Various Notions, Volume 9: A Quick Summer Break in Stillwater; Virginia Governor Tim Kaine; Joe Biden and Sarah Palin Poll Results

THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA

Mrs. Hasslington and I celebrated our anniversary by spending two days in historic Stillwater, Minnesota, which is located on the shores of the Saint Croix River, where Minnesota shares a border with neighboring Wisconsin.  Stillwater is the birthplace of Minnesota--it's where plans were made in the 1840s for the area to become a territory, prior to becoming a state in 1858, and it's where the state's name and its spelling were agreed upon.  (Here's a hopefully interesting tangent--when it was decided that Minnesota should become an official state, a certain Mr. Stephen Douglas had a big hand in seeing the plans come to fruition....)

It's also a lovely town; both the Victorian feel of the storefronts and houses, as well as the Twain-esque feel of the Riverboats make for an evocative, throwback atmosphere.  (We dined on one of the Riverboats, which was a lot of fun for us, but probably even more fun for the family sitting near us who were visiting from Scandinavia; when a nearby riverboat tooted its horn, their glass table collapsed in shards, which I've seen in movies but never in real life.  Everyone laughed because no one was hurt, and the crew treated them to free drinks for the rest of the evening....)

One of the things I most like about Stillwater is its walkability (the downtown area is located in a river valley and was therefore made in a rather compact manner), and I would add to that its close proximity to the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, where Mrs. Hasslington and I presently reside.  (It's only about twenty miles east-north-east of downtown Saint Paul, which helps insofar as transportation costs are concerned.)  The city's chamber of commerce has a website (http://www.ilovestillwater.com/) on which other things to do in town can be found.

We stayed in a unique, friendly bed and breakfast called "The Elephant Walk" (http://www.elephantwalkbb.com/).  It's run by a couple named Rita and Mike, and they provided us with spectacular breakfasts both days we were there.  The four rooms are quiet and decorated in the style of the countries they often visit.  Most are decorated in southeast Asian styles; ours, for instance, featured items from Thailand.  At any rate, I heartily recommend that particular bed and breakfast for anyone who wishes to visit Stillwater.

VIRGINIA GOVERNOR TIM KAINE--POSSIBLE SENATOR OBAMA V.P. SELECTION?

I wrote about Virginia Governor Tim Kaine a few months ago in regards to the possibility that he might be selected as Senator Obama's running mate, and now it looks as though the Obama camp is seriously considering him for the position.  Though two more nationally-recognized individuals from Virginia, Senator Jim Webb and former-Governor Mark Warner, are also running mate possibilities (though Senator Webb has cooled speculations about himself by stating that he will remain in the U.S. senate after the election), Governor Kaine is intriguing because, in addition to the fact that he is genuinely popular in that swing-state, he is perceived as being more conservative than Senator Obama (which would help to off-set the "too liberal" tag the Republican Party is trying to affix to Senator Obama) and he is a Catholic who was born in the Midwest (Saint Paul, Minnesota) and has ties to the area.  Those latter two aspects can only help Senator Obama with a potentially critical swing-group (Catholics in general, and Midwestern Catholics in particular) from which he's struggled thus far to win widespread support.  Governor Kaine is also just four or so years older than Senator Obama, and he has chief executive experience, so he won't look like Senator Obama's "elder" (just as Senator McCain might wish to avoid selecting someone who looks "too youthful") and he could help assuage fears regarding Senator Obama's lack of chief executive experience.

Yet the obvious problem with putting Governor Kaine on the ticket is that he is not a well-known name outside of the Chesapeake region, and would therefore need a period of introduction to the American public.  Though it seems as though he would be a strong selection "on paper" (so to speak), this is still looking as though it will be a rather closely-fought election, so the question the Obama folks must be asking themselves is whether or not they can afford to take a little time to introduce Governor Kaine to the American public before or after the forthcoming Democratic convention, which might hurt their ability to stay on the offense against Senator McCain's policies.  If they tried a two-pronged approach by introducing Governor Kaine while simultaneously criticizing Senator McCain, the message may get a bit muddled, at least for, say, a week or two.  So we'll see.

Right now, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, and Tim Kaine are the names often being reported as the likeliest choices to be Senator Obama's running mate (just as Tim Pawlenty, Tom Ridge, and Mitt Romney are the names most mentioned in regards to Senator McCain's choice).  I'd add Jack Reed and Mark Warner to that list, and perhaps Sam Nunn, though there are certainly others, as well (and I can't believe more folks aren't talking about John Thune as a possibility for Senator McCain...).

And let's not forget the many possible "Wow!" choices, such as Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer for Senator Obama, and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin or U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe for Senator McCain....

V.P. POLL RESULTS -- HASSLINGTON READERS SEEM TO LIKE SENATOR BIDEN AND GOVERNOR PALIN

I'm sure a number of you are like-minded and therefore these results may not be indicative of all viewpoints, but...

 

...twenty voters said "Yes" and fifteen voters said "No" regarding whether Senator Biden should be Senator Obama's running mate; that's 57% for and 43% against the idea....

...also, fifteen voters said "Yes" and nine voters said "No" regarding whether Governor Palin should be Senator McCain's running mate; that's 62% for and 38% against the idea....

Of the two, I would think that it is more probable that Senator Biden would be selected to be Senator Obama's running mate than Governor Palin being selected to be Senator McCain's running mate, but I'd love to see both selections occur.  Then again, neither may occur.  We'll just have to sit tight for a little while.

Happy Anniversary, Mrs. Hasslington!

I really, really dislike using exclamation points (or exclamation marks, if you're British) except in ironic situations, but I am happy to make an exception in this case.  (Please see the title of this post, above.)

I met Mrs. Hasslington six years ago, and we've been a couple for four years now.  For most of that time, we lived in her native England.  Last summer, we married in a small, beautiful church in her home town, and have since moved to my native United States.

I am very fortunate to have met her.  (My goodness, she even puts up with my penchant for lengthy instances of political speculation....)  I hope that we remain healthy so that we can continue to enjoy married life for many years to come.

Lists, Political and Otherwise (I'm Told They're Hip)

OH, HOW WE LOVE LISTS (EXCEPT WHEN WE DON'T)

I was informed by a friend just the other day that people like lists.  This bit of inside information was unsolicited and completely out of context regarding the discussion at hand, and I had long since developed the idea that this was the case, anyway.  Certainly it's the case for me; I've lost count of the overwhelming amount of times I've contributed to sports arguments regarding, say, who should be considered the "top ten baseball pitchers of all time," or television arguments regarding "the best half-dozen science fiction television shows of all time."  (Imagine transitioning immediately from the former discussion to the latter, and you can see how much difficulty I've had keeping any particular group of individuals interested in my ramblings for more than a few minutes at parties....)

When people hate lists--which they often do--it's generally because the lists involve items to be purchased at a local store or things to do prior to the end of the day or the week.  Those are functional lists that are necessary in the sense that they keep one focused on the task at hand, which I suppose needs to be done from time to time, though we (or at least I) often dislike having to focus too much, particularly on things such as groceries and housework.  (I'm not sure which of those two categories I dislike more, though I know that transitioning immediately from one to the other is my definition of intellectual purgatory.)

When people love lists--and, yes, most folks do seem to love them from time to time, whether we're aware of it at the time or not--it's generally because the lists frame or structure rather esoteric subjects in a more concrete manner.  For instance, it's slightly ridiculous, when one thinks about it, to list a presidential nominee's potential V.P. running mates from, say, #1 to #6 based on qualifications or the likelihood they will be picked due to electoral helpfulness, etc., because so much more goes into choosing a presidential running mate than generic categories can suggest.  So much of the selection process is based on "mood" and "feeling," and the "mood" can relate to chemistry between the potential running mates or within the party, or it can relate to the mood of voters in some swing states or the country as a whole, just as "feeling" can relate to the nominee's sense of the individual under consideration or of the public's perception of the individual, or perhaps of where the country might be politically in the coming months, or....

Still, I admit that, even knowing what I know about the arbitrary nature of lists, I find myself generally liking them, mostly for their ability to set a foundation (for whoever is taking part in a particular discussion) from which a more freewheeling discussion can grow.  That also means that, during the course of a conversation, one's initial list can alter a bit, based on point/counter-point exchanges one has with others as well as with oneself.  Personal reflection can contribute to the process of list-shifting, though it can also contribute to the process of further solidifying certain elements of one's initial list.

So today I have decided to create a few lists, political and otherwise in nature, in the hopes of spurring my own inward discussions and periods of reflection regarding a few topics I've been turning around in my head of late.  This means that the particular numerical ordering in several lists might very well shift around in the future, though some might not.  We'll see.  For what it's worth, here they are:

MOST LIKELY POSSIBLE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OUTCOMES, NOVEMBER 2008 (from most likely to least likely)

--Possible outcomes for either side:  very close; decisive; landslide.

1.)  Senator Obama wins decisively the popular vote and electoral vote.

2.)  Senator McCain wins a very close election in the popular vote and electoral vote.

3.)  Senator Obama wins a very close election in the popular vote and electoral vote.

4.)  Senator McCain wins decisively the popular vote and electoral vote.

5.)  Senator Obama wins a landslide in the popular vote and electoral vote.

6.)  Senator McCain wins a landslide in the popular vote and electoral vote.

--Note:  I believe that the top three possibilities are far more likely to occur than the bottom three possibilities.  (This is to suggest that the election is still very much up in the air, which is natural at this point in the process.)

MOST LIKELY VICE PRESIDENTIAL RUNNING MATE CHOICES

I have endorsed Senator Joe Biden to be Senator Obama's running mate and Governor Sarah Palin to be Senator McCain's running mate.  I stand by those endorsements, though there are other strong contenders on both sides (particularly the Democratic side).  The following are lists of the people that I think are among the MOST LIKELY to be chosen as the running mate for each candidate.  I'll try to whittle them down to one or two choices; let's see if I can do that now....

SENATOR McCAIN'S FOUR MOST LIKELY CHOICES (in alphabetical order):

Governor Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota); former Governor Tom Ridge (Pennsylvania); former Governor Mitt Romney (Massachusetts); U.S. Senator John Thune (South Dakota)

Of that group, all of whom must be high-up on Senator McCain's list, I find Governor Pawlenty to be a bit of a lightweight, low-risk/low-reward choice (better suited to a year in which the nominee is comfortably ahead in the polls).  Thus, if I had to whittle that list to three, it would be:  Ridge, Romney, Thune.

Of that group, I still sense a bit of distrust on the part of Senator McCain regarding Governor Romney (though their relationship has thawed of late and Governor Romney would probably help in states like Michigan), so, though it's a tough call, if I had to whittle that list to two, it would be:  Ridge, Thune.

Governor Ridge has problems with pro-life voters and, as the former Director of Homeland Security, is somewhat tied (if now tangentially) to President George W. Bush, but he is solid on national security issues and centrist voters in his swing-state have liked him in the past.  Senator Thune will have no problems with either social conservatives or economic conservatives, and his relative youth is a positive for a McCain ticket, but to the average voter he is less well known than Governor Ridge.  He would therefore need an introductory period so that voters could familiarize themselves with him.  He is not from a swing-state, though he is from a swing-region (the Upper Midwest).  So, as far as I'm concerned...

Senator McCain's likeliest choice is: (tie) Tom Ridge and John Thune.

Senator McCain's possible "Wow!"-inducing Dark Horse choice:  Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

SENATOR OBAMA'S FIVE MOST LIKELY CHOICES (in alphabetical order):

U.S. Senator Evan Bayh (Indiana); U.S. Senator Joe Biden (Delaware); former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn (Georgia); U.S. Senator Jack Reed (Rhode Island); former Governor Mark Warner (Virginia)

I kept Senator Nunn on the list because, though he is disliked by voters on the left wing of the party for various reasons, he would help with southern voters and centrists nationwide.  Still, he'd be controversial with lefties, so he's probably not the most likely choice.  Senator Bayh is straight out of central casting; he's a Clinton loyalist who has campaigned hard and impressively for Senator Obama of late, which could help to unite the Clinton/Obama factions; and he's won several gubernatorial and senatorial elections in his conservative state.  Still, he was probably a bit too enthusiastic to "liberate" Iraq in 2002 and 2003 for Senator Obama's taste.  Hence, if I had to whittle the list down to three, they would be:  Biden, Reed, Warner.

Governor Warner is presently running for a U.S. senate seat, and he's way up in the polls in his swing-state (Virginia).  I'm not certain that many Democratic strategists want to give up that formerly-Republican seat by extracting him from that race in order to be Senator Obama's running mate.  Though he'd be a great choice, if I had to whittle the list down to two, they would be:  Biden, Reed.

If Senator Biden is selected, his state would probably deliver another Democrat to fill in his senate seat.  If Senator Reed is selected, his state's Republican governor might obfuscate things by working to send a Republican to the U.S. Senate for a time.  But more than that, Biden is a proven debate-winner with a lengthy, experienced history in the U.S. Senate.  He would bring instant political gravity to an Obama ticket, he knows how to speak to both the literati and the more working class elements of the Democratic party, and he'd be broadly acceptable to both the Clinton and Obama wings of the party.  Though both gentlemen would make for very strong choices, if I had to whittle the list down to one, as far as I'm concerned...

Senator Obama's likeliest choice is:  Joe Biden.

Senator Obama's possible "Wow!"-inducing Dark Horse choice:  there are many of them, male and female, but I'd say Governor Brian Schweitzer (Montana) is a Dark Horse with a real western-state outlook, and he has a slight-but-real possibility of winning the role of running mate.

HASSLINGTON'S CURRENT LIST OF TOP SIX WORDS

These are the words I have found myself uttering increasingly (and perhaps alarmingly) this past week....

1.)  gelatinous

2.)  reticence

3.)  platitude

4.)  esoteric

5.)  verisimilitude

6.)  vicissitude

HASSLINGTON'S FAVORITE PAUL SIMON SONGS

Paul Simon is my favorite musical artist.  (I know I'm over thirty years younger than the sixty-six year old Mr. Simon, but he's still my favorite musical artist.)  I own all of his albums, and Mrs. Hasslington is kind enough to let me play them relatively often.  Here are my top half-dozen Paul Simon songs at present (this list often shifts):

1.  "Still Crazy After All These Years" (1975)

2.  "The Boxer" (1969)

3.  "Slip Slidin' Away" (1977)

4.  "Graceland" (1986)

5.  "America" (1968)

6.  "Hearts and Bones" (1983)

Senator Obama's Berlin Speech; Also, "The Dark Knight"

REGARDING SENATOR OBAMA'S BERLIN SPEECH...

I believe that Senator Obama's dual objectives of looking impressive in a foreign setting (which projects American power and personal gravitas, two elements that could help him politically at home) while not pandering to some of the prevailing European political stances to which many independent American voters may take some exception (which would surely hurt his chances of shedding the lingering "overly liberal" and "elitist" tags the Republicans are working hard to make permanent) created a situation in which his Berlin speech was destined to be heavy on platitudes and light on specifics.

It was therefore clearly meant to be a "mood" speech, with soaring rhetoric allied to a less insistent tone than he would use on the campaign trail back home; Europeans are often (if not always) far more suspicious than Americans of such rhetoric when it is married to grandiose rising and falling vocal pitch, due partly to the fact that Americans are far more romantic in their overall and political mindsets than people in, say, Germany and many other European countries. (The British also tend to prefer more straight-forward deliveries, though they would also remove a lot of the American-romantic platitudes that such people as Ronald Reagan excelled in, and that Barack Obama has used to his advantage, as well.)

However, Berlin, of course, is a city steeped in rich recent history, as it was for many years the East/West fulcrum of the Cold War, at least insofar as European geography is concerned. It also looks so very different from when I was there in 2001, when the Brandenburg Gate was under construction, as was much of the area around it. Then, much of East Berlin still looked crumbly-arthritic; by my next visit in 2003, however, much of that dilapidated look had disappeared, and I have it on good authority that it looks very different in 2008 than it did just a few years ago. Though Senator Obama spoke publicly in the West of the city, which I've always found overwhelming and impressive in real life, the undercurrent of rapid development and change the city has displayed in a general sense since the fall of the Berlin Wall creates an equally frenetic and uniquely romantic feel.

So it is entirely appropriate that Senator Obama used the type of rhetoric that he did, and it also is entirely appropriate that he toned down his pitch and intonation. (After all, one might very well suggest that the history of the place, and the events about which he spoke, provide their own pitch and intonation; anything on top of that might be too superfluous and too over-the-top to be taken seriously by a European realist mindset.) And it's right that he directed much of his speech to citizens the world over, as well, because like London, Toronto, and New York City, Berlin is a magnet for people from all over the globe; it is a very international place. (When I speak to folks in Berlin in my very rusty German, they often reply to me in English, sometimes because they are German and realize that I am not, but often because they are foreigners for whom English is their native language, or foreigners who speak another native language but find it easier to communicate to fellow foreigners in English, which is a sort of stand-in lingua franca in many such scenarios.)

Yet given the electoral tightrope (described above) that Senator Obama needed to walk today, his speech was destined to sound nice but often unspecific, encouraging but not very particular. It was bound to be a bit of a fluff piece, which it was, and yet it was an important fluff piece when one considers the general sense of transatlantic cooperation and solidarity it suggested, which contrasts starkly with the sense that many Europeans (and many Americans, for that matter) have of President Bush as far as his European policies are concerned. If, like me, you believe that political "mood music" was the most important aspect of the speech--both for Americans and Europeans--it was a success. If you were looking for details, it most likely came across as being flat and ineffective.

Yet the first order of international business for Senator Obama, outside of the more immediate Middle East scenario, is, as I see it, setting a tone indicating that he is hopeful but not naieve, resolved yet cooperative, open-minded but no pushover. That's a tough thing to do, and doing it with consistency will take time. In today's Berlin speech, he took another step toward achieving that tone, and for that reason it was a successful speech, and a successful day, for him.

Europe, of course, is not nearly as politically and culturally homogenius as is the United States (which, of course, is itself not homogenius on those fronts), so now we'll see how the often internationally ambitious French accept him, and how he fares with British reticence.

REGARDING 'THE DARK KNIGHT'...

There is a scene in the new film "The Dark Knight" in which The Joker, played by the late Heath Ledger, meets unexpectedly with leaders of Gotham's major organized crime groups in a boiler room, or a kitchen, or some such place. Prior to showing them a series of grenades strapped to the inside of his jacket, he manages to intimidate them through his odd vocal mannerisms and sharp, discomfiting wit, both of which are used in a creepily intelligent manner to place the room under his spell, at least for a while. It's the best scene in the film because it crystallizes what those of us who have long admired Mr. Ledger's acting skills knew he could accomplish given a unique, smart script, and it highlights what a singular talent he was and, for the duration of time that the film runs on the screen, still is.

It's a testament to Mr. Ledger's performance (which should be nominated for an Oscar, by the way) that I was left rueing the fact that the scene finished when it did--I could have watched it go on for another half hour, plot be damned--even though watching The Joker perform his freakish magic is a nightmarish experience. It's also a testament to his performance that the film lost a little steam (for me, at least) in its final third, when his on-screen time was reduced due to the vast amount of explosions the filmmakers felt we needed to witness as a "climax." (The real filmmaking "climax" was probably the slower, more layered first two-thirds of the film, which was intriguing and almost enveloping.)

Maggie Gyllenhaal also turns in a strong performance, replacing Katie Holmes's doe-eyed yet serious mindset (no bad thing) from "Batman Begins" with more depth and a knowing sense of intelligence. That she is able to do this is indicative of the consistent and considerable, if often subtle, sense of personal gravity she possesses, particularly when one takes into account the often thankless lines she must deliver ("...oh, Bruce...."). It was a treat to see her on screen at the same time as Mr. Ledger, even if the most immediate example of this to pop into my mind involved the archaic damsel-in-distress/hostage-taking moment.

U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy is involved in that particular scene, too; he seems genuinely perplexed by The Joker when he is very nearly roughed-up by him. At that moment, Mr. Leahy seems as though he's trying to figure out just how intelligent the character, or the actor playing the character, really is. I'd err on the side of "highly intelligent indeed" as far as the actor is concerned. It's a very sad thing that we won't get to see him engage his personal aesthetic mania in any future films.

Elwyn Tinklenberg, Barack Obama, John McCain, Iraq, and Afghanistan

ELWYN TINKLENBERG JULY 21 FUNDRAISER RE-CAP: THE TIDE MAY BE TURNING IN HIS FAVOR

I attended the Elwyn Tinklenberg fundraising reception in Minneapolis yesterday (July 21), and I must report that the sheer amount of people at the event was impressive. Also impressive was the following statement, made by Mr. Tinklenberg himself: "The Saint Cloud Chamber of Commerce has declined to endorse Representative Bachmann this year. They endorsed her two years ago."

Saint Cloud is a vital city when it comes to the electoral chances of U.S. congressional hopefuls in Minnesota's Sixth District. This comes on the heels of the announcement by the Independence Party that they have decided to endorse Mr. Tinklenberg (they ran their own candidate in 2006). Slowly but surely--and rather impressively--Mr. Tinklenberg is doing a good job of positioning himself for a possible November win in the often conservative-leaning district. For what it's worth, I support enthusiastically his candidacy.

REGARDING HIS POTENTIAL COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF STATUS AS IT RELATES TO THE IRAQ WAR, SENATOR OBAMA GETS RIGHT WHAT PRESIDENT BUSH GETS WRONG

At a Middle East press conference today, Senator Obama gave another strong indication that he has a firm grasp of the complexities that come as a matter of course (and that need to be factored in to most big military decisions) when one is Commander-in-Chief of the United States military. When confronted with the Bush-esque option of making decisions based nearly solely on what military commanders request, Senator Obama said the following:

"The notion is either I do what my military commanders want me to do, or I'm ignorning their advice. No, I'm factoring in their advice."

This would seem to be a reasonable way to deal with many types of executive decisions, including those related to the Iraq scenario, but it comes as a wonderful breath of fresh air after the overly-simplistic, responsibility-shirking manner in which President Bush has handled the occupation of Iraq, which has been to suggest that he will listen to his commanders on the ground and then provide them with just about everything they request.

President Bush's idea of how to handle the situation might seem like a sound one at first, but it falls apart upon further examination, since it is the natural tendency of the military commanders on the ground to request more resources for the job at hand (as it would be for leaders of just about any extension of the government). It is therefore the responsibility of the president to listen to their advice, listen to the advice of the cabinet, listen to the advice of other foreign policy experts, weigh in economic factors at home and abroad, and then, given the various angles from which it must be viewed, develop a well-rounded strategy for dealing with the Iraq scenario.

During the press conference, Senator Obama made it clear that this more-inclusive way of looking at the situation is the view he takes. This is to suggest that he is placing the Iraq scenario in the grander context of overarching U.S. foreign policy, as well as the internal U.S. economic situation and assorted other big contexts. His visit to the region, and his meeting with military commanders and military forces there, also indicates that, yes, he will look at the micro-scenario (and not just the macro one), as well. Yet as the potential future chief executive of the United States, he cannot simply view the matter in the simplistic, blanket-manner that President Bush prefers to utilize.

Senator Obama is right about wanting to reduce significantly the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq in order to create incentives for the Iraqis to undertake their own security concerns in a more rapid manner. He is also right about wanting to leave behind a far smaller but necessary amount of residual U.S. personnel for a while, in order to coordinate security matters and further train Iraqi security forces. Now it's time to see whether or not a majority of the American public agrees with him, which is to suggest that it's time to see whether or not a majority of the American public can grasp the importance of both removing a large percentage of our forces from Iraq over the next few years and leaving a smaller group of residual forces in the country for a while.

Senator Obama is rightly viewing this as a complex issue, and his policy is therefore more nuanced than is President Bush's (and it's also more nuanced than Senator McCain's, for that matter); it would allow the U.S. to redouble efforts in Afghanistan, which is a necessity and has been for quite some time, without simply waving goodbye to Iraq and leaving its future completely up in the air. In formulating his policy, Senator Obama is examining a number of necessary issues that President Bush has preferred not to deal with, given that President Bush's has been a mindset which has been to his country's internal and external detriment. Senator Obama is trying to smarten-up future U.S. policies, and it's now up to many American voters--particularly the fully pro-Iraq-war and fully anti-Iraq-war individuals who refuse to alter their stances in order to take into account the reality of the scenario--to smarten-up, too.

I'm not a fan of the Iraq War, but Senator Joe Biden was right when he suggested that how the U.S. removes itself from Iraq is as important as the fact that the U.S. removes itself from Iraq. Senator Obama has an increasingly-full grasp of this idea, and his recent articulation of possible future policy stances as well as his responses to reporters' questions reflect that. These are big reasons why his trip overseas has thus far been a success.

IN THEIR AFGHANISTAN STANCES, WE CAN SEE THE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN THE VIEWPOINTS OF SENATORS McCAIN AND OBAMA AS THEY RELATE TO THE WORD "SUCCESS"

Senator McCain, in his article "Time for an Afghan Surge," and Senator Obama, in his article "Refocusing on the Central Front," articulate their stances on the continually-tricky situation in Afghanistan in manners that provide interesting insights into their mindsets regarding U.S. policy toward the region. (These articles were published in TIME magazine's July 28, 2008 issue.) It is my belief that, upon analyzing both what they say and how they articulate it in these articles, Senator Obama comes across as having the better-informed reading of how to deal with Afghanistan over the next few years.

Early on in his article, Senator McCain repeats a line he's uttered many times on the presidential campaign trail this summer: "Senator Barack Obama believes we can't win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq." This is telling, because it suggests that Senator McCain believes the removal of the vast majority of U.S. troops from Iraq in a relatively quick manner would indicate "losing" the Iraq War. This is a very traditional way of viewing war, applicable to wars fought between two standing military forces (like, say, the Allied Powers and the Axis Powers during World War II), but far more difficult to apply to a war in which one standing military force (the U.S.) pulverized the other (the Iraqi military) early on; since then, the issue has been one of insurgency, not one in which the official armies of two or more countries are continuing to square off against one another. Hence, the definition of "success" needs to necessarily shift a bit to take into account the lack of two sides who fight each other via similar methods and through similar paradigms.

Senator Obama, in his article, seems to grasp the issue a bit more clearly when he states the following: "My first order as Commander in Chief will be to end the war in Iraq and refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and our broader security interests." Already we see Senator Obama pulling-back from the arena of Iraq and viewing it in the broader contexts of national security and foreign policy priority-setting. He continues by saying, "Let me be clear--my plan would not abandon Iraq. It is in our strategic interest to maintain a residual force that will go after al-Qaeda, train Iraqi security forces and protect U.S. interests. But we must recognize that the central front in the war on terror is not in Iraq, and it never was. The central front is in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

I believe that Senator Obama is viewing the war on international terror in a way that would not see the U.S. get bogged-down with non-applicable readings of "success" (certainly not as much as it is at present, at least), an indication of which is his suggestion that the necessary war is to be fought in the region in and around Afghanistan; that was the war that much of the world supported when we first undertook it, that was the region from which al-Qaeda was based when it launched its attack on the U.S. in 2001, and that is the unfinished business that needs to be attended to most urgently (while of course ensuring that Iraq does not fall completely to pieces, as well, which Senator Obama also deals with in the above statement).

Senator McCain says the following regarding troop strength in Afghanistan: "Our commanders in Afghanistan say they need at least three additional brigades. I will ensure they get the troops they need by asking NATO to send more and sending U.S. troops as they become available." This is what Senator Obama says about the same issue: "I will send at least two combat brigades to Afghanistan and use this commitment to seek greater contributions--with fewer restrictions--from NATO allies."

Senator Obama's method of extracting increased support from NATO allies is far more incentive-oriented, which is the right way of going about the situation, given that many NATO countries have been grumbling about sending more troops to Afghanistan, not on the basis of believing it is a bad cause, but rather on the basis that the U.S. could also significantly bolter its forces in Afghanistan if it weren't bogged-down in Iraq. The British public, for instance, is justifiably angry that their troops are being pulled out of Iraq only to largely be inserted into Afghanistan in very dangerous areas, such as Helmand Province, where U.S. troop presence is sparce due to the Iraq War.

If, on the other hand, U.S. troop presence in such places were reinforced, the heads of NATO countries would feel less heat from their voting public regarding their important roles in Afghanistan. We can argue about it all we want; the fact is that this is reality, and therefore Senator Obama's suggestion of creating incentives to encourage further NATO participation is the best way to alleviate pressure on allied governments and achieve the desired results. Iraq has been a major distraction that has been detrimental in the process of achieving these results.

Senator Obama also "gets it" when he suggests that increasing aid to the region is one important element in achieving success: "...I would also increase our nonmilitary aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must demand better performance from the Afghan government through tough anticorruption safeguards on aid."

Yes. The farmers of the region are very poor, and the war has in many cases increased the already-dire levels of their poverty, so aid is a major method of achieving success. When combined with safeguards (and it can be a powerful inducement towards curbing corruption if one dangles a billion dollars in front of a poor country but necessarily links that aid with anticorruption policies), money can help to stabilize a region by changing the attitudes that the occupied peoples have if it is used for positive economic development that impacts everyday life in the region.

It is perhaps telling that, in his article, Senator McCain failed to mention the role of aid in solving the Afghanistan crisis.

Elwyn Tinklenberg Fundraising Event, July 21; Justin Morneau for American League Most Valuable Player; William Brock Agrees With Hasslington

HASSLINGTON TO ATTEND AN ELWYN TINKLENBERG FUNDRAISING RECEPTION (IN MINNEAPOLIS ON JULY 21)

I plan on attending a fundraising reception for Democrat Elwyn Tinklenberg--who is running for the U.S. House of Representatives seat in Minnesota's Sixth District against incumbent Republican Michelle Bachman--to be held on Monday, July 21, at the office of Vance Opperman in Minneapolis, Minnesota. With endorsements from both the Democratic Party and the Independence Party, "El" will have a fair chance at winning that particular seat, which will be a good thing for two reasons: first, he is a strong, knowledgeable candidate; second, Representiative Bachmann has increasingly tacked to the right wing of her party, which is not exactly indicative of the politically independent views of the majority of people living in the Sixth District. (Though I do not reside in Minnesota's Sixth District, I met "El" in April, found him to be an impressive individual, and endorsed him on this website shortly thereafter.)

The event will be held at 8:30 a.m., which is admittedly early, but it will allow folks with day jobs to attend at least some of the event and still work half or even the majority of their hours during the day. Mr. Opperman's office is located in the Key Investment Office at 225 South 6th Street, Suite 5200, and the event will be co-hosted by Congressmen Jim Oberstar and Tim Walz. I know it's short notice, but if any Hasslington readers are able to attend, I'd love to meet you. If not, I certainly understand, and please keep in touch regarding similar events.

ANOTHER HASSLINGTON BASEBALL PREDICTION (OR PERHAPS JUST WISH): JUSTIN MORNEAU FOR MVP

After yesterday's game at the Metrodome (today's is just starting), the Minnesota Twins improved to 55 wins and 42 losses on the season. Not too long ago they were a few games below .500; now they are thirteen games above that mark and a half-game out of first place in the American League Central Division. A lot of players have contributed to the Twins' recent success--among them the superb young Alexi Casilla, the suddenly red-hot Delmon Young, the always-consistent Joe Mauer, and the entire pitching staff--but no one has meant more to that team than first baseman Justin Morneau, who is currently batting .325 and has driven in 73 runs thus far (he's in the top three or so in the American League in both categories). No one is complaining about the fact that he has hit "only" 15 home runs, particularly since he has been intentionally walked to an almost alarming extent of late, and when he isn't intentionally walked, pitchers are at least making sure never to put the ball in his wheelhouse (so to speak), because they know it would almost guarantee him a double to the outfield gap, if not a home run. Hence, they're staying away from pitching him inside (unless it's to bust him way inside), and he is therefore sending a lot of his hits to the opposite field. Tony Oliva once said of his success, "I hit the ball all over." Justin Morneau is doing the same thing, and as such has become a complete hitter.

I know that the Rangers have a certain Mr. Hamilton who seems to do nothing but drive in runs (he has an incredible 95 so far this season), so winning this year's MVP award will be a difficult thing for Mr. Morneau to achieve, but at this point the Rangers are struggling to put a playoff run together. The Twins, on the other hand.... Thus, a strong case can and should be made that, if the Twins make the playoffs, Justin Morneau deserves this year's American League MVP Award, which would be his second (he won it, and deservedly so, in 2006). Now I just have to hope the Twins can pull a playoff berth out of their collective hat again this year.

Hasslington Baseball Predictions Review:
--AL batting title: Joe Mauer (Minnesota Twins). So far, he's batting over .320 and is still very much in the race.
--NL batting title: Lance Berkman (Houston Astros). So far, he's batting over .340 and is still very much in the race.
--AL MVP: Justin Morneau (Minnesota Twins). So far, he's batting over .320 and has driven in 73 runs, and his team is a surprising playoff contender, so he's still very much in the race.
--NL MVP: Is Lance Berkman's team good enough? Will Albert Pujols have enough at-bats to pump-up his power numbers? Will Chipper Jones's Atlanta Braves make the playoffs? Will Prince Fielder go on a tear and help his team make the playoffs? Will someone else emerge? You're going to have to give me a bit more time on this one....

WHAT WILLIAM BROCK, LEADER OF THE NEW COMMISSION ON THE SKILLS OF THE AMERICAN WORKFORCE, SAYS OF THE STATE OF EDUCATION TODAY

Hasslington, from a recent (June) post titled "Learning and Teaching Today": "...[The situation in teaching today is one in which] so very few teachers...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 areas of study...." *

* Note: I most certainly did not blame teachers alone for this scenario (I am a teacher, after all); rather, I stated what I perceive to be a problem with American education today, and then gave what I see to be various reasons, working in concert with one another, why this is the case.

William Brock (in Parade Magazine's July 6, 2008 issue): "We need the very best among us to become teachers, and we need to ensure that standardized tests of rote knowledge don't drive education away from the very things that have made America special: critical thinking, creativity, innovation, and teamwork."

Regarding Mr. Brock's comments, one of the ways one might teach lifelong critical thinking, creativity, and innovation skills (and, to a certain extent, teamwork) to students is by teaching in such a manner that the teacher constantly utilizes her or his own critical thinking skills. This can be done through the application of creativity and innovation (and team-building skills) in the classroom, which, when focused on the task at hand in different, thought-provoking, and sometimes surprising ways, can inspire even the most reluctant students to learn both objective knowledge and subjective innovation skills.

The way that such a scenario might just occur is if nearly all teachers are not simply automaton-esque individuals who are comfortable only with rote, "rubric"-driven methods of teaching, but rather intellectually curious individuals for whom learning is an adventure. The best and the brightest thinkers--people who seem to get high off of finding connections between ideas and applying Socratic thinking methods to their daily lives--need to be teachers; they can inspire students to reach for their own individual stars, too.

In August, Senator Obama Should Announce That He Will Ask Governor Richardson To Be His Secretary Of State

Senator Obama needs a foreign-policy expert as his Vice Presidential running mate, and it would help if that person were also a well-connected, highly-respected Washington insider, considering that Senator Obama has spent only a few years in the U.S. Senate (though it should be pointed out that he has spent many more years in politics in general). I believe that the best person for that particular job is Senator Joe Biden (followed by, say, Senator Evan Bayh and perhaps former Senator Sam Nunn).

Yet just as important as the Vice Presidential position is that of Secretary of State, at least to my mind. This is because the Secretary of State has it as his or her job description to travel the world and engage in high-level diplomacy, both in front of and (especially) behind the cameras. With nearly every aspect of domestic policy affected by foreign policy these days, the role of U.S. Secretary of State, which has always been high-profile in nature, has actually increased in importance over the past few years. If Senator Obama becomes the next president--and, yes, it is a big "if" at this point--I believe that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson should be the next U.S. Secretary of State. He is experienced, tough, fair, and he certainly knows the diplomatic playing field. In fact, Senator Obama should announce that he will ask Bill Richardson to be his Secretary of State, should he be elected U.S. President, and he should make this announcement right around the time he announces the name of his running mate (which will most likely take place in August).

Why should he announce it early? First of all, it would be a compelling factor in getting Governor Richardson to accept the post. Secondly, Governor Richardson's background will impress independent voters as being well-suited to taking on the role of Secretary of State. Such an announcement would be electorally-helpful with many of those folks and also with many Hispanic voters (whose votes Senator Obama has struggled to win, at least in the primary process). It would help Senator Obama make the argument that his will be an experienced, diverse, and proactive administration.

Here are some of the things that Senator Obama should say (in his own words, of course) regarding Governor Richardson, should he take my advice regarding making the governor his future Secretary of State:

1.) Governor Richardson has excelled at an impressive number of high-profile government jobs--in the legislative branch (a multiple-term member of the U.S. House of Representatives), the executive branch (a multiple-term state governor), the federal bureaucracy (U.S. Energy Secretary under President Clinton), and the international realm (U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations during the Clinton Administration). Thus, he not only understands how the various branches of the U.S. government (and world governments) coordinate in an academic sense, but in a hands-on sense, as well, so he would be immediately prepared to help his boss communicate and coordinate U.S. foreign policy shifts/alterations both with foreign governments and inside the U.S. government. This should not be understated, since behind-the-scenes communication at various levels is obviously a major part of the Secretary of State's role.

2.) Governor Richardson has held both a semi-cabinet role (U.S. Ambassador) and a full cabinet role (Energy Secretary) in a previous presidential administration (the Clinton Administration). This bolsters his gravitas with a potential new Obama cabinet, which in turn enhances his ability to coordinate with other cabinet appointees as needed, and direct that coordination as appropriate.

3.) Governor Richardson has been an on-going international hostage negotiator for many years now, and he knows that hostage negotiations can either be resolved rather quickly or go on for what seems like an endless period of time...or anything in between. He's dealt with the frustration of negotiations that have had to be started over due to circumstances out of anyone's control, missteps on the part of any given party, or other events that intervene and overshadow the ongoing negotiations. It is therefore the case that he has learned how to be flexible when need be, inflexible when the scenario calls for it, patient or insistent, etc.; he's learned how to avoid blanket readings of situations, instead focusing on reading each scenario according to its individual components and acting according to those components.

4.) Governor Richardson has the respect of leaders worldwide, including some of the most troublesome, ruthless ones. For instance, he grew to be a popular member of the United Nations, which allowed him to make necessary professional connections with both friendly and not-so-friendly governments around the world; this helped other countries to understand U.S. policies better, so as to counteract resentment stemming from confusion. It also helped him (and by extension the Clinton Administration) establish a tough-but-fair world policy without being automatically disliked for it; that is, the U.S. could throw its weight around when necessary, without being nearly universally loathed for doing so.

5.) Speaking of dealing with not-so-friendly governments, Governor Richardson has also entered into tough negotiations with difficult leaders--such as Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, the North Korean regime led by Kim Jong Il, and, of late, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Over time, his success rate insofar as achieving particular U.S. goals with such difficult leaders has been impressive. (This may be why even the current U.S. president has very quietly used him occasionally for behind-the-scenes government talks, particularly regarding the North Korean scenario, which, it should be pointed out, is at this point looking like one of the few successes of the Bush years....)

6.) By all reports, Governor Richardson's open-and-honest, what-you-see-is-what-you-get public persona remains intact behind the scenes, but added to it is a worldly, intelligent toughness that lets people know that the U.S. will not be bullied by anyone. Off-setting this toughness is the fact that he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize five times (including this past year), and he has negotiated successfully with dangerous guerrilla groups in order to ensure peace for innocent civilians in several locations throughout the globe, which has won the respect of the local peoples as well as their admiration, which translates to admiration for the United States.

7.) Governor Richardson is intimidated by no one, which is exemplified by the fact that he often insists on meeting foreign leaders on their turf, and, if he has been asked in a manner that will not be used for propaganda purposes, he will meet them at just about any time of their choosing. When he meets them he is respectful and often open-minded, but he can be demanding if the scenario calls for it. Yet even when he is demanding, he is not petulant about it, but rather serious about laying out the various reasons why being demanding is at that point necessary.

8.) Governor Richardson speaks three languages fluently--English, Spanish, and (suprising to even some of his staffers when he first used it in public) French. Being multi-lingual is a real selling-point for a Secretary of State in an increasingly-globalized world; obviously, English is still the most widely-spoken diplomatic language, but a mastery of several languages instills respect amongst diplomatic peers.

9.) Like all politicians--like all people, really--Governor Richardson has made tactical mistakes in his professional career, and, given his wide professional resume', he has learned from those mistakes in order to avoid making them in the future. This is to say that he is highly unlikely to make mistakes based on inexperience regarding the job at hand, because his various jobs have often focused on the very same things--or at least very similar things--that a Secretary of State must do on a daily basis. He is primed and ready for it.

10.) As U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Governor Richardson spent a majority of time dealing with the delicate situation in the Middle East, most of it (though not all of it) centered on Iraq. He knows the cultures and power players in the region, and just as importantly, he knows their motivations. He also knows that perception means everything in that region (even more than elsewhere in the world), so he would be prepared to thread the needle in that he could carry out tough diplomacy, which is demanded at home, while allowing Middle Eastern leaders to save face with their people, as well. Hence, progress can be achieved due to favorable conditions for all involved. It would be difficult to achieve, but such a scenario would be "win-win" in nature, and, given time, he could pull it off in a few critical cases.

And let's not forget this, as well: he works hard, very hard. We need a hard-working, experienced, worldly Secretary of State who is not hamstrung by Bush-esque policies. That individual is Bill Richardson.

These Days, Young People Seem To Have An Increasing Interest In Politics. Thank Goodness For That.

The July 12-18 issue of The Economist magazine featured an article titled "My Country, 'Tis Of Thee" that centers on, among other things, emerging trends regarding young voters (in their late-teens and twenties) that at this point seem to be rather encouraging in nature. Before I comment on the article, however, I will provide a couple of the paragraphs that most interested me. Here they are:

"Researchers have found that, by nearly every indicator, Americans' 'civic engagement' declined dramatically in the last three decades of the 20th century. A smaller share of Americans voted, joined civic-minded clubs, attended public meetings or volunteered on a campaign. After September 11th volunteering and some other measures of civic engagement shot up, but that now seems to be reversing....

"Still, Robert Putnam, a Harvard professor whose article 'Bowling Alone' first raised the alarm back in 1995, argues that the generation of Americans currently in their teens and 20s--more deeply affected than their elders by the terrorist attacks--will be the most engaged in their communities since the famous 'greatest generation' of Americans who fought in Europe and then oversaw the prosperity that followed the second world war. Decades long trends are shifting: youth voter turnout has increased in the last three election cycles, the first time that has happened since 18-year-olds were admitted to the franchise. Studies have shown that college students are more interested in talking about and taking part in politics than their counterparts in the 1990s. If the primary campaign was any indication, in the autumn young foot soldiers will not only turn out to vote in large numbers but will also volunteer in droves."

I was one of those university "counterparts in the 1990s" (I'm in my thirties now), and, as a sometime university lecturer in the late 2000s, I can attest to the turnaround in political energy when one compares the present crop of university students to the crop to which I belonged. (I'm obviously speaking in general terms.) For instance, what struck me as I taught university students in the autumn of 2007--one year prior to the general election of 2008--versus when I attended university during, say, the autumn of 1995--one year prior to the general election of 1996--was the level of interest on the part of the students regarding the electoral process in general and the forthcoming presidential campaign in particular. I do not teach political science or political theory (I've primarily taught English in the past), and yet my university students peppered me with questions regarding who I planned to support in the then-forthcoming primary process (it was Governor Bill Richardson at the time, and, since he dropped-out in January of 2008, it has been Senator Barack Obama).

These questions were often rather general to start with, but the more tentatively I answered them, the more pointed they became. In point of fact, I found that a discussion of just about any piece of literature, whether the work was "current" in nature or a bit more of a "relic" from the past, could be counted on to eventually steer toward the issue of politics (though it took some discussions far longer to get there than others). Despite my intense interest in national and international political trends, I found that it was actually the students who steered the discussion toward the political realm about 90% of the time; if and when the discussion wound its way to the forthcoming presidential election, it was again my students who kept the dicussion on that particular topic about 90% of the time.

I should probably take this opportunity to say that I (sometimes) teach at a university that is not at all known for its political activism, and, if anything, the majority of students there (if not a big majority) are known to lean a bit more to the American political right than the American political left, though it's of course the case that the school features students from all across the political spectrum. But that's the point: I found that my students were interested in placing themselves along political spectrums--often several different political spectrums at once, due to their interests in a variety of political topics and issues--though they were often not interested in being "chained" to those spectrums; they were intrigued by politics in general (particularly national and international politics) and often considered themselves independent-enough thinkers to avoid buying wholesale into any one blanket political ideology.

They certainly managed to get me to discuss some of my political views, though I of course told them that I do not give out final grades based on political ideology, but rather based on hard work, consistency, and improvement (particularly in the areas of writing and argument-construction). Perhaps this caveat helped them to feel better about sharing their personal views of political topics, but I somewhat surprisingly got the sense that, for the most part, they would have shared their political views regardless. This was increasingly the case as each semester went by during the first chunk of time I taught at that particular university, between 2002 and 2004, but after moving to England and then moving back to the United States in the late summer of 2007--and teaching at the same university--I noticed that the scenario had accelerated mightily in the several years I had been away.

This is, to my mind, a good scenario, but then again I am someone who was interested in national and international politics when I was at a similar university in the mid-1990s, and I struggled to find folks who had anything but a passing interest such topics. Though I majored in English, I took many Political Science and History classes, and my "Comparative World Politics" class, which was taught by a wonderfully-informed, worldly professor, was one of the best classes I took as an undergraduate student. It was also nearly-empty; though there were spaces for upwards of thirty-five or, at a push, forty students, only ten of us signed-up for it. Of those ten, only about four of us were particularly interested in the material (though we all thought the professor brought the material to life in an engaging manner). In my "History of the Middle East" class, which featured closer to twenty-five students (again, there were spaces for forty students), less than half of us were particularly engaged in the material, despite the fact that the professor, originally from the United States, had lived in the Middle East for several years and had only recently returned to his native country; his lectures were filled with information and anecdotal extrapolation, and I found them almost uniformly superb.

I joined two political clubs--both quite briefly--during my undergraduate years. The first one was the College Republicans, which I must admit I joined because their brochure found its way into my mailbox prior to the College Democrats' brochure finding its way there. (I thought I'd reward their industry and efficiency.) I didn't particularly think of myself as a Republican at the time (obviously, I still don't), but I went to several meetings regardless, which featured an average of about fifteen students, only to find the conversations and plans for political activism awfully limp and so general as to apply to just about any group outside of, say, the College Communists. So I quit the College Republicans in order to join the College Democrats, who had slightly fewer members but in all other respects eerily resembled the College Republicans. My stay in their ranks was similarly brief.

There were politically-active, politically-intrigued university students--at my university and at others--during the 1990s, and had I motivated myself to a greater extent, perhaps I could have helped some of them found a serious political organization. I didn't motivate myself to do that, however, and instead followed national and international politics closely in a solo, cerebral manner alone. (I used to drive my college roommate crazy by watching coverage of the run-up to the 1997 British general election when it was on cable television for a few months, which I believe was broadcast only during the very early morning hours each Tuesday.)

Yet the problem with that era was that too many people were comfortable engaging in politics like I did--in an internal manner alone--the various reasons for which are infinitely interesting as well as topics for a different but probably equally-important conversation, perhaps to be had another time. There is nothing wrong, and probably everything right, with critical, internal engagement in politics, but the point is that such engagement was often an end in and of itself. (It certainly was for me.) These days, however, something that I consider rather special is happening in that an increasing number of students are not settling for esoteric engagement in politics alone (again, the reasons for which are fascinating, but too layered and intricate to fit in this blog-post), but are rather demanding that the internal be brought into the external realm; they are demanding that politics be discussed openly and in many settings, and that the connections between politics and various aspects of life in general (and academic subjects in particular) be explored.

Good for them. I demand of these increasing numbers of politically-active American university students (and their slightly older peers in their 20s) only one thing: increase the intensity of your demands that the discussion of politics be brought into the public realm more often, and continue to do so in a manner that draws distinctions between differing political persuasions without demonizing any but the most draconian political groups. Also, do all of this with the understanding that the U.S. political system was set-up to accomodate differing viewpoints but also to force a certain amount of political compromise (which, contrary to popular belief, is not always a bad word) between these various groups.

Above all, my goodness, don't be as afraid as I was to be outwardly politically-active. And please do something that took me a while to learn how to do: if someone calls you a "nerd" for caring about politics, embrace the term. As far as I'm concerned, we need far more folks like you in this world than we have at present.

Various Notions, Volume 8: The Mac Trashes Hasslington's Day; The Best But Not Inevitable; Thoreau Weighs In

SENATOR McCAIN DENIES HASSLINGTON A POLITICS-FREE AFTERNOON

File the following few paragraphs under the "You Just Can't Avoid U.S. Presidential Politics Right Now" category:

My English in-laws are presently in town. On Thursday afternoon, I was in the Lake Nokomis area of southern Minneapolis with them, attempting (for a few hours at least) to avoid thinking about politics, when one of them, prompted by the sound of an engine overhead, looked into the sky and, as though struck by a celestial vision or suddenly confronted by what seemed to be a UFO (however you wish to see it), pointed upward and exclaimed, "John McCain!"

We were quite close to the Minneapolis/Saint Paul International Airport, so, though Senator McCain was expected in town that day, I assumed that the individual in question was simply suffering from slightly-delayed jet lag and thought that a nearby plane looked "official" and perhaps "impressive," and therefore one of the two presidential candidates might...just might...be onboard. (It is, after all, a long flight across the Atlantic, which can sometimes do odd things to one's head, and, at any rate, much of Europe is very interested in the U.S. presidential election process this time around, so the fact that a presidential candidate might be in town is quite an exciting one for them.)

Out of curiosity and, I'm sure, due to the fact that whenever anyone exclaims something and points into the sky one feels the need to at least look upward (it must be a human self-preservation response; you don't want to be hit on the head by anything from above...), I looked up to see that, yes, the words "John McCain" were painted as big as life along the side of the presumptive Republican nominee's campaign plane, which was coming in for a landing and was not too far above our heads. (We were a few blocks from the airfield.)

Politics naturally became the topic of conversation for an hour or so afterward--my in-laws, like many folks from the Old World, are big Obama fans at present--which was just fine with me, except I couldn't help but rather ruefully regret having my non-political afternoon end shortly and so abruptly after it had begun. It's the principle of the matter that counts, you see.

On another (nearly completely unrelated) note, if this scenario is trend-setting, I cannot wait to see what odd politically-themed things happen when my Aussie friend Travis is in town in early August....

"JB" AND "SP": THEY'RE THE BEST CHOICES, IN MY OPINION, BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE INEVITABLE ONES

A friend and I were discussing my endorsements for both the Democratic and Republican Vice Presidential running mate slots when, in the course of our conversation, it dawned on me that some people use endorsements as a sort off hedge between who they think should be selected for a particular position and who they think will be selected for that position. For instance, someone might not necessarily think that Hillary Clinton is the "right choice" to be Senator Obama's running mate, but they might think that she is nonetheless going to be chosen by Senator Obama to be his running mate, and therefore that person might endorse her in order to avoid being "wrong" after the choice is announced later this summer. (Though it's off-topic, for the record, I do not at present think that she will be selected to be Senator Obama's running mate.)

That way of viewing the endorsement process is perhaps clever, but, given its hedging-nature, it is also perhaps too cute by half. At any rate, that's not how I view the endorsement process. I endorse who I think will make the best fit for a given position. For instance, I endorsed Governor Bill Richardson for President on his official website last summer and, when he dropped-out of the nomination race (and given that Senator Biden had also dropped out by that point), I endorsed Senator Barack Obama on his official site. (I started the Hasslington blog-site this past April.) I chose those individuals because I felt that they were the best candidates for the job at the time and given the choices, not because I thought they were going to win their party's nomination.

That is why I have endorsed, for instance, Senator Joe Biden for the role of Senator Obama's running mate: he fulfills several necessary Vice Presidential "aspects"--for lack of a better term--for Senator Obama, and he would be ready immediately to step into the role of President if need be. (If you want more particulars, please see my endorsement of Senator Biden in my July 5 post.) It is also why I have endorsed Governor Sarah Palin to be Senator McCain's running mate (see my July 8 post).

If, say, Senator Clinton had won her party's nomination, and, say, Governor Romney had won his party's nomination, I may have selected two different running mates. But whether I would have selected different running mates or not, I would have done so on the same basis--in order to fulfill needs, shortfalls, and other various "aspects" that arise given the strengths and weaknesses of the individual each party nominated for President.

So, no, I do not think Senator Biden and Governor Palin are inevitable running mates for Senators Obama and McCain, and they may not even be the ones who have the best chances of being asked to fill those important roles (though they both must surely be rather high on the various lists, so to speak). I do, however, feel that, given their own professional qualities and backgrounds, and given the two individuals selected to be the nominees of the two major parties, they are the best choices to fill those roles. (I also continue to think that Governor Richardson would make a spectacular Secretary of State for a potential Obama Administration.) Hence, I have endorsed them.

I have also been asked which of them is "more likely" to be selected as a running mate...if only one or the other were to be selected. I dislike such questions, but I viewed this one as a challenge when it was put to me a few days ago. I've gone back and forth on this, and my answer at present is (still) a tentative one, but in the interests of speculation, and given the necessity for Senator Obama to pick an experienced politician with solid foreign policy credentials, I say this: Joe Biden is slightly more likely to be asked to be Senator Obama's running mate than Sarah Palin is to be asked to be Senator McCain's running mate. (Senator McCain probably does need a younger, female running mate, but it is not the necessity that an experienced, foreign-policy expert running mate is for Senator Obama.)

VOTE THOREAU

The nation-wide political pandering has begun but by no means is it over; awful ideas like the Senator Clinton/Senator McCain gas tax holiday (which George W. Bush would be unlikely to sign into law anyway--which is a good thing, even if in his case it would be done for the wrong reasons) may very well be expanded upon to include even more transparently-expedient non-ideas prior to election day in November, at both the congressional and presidential levels, as well as at the state and local levels. (Let's hope not, but let's plan for it to happen.)

Pandering, from both the political right and the left, is like selling the populace used cars that don't work but have a nice, shiny new paint job--it's like selling sparkling lemons to the masses. With this in mind I will provide you with one of my favorite quotations, from Henry David Thoreau, for whom one can substitute baskets for cars:

"...instead of studying how to make it worth men's while to buy my baskets, I studied rather how to avoid the necessity of selling them."

Politicians being who and what they are, we may or may not get much opportunity to vote for individuals who are in the business of studying how to avoid the necessity of pandering this year, as has been the case in most (if not all) previous years. Hence, it's up to voters to demand that we not be pandered to for the purposes of political expediency, and the only way we can do that is if we smarten up and tell our potential leaders that we will not buy their "baskets" unless doing so is absolutely necessary.

Many politicians will not be happy to hear such a declaration, and they might be even less happy if we carry through with it, but if he were still (amazingly) around in 2008 Mr. Thoreau would breathe a sigh of relief if such a mindset came to pass, even if only for small groups of committed people. So my hope for 2008 is that politicians, especially (but not exclusively) at the national level, sense that the voting public is serious this time around, and by and large come up with substantive, realistic plans to tackle our nation's problems, while shelving the generic sloganeering for another time. They can start by junking the gas tax holiday idea.

U.S. Domestic Oil Policy: The Other Message We Could, And Should, Send

Senator John McCain and many of his supporters have been suggesting of late that accelerating domestic oil production (including off-shore drilling) will "send a message" to the various world markets that the U.S. is ready to take control of its oil production, the offshoot of which is that domestic oil supply will increase, which will therefore decrease prices at the domestic gas pump. That may occur, though the "message" will not be followed by actual substantial increases in oil output from domestic sources--particularly off-shore drilling ones--for years, which would suggest that short-term benefits will be a bit illusory and perhaps less beneficial to those requiring gasoline than one might expect.

There is, however, another message that such a ramped-up scenario would send, and it would be sent in a loud-and-clear manner throughout the world (and the various major world markets). That other message would be this: the United States is committed to retaining (and perhaps even expanding upon) an oil-reliant economy for decades to come. Domestic or not, oil will remain king insofar as transportation (of people, goods, services, and the like) and some assorted other energy uses are concerned.

The Iranian government, meanwhile, is this week bragging about developing missiles that can obliterate just about any target in Israel and reach just about every Middle East U.S. military base; they're sabre rattling with a vengeance, and ratcheting-up their dangerous game of "chicken" with Israel and the West.

The Russian government, for its part, is continuing to bully several of its European neighbors with its newfound oil wealth; threats of cutting off the oil to certain Russian neighbors have sometimes been followed-through on, with devestating results, in recent years, and, intoxicated with the clout its oil wealth has created of late, Russia invaded British airspace with its (admittedly) aged planes just last year for the first time in a long time.

Venezuela's President Chavez has been working for some time now to use his country's oil money to, among other things, buy decommissioned Soviet-era nuclear submarines in order to restore them and challenge the U.S. in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea; though it has come to nothing yet, it could happen, which could snowball into the development of better-equipped nuclear submarine technology sometime in the future. (The initial submarines, if purchased and put to use, are likely to be a bit of a joke, but a second-generation of submarines may not necessarily be.)

I'm not suggesting that the U.S. has been buying oil from places like Iran and Russia in bulk (though Venezuela is approximately our fifth-largest oil supplier, according to various recent estimates), but the U.S. economy is a monsterously large, trend-setting machine. I'm not particularly sure how many Americans who have not lived and worked outside of the U.S. realize how influential our economy is beyond what they hear in the news--please let it suffice to say that it is still the world's largest and most powerful economy by far (yes, China and India, as well as the European Union, Russia, and Brazil will continue to rise and compete in increasing levels of intensity with the U.S. in the coming decades, but for now the U.S. is still the world's most influential economy).

Indeed, the U.S. economy is watched as closely by people and governments abroad as it is here at home, for obvious reasons (one small example amongst many: several of my British friends are suddenly having trouble selling their homes due to a market bust that began in the U.S., despite the fact that, comparatively speaking, Britain is a very crowded country with a housing shortage that has until recently benefitted homeowners and/or homesellers to extraordinary levels...). Our economy sets worldwide economic trends--it can no longer dictate its wishes to much of the rest of the world, but it is still the case that where the U.S. economy goes, so too does much of the developed and developing world.

Given our influence (and market trend-setting powers), reaffirming U.S. commitment to an oil-reliant domestic economy benefits increasingly petro-authoritarian states such as Venezuela, Iran, Russia, as well as others, regardless of whether or not we actually purchase oil in large quantities (or at all) from those countries. If we "send the message" that we'll increase drilling production over the long-term (and by definition an increase in domestic oil production is necessarily a long-term undertaking), large swaths of both the developed and developing world will follow suit and increase their oil demands. If we don't buy Iranian or Russian oil (or oil from other increasingly worrisome regimes), someone else surely will--just like they are at present, except in increasing quantities. This will provide more money to petro-authoritarian states, which will in turn strengthen their clout on the global stage. It's a simple case of cause-and-effect.

If, on the other hand, we affirm a different commitment, one whose core principle is that, yes, oil will be an energy source here and abroad for quite some time to come, but we are committed to decreasing its share of the energy marketplace in the United States dramatically over the next decade and beyond, it would send another message to the world markets. That message would be this: the U.S. is going to use its inherent creativity and innovation, in concert with the industrious nature of its population, to chart a new course altogether, one that sees renewable sources of energy (wind, solar, ethanol-less biomass, geothermal, hydro-electric, tidal, and, yes, nuclear power) as the wave of the future and the basis of a healthy, sustainable economy. This message would state clearly that the U.S. is going to shake itself free of its oil obsession and create strong and diverse energy companies in markets where oil companies once ruled the roost. It would imply strongly that the U.S. is going to lead in a different way.

That latter, alternative message will not be easy to bring about in a tangible way, given that oil has served developed and developing nations very well for quite some time now, and given that it means that the price of oil will not be encouraged to drop through increased domestic production, at least not until it becomes only one amongst many very influential sources of domestic energy. It means that our present pain at the pump will continue for some time; an Apollo-style energy transformation plan needs to be implemented nationwide (hopefully through, among other things, market incentives to alternative energy providers); and people need to be more conscientious users of energy in the meantime.

But such a message would send shivers down the spines of rising petro-authoritarian states, as well, because much of the world still looks to the United States for future economic trends and incorporates sizeable portions of U.S. economic policies into their own economic strategies (by both necessity and design). If the U.S., in concert with its European allies and other countries around the world, were to deal aggressively with its (and their) oil addiction, much of the rest of the world, including a surprising percentage of the developing world, would follow suit, if not all at once. Money would not cease being transferred to petro-authoritarian regimes, but the overall amount would lessen bit by bit, as would both the domestic and worldwide powers of persuasion of these regimes.

Drilling at home does affect balance of power issues worldwide, which in turn affects our standing and political leverage worldwide. Increased domestic oil production, though seemingly sensible, is, in my opinion, a mistake in the long run. Now let's see if we take the long-term view in the coming months and years, or if instead we surrender to present emotional and political expediency. Much of the rest of the world is rising economically, which means that they are rising in influence, too; the U.S. will remain a very powerful nation, but it will not always have the overwhelming influence that it has at present. Thus, the U.S. must seize the opportunity to wrest rising levels of influence away from some of the more authoritarian oil-producting countries by setting a new domestic (and therefore quite international) energy agenda, and we must do it while we are still the trend-setters.

Another Hasslington V.P. Endorsement (This Time For The Opposition); Also, Governor Pawlenty Fires A Crowd Up Into A Lull

GOVERNOR PAWLENTY MOTIVATES A CROWD TO DAYDREAM IN TRADEMARKED MANNERS

I caught about twenty minutes of a speech, dealing with both his support for Senator McCain's candidacy and the present and future states of the G.O.P., delivered recently by Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty to a gathering of Republicans in Connecticut. (Governor Pawlenty is often considered a possible running mate for Senator McCain.) As a resident of Minnesota, I viewed the speech (which was broadcast on C-Span) with interest, and I was surprised at how consistent that speech was when set alongside the speeches he gives in Minnesota. This is not to suggest that I was wholly satisfied with it, however.

The speech was wide-ranging but maddenly vague, like a commencement speech in which the person delivering it provides all the right gestures at generally appropriate moments, but ran out of time in the preparation process when it came to fleshing-out his chosen broad themes with necessary particulars. This, to a great extent, is the common complaint lodged against a lot of politicians (many of whom have had quite successful careers), but with Governor Pawlenty the "homespun" vibe seems to be an end in and of itself, to the point where he hedges nearly everything--in the speech, he spoke about the need for his party to stay true to its traditional principles, but also to be inclusive in a modern, big-tent sort of way; how exactly his party should do both was left out of the speech entirely. He urged his party to take a page out of Ronald Reagan's playbook but, other than President Reagan's era-specific brand of optimism (which President Kennedy also possessed, if in a manner more specific to his particular era, as, for that matter, does Senator Obama), he did not point to what pages (or even chapters) exactly should be most focused on.

There was a bizarre, almost Mayberry-esque section of the speech in which he correctly stated that Minnesota, though called "The Land of 10,000 Lakes," actually has something closer to 15,000 lakes; he moved into the notion of Midwestern modesty after stating this, which could have gone somewhere, but seemed instead to dissipate into something too general to sink one's teeth into. (I can't even remember what it was.) He also told a few short stories of growing up in Minnesota--his "Minnesota" seems to be set squarely in the middle of Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon (though Mr. Keillor himself is unlikely to vote for someone like Mr. Pawlenty). This he then transitioned in an oddly-effective manner towards a discussion of rather traditional conservative values, but he lost the map after that--he can't (or won't) link these values up with anything but the fuzziest, most general future policies.

There were moments when I was genuinely interested in his East Coast crowd's reactions: they seemed to love the Midwestern-themed "homespun" stuff, perhaps because it's far enough removed from their own experiences for them to embrace in an ethereal, dainty sort of way; most Upper-Midwesterners would wonder, as Gertrude Stein would have put it, why there was "no there there," why everything seemed to be just a bit too inauthentic to believe. Like, say, Tony Blair for Britons, Tim Pawlenty strikes a lot of Upper Midwesterners as being from nowhere in particular, and at the same time he seems to be from just about everywhere. This can be effective, and--who knows?--it might be quietly, unenthusiastically, unenergetically effective on a national stage, where grand gestures are the first and last ports of call in national addresses (and a lot of ports in between).

Yet American voters are souring to the Rembrant-glow overkill of late, and, surly as it may be to say it, I applaud the apparent furthering of that souring process. That's probably because the United States of America is indeed an idea (and a very important one), which by definition often lacks a tangible component, but it is also a very real place--it is both a state of mind and a state of actual being, and until relatively recently we've been caught in a decade-long, extended, fuzzy, society-wide daydream. Personal and social dreams are important--my goodness, are they ever--but they need to be made of more than what is often little more than an invitation to feel-good absorption into inactivity. They need substance, which means, among other things, that they need authenticity. I applaud our recent demands for authenticity, and I demand more of it from all of us, which means that we will demand it--really demand it--in increasing levels of intensity from our leaders.

Governor Pawlenty looks as though he could step directly onto the pages of a Hardy Boy's book as is (he could play the role of Mr. Hardy, at least for the cover art). His political speeches often convey this put-together quality. He's so outwardly, generically ingenuous that you can't hate the guy--personally, I find it impossible to hate him, and I can't bring myself to dislike him, either. I am, however, often annoyed by his lack of any sort of edge whatsoever, because it seems to indicate that he is a product of pure social- and commerical-construction, with little or no individual awareness. I think that's the ultimate American paradox at present, at least politically-speaking: the party that says it nearly always errs on the side of the "individual" over, well, anything and everything except oil companies, is suddenly churning out colorless, pre-packaged automatons--the generically-ingratiating Tim Pawlentys; the disingenuous, "American Dad" Mitt Romneys--that seem to have "Five-year-plan: keep people lulled into general conversations at home" stamped onto their foreheads in invisible ink. It's almost an organized strategy to lull voters into apathy...if an organic, not-necessarily-planned one.

There was a point near the end of Governor Pawlenty's speech when he carried on a bit with his trademarked "homespun" quips (he even suddenly dropped the "-g" he generally uses at the end of certain words, which, for the purposes of making us all think we are modern-day pioneers, became "hopin'" and "tryin'" and the like), at which point his eyes seemed to unfocus a little. The governor seemed to be carried internally away by his own prepackaged, not-particularly-accurate harkening back to days of yore (as it were). I half expected him to lift off of the ground and levitate for an instant above the podium, before floating away toward a non-specific, mythical Midwestern ether.

The crowd cheered fairly heartily. Yet they didn't seem to be cheering the governor so much as cheering themselves for somehow managing to be carried away with him.

SENATOR McCAIN SHOULD SELECT GOVERNOR PALIN TO BE HIS VICE PRESIDENTIAL RUNNING MATE

I'm a Barack Obama supporter, but in the interests of equalizing my endorsements, and because I am intrigued by this potential pairing (though I would vote for Senator Obama in any case), I endorse Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be Senator McCain's running mate. He should add her to his presidential ticket at some point later in the summer.

With the national Republican Party radioactive at present, Senator McCain needs to add a "wow"-element to his campaign in order to stop the Democratic advance (that advance alone, more than its presidential candidate's qualities, might help Senator Obama to a November victory), and he is most likely not going to provide it himself, given the stolid, hand-slash-heavy speeches he seems resigned to give on the campaign trail. Governor Palin would provide that "wow"-element, and she would not be a fluffy, cosmetic addition, but rather a strategic, thoughtful one.

Why? Here are a few reasons:

* Let's get this one out of the way up front: she is young (she turned forty just a few years ago) and female (that would put a lot of pressure on Senator Obama and his running mate insofar as the votes of politically-independent women are concerned). The G.O.P. has been in desperate shortage of generally conservative, young national female leaders for quite some time now, and they generally (if not always) do less well than the Democrats with women voters in presidential races. Selecting Governor Palin could help rectify (at least to a certain extent) such problems. That she is physically attractive will also not hurt the ticket's chances with male voters.

* She's wildly popular in her home state of Alaska, with approval ratings remaining above 80% for well over a year now. Do not giggle at this fact, for polls suggest that traditionally-conservative Alaska is wavering right now between Senator McCain and Senator Obama (Senator McCain has a very slight edge at present). Though the state is likely to go to Senator McCain in November, he will not wish to fly all the way there late in the campaign process in order to secure it's potentially crucial 3 electoral votes. Governor Palin has earned her popularity, by the way, having dealt with a few tricky corruption issues left over by her predecessor with decisiveness and vigor, and she is rated highly by constituents insofar as other areas of running a state government are concerned.

* She is a wife and mother with a young family, as well as an avid sportswoman who is a strong supporter of gun rights, all of which will help with conservatives. She is also pro-life, another winner with conservatives. But she is also generally pro-gay rights (though she is against gay marriage, she has signed some expansions of benefits to gay partners into law, and she did it rather enthusiastically) and a big supporter of finding ways to cut down on greenhouse gasses (she has let it be known that the Alaskan legislature should help her take steps towards that end), which will appeal to independent voters and some rather moderate Democrats.

* She has cut funding for a lot of construction projects in Alaska that she suggests are an unnecessary use of taxpayer dollars; this viewpoint dovetails nicely with Senator McCain's "anti-pork" viewpoint.

* She's still relatively new on the scene and has little foreign policy experience, but Senator McCain has been around for a long time and can claim to "cover" those angles as she learns them on the job. She's an outsider (way outside, given the geography of her homestate) and a chief executive (Senator McCain has never been a chief executive) who has worked her way up the political ladder (she was a mayor, then a leader of mayors, and now a governor).

* As a Westerner, she could help defend some traditionally-conservative, now politically-wavering Western states.

* Adding a fairly young woman to a Republican presidential ticket could prove electrifying, in a positive sense, for the G.O.P., and not just at the presidential level, but perhaps the congressional one, as well.

Hasslington V.P. Endorsement: Senator Obama Should Select Senator Biden To Be His Running Mate; Also, Have A Happy (Belated) Birthday, U.S.A.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, U.S.A.

First of all, I'd like to wish my home country, the United States of America--which turned 232 years old yesterday, July 4--a very happy birthday. Mrs. Hasslington and I celebrated the day by lounging on the shores of historic White Bear Lake (written about by, amongst many others, Mark Twain), which is located several miles northeast of Saint Paul, Minnesota. She snapped a few pictures of her first ever Independence Day fireworks display (which took place over the lake), which was odd as it is representative of the U.S. getting pummeled by her country's military forces, but that was quite some time ago, so.... Prior to that, we embodied the July 4th stereotype of "Americans Gorging" by eating way too much grilled food (salmon this year, not steak or chicken). Well, okay, I ate too much food; she did not. (I suppose I could claim that I was using the "royal we" just there, though that would be an admittedly weak excuse for having been overzealously inclusive....)

REGARDING SENATOR OBAMA'S RUNNING MATE CHOICES: I'M SIDIN' WITH BIDEN

I maintain that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson would make a wonderful Secretary of State, should Senator Obama be elected president. (His resume' has Secretary of State written all over it.) I endorse him for that position. I also maintain that U.S. Senator Joe Biden (of Delaware) would be a tremendously strong running mate, so much so that I endorse him for the position. I've written about his (and other people's) qualifications for the job several times in the past few months, so I'll keep my re-hashing of those qualifications to a minimum here. (Yeah, right....)

Let it suffice to say that Senator Biden is a foreign policy expert (he has been a long-standing member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which he presently chairs) who understands the complexities involved in international relations; Senator Obama is understandably weak on foreign relations experience (though his international world view, partly due to his background, is strong--he understands the role the U.S. must play in a rapidly changing world very well indeed), so selecting Biden would help him insofar as that's concerned. Senator Biden is also superb in debate scenarios--he's a happy attack dog who manages to use "big words" on a frequent basis, while simultaneously appealing to blue collar voters with his tenacity and consistency at the podium. Mixed with some truly amusing "quips," he's a master of debate craft whose only stumbling point is that his conviction can slide into a sort of ueber-intensity that resembles anger from time to time (it's not anger, but it can be confused with it at times).

Senator Biden has oodles of Washington experience, which could be leveraged to allow Senator Obama to carry on with his personal "outsider" message (it's the ultimate "balanced" ticket, in that sense). He is in his mid-sixties (which offsets Senator Obama's relative youth); he's a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee (which would help in arguing against the sort of legal shenanigans perpetuated by the Bush Administration); he's Catholic (Senator Obama lost the Catholic primary vote rather heavily to Senator Clinton in several key "swing states," so Senator Biden could help win a certain percentage of them over to an Obama-led ticket); he is one of the main authors of the "Violence Against Women Act" (which stiffened penalties against individuals who commit violent crimes against women--that might help win back some of Senator Clinton's more fervent supporters); and, simply put, he looks the part of a "Founding Father" (his face seems as though it should be on a dollar bill). He also understands how presidents become successful and maintain success (he's served in the national legislature during the tenures of seven presidents), and he therefore knows what to do in order to avoid being unsuccessful, so he could guide a potential President Obama through some of the minutae of the job, handling some of it on his own so that a President Obama could focus on the "big picture" issues.

It's said that Senator Biden's mouth has a tendency to go on and on...and on some more. That's sometimes true, but if he can be a bit on the "windbag" side of things from time to time, it's nonetheless the case that the things he carries on talking about--Bush Administration failures, both at home and abroad; a more proper use of our soft and hard power insofar as foreign policy leverage is concerned; balancing out the various sources of energy we use so that the U.S. can wiggle out of the grip of foreign oil conglomerates; how to "right" the economic ship through the combination of a more balanced foreign policy and more sustainable overall domestic policy--are by-and-large the types of things that most concern Americans right now.

Joe Biden could very easily transition from Vice President to President if something tragic were to occur, which is important given the fact that the first consideration for anyone picking a running mate ought to be whether that person can almost seamlessly transition to the top slot if need be. At the risk of this defense of Senator Biden sounding like a testimonial to him, I assert that he is whip-smart, experienced at the national and international levels, compelling to various types of voters, and prepared for the role of either Vice President or President "from day one," as the saying goes.

There are a lot of potentially strong running mates for Senator Obama, but Senator Joe Biden is the strongest of the bunch. Later this summer, Senator Obama ought to select him for the role. That would make for a very strong, very balanced ticket indeed.

Patriotism: My View; Senator McCain's View; Senator Obama's View

I've never really been a fan of the word "patriotism." To me, it is very commercial--not only here in the U.S., but in other countries I've visited, as well--and it therefore has a tendency, when left fuzzy-around-the-edges and ungrounded in specifics, to invite folks to turn off their brains, put a flag pin on their lapel, and think that makes them "good people." The notion of what in the act of doing that culturally-motivated activity makes them "good" seems to float away with the breeze because the in-built "feel-good" aspect of patriotism trumps the specific, historical reasons why we ought to appreciate our country (and those reasons most certainly ought not be reduced to talking about wars and voting, though those are two of the many aspects we ought to appreciate).

Patriotism also has a tendency to morph into an ugly brand of nationalism--it tends to morph into jingoism. When combined with commercialism, this scenario suggests that questioning the decisions of one's leaders is, at times, "unpatriotic," which I consider quite dangerous in certain instances, such as our country's odd, zombie-like march toward the present Iraq War. In that instance, specific reasons why the necessary war in Afghanistan ought to be augmented by another, more questionable war in Iraq were not demanded--at least not by most Americans--because the country was caught in a mind-numbingly commercial, pseudo-"patriotic" vortex in which "Support Our Troops" became synonymous with "Support the Iraq War." A lot of us were high on "patriotism," but the real patriots, as far as I'm concerned, were our troops, as well as those individuals who found specific, precise (and not general, emotion-fueled) reasons for or against our involvement in Iraq, and spoke out about it.

To me, "patriotism" is a good word if and only if it means that one appreciates the past of one's home country--which means both the glorious triumphs and the bad stumbles of that country--and applies this appreciation to the present, while planning for the future. (In order to appreciate one's country, one must understand all of its overarching history, and not simply cherry-pick generic slogans, such as "freedom," which is so general it could mean anything, and "Support Our Troops," which is a commercial construct that means several things, among which actually supporting our troops is far, far down the list.) A "patriot" is someone who praises his or her country if and when its leaders (and people) act in intelligent ways that further that country's founding ideals, and criticizes his or her country if and when its leaders (and/or people) act in ways contrary to this notion.

A patriot, therefore, not only accepts certain good qualities of his or her country, but demands that flabby, unthinking, unconscientious maneuvers--whether on the part of the country's leaders or people or both--be attended to in ways that, from a U.S. perspective, help us to form a "more perfect union." (One must, of course, recognize that perfection is an impossibility, but that does not preclude becoming "more perfect," which often means "less disingenuous" than at any given time.) It is therefore the case that blind allegiance to a particular administration's viewpoints, or to culturally-motivated commercial trends, or to what the Joneses are doing down the block, is not a display of patriotism; in fact, it is a display of the exact opposite--it's an intellectually lazy display of anti-patriotism on the part of people who have been duped into thinking that they don't need to examine more closely what it is they are pledging allegiance to (whether they know it or not).

In the interests of celebrating our nation's 232nd birthday (July 4th, 1776 to July 4th, 2008), I will now provide short articles (printed in TIME magazine's July 7, 2008 issue) on the meaning of patriotism from both Senator McCain and Senator Obama. Though I admire portions of Senator McCain's article, I prefer Senator Obama's, because he grounds his sense of American history with an analysis of a very specific, concrete international example, whereas Senator McCain tends to pile on the American romanticism, which I suppose is okay, but grounds it only in generalized lists ("...the Little League, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the Salvation Army..."). This may or may not have the unintended side-effect of making what he says a bit overly-generic, which might invite people to circumvent the necessary critical examination of what American "patriotism" really means. If anything, we need critical examination of our country (both positive and negative) now more than ever.

Here are the short TIME magazine articles:

"A Cause Greater Than Self," by John McCain

Patriotism means more than holding your hand over your heart during the national anthem. It means more than walking into a voting booth every two or four years and pulling a lever. Patriotism is a love and a duty, a love of country expressed in good citizenship.

Patriotism and the citizenship it requires should motivate the conduct of public officials, but it also thrives in the communal spaces where government is absent, anywhere Americans come together to govern their lives and their communities — in families, churches, synagogues, museums, symphonies, the Little League, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the Salvation Army or the VFW. They are the habits and institutions that preserve democracy. They are the ways, small and large, we come together as one country, indivisible, with freedom and justice for all. They are the responsible exercise of freedom and are indispensable to the proper functioning of a democracy. Patriotism is countless acts of love, kindness and courage that have no witness or heraldry and are especially commendable because they are unrecorded.

The patriot must not just accept, but in his or her own way protect the ideals that gave birth to our country: to stand against injustice and for the rights of all and not just one's own interests. The patriot honors the duties, the loyalties, the inspirations and the habits of mind that bind us together as Americans.

We are the heirs and caretakers of freedom — a blessing preserved with the blood of heroes down through the ages. One cannot go to Arlington Cemetery and see name upon name, grave upon grave, row upon row, without being deeply moved by the sacrifice made by those young men and women.

And those of us who live in this time, who are the beneficiaries of their sacrifice, must do our smaller and less dangerous part to protect what they gave everything to defend, lest we lose our own love of liberty.

Love of country is another way of saying love of your fellow countrymen — a truth I learned a long time ago in a country very different from ours. Patriotism is another way of saying service to a cause greater than self-interest.

If you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you are disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. I hope more Americans would consider enlisting in our armed forces. I hope more would consider running for public office or working in federal, state and local governments. But there are many public causes where your service can make our country a stronger, better one than we inherited.

The good citizen and patriot knows happiness is greater than comfort, more sublime than pleasure. The cynical and indifferent know not what they miss. For their mistake is an impediment not only to our progress as a civilization but to their happiness as individuals.

"A Faith in Simple Dreams," by Barack Obama

When I was a child, I lived overseas for a time with my mother. And one of my earliest memories is of her reading to me the first lines of the Declaration of Independence, explaining how its ideas applied to every American, black and white and brown alike. She taught me that those words, and the words of the United States Constitution, protected us from the brutal injustices we witnessed other people suffer during those years abroad.

I've been reminded of this recently as I've followed the brutal injustice surrounding Zimbabwe's so-called elections. For weeks, the opposition party and its supporters have been silently hunted, tortured and killed. They have been dragged from their homes in the middle of the night and strangled while their children watched. The wife of a newly elected mayor was so badly beaten that her own brother only recognized her by the skirt she wore on the day she was killed. Even voters suspected of disloyalty to the President have been herded together and thrashed for hours, all for the simple crime of casting their ballot.

We are a nation of strong and varied convictions and beliefs. We argue and debate our differences vigorously and often. But when all is said and done, we still come together as one people and pledge our allegiance not just to a place on a map or a certain leader but to the words my mother read to me years ago: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That is the true genius of America — a faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles. It's the idea that we can tuck in our children at night and know that they are fed and clothed and safe from harm; that we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door; that we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe; that we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution; and that our votes will be counted.

For me, it is the love and defense of these ideals that constitutes the true meaning of patriotism. They are ideals that do not belong to any particular party or group of people but call each of us to service and sacrifice for the sake of our common good.

I write this knowing that if previous generations had not taken up this call, I would not be where I am today. As a young man of mixed race, without a firm anchor in any community, without even a father's steadying hand, this essential American ideal — that our destinies are not written before we are born — has defined my life. And it is the source of my profound love for this country: because with a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya, I know that stories like mine could only happen in America.