrity.... Avoid teams at all cost. Keep your circle small. Never join a group that has a name. If they say, 'We're the So-and-Sos,' take a walk. And if, somehow, you must join, if it's unavoidable, such as a union or a trade association, go ahead and join. But don't participate; it will be your death. And if they tell you you're not a team player, just congratulate them on being so observant.'"
--"The Secret News: Announcer (whispering), 'Good evening, ladies and gentlement, it's time for the Secret News. Here it is:
All people are afraid.
No one knows what they're doing.
Everything is getting worse.
Some people deserve to die.
Your money is worthless.
No one is properly dressed.
At least one of your children will disappoing you.
The system is rigged.
Your house will never be completely clean.
Most teachers are incompetent.
There are people who really dislike you.
Nothing is as good as it seems.
Things don't last.
No one is paying attention.
The country is dying.
God doesn't care.
Shhhhh....'"
--"Have you heard people talking, or read what they've written lately? Isn't it awful? Some people tell me that, in the future, everyone will speak the same langauge. Well, that may be, but no one will speak it well."
And here's a Carlin tangent that just about says it all regarding his skills of invention:
"No one ever wrote this sentence before: On the Feast of Saint Steven, I was driving my hearse to the wholesale liverwurst outlet when suddenly a hermaphrodite in a piano truck backed out of a crackhouse driveway, and, as my shoes caught fire, I pirouetted across Boris Karloff Boulevard, slapping the truck driver six times in the loins with a Chattanooga road map, even though he was humming 'The Pussycat Song.'"
I don't know where all of that came from, but there's something both surprising and invigorating in it. Alas, provocateur George is dead. We knew him well.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Learning And Teaching Today
I am a teacher, but I most certainly did not start my professional career that way. I wanted to go into business, you see, and I loved books, so managing a bookstore seemed like a good idea to me. It is therefore the case that I co-managed a small bookstore after acquiring my Master's Degree in English, in the hopes of perhaps staying in the book business. But the pull of learning got to me after a year or so of managing, and I went back to school to become a teacher.
That's the point, you see--I have always felt, and continue to feel, that teachers are learners first (well, at least those who are worthy of the title "teacher" are learners first), and they are always cognizant of the fact that the more one learns, the more one needs to learn. They are naturally curious about things of which they are ignorant, and anxious to replace that ignorance with knowledge. They care about "connections" in life--what connects religion to history; politics to science; literature to life itself; and so on and so forth. Thus, teaching becomes a method of sharing what they've learned with others, and learning from those with whom they share--often, but not always, students--as well.
So I went back to acquire my secondary-level teaching certification, during which time I taught part-time at the university level, and, after acquiring my new degree, I split my time between the high school and university levels here in the U.S. But wanderlust (and a lovely English girlfriend) caught my attention and thankfully would not let go, and soon I was overseas, teaching at both the junior high and high school level in Great Britain for several years...during which time I was lucky enough to convince my girlfriend to marry me.
Now I'm back, rediscovering my native country, and thinking about these things because my wife--who has waited patiently for our incredibly slow-moving bureaucratic immigration system to determine that, yes, this university-educated woman who speaks three languages fluently is indeed "safe" to allow into the United States--is about to join me in the United States. It's all coming together now....
Except that I'm not certain I wish to be a teacher any longer. What I have encountered, in the general culture and in the teaching profession, since returning to the U.S. has both astonished and angered me. I have spoken with fellow teachers often, and found an alarmingly high percentage of them (particularly those who, like me, are under the age of forty or forty-five) to be mind-bogglingly bureaucratic pez-despensers of muddled, overstuffed jargon that is utilized in the attempt to mask the fact that they are tepid, mediocre thinkers armed with obvious "rubrics" anyone could come up with given five minutes, but not with an overarching understanding of the historical development of culture and learning.
It's also the case that so very few teachers I have met of late have a sense of intellectual adventurism; they seem desperate to be forced into teaching methods that are rigid and "set" for them, as if they can't (won't) engage in the type of creativity and improvisation of which intelligent people are capable while still focusing on one or two particular areas of study. And if they're afraid to do that, it's quite simply the case that they're afraid to, well, teach. They'd rather go through pre-provided structures that are often fully devoid of any semblance of learning as an adventure. Given the crushing boredom of such a scenario, no wonder so many students under-perform....
Yet before we blame the teaching profession for all of this, it should be pointed out that, at root, this is really due to a culture that sees learning as a product and not what it really is: a lifelong process, and, at root, a habit. Seeing learning as a product alone is depressingly reductive enough, but the product (test; assessment; whatever you wish to call it) is often so limp and silly that it is surely only through a process of self-forced cognitive dissonance that those teachers who do honor the history of their profession by going against the present grain of embarrassingly discordant teaching strategies can deliver these "products" while keeping a straight face.
Yes, there are wonderful teachers out there, but there are not enough of them, mostly, I think, because there is not a big enough demand for them. In an increasingly international, shrinking world, I've noticed that a lot of American institutions of learning are becoming more taciturn and stand-offish to teachers who have international experience. Surely it should be the opposite, but we've become a taciturn nation, often stubbornly refusing to engage the world in new and exciting ways--in creative ways, which have been a hallmark of our nation since its inception--and suspicious of those from our ranks who have not just traveled but lived and worked around the globe, and come home again to discover a sort of passive-aggression directed toward our experiences. (I am most certainly not the only individual who feels this way; many other folks I've spoken to feel likewise.) This seems wrong coming from the country that champions the use of its core values--hard work and creativity--to produce both innovation and ahead-of-the-curve standards of adaptation....
There are a few other countries with similar educational problems--among them Great Britain. (The difference is that the British are angry about the situation, whereas we often seem unwilling to hold strong opinions about it.) My wife's grandfather was a high school History teacher in England, and one day some of his students stopped by his house to chat about a recent lesson he delivered on World War II. He was working in his garage at the time, and after talking to them for a few minutes he opened up a trunk and allowed the students to sift through what was inside of it, and ask him questions about the various items, to which he would give full and frank replies. You see, he was not only a scholar of History, but also of literature, and (most important for this instance) he was also fluent in German. Because of his bi-lingual nature, he had been a German interpretor during World War II, helping to spy on German transmissions in the hopes that the Allied powers could stay one step ahead of their enemies during that war, and the trunk was filled with items of remembrance from his role during that awful time.
It was his ability to combine real world experiences with a vast supply of academic knowledge that led him to being a teacher in the first place--not "rubrics," not jargon, not empty bureaucratic paper-pushing, but experience and knowledge. He retired a beloved teacher, and died in 1997. His daughter, my mother in law, also became a teacher, but she retired earlier than she would have in part because the profession had become less about learning as her father knew it (which was learning that often led to far better reading, writing, and thinking skills than do many of today's methods) and more about creating a cult of teaching and learning mediocrity masquerading as "excellence."
That is what I see often (though, it must be said, not always) in today's American system, too, and in order to combat that I would humbly suggest that schools focus on hiring the following various types of people to be teachers: those with wide-ranging global experience (particularly those who have lived and worked for considerable periods of time outside of the U.S.) and not just culturally-specific experience; people who have not necessarily always been teachers (in fact, those who have worked for lengthy periods of time in other industries would most likely make wonderful teachers with eclectic life experiences); retired people who have a long back-history of personal experience and have seen the world change in more ways than, say, folks in their thirties like me; foreign teachers, whose contributions in this global age would be incalculable; and anyone from any background who refuses to buy wholesale into many of the silly, self-important teaching strategies (oh, sorry, "pedagogies") of the present era.
For the time being, this Democrat who dislikes both Republican simplistic educational reductivism and Democratic self-important educational bureaucracy, will remain a teacher. We'll see how long that lasts. To those teachers who feel the same as I do, and who are perhaps quite depressed about the present status of formal education, I simply say this: whether you remain a classroom teacher or not, please remember that as long as you remain curious, you're always a learner, which means that in the most essential way you will always be a teacher.
*Note: Hasslington will return sometime next week; he is taking a long weekend vacation from blogging due to the arrival of his wife in the United States.
That's the point, you see--I have always felt, and continue to feel, that teachers are learners first (well, at least those who are worthy of the title "teacher" are learners first), and they are always cognizant of the fact that the more one learns, the more one needs to learn. They are naturally curious about things of which they are ignorant, and anxious to replace that ignorance with knowledge. They care about "connections" in life--what connects religion to history; politics to science; literature to life itself; and so on and so forth. Thus, teaching becomes a method of sharing what they've learned with others, and learning from those with whom they share--often, but not always, students--as well.
So I went back to acquire my secondary-level teaching certification, during which time I taught part-time at the university level, and, after acquiring my new degree, I split my time between the high school and university levels here in the U.S. But wanderlust (and a lovely English girlfriend) caught my attention and thankfully would not let go, and soon I was overseas, teaching at both the junior high and high school level in Great Britain for several years...during which time I was lucky enough to convince my girlfriend to marry me.
Now I'm back, rediscovering my native country, and thinking about these things because my wife--who has waited patiently for our incredibly slow-moving bureaucratic immigration system to determine that, yes, this university-educated woman who speaks three languages fluently is indeed "safe" to allow into the United States--is about to join me in the United States. It's all coming together now....
Except that I'm not certain I wish to be a teacher any longer. What I have encountered, in the general culture and in the teaching profession, since returning to the U.S. has both astonished and angered me. I have spoken with fellow teachers often, and found an alarmingly high percentage of them (particularly those who, like me, are under the age of forty or forty-five) to be mind-bogglingly bureaucratic pez-despensers of muddled, overstuffed jargon that is utilized in the attempt to mask the fact that they are tepid, mediocre thinkers armed with obvious "rubrics" anyone could come up with given five minutes, but not with an overarching understanding of the historical development of culture and learning.
It's also the case that so very few teachers I have met of late have a sense of intellectual adventurism; they seem desperate to be forced into teaching methods that are rigid and "set" for them, as if they can't (won't) engage in the type of creativity and improvisation of which intelligent people are capable while still focusing on one or two particular areas of study. And if they're afraid to do that, it's quite simply the case that they're afraid to, well, teach. They'd rather go through pre-provided structures that are often fully devoid of any semblance of learning as an adventure. Given the crushing boredom of such a scenario, no wonder so many students under-perform....
Yet before we blame the teaching profession for all of this, it should be pointed out that, at root, this is really due to a culture that sees learning as a product and not what it really is: a lifelong process, and, at root, a habit. Seeing learning as a product alone is depressingly reductive enough, but the product (test; assessment; whatever you wish to call it) is often so limp and silly that it is surely only through a process of self-forced cognitive dissonance that those teachers who do honor the history of their profession by going against the present grain of embarrassingly discordant teaching strategies can deliver these "products" while keeping a straight face.
Yes, there are wonderful teachers out there, but there are not enough of them, mostly, I think, because there is not a big enough demand for them. In an increasingly international, shrinking world, I've noticed that a lot of American institutions of learning are becoming more taciturn and stand-offish to teachers who have international experience. Surely it should be the opposite, but we've become a taciturn nation, often stubbornly refusing to engage the world in new and exciting ways--in creative ways, which have been a hallmark of our nation since its inception--and suspicious of those from our ranks who have not just traveled but lived and worked around the globe, and come home again to discover a sort of passive-aggression directed toward our experiences. (I am most certainly not the only individual who feels this way; many other folks I've spoken to feel likewise.) This seems wrong coming from the country that champions the use of its core values--hard work and creativity--to produce both innovation and ahead-of-the-curve standards of adaptation....
There are a few other countries with similar educational problems--among them Great Britain. (The difference is that the British are angry about the situation, whereas we often seem unwilling to hold strong opinions about it.) My wife's grandfather was a high school History teacher in England, and one day some of his students stopped by his house to chat about a recent lesson he delivered on World War II. He was working in his garage at the time, and after talking to them for a few minutes he opened up a trunk and allowed the students to sift through what was inside of it, and ask him questions about the various items, to which he would give full and frank replies. You see, he was not only a scholar of History, but also of literature, and (most important for this instance) he was also fluent in German. Because of his bi-lingual nature, he had been a German interpretor during World War II, helping to spy on German transmissions in the hopes that the Allied powers could stay one step ahead of their enemies during that war, and the trunk was filled with items of remembrance from his role during that awful time.
It was his ability to combine real world experiences with a vast supply of academic knowledge that led him to being a teacher in the first place--not "rubrics," not jargon, not empty bureaucratic paper-pushing, but experience and knowledge. He retired a beloved teacher, and died in 1997. His daughter, my mother in law, also became a teacher, but she retired earlier than she would have in part because the profession had become less about learning as her father knew it (which was learning that often led to far better reading, writing, and thinking skills than do many of today's methods) and more about creating a cult of teaching and learning mediocrity masquerading as "excellence."
That is what I see often (though, it must be said, not always) in today's American system, too, and in order to combat that I would humbly suggest that schools focus on hiring the following various types of people to be teachers: those with wide-ranging global experience (particularly those who have lived and worked for considerable periods of time outside of the U.S.) and not just culturally-specific experience; people who have not necessarily always been teachers (in fact, those who have worked for lengthy periods of time in other industries would most likely make wonderful teachers with eclectic life experiences); retired people who have a long back-history of personal experience and have seen the world change in more ways than, say, folks in their thirties like me; foreign teachers, whose contributions in this global age would be incalculable; and anyone from any background who refuses to buy wholesale into many of the silly, self-important teaching strategies (oh, sorry, "pedagogies") of the present era.
For the time being, this Democrat who dislikes both Republican simplistic educational reductivism and Democratic self-important educational bureaucracy, will remain a teacher. We'll see how long that lasts. To those teachers who feel the same as I do, and who are perhaps quite depressed about the present status of formal education, I simply say this: whether you remain a classroom teacher or not, please remember that as long as you remain curious, you're always a learner, which means that in the most essential way you will always be a teacher.
*Note: Hasslington will return sometime next week; he is taking a long weekend vacation from blogging due to the arrival of his wife in the United States.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
2008 Presidential Electoral College Chaos: We've Long-Since Known About It, But It's Still Somehow Addicting
USA Today led the frenzy yesterday (June 16), but the cable news networks (and a few of the major non-cable television news outlets) very quickly picked it up and ran with it, as well, and it was in the major European news outlets within an hour or two of "breaking" here.... What am I talking about? Well, one of Senator Obama's campaign managers, David Plouffe, told a group of potential donors who had previously supported Senator Clinton's presidential bid that, yes, there are many possible electoral routes that Senator Obama can take in order to win a majority of the electoral college this coming November, a few of which do not require that Senator Obama wins in Florida and/or Ohio.
This is old news to electoral college nerds like myself, but if you thought that Florida and Ohio were of paramount importance to winning the White House, that's understandable given the Florida fiasco of 2000 and the close, scale-tipping win for President Bush in Ohio in 2004. The fact of the matter is that this time around, with Senator Clinton out of the race (a Clinton/McCain race would have almost surely produced a very 2000/2004-esque electoral map, with either senator securing a relatively close-fought victory), the electoral map is now officially in chaos.
Why? Well, Senator Obama's popularity extends to some previously-"red" mountain states (Colorado; Montana; maybe even Wyoming) that polls suggested would have been anti-Clinton territory. Senator Obama may be able to pull off a victory in one or two of them (Colorado, which has been moving into swing-state territory for some time now, looks to be his best bet, with Montana next behind it; Wyoming might be a pipe dream). Other typically "red" states in the western half-or-so of the U.S., such as North Dakota and Alaska, could also be in play, at least to the extent that Senator McCain will have to sweat a bit in one or both of those states to re-secure them by election day.
Then there's Indiana. Might that "red" state be in play this time around? It might, at a push. If Senator Obama makes a run for it, Indiana might be another place that Republicans will have to spend time and money re-securing. Conversely, blue-collar West Virginia may be out of play...again. We'll see how much energy the Obama campaign puts into that state, which for now looks like a long-shot for the Democrats to win.
Virginia, Virginia, Virginia. There are legitimate reasons why we've heard so much about Virginia (and its thirteen electoral votes) of late, despite the fact that it hasn't voted for a Democrat for president in over forty years. One reason is that it has been turning from a "red" state to a swing-state in recent years (even New England's Senator Kerry made a belated run at it in 2004, and though he lost it, he lost by single digits...) due in part to strong Democratic candidates for statewide and national offices (Mark Warner, Jim Webb, Tim Kaine). Another reason is that the African-American population in Virginia--and the overall minority population--is growing, particularly in the northeast of the state (across from Washington, D.C.). At any rate, Senator Obama is presently locked-up in a statistical dead-heat with Senator McCain in Virginia right now.
Mr. Plouffe also suggested that Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana might be prime targets for the Obama campaign this time around. (No one I managed to hear reported that he suggested North Carolina as a possible target. Perhaps this is because everyone already knows that North Carolina is an Obama-target, given his booming primary victory there, its changing demographics, and its increasing number of college students and college graduates.) I've been telling folks to watch Louisiana and Mississippi for a while now, and polls in those states bear this suggestion out: Louisiana has a strong anti-Bush sentiment right now, due largely to the events in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, and even in Mississippi, whose Republican governor handled the events in the wake of Hurricane Katrina with what many saw as strength and character, Senator Obama was recently trailing Senator McCain by only six points. Both states also have relatively large African-American populations.
Georgia might be a monkeyshine. But I stress "might." Of late, polls have suggested that Senator Obama is still trailing Senator McCain in that state by double-digits. The Obama campaign is suggesting that a strong college-student and African-American turnout in Georgia might tip the scales into Senator Obama's column come election day, but, though a possibility, right now it looks like the longest-shot of the Southern states already mentioned (the others being, in alphabetical order, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Virginia). But if they can plant a seed of doubt regarding retaining Georgia in the minds of those running the McCain campaign...well, Georgia is a fairly sizeable state, so it might require a lot of money to secure.... Then again, if Georgian Sam Nunn were added to the Democratic presidential ticket, or if the economy in the southeast went into freefall, Georgia might--might--just go to Senator Obama.
There are a lot of ways that Senator Obama could secure the 270 electoral votes required to be the 44th President of the United States. But one thing is certain: he needs to re-secure ground won by Vice President Gore and Senator Kerry, which means that he might start by not taking his eyes (and attention) off of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. So far, it looks as though he's likely heeding that advice, which could be a good sign for Democrats.
And let's not forget about the other potentially critical swing-states, such as Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico (and perhaps even Minnesota, Oregon, and...at a push...Arkansas).
Another thing is also certain: winning either Florida or Ohio would help greatly in his quest to achieve 270 electoral votes. It may not be critical in an academic sense, but it would help his cause (and raise his chances of winning the presidency) greatly indeed if he won one or the other of those classic swing-states. Senator Clinton beat Senator Obama decisively in the Ohio primary, and she surely would have beaten him in a "real" Florida primary, too. I'm not necessarily a fan of adding her to the ticket, but I am a fan of utilizing her on the campaign trail, in those two states in particular.
Paging Hillary....
Note: For fun/frustration with the electoral map, go to: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/electoral-vote-tracker.htm
This is old news to electoral college nerds like myself, but if you thought that Florida and Ohio were of paramount importance to winning the White House, that's understandable given the Florida fiasco of 2000 and the close, scale-tipping win for President Bush in Ohio in 2004. The fact of the matter is that this time around, with Senator Clinton out of the race (a Clinton/McCain race would have almost surely produced a very 2000/2004-esque electoral map, with either senator securing a relatively close-fought victory), the electoral map is now officially in chaos.
Why? Well, Senator Obama's popularity extends to some previously-"red" mountain states (Colorado; Montana; maybe even Wyoming) that polls suggested would have been anti-Clinton territory. Senator Obama may be able to pull off a victory in one or two of them (Colorado, which has been moving into swing-state territory for some time now, looks to be his best bet, with Montana next behind it; Wyoming might be a pipe dream). Other typically "red" states in the western half-or-so of the U.S., such as North Dakota and Alaska, could also be in play, at least to the extent that Senator McCain will have to sweat a bit in one or both of those states to re-secure them by election day.
Then there's Indiana. Might that "red" state be in play this time around? It might, at a push. If Senator Obama makes a run for it, Indiana might be another place that Republicans will have to spend time and money re-securing. Conversely, blue-collar West Virginia may be out of play...again. We'll see how much energy the Obama campaign puts into that state, which for now looks like a long-shot for the Democrats to win.
Virginia, Virginia, Virginia. There are legitimate reasons why we've heard so much about Virginia (and its thirteen electoral votes) of late, despite the fact that it hasn't voted for a Democrat for president in over forty years. One reason is that it has been turning from a "red" state to a swing-state in recent years (even New England's Senator Kerry made a belated run at it in 2004, and though he lost it, he lost by single digits...) due in part to strong Democratic candidates for statewide and national offices (Mark Warner, Jim Webb, Tim Kaine). Another reason is that the African-American population in Virginia--and the overall minority population--is growing, particularly in the northeast of the state (across from Washington, D.C.). At any rate, Senator Obama is presently locked-up in a statistical dead-heat with Senator McCain in Virginia right now.
Mr. Plouffe also suggested that Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana might be prime targets for the Obama campaign this time around. (No one I managed to hear reported that he suggested North Carolina as a possible target. Perhaps this is because everyone already knows that North Carolina is an Obama-target, given his booming primary victory there, its changing demographics, and its increasing number of college students and college graduates.) I've been telling folks to watch Louisiana and Mississippi for a while now, and polls in those states bear this suggestion out: Louisiana has a strong anti-Bush sentiment right now, due largely to the events in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, and even in Mississippi, whose Republican governor handled the events in the wake of Hurricane Katrina with what many saw as strength and character, Senator Obama was recently trailing Senator McCain by only six points. Both states also have relatively large African-American populations.
Georgia might be a monkeyshine. But I stress "might." Of late, polls have suggested that Senator Obama is still trailing Senator McCain in that state by double-digits. The Obama campaign is suggesting that a strong college-student and African-American turnout in Georgia might tip the scales into Senator Obama's column come election day, but, though a possibility, right now it looks like the longest-shot of the Southern states already mentioned (the others being, in alphabetical order, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Virginia). But if they can plant a seed of doubt regarding retaining Georgia in the minds of those running the McCain campaign...well, Georgia is a fairly sizeable state, so it might require a lot of money to secure.... Then again, if Georgian Sam Nunn were added to the Democratic presidential ticket, or if the economy in the southeast went into freefall, Georgia might--might--just go to Senator Obama.
There are a lot of ways that Senator Obama could secure the 270 electoral votes required to be the 44th President of the United States. But one thing is certain: he needs to re-secure ground won by Vice President Gore and Senator Kerry, which means that he might start by not taking his eyes (and attention) off of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. So far, it looks as though he's likely heeding that advice, which could be a good sign for Democrats.
And let's not forget about the other potentially critical swing-states, such as Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico (and perhaps even Minnesota, Oregon, and...at a push...Arkansas).
Another thing is also certain: winning either Florida or Ohio would help greatly in his quest to achieve 270 electoral votes. It may not be critical in an academic sense, but it would help his cause (and raise his chances of winning the presidency) greatly indeed if he won one or the other of those classic swing-states. Senator Clinton beat Senator Obama decisively in the Ohio primary, and she surely would have beaten him in a "real" Florida primary, too. I'm not necessarily a fan of adding her to the ticket, but I am a fan of utilizing her on the campaign trail, in those two states in particular.
Paging Hillary....
Note: For fun/frustration with the electoral map, go to: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/electoral-vote-tracker.htm
Monday, June 16, 2008
Senator Webb Sees Military Possibilities For Democrats
According to Joe Klein's "In the Arena" column in a recent edition of TIME magazine (June 23, 2008), U.S. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, a possible running mate for Senator Barack Obama, suggests that there is ample opportunity afoot for Democratic candidates to attract (and on a rather permanent, as opposed to politically convenient but temporary, basis) the votes of military personnel and their immediate families. Of course, over the last several decades military families--and military personnel in particular--have tended to vote for Republican candidates. But Senator Webb, whose military background is extensive, sees optimism for Democrats regarding the military vote...if some Democrats first stop looking at those who have gone to war as primarily "victims" and start looking at them as multi-faceted people.
This is better explained through a short passage from Mr. Klein's column itself, which examines Senator Webb's new book titled "A Time To Fight":
"'The ultimate question,' Webb writes about Democrats and the military, 'is this: When you look at a veteran, what do you see? Do you see a strong individual who overcame the most difficult challenges most human beings can face...or do you see a victim?'"
In speaking with members (or former members) of the armed forces, my anecdotal evidence suggests that Senator Webb is right on the money; the real challenge for Democratic politicians is to honor military service first and foremost as a sign of personal and national strength and character, and simultaneously work to better improve veterans' medical care and post-service benefits in a manner that is not pitying of them, but rather honors them. It's a challenge both of tone and of policy proposals, and a pitying, simpering tone is not what the vast majority of veterans would prefer to encounter. Instead, most would prefer a commitment to honoring their service and caring for the needs of their wounded comrades, as well as helping to guide some military personnel who come from underprivileged backgrounds towards a path to financial sustainability (not with handouts, but with some semblance of personal economic development planning).
Senator Webb (as reported in Mr. Klein's article) goes on to suggest a very interesting, up-to-date political trend:
"But if some Democrats tend to pity members of the armed forces, [Senator Webb suggests that] the Republican Party 'continually seeks to politicize military service for its own ends even as it uses their sacrifices as a political shield against criticism for its failed policies. And in that sense, it is now the Republican Party that most glaringly does not understand the true nature of military service.'"
This is Senator Webb conducting a full-frontal assault on neo-conservatism, suggesting that it is disingenuous regarding what its proponents constantly refer to as the "glorious" (or a similar adjective) nature of military service. Senator Webb is suggesting that the upper-tier (at least) of the American neo-conservative ranks utilizes the sacrifice of veterans for its own ends nearly exclusively, with little or no regard for the nature of the service performed by each individual military member, let alone close-knit military groups. If a military undertaking goes well, this self-serving stance may go relatively undetected (until, say, horrific conditions at veteran's hospitals arouse the curiosity of the nation's news networks). If, however, a military undertaking does not go well, the emptiness of neo-conservative rhetoric becomes more and more apparent, as the patriotism of military members and their families is exploited for political ends, and distorted to the extent that these military families become symbols of a particular political policy.
In this vein, witness the "Support Our Troops" sign phenomenon of the last half dozen years, which many on the right side of the political spectrum translated, in both overt and quite often subtle ways, into "Support Our Iraq Policy." I found it very difficult to suggest to generally clear-thinking Americans that I always support our troops but refuse to equate that with a misguided political use of those troops; the troops and the policy are different things, and ought to be viewed as such, whether one supports a given policy or not. Given the often emotional stakes involved, people who are normally clear-eyed about things can sometimes tend to get blurry when it comes to the military, and it is therefore often easy for politicians to exploit people's naturally patriotic tendencies by equating particular policies with the long-standing tradition of military service. But when the line gets too fine between the two, the people who get hurt the most are military members and their families.
A former Republican who worked as Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan, Senator Webb is perhaps best situated to articulate this complex issue to both military families and non-military ones, and his plea for his fellow Democrats to stop automatically running to the pity-the-poor-soldiers parade ground (so to speak) every time they feel as though the military is being used as a pawn by the Bush Administration nicely offsets his criticism of present Republican policies. I don't know if he will be on the 2008 presidential ticket (though I've got him in my "top dozen" Democratic running mate picks of the recent "Opinion Round-Up" June 10 post), but Senator Webb ought to be out on the campaign trail with Senator Obama and other Democratic candidates later this summer and through the autumn...and not just in Virginia.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Tim Russert (1950-2008)
When Tim Russert wrote "Florida-Florida-Florida" on a small whiteboard and waved it in front of the camera on election night of 2000, I suddenly and rather unexpectedly went into a sort of paroxysm of laughter. Thinking back, I believe my joyful outburst was due to the fact that all evening, people from any of a number of national networks had used high-tech equipment to describe what they saw as the complex machinations of electoral politics, and here was Russert, a tenured giant of political news coverage, metaphorically slapping their faces in a Luddite-esque manner, as if to tell them to stop putting-on airs of faux-erudition.
After he waved the white board around and spoke for a few minutes, I flipped through the other channels and was struck by how self-congratulatory (and recognizably empty) the rhetoric used by their political analysts was in comparison to Mr. Russert's straight-forward explanation of the situation. The issue to a lot of television folks that evening, it seemed, could be distilled to the following paraphrased, overarching statement: "This began as a complex issue, and it remains complex, which is why we're here to guide you through it; we know you're glad you have us to help you out."
For Mr. Russert, however, the evening could be distilled into this paraphrased, overarching statement: "We thought this was going to be a complex game of getting to 270 electoral votes, and in some ways it certainly is, but what it really boils down to is a simple question--who won Florida? You probably don't need me to tell you this, because Americans have gone through close elections before." His was a far less self-promoting stance--and far less patronizing, too--than those espoused by any of a number of other talking heads, during an evening that (nearly eight years on) remains seminal to both America's modern domestic and (especially) foreign policy stands.
Mr. Russert was an ever-present part of the American political landscape for decades; prior to his death, he was on television for what seemed like hours at a time, at least six days a week, and sometimes seven. His political analysis was sharp and relevant, and his interviews with politicians were uncomfortable only for the politicians, because he somehow managed to translate his welcoming nature to his audience while simultaneously and systematically dismantling the policy stances of liberal, conservative, and moderate politicians alike. His round-table discussions with fellow political analysts seemed to elevate those fellow political analysts' information-delivery skills in that they seemed encouraged to cut down on piffle-making clever statements and focus on straight-forward analysis; it was as if Mr. Russert was silently asserting that public policy is complicated already, so why wax lyrical about our own analysis skills and add another layer of annoyance to the mix?
Mr. Russert was a Catholic who believed in studying hard each day, and as a consequence his interview questions were always thought-provoking, but he also knew that letting interviewees talk themselves into a corner is sometimes the best way of letting the public discover their elected officials' faults. One of my favorite recent examples of this was when Democratic operative and Clinton supporter Terry McAuliffe, during a defense of Hillary Clinton staying in the Democratic nomination race, went unexpectedly into a long, bizarre tangent of speculation during which he suggested that both his father and Mr. Russert's father were "probably in heaven now, drinking Scotch" and agreeing that, yes, Hillary Clinton could still very well win the Democratic nomination, and therefore she should keep fighting on. Mr. Russert let Mr. McAuliffe carry on with the extended fantasy until he was finished, and then, after a very brief pause, Mr. Russert let it be known that his father was very much alive and most likely watching that very program from a couch in his living room. Mr. McAuliffe's dumbfounded response was classic: "Uh, yeah...." (It seems as though he thought that Mr. Russert's recent book, "Big Russ and Me," was written as a remembrance of deceased parent, when it was actually written and dedicated to his very-alive father.)
A lot of American political analysts and interviewers use clever quips mixed with gaudy technology to seem "cutting edge" and therefore "culturally intelligent"; Mr. Russert's selling-points were immense amounts of preparation and a personal authenticity that made you think you knew him as a close friend and a valued teacher. He was not a physically attractive individual (he looked like a somewhat-dumpy, middle-aged History teacher), but he did have a cherubic smile that would sometimes turn ever-so-slightly devilish when he knew he had a politician on the ropes (so to speak). There was something exciting about seeing that smile turn devilish. In those moments, Mr. Russert actually managed to make it seem as though debating the history of public policy as it affects the modern era was a rebellious thing to do....
Now THAT is quite an accomplishment, indeed.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Early Summer Whimsical Political Interlude
The general election cycle is finally upon us, and if we thought the pressure was on the various candidates during the nominating process...well, it seems to be getting ready to crank into overdrive in the next several months. With hot, humid weather sweeping much of the country, media scrutiny invading nearly every aspect of the remaining two candidates' lives (and those of their families), and pots of campaign money the likes of which we've never seen being raised and spent in frighteningly quick periods of time, it would seem likely that Senators McCain and Obama might feel as though they are ready to emotionally explode, which might at least alleviate some of the pressure they feel.
In fact, I wonder what would happen if one or both of them--or perhaps another politician under scrutiny during this campaign season due to a possible future appointment in a new administration--actually did do something (or a series of somethings) completely off-the-wall....
Hmmm....
* What if Senator Chuck Hagel was asked by both Senator McCain and Senator Obama to be their vice presidential running mate, and instead of choosing one or the other, hedged his bets and accepted both offers? How long could he hide this rather untenable situation from both camps, or the media...or even his family? Could he somehow pull-off the near-impossible and convince each side that the other side was "so envious" of the fact that they lost out on him that they decided to print bogus signs with his name as the running mate "in a sad attempt to make me change my mind through a sense of guilt." Could he take it all the way to the Vice Presidential debate in the autumn? If so, would he have to debate himself? Or would the inevitable debate moderator, Jim Lehrer, duly step in at one podium or another, donning a Hagel mask, in order to debate the real Hagel? And, if this happened and the mask was made well, would we be able to tell which one was the 'real' Chuck Hagel? Would the vast majority of us perhaps become so confused as to not care either way? And might this confusion-leading-to-apathy be Senator Hagel's ultimate strategy to become the Vice President no matter who wins in November?"
* Wouldn't it be interesting if the scrutiny regarding possible running mates sent either of the nominees, or perhaps both of them, into a temporarily delusional state of mind, which resulted in one or both of them choosing a dead person as a running mate? It would surely be awfully weird if Senator Obama were to pick, say, Hubert Humphrey as his running mate, on the basis that "he should have beaten Nixon in '68, but a series of unfortunate events corresponded against him. I mean, come on, Nixon? Get real! So now we can rectify that situation, if only somewhat." Or perhaps Senator McCain might temporarily lose his marbles and select Barry Goldwater as his running mate, on the basis that "I hold the Senate seat that previously belonged to him and, though I don't know what structural modifications Barry made, I can honestly say that he crafted it into the most comfortable seat in the whole U.S. Senate. I've rested my tush on other Senate seats, and they're nowhere near as comfortable on my aged body. I don't care what anyone says, in my heart, and my rear, I know he's right!"
* I would cheer robustly if one of the nominees decided inexplicably that, during one relatively boring mid-summer town-hall Lincoln/Douglas-style debate in Middle America, he would refer to his opponent by referencing some of the greatest ever relief pitchers "for the sake of American cultural nostalgia." I can just see it now: "Well, while Gossage may be right regarding previous military expenditures, I would suggest that in this instance we ought to..."; "I cannot believe that my opponent, The Eck, thinks that consumer confidence would be undermined further if we..."; "I hope everyone noticed that Mariano attempted to jam me just then by throwing a politically-motivated cutter high and tight when he suggested...."
* Genuine entertainment would most likely be had if cameras caught John Edwards and Evan Bayh getting into a fist-fight regarding whose hair "is more Vice Presidential, Hollywood-style," only to have Joe Biden burst into the room and beat both of them to a pulp while yelling repeatedly, "That's for stealing my hair gel! No one steals my hair gel, you fops!" (Chris Dodd would remain locked and hidden in a nearby cupboard, carefully grooming one of his custom-made "Big-And-Blindingly-White" wigs. The BABW wig company's tagline is "...for the lifelong liberal legislator in all of us....")
* I think it would be exciting if, during one of the autumn Presidential debates, Hillary Clinton managed to hack into the network systems, cutting off the candidates in mid-debate in order to speak directly into the camera and broadcast the following science-fiction-film-like statement (complete with metallic vocal reverberations and glowing red Clinton-eyes): "I had hoped to do this the normal way, but my American minions went astray, so I am taking over through the implimentation of 'Plan B.' I will say nothing more about it except that it begins now and if you look outside and see silver ro-beasts in the sky, just know that if you comply they will not harm you. Also, Bill Richardson, I still hate you, and you'd better be in hiding for the foreseeable future!..."
...And what if, just then, the vaporous ghost of Richard Nixon appeared in the air above Senator Clinton's glowing head and rather tauntingly said (in a Scooby-Doo-esque "ghost" voice), "Give it up, Hillary! You don't even know how to make a good enemies list. Two dozen names--ha! I had over 7,000 on mine. Now that's a list, you political amateur!" And, as he floated away, looking oddly tanned and rested, he could be heard saying, "Boy oh boy, did I ever check-out at the right time--these people have no idea how to do paranoia properly. America's going to the loons and I'm going home. Hey Kennedy, get away from my cloud! What? No, that's a blow-up doll, you ass! Jeez, the guy gets all the hanky-panky up here, too, and he still has to raid my toys...."
* Wouldn't it be sort of cool if both Senator McCain and Senator Obama ran out of gas (both literally and figuratively) prior to the conventions, and everyone at each convention, depressed with their choices, had way too much to drink, and wound up nominating Dennis Miller and Bruce Springsteen as the Republican and Democratic nominees? If that were the case, I would think it entirely appropriate if the women made a sort of ginned-up double-coup while the guys were fighting drunkenly over who gets to sit on the keg, and Miller and Springsteen were tossed out, to be replaced by Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Actually, in all seriousness, they wouldn't be bad Republican and Democratic nominee choices at all....
In fact, I wonder what would happen if one or both of them--or perhaps another politician under scrutiny during this campaign season due to a possible future appointment in a new administration--actually did do something (or a series of somethings) completely off-the-wall....
Hmmm....
* What if Senator Chuck Hagel was asked by both Senator McCain and Senator Obama to be their vice presidential running mate, and instead of choosing one or the other, hedged his bets and accepted both offers? How long could he hide this rather untenable situation from both camps, or the media...or even his family? Could he somehow pull-off the near-impossible and convince each side that the other side was "so envious" of the fact that they lost out on him that they decided to print bogus signs with his name as the running mate "in a sad attempt to make me change my mind through a sense of guilt." Could he take it all the way to the Vice Presidential debate in the autumn? If so, would he have to debate himself? Or would the inevitable debate moderator, Jim Lehrer, duly step in at one podium or another, donning a Hagel mask, in order to debate the real Hagel? And, if this happened and the mask was made well, would we be able to tell which one was the 'real' Chuck Hagel? Would the vast majority of us perhaps become so confused as to not care either way? And might this confusion-leading-to-apathy be Senator Hagel's ultimate strategy to become the Vice President no matter who wins in November?"
* Wouldn't it be interesting if the scrutiny regarding possible running mates sent either of the nominees, or perhaps both of them, into a temporarily delusional state of mind, which resulted in one or both of them choosing a dead person as a running mate? It would surely be awfully weird if Senator Obama were to pick, say, Hubert Humphrey as his running mate, on the basis that "he should have beaten Nixon in '68, but a series of unfortunate events corresponded against him. I mean, come on, Nixon? Get real! So now we can rectify that situation, if only somewhat." Or perhaps Senator McCain might temporarily lose his marbles and select Barry Goldwater as his running mate, on the basis that "I hold the Senate seat that previously belonged to him and, though I don't know what structural modifications Barry made, I can honestly say that he crafted it into the most comfortable seat in the whole U.S. Senate. I've rested my tush on other Senate seats, and they're nowhere near as comfortable on my aged body. I don't care what anyone says, in my heart, and my rear, I know he's right!"
* I would cheer robustly if one of the nominees decided inexplicably that, during one relatively boring mid-summer town-hall Lincoln/Douglas-style debate in Middle America, he would refer to his opponent by referencing some of the greatest ever relief pitchers "for the sake of American cultural nostalgia." I can just see it now: "Well, while Gossage may be right regarding previous military expenditures, I would suggest that in this instance we ought to..."; "I cannot believe that my opponent, The Eck, thinks that consumer confidence would be undermined further if we..."; "I hope everyone noticed that Mariano attempted to jam me just then by throwing a politically-motivated cutter high and tight when he suggested...."
* Genuine entertainment would most likely be had if cameras caught John Edwards and Evan Bayh getting into a fist-fight regarding whose hair "is more Vice Presidential, Hollywood-style," only to have Joe Biden burst into the room and beat both of them to a pulp while yelling repeatedly, "That's for stealing my hair gel! No one steals my hair gel, you fops!" (Chris Dodd would remain locked and hidden in a nearby cupboard, carefully grooming one of his custom-made "Big-And-Blindingly-White" wigs. The BABW wig company's tagline is "...for the lifelong liberal legislator in all of us....")
* I think it would be exciting if, during one of the autumn Presidential debates, Hillary Clinton managed to hack into the network systems, cutting off the candidates in mid-debate in order to speak directly into the camera and broadcast the following science-fiction-film-like statement (complete with metallic vocal reverberations and glowing red Clinton-eyes): "I had hoped to do this the normal way, but my American minions went astray, so I am taking over through the implimentation of 'Plan B.' I will say nothing more about it except that it begins now and if you look outside and see silver ro-beasts in the sky, just know that if you comply they will not harm you. Also, Bill Richardson, I still hate you, and you'd better be in hiding for the foreseeable future!..."
...And what if, just then, the vaporous ghost of Richard Nixon appeared in the air above Senator Clinton's glowing head and rather tauntingly said (in a Scooby-Doo-esque "ghost" voice), "Give it up, Hillary! You don't even know how to make a good enemies list. Two dozen names--ha! I had over 7,000 on mine. Now that's a list, you political amateur!" And, as he floated away, looking oddly tanned and rested, he could be heard saying, "Boy oh boy, did I ever check-out at the right time--these people have no idea how to do paranoia properly. America's going to the loons and I'm going home. Hey Kennedy, get away from my cloud! What? No, that's a blow-up doll, you ass! Jeez, the guy gets all the hanky-panky up here, too, and he still has to raid my toys...."
* Wouldn't it be sort of cool if both Senator McCain and Senator Obama ran out of gas (both literally and figuratively) prior to the conventions, and everyone at each convention, depressed with their choices, had way too much to drink, and wound up nominating Dennis Miller and Bruce Springsteen as the Republican and Democratic nominees? If that were the case, I would think it entirely appropriate if the women made a sort of ginned-up double-coup while the guys were fighting drunkenly over who gets to sit on the keg, and Miller and Springsteen were tossed out, to be replaced by Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Actually, in all seriousness, they wouldn't be bad Republican and Democratic nominee choices at all....
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Opinion Round-Up: Evan Bayh; The Clinton Factor; "America At Its Best"; Hasslington Opines
KEEP YOUR EYE ON BAYH
You are subjected to my opinions all the time--well, at least that's the case if you read this blog-site often. So today I am going to provide a few snippets of opinions from other folks (as well as a few of my own, of course) for your consideration.
But before I forget, let me start by saying that I was discussing Senator Obama's running mate choices with an acquaintance of mine recently, which is no surprise. What was surprising is that we both agreed very quickly on one name to add to the top tier of the list, the same name that last December I suggested would make a great running mate for Governor Richardson, should he have won the nomination. (That quite obviously did not occur.) That name is U.S. Senator Evan Bayh, of red-state Indiana.
Though it is next door to Illinois, Indiana is a different political (and in some ways social) animal altogether, so the regional/proximity similarities of their home states should not deter Senator Obama from considering strongly choosing Senator Bayh--who is considered to be a more conservative Democrat than Senator Obama--as his running mate. Senator Bayh was also a strong Clinton supporter who probably helped her pull-off a squeaker of a victory in the Indiana primary, so he could conceivably help to bring a good deal of Senator Clinton's biggest fans more willingly onboard the Obama train (so to speak). He's also straight out of central casting as far as a somewhat traditional, conservative notion of "Vice President" (or, for that matter, "President") is concerned; you'd have to have seen him to know what I mean.
In looking over notes I made late last year regarding the upcoming electoral process, it seems I grew tired of repeatedly telling the same people that they should look to Senator Bayh to be a running mate for Governor Richardson or whoever won the Democratic nod, so I (like they) lost interest and moved on to other topics. (How some of my friends put up with that politically-repetitive habit of mine is beyond me.) But I'm back on the Bayh bus, folks, so put him right up there with my other top dozen-or-so picks to be Senator Obama's running mate (in alphabetical order): Evan Bayh; Joe Biden; Wesley Clark; Hillary Clinton; Chuck Hagel; Tim Kaine; Sam Nunn; Ed Rendell; Bill Richardson; Kathleen Sebelius; Mark Warner; Jim Webb. (I don't know what it is about him, but I'm still not sold on Ted Strickland. Maybe I'll come around....)
NEW YORK TIMES READERS ANALYZE THE CLINTON FACTOR
The following snippets are not full letters but (hopefully) representative paragraphs from letters written by New York Times readers, printed in today's (June 10) "Letters" section, for your consideration:
"...On Saturday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered one of the most formidable concession speeches I have ever heard or read. What is more difficult for a politician than to admit defeat? She did it with dignity and with the knowledge that cooperation with the Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama, is absolutely essential for a change of parties in the White House. A change that is necessary for the world to see."
--Erwin Baker (New York City, New York)
Paul Bloustein, of Cincinnati, Ohio, does not necessary disagree, though he does take a somewhat different (if only initially) line regarding Senator Clinton:
"...Confabulating about bringing peace to Northern Ireland and lying about tarmac terror in Tuzla were written off by true believers, but were real negatives for those on the fence.... Staff dysfunction, financial shortfalls--it's a wonder she held on as long as she did....
"...I don't know what the bottom line of the post-mortem will be, but I do know that Mrs. Clinton proved a well-briefed and gritty campaigner, fought the good fight and in doing so helped make history, give hope to millions and rejuvenate a cynical electorate. I applaud her effort."
Susan McHale (strangely, of the eight folks whose letters were printed regarding this issue today, only two are women) of Greenwich, Connecticut, says:
"...The only thing in [Hillary Clinton's] way was a very dynamic and unusual man, Barack Obama....
"This wonderful, I would say, fluke of occurrences happens for a purpose, not for failings, but by chance. The chance that apparently more delegates and voters were ready to take."
Adam Hurwich (New York, New York) agrees:
"...Is it just possible that Mrs. Clinton lost to a better candidate for president? It is very possible that nothing 'went wrong.' Mrs. Clinton just lost."
Finally, John Hunt (Old Greenwich, Connecticut) suggests the following:
"...This could be 1960 all over again, with a young presidential aspirant who has seized on the American desire for new direction as well as new purpose....
"It will be the most exciting and important race in decades, and the months ahead will test the nation's mettle on many fronts, including the maturity of the American voter. Mr. Obama's success may well rely on that last point alone."
IN THE SAME VEIN....
The following letter, with which I agree fully, is from today's (June 10) opinion section of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Written by Shawn Gilbert of Bloomington, Minnesota, it suggests the following regarding Senator Clinton's historic presidential run (and Senator Obama's equally historic presidential run):
"...[Senator Clinton's presidential run is] an achivement that gains authority for women as compelling as the power realized when [women] attained the right to vote....
"...Now we need to hear that Hillary's supporters understand and respect the historic aspect of [Senator] Obama's campaign, as well, and that they will throw themselves into the effort to win his run for the presidency of the United States as wholeheartedly as they supported hers."
"AMERICA AT ITS BEST"?
Lest those on the right side of the U.S. political spectrum think I avoid reading right-leaning matrial, here is this from the "Leader" section of The Economist, which is one of my favorite center-right international publications (it seems as though they would tend to agree with my assertions of two days ago):
"[Unlike the Democrats], the Republicans settled on their candidate more quickly, but theirs was still a marathon by anybody else's standards. And the end of it was surely the right result. In John McCain, the Republicans chose a man whose political courage has led him constantly to attempt to forge bipartisan deals and to speak out against the Bush administration when it went wrong. Conservatives may hate him, but even they can see he offers the party its only realistic hope in November....
"...Mr. Obama has demonstrated charisma, coolness under fire and an impressive understanding of the transforming power of technology in modern politics. Beating the mighty Clinton machine is an astonishing achievement. Even greater, though, is his achievement in becoming the first black presidential nominee of either political party. For a country whose past is disfigured by slavery, segregation and unequal voting rights, this is a moment to celebrate. America's history of reinventing and perfecting itself has acquired another page."
FROM HASSLINGTON, ON THE CENTRISITY BLOG-SITE
I shouldn't keep cross-referencing my comments from other sites, so in the future I'll try to keep it to a minimum, but for your consideration, there is this:
"Folks will suggest that I am naive, but it is the case that I vote for a candidate based on the general direction he or she will take the country in both the domestic and foreign arenas. If we demanded a chief executive whose numbers always added up exactly, we'd elect no one as president...and we certainly would never have elected Mr. Bush. (So far, neither Senator McCain nor Senator Obama have coherent payment plans so much as general slogans.)
"The choice, then, is between moving in one general direction or another given a number of different issues (most of which recirculate back to energy issues, which I prefer to view as a long-term challenge, not a short-term one).
"For what it's worth, it is my opinion that we ought to choose as our chief executive the individual who will move us in a more long-term and sustainable direction regarding energy issues, and who will also instantly improve our (presently horrific) standing with our allies around the world (let alone our opponents). I'd prefer someone who had the judgment to envision the future debacle that is the Iraq scenario and stand against it (...which might have saved us a few billion dollars...) to be the one to find a way to move properly and cautiously (but decisively) forward regarding it. I'd also prefer a forward-thinker regarding transportation issues (which again recirculates back to energy issues), not someone selling cheap 'gas tax holiday' gimmicks. And finally, it never hurts to be inspired by words (could Nixon have whipped-up a fervor to show the Soviets what we could do by putting a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s?).
"We can spew partisan bile all we want. Personally, I find that type of behavior embarrassing. I do not fully agree with all of Senator Obama's campaign maneuvers (unlike Senator McCain and Governor Richardson, he hesitated in his support of third-generation nuclear power as a necessary part--though certainly not all--of a new national energy policy), but I think that he is the right person for the job at this point in time...."
You are subjected to my opinions all the time--well, at least that's the case if you read this blog-site often. So today I am going to provide a few snippets of opinions from other folks (as well as a few of my own, of course) for your consideration.
But before I forget, let me start by saying that I was discussing Senator Obama's running mate choices with an acquaintance of mine recently, which is no surprise. What was surprising is that we both agreed very quickly on one name to add to the top tier of the list, the same name that last December I suggested would make a great running mate for Governor Richardson, should he have won the nomination. (That quite obviously did not occur.) That name is U.S. Senator Evan Bayh, of red-state Indiana.
Though it is next door to Illinois, Indiana is a different political (and in some ways social) animal altogether, so the regional/proximity similarities of their home states should not deter Senator Obama from considering strongly choosing Senator Bayh--who is considered to be a more conservative Democrat than Senator Obama--as his running mate. Senator Bayh was also a strong Clinton supporter who probably helped her pull-off a squeaker of a victory in the Indiana primary, so he could conceivably help to bring a good deal of Senator Clinton's biggest fans more willingly onboard the Obama train (so to speak). He's also straight out of central casting as far as a somewhat traditional, conservative notion of "Vice President" (or, for that matter, "President") is concerned; you'd have to have seen him to know what I mean.
In looking over notes I made late last year regarding the upcoming electoral process, it seems I grew tired of repeatedly telling the same people that they should look to Senator Bayh to be a running mate for Governor Richardson or whoever won the Democratic nod, so I (like they) lost interest and moved on to other topics. (How some of my friends put up with that politically-repetitive habit of mine is beyond me.) But I'm back on the Bayh bus, folks, so put him right up there with my other top dozen-or-so picks to be Senator Obama's running mate (in alphabetical order): Evan Bayh; Joe Biden; Wesley Clark; Hillary Clinton; Chuck Hagel; Tim Kaine; Sam Nunn; Ed Rendell; Bill Richardson; Kathleen Sebelius; Mark Warner; Jim Webb. (I don't know what it is about him, but I'm still not sold on Ted Strickland. Maybe I'll come around....)
NEW YORK TIMES READERS ANALYZE THE CLINTON FACTOR
The following snippets are not full letters but (hopefully) representative paragraphs from letters written by New York Times readers, printed in today's (June 10) "Letters" section, for your consideration:
"...On Saturday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered one of the most formidable concession speeches I have ever heard or read. What is more difficult for a politician than to admit defeat? She did it with dignity and with the knowledge that cooperation with the Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama, is absolutely essential for a change of parties in the White House. A change that is necessary for the world to see."
--Erwin Baker (New York City, New York)
Paul Bloustein, of Cincinnati, Ohio, does not necessary disagree, though he does take a somewhat different (if only initially) line regarding Senator Clinton:
"...Confabulating about bringing peace to Northern Ireland and lying about tarmac terror in Tuzla were written off by true believers, but were real negatives for those on the fence.... Staff dysfunction, financial shortfalls--it's a wonder she held on as long as she did....
"...I don't know what the bottom line of the post-mortem will be, but I do know that Mrs. Clinton proved a well-briefed and gritty campaigner, fought the good fight and in doing so helped make history, give hope to millions and rejuvenate a cynical electorate. I applaud her effort."
Susan McHale (strangely, of the eight folks whose letters were printed regarding this issue today, only two are women) of Greenwich, Connecticut, says:
"...The only thing in [Hillary Clinton's] way was a very dynamic and unusual man, Barack Obama....
"This wonderful, I would say, fluke of occurrences happens for a purpose, not for failings, but by chance. The chance that apparently more delegates and voters were ready to take."
Adam Hurwich (New York, New York) agrees:
"...Is it just possible that Mrs. Clinton lost to a better candidate for president? It is very possible that nothing 'went wrong.' Mrs. Clinton just lost."
Finally, John Hunt (Old Greenwich, Connecticut) suggests the following:
"...This could be 1960 all over again, with a young presidential aspirant who has seized on the American desire for new direction as well as new purpose....
"It will be the most exciting and important race in decades, and the months ahead will test the nation's mettle on many fronts, including the maturity of the American voter. Mr. Obama's success may well rely on that last point alone."
IN THE SAME VEIN....
The following letter, with which I agree fully, is from today's (June 10) opinion section of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Written by Shawn Gilbert of Bloomington, Minnesota, it suggests the following regarding Senator Clinton's historic presidential run (and Senator Obama's equally historic presidential run):
"...[Senator Clinton's presidential run is] an achivement that gains authority for women as compelling as the power realized when [women] attained the right to vote....
"...Now we need to hear that Hillary's supporters understand and respect the historic aspect of [Senator] Obama's campaign, as well, and that they will throw themselves into the effort to win his run for the presidency of the United States as wholeheartedly as they supported hers."
"AMERICA AT ITS BEST"?
Lest those on the right side of the U.S. political spectrum think I avoid reading right-leaning matrial, here is this from the "Leader" section of The Economist, which is one of my favorite center-right international publications (it seems as though they would tend to agree with my assertions of two days ago):
"[Unlike the Democrats], the Republicans settled on their candidate more quickly, but theirs was still a marathon by anybody else's standards. And the end of it was surely the right result. In John McCain, the Republicans chose a man whose political courage has led him constantly to attempt to forge bipartisan deals and to speak out against the Bush administration when it went wrong. Conservatives may hate him, but even they can see he offers the party its only realistic hope in November....
"...Mr. Obama has demonstrated charisma, coolness under fire and an impressive understanding of the transforming power of technology in modern politics. Beating the mighty Clinton machine is an astonishing achievement. Even greater, though, is his achievement in becoming the first black presidential nominee of either political party. For a country whose past is disfigured by slavery, segregation and unequal voting rights, this is a moment to celebrate. America's history of reinventing and perfecting itself has acquired another page."
FROM HASSLINGTON, ON THE CENTRISITY BLOG-SITE
I shouldn't keep cross-referencing my comments from other sites, so in the future I'll try to keep it to a minimum, but for your consideration, there is this:
"Folks will suggest that I am naive, but it is the case that I vote for a candidate based on the general direction he or she will take the country in both the domestic and foreign arenas. If we demanded a chief executive whose numbers always added up exactly, we'd elect no one as president...and we certainly would never have elected Mr. Bush. (So far, neither Senator McCain nor Senator Obama have coherent payment plans so much as general slogans.)
"The choice, then, is between moving in one general direction or another given a number of different issues (most of which recirculate back to energy issues, which I prefer to view as a long-term challenge, not a short-term one).
"For what it's worth, it is my opinion that we ought to choose as our chief executive the individual who will move us in a more long-term and sustainable direction regarding energy issues, and who will also instantly improve our (presently horrific) standing with our allies around the world (let alone our opponents). I'd prefer someone who had the judgment to envision the future debacle that is the Iraq scenario and stand against it (...which might have saved us a few billion dollars...) to be the one to find a way to move properly and cautiously (but decisively) forward regarding it. I'd also prefer a forward-thinker regarding transportation issues (which again recirculates back to energy issues), not someone selling cheap 'gas tax holiday' gimmicks. And finally, it never hurts to be inspired by words (could Nixon have whipped-up a fervor to show the Soviets what we could do by putting a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s?).
"We can spew partisan bile all we want. Personally, I find that type of behavior embarrassing. I do not fully agree with all of Senator Obama's campaign maneuvers (unlike Senator McCain and Governor Richardson, he hesitated in his support of third-generation nuclear power as a necessary part--though certainly not all--of a new national energy policy), but I think that he is the right person for the job at this point in time...."
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Various Notions, Volume 7: Senator Clinton's Concession Speech; Also, We're About To "Do Nuance"
FIRST, REGARDING SENATOR CLINTON'S CONCESSION SPEECH....
The following is what I wrote regarding Senator Clinton's concession speech on the "Centrisity" blog-site (http://centrisity.blogspot.com) on Saturday:
"Since she brought up history, the only thing I would have asked her to do that she didn't do is link more directly and more explicitly the struggles of the civil rights movement with those of women's sufferage and equal rights; she danced around making a direct link between the two groups (though she did insinuate a link), as if refusing to fully hitch herself to Senator Obama's wagon just yet.
"(Obviously their voters extend beyond women and minorities--as a white guy, I'm a case in point--but metaphorically the women who supported Senator Clinton need to join hands with the minorities who support Senator Obama in order for him to pull off a victory in November....)
"But that's okay, these things take time, and, in an overall sense, her speech was strong. As an Obama supporter who also admires her, I appreciated her words today."
The only thing I would clarify regarding my comments is that it is of course the case that Senator Obama's supporters are male and female, white and non-white, as are the folks who supported Senator Clinton's candidacy. But if Senator Obama (and, to a great extent, Senator Clinton) can fully make the "link" between women and minorities that Senator Clinton couldn't quite bring herself to do on Saturday, it would create a sense of solidarity between folks who fall into those (admittedly wide-ranging) groups. If he can also manage not to alienate white male voters, it would create an awful lot of momentum for the autumn election, and surely give the Democrats the advantage. We'll see if it happens over the summer months....
I'm not a big fan of Senator Clinton's speeches. I realize that presidential candidates need to utilize a rather cheap but effective sort of "mood music" in that they need to appeal to sentimentality far more often than candidates for high office in most other countries, but she tends to ladle the cheese on awfully thick--one sentimental story can be effective and can sometimes be poignant, but she seems to love delivering three or four or more in a row, as she did at the beginning of her speech on Saturday. All those variations on that particular theme is difficult for me to take seriously. But though I'm not enamored of her style, I do admit that she is effective with a certain type of "Middle American" swing-voter, and I believe she was effective with those folks again on Saturday.
Can we really ask her to do more than that in regards to Senator Obama's candidacy, at least right now? I don't think so. Perhaps down the line, however....
IN THE AUTUMN, AMERICAN POLITICS WILL CHANGE FOREVER
A Prediction: We've just finished the nominating contests (well, the Republican one has been finished for quite some time, really) and it is now the summer, which means that people will try their best to at least occasionally pay no attention to the forthcoming general election. But that will change in mid-August, as the conventions approach. And once the conventions commence, Americans will come face-to-face with the fact that this is, first and foremost, an international world; the entire world will continue to intensify its already-intense interest in the American election, and the "worldwide viewpoint" from which Americans, by virtue of our geography and rather ubiquitous culture, have until now been oddly shielded, will muscle its way into our politics, probably for good.
Until now, mainstream American culture has tended to think of the international world in a rather generic, general sense--there's "us" and then there's "everyone else," or perhaps "us" and the various continents, etc. But the particularities of individual countries and cultures throughout the world, and in particular their socio-political mindsets, will be on full display all autumn; international media will be everywhere, covering every moment of the election, and when it's over, they will not simply go "back there." In large part, the impact they make in our media and culture will not fade, at least not completely, as has happened so often in the past. The complaint I always received regarding my country when I lived in Britain and worked with hundreds of colleagues, none of whom were American--that America is a good place filled with good people and opportunities, but Americans are also incredibly ignorant of other societies and cultures, and filter ideas through a more parochial lens than folks from many other industrialized nations--will finally begin the process of fading.
This is to say (in an admittedly somewhat-rambling manner) that the United States, already so successful in any of a number of ways, is about to become more sophisticated, though many Americans don't yet know it. Come the autumn, a good percentage of us may not know what hit us, but I have faith in the fact that we will adjust to the new multi-lens reality, and we will be better off for it. Call it elitism (it's not--it's reality--but I guarantee a lot of people will call it "elitism"), but I think we will both retain our sense of "uniqueness" and never again be as parochial as we've been up to and including this point.
President Bush's proud assertion that "I don't do nuance" is going to fade as a cultural trademark, and rather quickly, from both Democratic and Republican politics, and in a larger sense from American society as a whole. Just you watch....
SPEAKING OF INTERNATIONAL FASCINATION REGARDING THE FORTHCOMING ELECTION....
Matthew Parris, of the center-right-leaning Times (of London), wrote an interesting, very individualistic take on the forthcoming American general election cycle titled "How to Detoxify the Noble American Brand." (Mr. Parris, who is not American, lived for a while in the United States.) It was published in the June 7 edition of the newspaper. As the title suggests, it asserts that the United States is presently squandering its powerful standing in the world, but it also suggests that the United States does remain a noble nation that can, and probably will, largely recover its standing in the international arena, which means that it can adapt to a changing geo-cultural landscape, as well. I will provide some representative snippets from the article, as food for thought, starting with the following two paragraphs:
"I wonder whether most Americans have understood in how parlous a condition this version of America now finds itself abroad. Seen from outside, the essential nobility of the American ideal is close to shattering. The American Eagle, as we abroad see the creature, looks sick - perhaps mortally so.
"I wonder, too, whether most Americans, or the cheerleaders on this side of the Atlantic for the present Republican Administration, have understood the urgency as well as the depth of this crisis for the American brand. During George W. Bush's first term I argued on these pages that he and his friends risked imperilling something more valuable to America than Iraqi deserts. This risk is now close to tipping over. International opinion always hungers for ogres and America is in imminent danger of being cast in that role. Across the free world, the Soviet Union appeared for decades in the guise of World Enemy Number 1. In June 2008, the US is not far from feeling that yoke descend upon its shoulders. It's a heavy yoke to bear, for once it settles, everything a nation does is seen by outsiders through the prism of that country's supposed ill-intentions."
What Mr. Parris asserts is very striking, for he suggests that once a country reaches a certain tipping point in the eyes of much of the world, even its good intentions often seem nefarious, and therefore are often squandered. Yet he also goes on to suggest the following:
"We could argue about whether this would be fair. I would say not. We could argue too about whether neoconservatism is essentially ignoble. Again I would say not: Kennedy's foreign policy (“bear any burden, pay any price...”) can be seen as neoconservative before the name was even invented. Instead I would maintain that no particular policy, and no particular individual - even George W. Bush - has alone threatened the idea of American nobility, but that a malign combination of events and people, including McCarthyism, the Vietnam War, three terrible assassinations, Watergate, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, men such as President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, and attitudes to global warming, has conspired to threaten the legend.
"In the way that Americans do politics, one person stands head and shoulders above all else in defining the nation to itself and the world. That person is the president, and it is personal. Not just in what he does but in what he is or seems to be, a president can make America feel and look a nobler idea. I happen to think that both Mr Obama and Mr McCain are distinguished from the other would-be candidates by conveying, in their speech and in their personal histories, an idea of nobility. I wonder whether in some subliminal way those voting in the primaries sensed this, and sensed its importance. I hope so, and that in the campaigns ahead both candidates can do what eagles do - soar."
I rather dislike the cheese-ball final line, but I believe that Mr. Parris is essentially correct: Americans may very well have nominated the two best presidential candidates this time around, not only because of their political fortitude and policy points, but also because of their personal stories and personal characters. Americans in particular are largely defined by our leaders (whether we know it or not), and as that is the case I will vote for Senator Obama; if he wins I will be elated, and if he loses I will be sad. But I won't be crushed, because, though I disagree with a number of Senator McCain's policy stands this time around, I do not disagree that he has the capacity to be a noble leader, as well.
As partisan as this election cycle is likely to be at times, it is also likely to have a surprisingly high number of post-partisan instances. That would be something to celebrate at any time, but it is a particularly joyous thought as we fight our way through the cultural and political toxicity of the final Bush year. I always want to admire both my preferred presidential candidate and the opposition's candidate. This time I believe I will have my wish granted.
The following is what I wrote regarding Senator Clinton's concession speech on the "Centrisity" blog-site (http://centrisity.blogspot.com) on Saturday:
"Since she brought up history, the only thing I would have asked her to do that she didn't do is link more directly and more explicitly the struggles of the civil rights movement with those of women's sufferage and equal rights; she danced around making a direct link between the two groups (though she did insinuate a link), as if refusing to fully hitch herself to Senator Obama's wagon just yet.
"(Obviously their voters extend beyond women and minorities--as a white guy, I'm a case in point--but metaphorically the women who supported Senator Clinton need to join hands with the minorities who support Senator Obama in order for him to pull off a victory in November....)
"But that's okay, these things take time, and, in an overall sense, her speech was strong. As an Obama supporter who also admires her, I appreciated her words today."
The only thing I would clarify regarding my comments is that it is of course the case that Senator Obama's supporters are male and female, white and non-white, as are the folks who supported Senator Clinton's candidacy. But if Senator Obama (and, to a great extent, Senator Clinton) can fully make the "link" between women and minorities that Senator Clinton couldn't quite bring herself to do on Saturday, it would create a sense of solidarity between folks who fall into those (admittedly wide-ranging) groups. If he can also manage not to alienate white male voters, it would create an awful lot of momentum for the autumn election, and surely give the Democrats the advantage. We'll see if it happens over the summer months....
I'm not a big fan of Senator Clinton's speeches. I realize that presidential candidates need to utilize a rather cheap but effective sort of "mood music" in that they need to appeal to sentimentality far more often than candidates for high office in most other countries, but she tends to ladle the cheese on awfully thick--one sentimental story can be effective and can sometimes be poignant, but she seems to love delivering three or four or more in a row, as she did at the beginning of her speech on Saturday. All those variations on that particular theme is difficult for me to take seriously. But though I'm not enamored of her style, I do admit that she is effective with a certain type of "Middle American" swing-voter, and I believe she was effective with those folks again on Saturday.
Can we really ask her to do more than that in regards to Senator Obama's candidacy, at least right now? I don't think so. Perhaps down the line, however....
IN THE AUTUMN, AMERICAN POLITICS WILL CHANGE FOREVER
A Prediction: We've just finished the nominating contests (well, the Republican one has been finished for quite some time, really) and it is now the summer, which means that people will try their best to at least occasionally pay no attention to the forthcoming general election. But that will change in mid-August, as the conventions approach. And once the conventions commence, Americans will come face-to-face with the fact that this is, first and foremost, an international world; the entire world will continue to intensify its already-intense interest in the American election, and the "worldwide viewpoint" from which Americans, by virtue of our geography and rather ubiquitous culture, have until now been oddly shielded, will muscle its way into our politics, probably for good.
Until now, mainstream American culture has tended to think of the international world in a rather generic, general sense--there's "us" and then there's "everyone else," or perhaps "us" and the various continents, etc. But the particularities of individual countries and cultures throughout the world, and in particular their socio-political mindsets, will be on full display all autumn; international media will be everywhere, covering every moment of the election, and when it's over, they will not simply go "back there." In large part, the impact they make in our media and culture will not fade, at least not completely, as has happened so often in the past. The complaint I always received regarding my country when I lived in Britain and worked with hundreds of colleagues, none of whom were American--that America is a good place filled with good people and opportunities, but Americans are also incredibly ignorant of other societies and cultures, and filter ideas through a more parochial lens than folks from many other industrialized nations--will finally begin the process of fading.
This is to say (in an admittedly somewhat-rambling manner) that the United States, already so successful in any of a number of ways, is about to become more sophisticated, though many Americans don't yet know it. Come the autumn, a good percentage of us may not know what hit us, but I have faith in the fact that we will adjust to the new multi-lens reality, and we will be better off for it. Call it elitism (it's not--it's reality--but I guarantee a lot of people will call it "elitism"), but I think we will both retain our sense of "uniqueness" and never again be as parochial as we've been up to and including this point.
President Bush's proud assertion that "I don't do nuance" is going to fade as a cultural trademark, and rather quickly, from both Democratic and Republican politics, and in a larger sense from American society as a whole. Just you watch....
SPEAKING OF INTERNATIONAL FASCINATION REGARDING THE FORTHCOMING ELECTION....
Matthew Parris, of the center-right-leaning Times (of London), wrote an interesting, very individualistic take on the forthcoming American general election cycle titled "How to Detoxify the Noble American Brand." (Mr. Parris, who is not American, lived for a while in the United States.) It was published in the June 7 edition of the newspaper. As the title suggests, it asserts that the United States is presently squandering its powerful standing in the world, but it also suggests that the United States does remain a noble nation that can, and probably will, largely recover its standing in the international arena, which means that it can adapt to a changing geo-cultural landscape, as well. I will provide some representative snippets from the article, as food for thought, starting with the following two paragraphs:
"I wonder whether most Americans have understood in how parlous a condition this version of America now finds itself abroad. Seen from outside, the essential nobility of the American ideal is close to shattering. The American Eagle, as we abroad see the creature, looks sick - perhaps mortally so.
"I wonder, too, whether most Americans, or the cheerleaders on this side of the Atlantic for the present Republican Administration, have understood the urgency as well as the depth of this crisis for the American brand. During George W. Bush's first term I argued on these pages that he and his friends risked imperilling something more valuable to America than Iraqi deserts. This risk is now close to tipping over. International opinion always hungers for ogres and America is in imminent danger of being cast in that role. Across the free world, the Soviet Union appeared for decades in the guise of World Enemy Number 1. In June 2008, the US is not far from feeling that yoke descend upon its shoulders. It's a heavy yoke to bear, for once it settles, everything a nation does is seen by outsiders through the prism of that country's supposed ill-intentions."
What Mr. Parris asserts is very striking, for he suggests that once a country reaches a certain tipping point in the eyes of much of the world, even its good intentions often seem nefarious, and therefore are often squandered. Yet he also goes on to suggest the following:
"We could argue about whether this would be fair. I would say not. We could argue too about whether neoconservatism is essentially ignoble. Again I would say not: Kennedy's foreign policy (“bear any burden, pay any price...”) can be seen as neoconservative before the name was even invented. Instead I would maintain that no particular policy, and no particular individual - even George W. Bush - has alone threatened the idea of American nobility, but that a malign combination of events and people, including McCarthyism, the Vietnam War, three terrible assassinations, Watergate, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, men such as President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, and attitudes to global warming, has conspired to threaten the legend.
"In the way that Americans do politics, one person stands head and shoulders above all else in defining the nation to itself and the world. That person is the president, and it is personal. Not just in what he does but in what he is or seems to be, a president can make America feel and look a nobler idea. I happen to think that both Mr Obama and Mr McCain are distinguished from the other would-be candidates by conveying, in their speech and in their personal histories, an idea of nobility. I wonder whether in some subliminal way those voting in the primaries sensed this, and sensed its importance. I hope so, and that in the campaigns ahead both candidates can do what eagles do - soar."
I rather dislike the cheese-ball final line, but I believe that Mr. Parris is essentially correct: Americans may very well have nominated the two best presidential candidates this time around, not only because of their political fortitude and policy points, but also because of their personal stories and personal characters. Americans in particular are largely defined by our leaders (whether we know it or not), and as that is the case I will vote for Senator Obama; if he wins I will be elated, and if he loses I will be sad. But I won't be crushed, because, though I disagree with a number of Senator McCain's policy stands this time around, I do not disagree that he has the capacity to be a noble leader, as well.
As partisan as this election cycle is likely to be at times, it is also likely to have a surprisingly high number of post-partisan instances. That would be something to celebrate at any time, but it is a particularly joyous thought as we fight our way through the cultural and political toxicity of the final Bush year. I always want to admire both my preferred presidential candidate and the opposition's candidate. This time I believe I will have my wish granted.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
It's Time To Consider Putting Senator Clinton On The Democratic Presidential Ticket
Today (Thursday, June 5), Senator Clinton sounded a conciliatory note regarding Senator Obama's forthcoming selection of a running mate--well, sort of (or, from another standpoint, not at all...). She said in a statement that she is not actively seeking the V.P. slot and the choice of his running mate is "Senator Obama's and his alone." Given that Senator Obama's win in Montana was substantial enough to put him over-the-top not only in the pledged delegate count but also the popular vote (by any rational standard), in one sense Senator Clinton's statement was simply a repetition of the facts.
But in another sense, it was a very necessary thing to do. This is because even her staunch supporters on Capitol Hill sounded openly and outwardly frustrated on Wednesday, given the odd note(s) she struck in her post-primary-season speech on Tuesday night. Several of them went on television and the radio to complain that her speech was not "unifying" enough, and it left in limbo a lot of people who had supported her but would gladly support Senator Obama once he had the necessary delegates to be the Democratic nominee.
The sense of confusion in the air across the country (displayed brilliantly by Stephen Colbert when he said Wednesday that everything had been cleared up in that "...Senator Obama will be the Democratic nominee and Senator Clinton is going all the way to the White House!") left people of all political persuasions in a state of bemusement, confusion, and/or annoyance, some of which (excluding "annoyance") may have been what Senator Clinton was after. After all, if she could steal a little of Senator Obama's thunder on what should have been his big night and his alone--and she did just that--she would show everyone what she is capable of politically and culturally, and why at the very least she should be his running mate.
It probably also helped her pay off some of her substantial campaign debts that during Tuesday evening's speech she asked people to visit her web site in the coming days in order to advise her "what to do" now (as if she hadn't already had a contingency plan in place), given that the money-pledging option had most certainly not been removed from the site after the evening's festivities....
But her strong-arm tactics backfired. The aforementioned frustration and, in some cases, rather public anger of her erstwhile supporters is evidence of that; if she doesn't have them, she loses almost all of her presently considerable leverage. When one combines this with the fact that the Obama camp did not react in a welcoming manner to what they saw as rather odd ancillary tactics from some (though certainly not all) prominent Clinton supporters to either publicly bully Senator Obama into putting her on the ticket (Lanny Davis, et al) or act as though they could shift everyone into an alternative universe (a wild-eyed Terry McAuliffe announced Senator Clinton as "...the next President of the United States!..." as Senator Obama crossed the delegate threshold Tuesday evening), one gets the sense that the panic buttons must have been going off at Clinton Campaign Headquarters all day Wednesday and early Thursday.
Now, before I continue, I'd like to be clear regarding my own standpoint: I am not suggesting that Senator Clinton should have conceded on Tuesday night (though others do suggest that she should have conceded immediately), but in that speech she should have indicated that she would publicly address the status of the Democratic race later this week or, even better, this coming weekend. That would have given both candidates a few days to cool off regarding each other (though Senator Obama would, obviously, continue actively campaigning in a general-election manner, as he has done), and it would have given Senator Clinton a few days' media buildup prior to making a gracious exit from the campaign while simultaneously letting the world know that she would do all she could to help Senator Obama win the general election this coming November.
Instead, on Tuesday we got confusion, and on Wednesday we got hints that Senator Clinton might end her campaign this weekend but also got indications that her inner circle would continue strong-arming Senator Obama publicly (which surely cannot help the Democratic party look as though it is "uniting"). Given Senator Obama's kind words regarding her on Tuesday evening, if she had carried on in this way much longer she would have risked looking like a petulant bully whose growth has been stunted to the point where she's been passed in size by a formerly potential victim, but due to spite is doing everything she can to give the now-taller kid a bad time, anyway.
That's not what the Democratic party needs right now--certainly not in an election year in which, if they play their cards right (and it remains to be seen if they will do that with consistency from now until the general election), they will have a good chance of taking back the White House and of increasing their majorities in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. It's also not what Senator Clinton needs to do insofar as her political future is concerned.
She's obviously received the message. As previously mentioned, she has today announced that Senator Obama's running mate choice is his alone, which should slow--if not stop--the public strong-arming of Senator Obama being done by some of her supporters. (Of course, she may work rather vigorously behind-the-scenes to see if she can win the role of his running mate.) And it now looks as though she will concede the nomination this coming weekend (Saturday, by current reports). Some semblance (at least) of initial Democratic unity to start the summer months may occur, after all.
That also means that it's time for Senator Obama to consider putting her on the presidential ticket. (I'm fully aware that Senator Clinton's change in tactics was undertaken in part to make us think this way.) I'm coming around to this idea, mostly due to the fact that Senator Obama and Senator Clinton on the same ticket would be electoral gold; they won about eighteen million votes apiece during the nominating process (those are enormous numbers for a nominating process), and if they at least managed to get along on the campaign trail they could probably build their support base outward from there. Certainly, she would bring a huge percentage of her voters (many, though not all, white women and Hispanics, as well as a substantial amount of blue-collar voters) immediately into the Obama camp, though it's true that some would probably still refuse to vote for him.
The drawbacks of adding her to the ticket are certainly obvious, too: she would seem to counter Senator Obama's argument of the necessity to bring an almost full sea-change to the White House; she could steal a lot of his limelight, given that she has the mentality of a leader as opposed to someone who could switch gears and be a strong and loyal #2; the Bill Clinton factor could mean just about anything, good and bad, at just about any point; etc.
But she deserves the right to be considered strongly as a running mate selection for Senator Obama. In my May 27 post, I presented my top half-dozen choices to be Senator Obama's running mate. Many of those folks will be on the very brief list I will now provide, so you can look at that post to see my reasoning for each one. For now, with Hillary added, this is what it looks like:
1.) Joe Biden (my #2 pick for Secretary of State)
2.) Mark Warner
3.) Kathleen Sebelius
4.) Bill Richardson (my #1 pick for Secretary of State)
5.) Hillary Clinton
6.) [tie] Wesley Clark and Sam Nunn
(Note: yes, Jim Webb is at #7....)
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Hasslington At The June 3 Obama Rally: The General Election Began In Saint Paul, Minnesota
JUNE 3, 2008--OUTSIDE OF THE XCEL ENERGY CENTER IN DOWNTOWN SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA, AT APPROXIMATELY 5:30 P.M.
When I lived in Britain, a good friend of mine who had recently traveled to the United States once rather good-naturedly asked me, "What's with you Yanks? You're insanely sociable. Get any of you in a group and you blather away endlessly. And often several people talk at once. Do you ever have time to stop and think, or carry on an actual conversation?" Other non-Americans in the room at the time laughed along with me, but, interestingly enough, they also largely agreed with him. Evidently, in addition to other things, we Americans wear other folks out with our often-ceaseless, fairly multi-directional chatter.
I say this because by 5:30 p.m. my fellow Americans on the corner of Washington and 6th had long-since worn me out with their endless chatter. Topics were flying through the air (and into my brain) at what would normally be considered an alarming rate, adding to the difficulty the policewoman was having getting anyone's attention regarding the approach of a yellow bus intending to carry harried high school graduates through the middle of the intersection occupied by a mass of talking, giggling, and what seemed like chanting humanity. It also added an extra, and ultimately insurmountable, layer of challenge to my ill-fated attempt "to quietly take this moment of anticipatory history in; to feel the weight of history." I was standing in the endless line to enter the Xcel Energy Center in order to hear and see Senator Barack Obama, a man of mixed-ethnicity, be the first individual with such a background to claim the status of Presumptive Presidential Nominee of the Democratic Party.
But if we Americans are "insanely sociable"--even, at times, to the point where we're just talking at people instead of conversing with them--we are also incredibly civilized in many ways, as well. As a case in point, when people finally got the message the policewoman was sending to them, they all started chatting to the folks nearby about how "we really ought to move to the side of the road." And then, physics be damned, we all managed to create enough space for the bus to get through. And, comfort levels in such crushed-quarters be damned, most of us waved at the perplexed graduates and their families riding in the busses, and wished them congratulations (loudly, of course). Given my experiences, such an outcome would have been far more difficult to come by in much of Europe.
APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M., IN THE UPPER DECK REGION OF THE XCEL ENERGY CENTER
Yes, this is an international world (an isolated, fortress-like America never really existed, of course, but it cannot even be conceived of by any group of rational people right now without their I.Q.s dropping sharply first). I was reminded (again) of this when two gentlemen from Germany, sitting behind me, began discussing what they would like to eat, and which of them would have the privilege of standing in the lengthy concession line in order to buy whatever food they decided to choose. My German is rusty, I know, but, after following their discussion pretty well for quite some time, I was sure I heard one of them say the equivalent of, "Well, as far as food goes, I would love to be a fish." Upon reflection, however, I've determined that he most likely said something closer to, "Well, as far as food goes, I would love to have fish." (And, yes, there was a place selling fish baskets nearby.)
This is an international world in another sense, too, also very much represented by these two German gentlemen as they discussed the goings-on in their language (and occasionally spoke to nearby Americans in English). This other sense is that their discussion began to take on the formation of many discussions around me in that they referred to the crowd as "we," they referred to Obama-supporters as "we," and it became clear that they referred to people from Western countries (primarily Europe and North America) as "we." To them, Barack Obama is not only an American political leader--which from their standpoint would be someone else's political leader--but also a Western political leader--a leader of "them," yes, but just as importantly a leader and inspiration to "us" Westerners and, to a certain extent, world citizens.
And this is a more visceral "togetherness" than that felt when President Kennedy or President Reagan delivered monumental speeches in Berlin; their speeches were great, but the sense of "togetherness" was still very symbolic at the time. The geo-political and especially geo-cultural lines are more blurred now, to the point where what was once viewed as a great speech by a fine American leader is now viewed as a moment when we are not "like" one another so much as we are "a part" of one another. These days, with the enormous exception of President Bush, there seems to be less standing-on-differences between, say, Germans and Americans (or Britons and Americans, or...) than ever before, and instead more of a coalescing of our similarities is taking place, and rather naturally, too. So we speak different native languages, or have slightly different cultural customs...so what? We're far more alike than we are dissimilar, and folks in the Western world (as well as some other areas of the globe) are displaying this fact like never before.
SOMETIME AFTER 9:00 P.M., IN THE XCEL ENERGY CENTER
A few months ago, Pat Buchanan (of all people) said that, in comparison to Senator Obama's considerable speechmaking prowess, when he delivers speeches Senator McCain "seems to be briefing a flight crew." I think an awful lot of us would fall into the "briefing a flight crew" category when measured alongside Senator Obama's ability to captivate an audience.
Captivate is exactly what he did during what many (including myself) consider his opening speech of the 2008 general election at the Xcel Energy Center (the very building in which Senator McCain will accept his party's nomination in September). He had just surpassed the delegate totals necessary to secure the Democratic nomination (which will be made official, barring an unforeseen political catastrophe of historic proportions, at the Democratic convention in Denver in late August), and delivered an authoritative, inspiring, somewhat predictably generic but sweeping opening salvo with gusto and eloquence the likes of which we have come to expect from him.
The speech was a bit more combative and contentious than we're used to insofar as his comments regarding Senator McCain we concerned, but that was no surprise given that the race is finally almost fully in focus. For instance, regarding Senator McCain's charge that Senator Obama should go to Iraq and see what is taking place there, Senator Obama countered with the charge that Senator McCain should listen closer to the wishes of the American people prior to and after delivering speeches in his native country. (Actually, on that score, they're both right, though Senator Obama has been fighting a difficult political battle at home over the past few months, whereas Senator McCain has had the luxury of traveling around the world.)
Senator Obama delivered the usual flourishes we've heard from him dozens of times--"This is our time!"; "We are Democrats and Republicans, yes, but first and foremost we are united Americans!"; and so forth--but, though one might claim that they are rather generic, I find it difficult to claim that they are unhelpful in this transitional and uncertain era. I find them much the opposite in fact: they are reminders, if rather general ones, of what makes America the very workable "great experiment" that it is. And, at any rate, they will be followed by complex policy proposals soon enough; for now, it's best to lay-out the general theme, and add to it piecemeal. (Senator McCain seems to think likewise, given his speech a few hours previous to that of Senator Obama.)
Need I report that the crowd was in a perpetual state of going absolutely bonkers? (I've been to highly-anticipated athletic events in that building; the volume this time exceeded that of any event I've been to there.) Perhaps I should simply leave it at that, and let your imagination fill in the rest. But perhaps I should point out that there was a real emotional charge in the air, too; there were many a tear in many an eye during certain emotionally-charged portions of the speech (there may have been one or two in my eyes, as well), which is testament to Senator Obama's uncanny ability to achieve an emotional-mastery of large crowds.
After the speech was over and we left the building, I thought to myself, if that guy can work even a third as well with national legislators as he works with big crowds, we may really have something this time. If "hope" is the operative word in 2008 (along with "change," of course), that's my hope.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Can Democrats Unite Behind Senator Obama?; Also, Bad Musicians Can Still (Sort Of) Help Win Votes
THE BIG QUESTION: WILL THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY (EVER) UNITE, AT LEAST UP TO AND INCLUDING ELECTION DAY THIS COMING NOVEMBER?
This, it seems, is the biggest question in this election cycle. Why? Well, recent special elections for U.S. Congressional seats in predominantly Republican districts across the country have seen Democrats win each time, and in impressive manners; and, despite the still-aggressive campaigning being done by both Senators Clinton and Obama and the antipathy toward each of them this has created within sizable percentages of the Democratic party and its natural electorate, polls suggest that both of them are running neck-and-neck nationally with the long-since presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain.
So for Senator McCain to win in November (and Democrats need to be aware that he can still win), the Republicans will need him to appeal both to the political center-ground and the conservative wing of their party, and in addition to that they will need Democratic defections in sizable numbers (given recent heavy party registration going to the Democrats nationwide) in several swing-states across the country. The numbers are the numbers, and they are trending heavily toward the Democrats....
So Senator McCain's camp needs to capitalize on the schism between Senator Obama's supporters and those of Senator Clinton, which means that the McCain camp needs the schism to be at least largely permanent in nature. Of course, some folks will support only Senator Obama or Senator Clinton, but Senator McCain needs the percentages of those suggesting that they will vote for only one or the other Democrat to remain very high, and he needs to "steal" a lot of the votes of Clinton supporters in November (as Senator Obama is on the verge of clinching the number of delegates necessary to win a majority and become his party's nominee).
Will this happen? Will a large percentage of Clinton supporters continue to refuse to back Senator Obama, with some of them staying home on election day and an impressive percentage of them voting for Senator McCain? I tend to think not. I tend to think that this summer we will see a good deal of the Democratic party unite (if perhaps more slowly than many in the Obama camp would like), particularly if and when Senator Clinton concedes graciously--and you can bet that, when the time comes (hopefully soon after the June 3 contests), she will realize that it is in her best political interest to indeed concede graciously, and then to work to help elect Senator Obama in November, in order to avoid looking like she played the role of "spoiler" for the Democrats when all indications are that they have a great chance to win back the White House this year.
But there is still the chance that many of her supporters in places like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin, Iowa, and (especially) Florida, Missouri, Ohio, and New Hampshire will refuse to vote for Senator Obama. (And what about her fervent supporters in often-Democratic New Jersey?) It is therefore the case that her supporters and admirers may very well ultimately decide this election; we may see many of them vacillate regarding who they intend to support, and therefore emerge as the largest group of "independent" swing-voters....
He may suggest otherwise, but it's become obvious to me that my friend (and fellow blogger) Anoka Flash is a Clinton-supporter (though, like me, he originally supported Governor Richardson until he ended his campaign this past January). Flash has suggested over the past several months that Senator Clinton is "more experienced" and "more electable" than Senator Obama. Yet this is what he wrote today on his blog-site (http://centrisity.blogspot.com) regarding the Democratic nominating process and the fact that Senator Obama is poised to win a majority of the delegates...and whether or not Senator Clinton should end her campaign after tomorrow's contests:
"We've been standing in line at this amusement park long enough, time to get on the roller coaster and see what this thing's got!"
Yes, we've fought this out for quite some time now, and it is indeed time to get onboard (by "roller-coaster," he means the Obama campaign). If a large percentage of Senator Clinton's supporters decide to support Senator Obama, he will be the president come January 20, 2009. If not, it may very well be Senator McCain who emerges victorious.
Given that the policy differences between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama pale in comparison with the policy differences between her and Senator McCain, I hope a large majority of Senator Clinton's supporters decide to step onboard the Obama ride, and not the McCain one with the (presently) shorter line of ticket-holders waiting their turn to board.
ENDORSEMENTS FROM QUALITY MUSICIANS OFTEN FAIL TO HELP WIN VOTES
It was probably a good move by the Clinton camp not to over-publicize the fact that exceptionally-annoying pop singer Ricky Martin endorsed her candidacy prior to the Puerto Rico primary (which she won 68% to 32% over Senator Obama on Sunday) by saying the following (in a somewhat rambling way):
"Whether fighting for better education, universal health care and social well-being, as first lady and senator from New York--representing millions of Latinos--she has always fought for what is most important for our families."
It's a good sentiment, and what Mr. Martin says is largely correct (her popularity among Hispanic voters is another reason why Senator Clinton needs to be utilized often on the campaign trail in the autumn). But Mr. Martin is the same individual who gave us the awful (and, for a while, ever-present) "Livin' la Vida Loca," as well as some other tunes which are possibly worse. So the Clinton camp (rightfully) thanked him for the endorsement, and then rather quickly moved on to other topics....
Meanwhile, ex-Senator John Edwards received the endorsement and campaign-trail singing of Jackson Browne (whose album "Late For The Sky" is still pitch-perfect and sociologically-brilliant, well over thirty years after it was released), and yet his campaign ended last January.
Not to be outdone, Senator Chris Dodd received the endorsement and campaign-trail singing of one of the greatest American singer/songwriters of all time: Paul Simon. People flocked to the "Dodd-for-President" events at which Mr. Simon sang; they loved the music, and they seemed to like what Senator Dodd had to say, but they decided that they'd rather hear similar policy ideas from Senator Obama and Senator Clinton.
That's alright. Mr. Edwards and Senator Dodd remain national figures who, of late, have and will continue to be on the campaign trail with Senator Obama as he switches into general election mode, and they will continue to influence national policy, as well (Senator Dodd will most likely do so in his capacity as a national legislator; Mr. Edwards as an activist and possible future cabinet appointee).
This means that, though Senator Dodd and Mr. Edwards got blown-away by the Obama and Clinton campaigns, they can take heart in the fact that, as Mr. Simon would say of them, "...the fighter still remains."
FUTURE FODDER FOR RIDICULE: HASSLINGTON'S MONTANA AND SOUTH DAKOTA PRIMARY PICKS
Montana: Senator Clinton is radioactive there (opinion polls have suggested that for months). PREDICTION: SENATOR OBAMA BY TWENTY-FOUR PERCENTAGE POINTS.
South Dakota: This will be much closer, but with rumors of Senator Clinton dropping-out of the race (I wish to stress that they are ONLY rumors as I type this), Senator Obama should pull it out, making the Wisconsin-to-Washington state corridor (which extends as far south as Missouri, Kansas, and Colorado) full and unbroken Obama territory. PREDICTION: SENATOR OBAMA BY SIX PERCENTAGE POINTS.
Psst: Watch Senator Obama make a run at places like Montana this coming autumn....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)