SENATORS McCAIN AND OBAMA SELECT AS THEIR RUNNING MATES THE INDIVIDUALS HASSLINGTON ENDORSED IN EARLY JULY
We did it, Hasslington readers! In my July 5 Hasslington post, I endorsed U.S. Senator Joe Biden to be Senator Obama's running mate. In my July 8 post, I endorsed Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be Senator McCain's running mate.
And I would be remiss if I did not announce that my readers also endorsed both of these running mates in this month's Hasslington Vice Presidential Running Mate Polls (which are now closed). Senator Biden won 48% of the votes in the Democratic poll, and Governor Palin won 34% of the votes in the Republican poll. We hit the nail on the head, folks.
Here are the full results of the Hasslington Republican Vice Presidential Running Mate Poll. (The full results of the Hasslington Democratic Running Mate Poll were posted a week ago.)
Hasslington Republican Vice Presidential Running Mate Poll Final Results (out of 50 total votes):
Sarah Palin received 17 votes (34% of the total)
Mitt Romney received 7 votes (14%)
Joe Lieberman received 6 votes (12%)
Tom Ridge received 3 votes (6%)
Jeb Bush, Mick Huckabee, Condoleeza Rice, and Olympia Snowe received two votes apiece. Eric Cantor, Carly Fiorina, Rudy Giuliani, Chuck Hagel, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, John Thune, and (Someone Else) received one vote apiece.
The reasoning behind this pick is obvious. Senator McCain needs a "Wow!" element if he is to overcome the re-energized Obama wave, and he needs to siphon off some of Hillary Clinton's supporters to his cause. I am an Obama supporter, but if Sarah Palin makes a good impression from the start, this will prove to be a close election indeed. If she stumbles early, the election won't be close at all. We'll have to wait and see, but, given her speech today, she seems to be off to a solid start.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Hasslington's Notes On The Final Day Of The 2008 Democratic National Convention
"We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other nations far away. We have learned that we must live as men, not as ostriches, not as dogs in the manger.
"We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community.
"We have learned the simple truth, as Emerson said, that 'The only way to have a friend is to be one.'"
--Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Inauguration Day; January 20, 1945)
THURSDAY, AUGUST 28
Al Gore used to seem like someone who could have been (and probably should have been) the President of the United States. Listening to him speak tonight, however, I got the strange sense that he indeed is our current president, and it's just that we American citizens, through an odd and relatively sad twist of fate, somehow accidentally and collectively slipped through a galactic wormhole a few presidential elections ago that forced us into a more fraught and intellectually lazy alternate universe. As a result of this odd occurrence, George W. Bush became president. In this context, Mr. Gore tonight reminded us that in America--the real America, wherever it might be at present--things are fine because America has done what it normally does in that it has adapted well to a changing world, and, after seven-plus years of wandering in a sort of wilderness, its people will finally have the opportunity to choose whether or not to step back into that better reality this November.
Obviously, the above paragraph was metaphorical in nature, and some of it was exaggerated in order to make a point. But I am not being metaphorical or facetious when I suggest that later in the evening, a younger, inspiring gentleman of mixed ethnicity took to the stage for just under an hour and sounded a lot like a strong future president. I don't think I need to mention his name for most folks to know to whom I'm referring.
I will mention, however, that yet another gentleman of another era from another country, Mr. Winston Churchill (whose mother was an American), once suggested that what makes the United States so singularly unique is that unlike most other places "...America always eventually gets it right." The two questions this begs is when that "eventually" will happen and what form it will take. One way or the other, given our national government's current chief executive team, the vast majority of us can surely agree that we don't have it right at the moment. In fact, we don't have it right by a long shot.
"We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community.
"We have learned the simple truth, as Emerson said, that 'The only way to have a friend is to be one.'"
--Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Inauguration Day; January 20, 1945)
THURSDAY, AUGUST 28
Al Gore used to seem like someone who could have been (and probably should have been) the President of the United States. Listening to him speak tonight, however, I got the strange sense that he indeed is our current president, and it's just that we American citizens, through an odd and relatively sad twist of fate, somehow accidentally and collectively slipped through a galactic wormhole a few presidential elections ago that forced us into a more fraught and intellectually lazy alternate universe. As a result of this odd occurrence, George W. Bush became president. In this context, Mr. Gore tonight reminded us that in America--the real America, wherever it might be at present--things are fine because America has done what it normally does in that it has adapted well to a changing world, and, after seven-plus years of wandering in a sort of wilderness, its people will finally have the opportunity to choose whether or not to step back into that better reality this November.
Obviously, the above paragraph was metaphorical in nature, and some of it was exaggerated in order to make a point. But I am not being metaphorical or facetious when I suggest that later in the evening, a younger, inspiring gentleman of mixed ethnicity took to the stage for just under an hour and sounded a lot like a strong future president. I don't think I need to mention his name for most folks to know to whom I'm referring.
I will mention, however, that yet another gentleman of another era from another country, Mr. Winston Churchill (whose mother was an American), once suggested that what makes the United States so singularly unique is that unlike most other places "...America always eventually gets it right." The two questions this begs is when that "eventually" will happen and what form it will take. One way or the other, given our national government's current chief executive team, the vast majority of us can surely agree that we don't have it right at the moment. In fact, we don't have it right by a long shot.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Hasslington's Notes On The Third Day Of The 2008 Democratic National Convention
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27
REGARDING UNDERSTANDING AND APPLYING HISTORY VERSUS LIVING IN IT....
"We need a president who is not wedded to twentieth century thinking."
With the above statement, Madeleine Albright finally said what I and many others have been writing for quite some time regarding the alarming lack of forward-oriented, innovative thinking present in the United States right now versus ten or twenty or thirty or...(fill in the blank)...years ago.
This lack of forward thinking is on full display with the Republican "let's-double-down-on-oil-and-drill-drill-drill" energy plan, which sounds like disgruntled candlemakers of the 1800s who didn't want to try "that weird new electricity thing" must have sounded. Such old, twentieth-century thinking is flabby and outdated, and it is simply not innovative enough to keep the U.S.--which not too long ago accomplished the seemingly "weird" objective of putting a man on the moon--as the number one innovative machine well into this new, different century in this rapidly shifting world.
We're at our best when we're on the cutting edge of things. Many places in the rest of the world--China, the European Union, Russia, etc.--are not just creeping up on us economically, scientifically, and with regards to political leverage. Several of them are already squarely in our rear-view mirror. Hence, regarding transportation, energy, and so forth, it's time for the United States to innovate on a mass societal scale in a short period of time again, and it's time for a leader with solid judgment and, as former President Bill Clinton said tonight, the "curiosity and intelligence" that every successful president possesses to rally us to this cause. I think that both Senator McCain and Senator Obama are good men, but Senator McCain views the world through a twentieth-century lens, whereas Senator Obama strikes me as someone who understands twentieth-century history and is willing to apply its lessons to a different, newer world in necessarily different and pragmatic ways.
You either adapt and innovate as a country, or you recede. There really is no stasis; there really is no "holding pattern" or "time out"--such ideas are a myth at both the national and global levels. And one thing is always true of those who innovate--they're intellectually curious folks. They believe, as Abraham Lincoln once said, that "...my friend is anyone who gives me a book I have not yet read." We need intelligent, constantly curious leadership that challenges us to be intelligent, too. (I'm sure some people find that last statement rather annoying, which is sad.) We need folks who will challenge us to read what we haven't yet read, and create what we don't now have. Senator McCain is a fine fellow, I'm sure, but he's just not innovative enough for my taste to keep us on the cutting edge.
REGARDING SENATOR BIDEN'S SPEECH....
Regarding Senator Joe Biden, you're probably tired of me writing (sometimes endlessly) about him of late. So I'll just say this, in the context of the speech he gave tonight: it showed his intelligence and authenticity, as well as his expertise and his conviction. It also offered a not insubstantial amount of bloodied fishing chum (John McCain's lack of good judgment) for the sharks (voters) to chew up.
Selecting Senator Biden to be his running mate was not just a good decision on the part of Senator Obama. It was a great decision.
REGARDING UNDERSTANDING AND APPLYING HISTORY VERSUS LIVING IN IT....
"We need a president who is not wedded to twentieth century thinking."
With the above statement, Madeleine Albright finally said what I and many others have been writing for quite some time regarding the alarming lack of forward-oriented, innovative thinking present in the United States right now versus ten or twenty or thirty or...(fill in the blank)...years ago.
This lack of forward thinking is on full display with the Republican "let's-double-down-on-oil-and-drill-drill-drill" energy plan, which sounds like disgruntled candlemakers of the 1800s who didn't want to try "that weird new electricity thing" must have sounded. Such old, twentieth-century thinking is flabby and outdated, and it is simply not innovative enough to keep the U.S.--which not too long ago accomplished the seemingly "weird" objective of putting a man on the moon--as the number one innovative machine well into this new, different century in this rapidly shifting world.
We're at our best when we're on the cutting edge of things. Many places in the rest of the world--China, the European Union, Russia, etc.--are not just creeping up on us economically, scientifically, and with regards to political leverage. Several of them are already squarely in our rear-view mirror. Hence, regarding transportation, energy, and so forth, it's time for the United States to innovate on a mass societal scale in a short period of time again, and it's time for a leader with solid judgment and, as former President Bill Clinton said tonight, the "curiosity and intelligence" that every successful president possesses to rally us to this cause. I think that both Senator McCain and Senator Obama are good men, but Senator McCain views the world through a twentieth-century lens, whereas Senator Obama strikes me as someone who understands twentieth-century history and is willing to apply its lessons to a different, newer world in necessarily different and pragmatic ways.
You either adapt and innovate as a country, or you recede. There really is no stasis; there really is no "holding pattern" or "time out"--such ideas are a myth at both the national and global levels. And one thing is always true of those who innovate--they're intellectually curious folks. They believe, as Abraham Lincoln once said, that "...my friend is anyone who gives me a book I have not yet read." We need intelligent, constantly curious leadership that challenges us to be intelligent, too. (I'm sure some people find that last statement rather annoying, which is sad.) We need folks who will challenge us to read what we haven't yet read, and create what we don't now have. Senator McCain is a fine fellow, I'm sure, but he's just not innovative enough for my taste to keep us on the cutting edge.
REGARDING SENATOR BIDEN'S SPEECH....
Regarding Senator Joe Biden, you're probably tired of me writing (sometimes endlessly) about him of late. So I'll just say this, in the context of the speech he gave tonight: it showed his intelligence and authenticity, as well as his expertise and his conviction. It also offered a not insubstantial amount of bloodied fishing chum (John McCain's lack of good judgment) for the sharks (voters) to chew up.
Selecting Senator Biden to be his running mate was not just a good decision on the part of Senator Obama. It was a great decision.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Hasslington's Notes On The First Two Days Of The 2008 Democratic National Convention
MONDAY, AUGUST 25
U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat -- Massachusetts)
Senator Ted Kennedy gave a "normal" Ted Kennedy-esque speech, which is to say that it was rousing and workmanlike, as well as energizing (if not particularly rhetorically sound). The inspirational aspect of his time on stage can be found not in what he said but in the fact that he was even able to say it and that he did it so well, given his health troubles. (He seemed to tire only in the final quarter-or-so of the speech, before rebounding well for the finish.) It also helped his performance that, up until the point he took the stage, the Democratic Convention had been alarmingly unfocused, ham-handed, and just plain boring.
Prior to his speech, I was beginning to wonder if anyone knew how to actually and convincingly deliver a speech anymore, or if everyone has collectively decided to give in to the lazy and depressing idea that reading something off of a tele-prompter in a wooden manner constitutes delivering a speech. They're two very different things, folks, and they're many miles from each other, metaphorically speaking. Just watch Senator Kennedy's speech and compare him to Representative Pelosi's earlier exercise in verbal tedium (or anyone speaking at the podium prior to Senator Kennedy, for that matter) if you want to understand the difference.
Many literary traditions speak of old, accomplished men at the end of their careers and/or lives as being "lions in winter." Tonight, Senator Kennedy proved that he is still a political lion, and that he is a political lion not quite in winter, at least not yet.
Former U.S. Representative Jim Leach (Republican -- Iowa)
Poor Jim Leach. Sure, his delivery was somewhat dull (okay, it was very dull), but unlike most of the previous speakers (with the exception of Ted Kennedy), what he spoke about was focused and interesting. It was also based on a considerable amount of history and utilized a lot of three- and four-syllable words, which is obviously unacceptable to the ueber-generalized, commercial-friendly CNN pundits, who, after listening to him speak for about three minutes, fell all over themselves in order to chatter about inane, commercially-friendly non-topics during the balance of his speech.
I had to switch to C-Span to watch him finish the speech, which dealt with various political epochs as applied to the idea "conservative," and why Senator Obama can be viewed simultaneously as both a somewhat liberal and rather conservative standard-bearer. This provided the interesting and rather convincing basis for the conservative Mr. Leach's endorsement of Senator Obama. Too bad most folks weren't able to see him finish the argument he started, but I guess we simply don't have the patience for that sort of political deconstruction these days.
Michelle Obama
I'm tiring rapidly of people who dislike Michelle Obama because she "can't keep her mouth shut," or some such nonsense. Look, as a general rule, I'm not like a lot of my fellow Americans in that I don't like speeches based on generic appeals to sentimentality, upon which Michelle Obama's speech was indeed centered. (Potential First Lady speeches are often sentimental in tone, as are many American political speeches in general; I find such speeches a bit too platitude-driven and slightly embarrassing to sit through, though it's certainly the case that they are quite effective with a lot of American voters.)
That being said, Michelle Obama delivered a speech that, while sentimentality-drenched and very general in nature, was nonetheless also surprisingly convincing and ingratiating. I liked her straight-forward tone, and I liked her confident delivery even more. Ultimately, I think she's smart and savvy, and I think the fact that her husband married her is indicative of his good judgment.
TUESDAY, AUGUST 26
Former Governor Mark Warner (Democrat -- Virginia)
As he ages, Mark Warner is looking more and more toothy and goofy. (I consider that to be no bad thing.) He now looks as though he could be Jackson Browne's younger, more physically-awkward brother. (In not-really related news, Jackson Browne's current lawsuit against Senator McCain, which is one of the more humorous side-items of this political season, is still pending judgment in a court of law.)
Mr. Warner's speech was clearly directed at rather conservative, largely Southern Democrats and Independents, and as such it was a combination of Reagan-esque nationalism (the idea that we can overachieve more often than anyone else because we're Americans, and overachieving is written into our national DNA) and Democratic populism (the idea that everyone should get the types of chances to succeed economically that he was granted). The speech was flat-footed at times but pragmatic and centrist enough to win him the departing John Warner's senate seat in the upcoming election. That's good in that he'll be an instant sensation in the national legislature, but it's a bit disappointing in that it did not provide the swelling wave of political fervor many people were hoping for prior to Senator Clinton's highly anticipated speech later in the evening.
But maybe sealing the senate seat is enough. After all, Mr. Warner will be on the ballot in Virginia, and the more votes he receives on election day, the better the chance that Senator Obama will edge-out Senator McCain in that critical swing-state, as well. Maybe delivering a politically safe, rather pedestrian keynote speech means that Mr. Warner helped Senator Obama tonight. I just wish such help was a bit more electrifying, but then again you can't have everything in life.
Governor Brian Schweitzer (Democrat -- Montana)
I've been talking about Governor Schweitzer since this blog began in the early spring, and though I've received little in the way of feedback about him, I once again feel vindicated in my enthusiasm regarding his political future (particularly now that Montana looks like a presidential swing-state this time around). His speech, only half of which I saw (sadly), was both convincing and humorous, and his considerable political cheerleading skills were on full display. (He even used the call-and-response technique in an effective manner, which was a breath of fresh air after seeing so many others struggle mightily to make that technique work in several previous speeches.)
This guy hasn't yet hit his popular stride, so to speak, but he's warming up well. When he suggests something, I'm not yet ready to respond with a "Yes we can!," but I do often find myself saying, "Hey, why not?" I hope this indicates that Governor Schweitzer is off to one hell of a good start on the national scene. Let's continue to keep an eye on him....
U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat -- New York)
Other than trying to produce "news" where there is really very little to report, I could not and still cannot for the life of me understand why so many people in the media--at nearly all levels, it seems--were blathering on about whether or not Senator Clinton would back Senator Obama's candidacy fully and convincingly in tonight's speech. C'mon, people, she's sharp as a tack and a consistent political survivor--did you honestly think she'd do anything other than deliver a strong, unifying speech tonight?
Whatever they thought, the fact of the matter is that Senator Clinton's speech was confident, consistent, and, yes, unifying--and even those who dislike clever slogans had to admire her "No way, no how, no McCain" line. (We'll be hearing that zinger more than a few times prior to election day, I'm sure.) I'd also point out that, regarding the theme of sentimentality again, her challenge to her supporters of whether they supported her "...[just] for me [or] for all those people in this country who feel invisible..." was a strong emotional argument for them to vote for Senator Obama in the forthcoming general election, mostly because it makes practical sense, as well.
Senator Clinton has come into her own a bit too late for her to have won her party's nomination this time around, but she's come into her own nonetheless, and, at the risk of sounding cheesy, I find it inspiring to behold.
My goodness. Now even I'm getting sentimental....
U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat -- Massachusetts)
Senator Ted Kennedy gave a "normal" Ted Kennedy-esque speech, which is to say that it was rousing and workmanlike, as well as energizing (if not particularly rhetorically sound). The inspirational aspect of his time on stage can be found not in what he said but in the fact that he was even able to say it and that he did it so well, given his health troubles. (He seemed to tire only in the final quarter-or-so of the speech, before rebounding well for the finish.) It also helped his performance that, up until the point he took the stage, the Democratic Convention had been alarmingly unfocused, ham-handed, and just plain boring.
Prior to his speech, I was beginning to wonder if anyone knew how to actually and convincingly deliver a speech anymore, or if everyone has collectively decided to give in to the lazy and depressing idea that reading something off of a tele-prompter in a wooden manner constitutes delivering a speech. They're two very different things, folks, and they're many miles from each other, metaphorically speaking. Just watch Senator Kennedy's speech and compare him to Representative Pelosi's earlier exercise in verbal tedium (or anyone speaking at the podium prior to Senator Kennedy, for that matter) if you want to understand the difference.
Many literary traditions speak of old, accomplished men at the end of their careers and/or lives as being "lions in winter." Tonight, Senator Kennedy proved that he is still a political lion, and that he is a political lion not quite in winter, at least not yet.
Former U.S. Representative Jim Leach (Republican -- Iowa)
Poor Jim Leach. Sure, his delivery was somewhat dull (okay, it was very dull), but unlike most of the previous speakers (with the exception of Ted Kennedy), what he spoke about was focused and interesting. It was also based on a considerable amount of history and utilized a lot of three- and four-syllable words, which is obviously unacceptable to the ueber-generalized, commercial-friendly CNN pundits, who, after listening to him speak for about three minutes, fell all over themselves in order to chatter about inane, commercially-friendly non-topics during the balance of his speech.
I had to switch to C-Span to watch him finish the speech, which dealt with various political epochs as applied to the idea "conservative," and why Senator Obama can be viewed simultaneously as both a somewhat liberal and rather conservative standard-bearer. This provided the interesting and rather convincing basis for the conservative Mr. Leach's endorsement of Senator Obama. Too bad most folks weren't able to see him finish the argument he started, but I guess we simply don't have the patience for that sort of political deconstruction these days.
Michelle Obama
I'm tiring rapidly of people who dislike Michelle Obama because she "can't keep her mouth shut," or some such nonsense. Look, as a general rule, I'm not like a lot of my fellow Americans in that I don't like speeches based on generic appeals to sentimentality, upon which Michelle Obama's speech was indeed centered. (Potential First Lady speeches are often sentimental in tone, as are many American political speeches in general; I find such speeches a bit too platitude-driven and slightly embarrassing to sit through, though it's certainly the case that they are quite effective with a lot of American voters.)
That being said, Michelle Obama delivered a speech that, while sentimentality-drenched and very general in nature, was nonetheless also surprisingly convincing and ingratiating. I liked her straight-forward tone, and I liked her confident delivery even more. Ultimately, I think she's smart and savvy, and I think the fact that her husband married her is indicative of his good judgment.
TUESDAY, AUGUST 26
Former Governor Mark Warner (Democrat -- Virginia)
As he ages, Mark Warner is looking more and more toothy and goofy. (I consider that to be no bad thing.) He now looks as though he could be Jackson Browne's younger, more physically-awkward brother. (In not-really related news, Jackson Browne's current lawsuit against Senator McCain, which is one of the more humorous side-items of this political season, is still pending judgment in a court of law.)
Mr. Warner's speech was clearly directed at rather conservative, largely Southern Democrats and Independents, and as such it was a combination of Reagan-esque nationalism (the idea that we can overachieve more often than anyone else because we're Americans, and overachieving is written into our national DNA) and Democratic populism (the idea that everyone should get the types of chances to succeed economically that he was granted). The speech was flat-footed at times but pragmatic and centrist enough to win him the departing John Warner's senate seat in the upcoming election. That's good in that he'll be an instant sensation in the national legislature, but it's a bit disappointing in that it did not provide the swelling wave of political fervor many people were hoping for prior to Senator Clinton's highly anticipated speech later in the evening.
But maybe sealing the senate seat is enough. After all, Mr. Warner will be on the ballot in Virginia, and the more votes he receives on election day, the better the chance that Senator Obama will edge-out Senator McCain in that critical swing-state, as well. Maybe delivering a politically safe, rather pedestrian keynote speech means that Mr. Warner helped Senator Obama tonight. I just wish such help was a bit more electrifying, but then again you can't have everything in life.
Governor Brian Schweitzer (Democrat -- Montana)
I've been talking about Governor Schweitzer since this blog began in the early spring, and though I've received little in the way of feedback about him, I once again feel vindicated in my enthusiasm regarding his political future (particularly now that Montana looks like a presidential swing-state this time around). His speech, only half of which I saw (sadly), was both convincing and humorous, and his considerable political cheerleading skills were on full display. (He even used the call-and-response technique in an effective manner, which was a breath of fresh air after seeing so many others struggle mightily to make that technique work in several previous speeches.)
This guy hasn't yet hit his popular stride, so to speak, but he's warming up well. When he suggests something, I'm not yet ready to respond with a "Yes we can!," but I do often find myself saying, "Hey, why not?" I hope this indicates that Governor Schweitzer is off to one hell of a good start on the national scene. Let's continue to keep an eye on him....
U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat -- New York)
Other than trying to produce "news" where there is really very little to report, I could not and still cannot for the life of me understand why so many people in the media--at nearly all levels, it seems--were blathering on about whether or not Senator Clinton would back Senator Obama's candidacy fully and convincingly in tonight's speech. C'mon, people, she's sharp as a tack and a consistent political survivor--did you honestly think she'd do anything other than deliver a strong, unifying speech tonight?
Whatever they thought, the fact of the matter is that Senator Clinton's speech was confident, consistent, and, yes, unifying--and even those who dislike clever slogans had to admire her "No way, no how, no McCain" line. (We'll be hearing that zinger more than a few times prior to election day, I'm sure.) I'd also point out that, regarding the theme of sentimentality again, her challenge to her supporters of whether they supported her "...[just] for me [or] for all those people in this country who feel invisible..." was a strong emotional argument for them to vote for Senator Obama in the forthcoming general election, mostly because it makes practical sense, as well.
Senator Clinton has come into her own a bit too late for her to have won her party's nomination this time around, but she's come into her own nonetheless, and, at the risk of sounding cheesy, I find it inspiring to behold.
My goodness. Now even I'm getting sentimental....
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Senator Biden Is A Very Strong Running Mate Choice, Despite Some Of The Post-Selection Grumblings
ORIGINALLY FROM PENNSYLVANIA, THE IRISH-CATHOLIC SENATOR BRINGS A LOT OF SUBTLE ELECTORAL HEFT TO THE DEMOCRATIC TICKET
I've read a few grumbling comments on various political blog-sites regarding Senator Biden's "electability" in the context of his "poor" showing in Iowa last winter, so I thought I'd say a few words about that matter. (As a prelude to my statements, I'd like to point out that I disagree entirely with this anti-Biden argument.)
First of all, let's remember how the Iowa caucus system works. It's set-up to weed-out all but the top three or--at a real stretch, four--presidential candidates from each party. It does this by requiring that any candidate who does not receive 15% or more of the vote (after some haggling) at any particular caucus site is considered out of the running at that site, and therefore that candidate's supporters must either switch their support to another candidate (who did receive at least 15% after the initial rounds of voting), or head home.
U.S. Senator Joe Biden, along with New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, did not have anywhere near the money necessary to compete with the three "rock stars" (as Governor Richardson put it) of the Democratic party, those "rock stars" being the heavily-funded Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as the well-funded ex-Senator John Edwards. The fact of the matter is that Governor Richardson came nowhere near the two best-funded candidates insofar as advertizing money in Iowa and New Hampshire was concerned--those two best-funded candidates being Senators Clinton and Obama--and he also lagged well behind Senator Edwards. For his part, Senator Biden was well behind even Governor Richardson in fundraising totals, which is to suggest that Senator Biden ran his campaign on the economic equivalent of a shoestring (his finances were so low in comparison with the top three candidates that he didn't even really compete in New Hampshire; it was Iowa or bust for him), and he didn't even put consistent ads on Iowa television stations until just prior to caucus night.
Yet, even with this being the case, Senators Clinton and Obama went out of their way to praise Senator Biden's accomplishments and intellect in one pre-caucus debate after the next, perhaps because at the time they sensed what would soon come to pass--despite his lack of money, Senator Biden's support became surprisingly strong, particularly in the eastern, Catholic, working-class, rather urban areas of Iowa, in the weeks prior to caucus night. That he scored only 1% of the final votes on caucus night was not indicative of his support; given the system used in that state, his supporters, who often represented 8% to 10% of the initial totals in caucus sites throughout the state, were never really able to overcome the Obama, Edwards, and Clinton waves (I wrote those names in the order they finished on caucus night). The same was the case with Governor Richardson's supporters, who finished with only 2% of overall votes but who often represented about 10% of the initial totals.
It's likely the case that Senators Biden and Dodd, as well as Governor Richardson, were hoping that one of the top three contenders--probably either ex-Senator Edwards or Senator Obama, given Senator Clinton's well-established status--would stumble badly at some point prior to caucus night, which would have opened the door for one of the lesser-funded candidates to step into the "alternative" third spot and legitimately compete in Iowa, New Hampshire, and beyond...perhaps gaining unexpected momentum in order to win the nomination, in the best-case scenario.
But Senators Clinton and Obama and ex-Senator Edwards did not stumble badly; what mistakes they made were minor enough to overcome, at least to the extent that they dominated in the final results on caucus night. Yet even with their massive commercial advantages, they were worried about the rest of the field's potential to "break through" into the top tier, perhaps displacing one of them. It did not happen, but the final results on caucus night were not indicative of the support Senator Biden had amongst voting participants, which was far, far higher than the 1% he ultimately received.
Senator Biden is a highly intelligent individual who, due to his often "happy-warrior" nature, also communicates well with working-class voters. His deep Pennsylvania roots will most likely help Senator Obama in that vital swing-state, and his national security credentials will help Senator Obama--in a broad, general sense--nationwide with many independent voters who like Senator Obama's judgment but want someone very experienced on the ticket with him in order to balance strong political judgment with a solid geo-political resume'.
I, for one, am very happy that Senator Obama added Senator Biden to the Democratic presidential ticket. There are no perfect running mates, of course, but an Obama/Biden ticket is stronger than any other potential ticket could have been this time around, with the possible exception of an Obama/Clinton ticket. What makes an Obama/Biden ticket more attractive to me than an Obama/Clinton ticket is the fact that a potential Obama/Biden chief executive team would probably work more smoothly and efficiently than would an Obama/Clinton chief executive team, given everything that Senator Clinton would bring with her to the role, good and bad.
Senator Biden is a whip-smart fighter who speaks well and argues convincingly. He's Catholic, and Catholics are swing-voters. He has blue-collar roots, and Senator Obama is struggling to attract widespread blue-collar support. Yes, he's often verbose, but if that's one of the worst things you can say about him, it's a good indication that he's politically ingratiating. Senator Obama made the right choice.
Game on.
I've read a few grumbling comments on various political blog-sites regarding Senator Biden's "electability" in the context of his "poor" showing in Iowa last winter, so I thought I'd say a few words about that matter. (As a prelude to my statements, I'd like to point out that I disagree entirely with this anti-Biden argument.)
First of all, let's remember how the Iowa caucus system works. It's set-up to weed-out all but the top three or--at a real stretch, four--presidential candidates from each party. It does this by requiring that any candidate who does not receive 15% or more of the vote (after some haggling) at any particular caucus site is considered out of the running at that site, and therefore that candidate's supporters must either switch their support to another candidate (who did receive at least 15% after the initial rounds of voting), or head home.
U.S. Senator Joe Biden, along with New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, did not have anywhere near the money necessary to compete with the three "rock stars" (as Governor Richardson put it) of the Democratic party, those "rock stars" being the heavily-funded Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as the well-funded ex-Senator John Edwards. The fact of the matter is that Governor Richardson came nowhere near the two best-funded candidates insofar as advertizing money in Iowa and New Hampshire was concerned--those two best-funded candidates being Senators Clinton and Obama--and he also lagged well behind Senator Edwards. For his part, Senator Biden was well behind even Governor Richardson in fundraising totals, which is to suggest that Senator Biden ran his campaign on the economic equivalent of a shoestring (his finances were so low in comparison with the top three candidates that he didn't even really compete in New Hampshire; it was Iowa or bust for him), and he didn't even put consistent ads on Iowa television stations until just prior to caucus night.
Yet, even with this being the case, Senators Clinton and Obama went out of their way to praise Senator Biden's accomplishments and intellect in one pre-caucus debate after the next, perhaps because at the time they sensed what would soon come to pass--despite his lack of money, Senator Biden's support became surprisingly strong, particularly in the eastern, Catholic, working-class, rather urban areas of Iowa, in the weeks prior to caucus night. That he scored only 1% of the final votes on caucus night was not indicative of his support; given the system used in that state, his supporters, who often represented 8% to 10% of the initial totals in caucus sites throughout the state, were never really able to overcome the Obama, Edwards, and Clinton waves (I wrote those names in the order they finished on caucus night). The same was the case with Governor Richardson's supporters, who finished with only 2% of overall votes but who often represented about 10% of the initial totals.
It's likely the case that Senators Biden and Dodd, as well as Governor Richardson, were hoping that one of the top three contenders--probably either ex-Senator Edwards or Senator Obama, given Senator Clinton's well-established status--would stumble badly at some point prior to caucus night, which would have opened the door for one of the lesser-funded candidates to step into the "alternative" third spot and legitimately compete in Iowa, New Hampshire, and beyond...perhaps gaining unexpected momentum in order to win the nomination, in the best-case scenario.
But Senators Clinton and Obama and ex-Senator Edwards did not stumble badly; what mistakes they made were minor enough to overcome, at least to the extent that they dominated in the final results on caucus night. Yet even with their massive commercial advantages, they were worried about the rest of the field's potential to "break through" into the top tier, perhaps displacing one of them. It did not happen, but the final results on caucus night were not indicative of the support Senator Biden had amongst voting participants, which was far, far higher than the 1% he ultimately received.
Senator Biden is a highly intelligent individual who, due to his often "happy-warrior" nature, also communicates well with working-class voters. His deep Pennsylvania roots will most likely help Senator Obama in that vital swing-state, and his national security credentials will help Senator Obama--in a broad, general sense--nationwide with many independent voters who like Senator Obama's judgment but want someone very experienced on the ticket with him in order to balance strong political judgment with a solid geo-political resume'.
I, for one, am very happy that Senator Obama added Senator Biden to the Democratic presidential ticket. There are no perfect running mates, of course, but an Obama/Biden ticket is stronger than any other potential ticket could have been this time around, with the possible exception of an Obama/Clinton ticket. What makes an Obama/Biden ticket more attractive to me than an Obama/Clinton ticket is the fact that a potential Obama/Biden chief executive team would probably work more smoothly and efficiently than would an Obama/Clinton chief executive team, given everything that Senator Clinton would bring with her to the role, good and bad.
Senator Biden is a whip-smart fighter who speaks well and argues convincingly. He's Catholic, and Catholics are swing-voters. He has blue-collar roots, and Senator Obama is struggling to attract widespread blue-collar support. Yes, he's often verbose, but if that's one of the worst things you can say about him, it's a good indication that he's politically ingratiating. Senator Obama made the right choice.
Game on.
Friday, August 22, 2008
On Saturday, Will The "Obama/Biden" Ticket Be Revealed? Yep.
SENATOR OBAMA'S RUNNING MATE WATCH, FRIDAY EVENING--NO ANNOUNCEMENT YET, BUT INDICATIONS ARE POINTING TO SENATOR BIDEN, WHICH IS A GOOD SIGN
As of this moment (Friday evening, August 22), Senator Obama has yet to announce publicly who he has selected to be his running mate. Recent reports suggest that the announcement will occur Saturday morning, perhaps a few hours prior to Senator Obama's Springfield, Illinois rally. Reports also suggest that there has been quite a bit of "activity" outside--and presumably inside--of U.S. Senator Joe Biden's house in Wilmington, Delaware this evening.
I have both endorsed Senator Biden for the position of Senator Obama's running mate and predicted that he would get the nod, and though it looks as though this will happen, we'll have to wait a few more hours to see if this will indeed be the case, or if a surprise is in store for us. (I sincerely doubt that a surprise will occur.)
One way or the other, it has become clear that I am not the only Hasslington reader who has endorsed Senator Biden for this position (and I'm surely not the only one who has predicted that he will get the nod, either). For evidence of this, here are the results of the weeks-long Hasslington Vice Presidential Poll, which was centered on the following question: "Who should Senator Obama select to be his running mate?"
Total votes cast: 134
1.) Joe Biden -- 64 votes (approximately 48%)
2.) Bill Richardson -- 22 votes (16%)
3.) Evan Bayh -- 16 votes (12%)
4.) Hillary Clinton -- 8 votes (6%)
5.) Chris Dodd; Al Gore; Tim Kaine; Kathleen Sebelius -- 3 votes apiece (2% apiece)
All other individuals (including "someone else") received either no votes or one vote apiece.
All things being equal, perhaps either Senator Bayh or Governor Kaine would be a good, safe pick, but things are not equal this year--we are still engaged in two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) and things are still very delicate with regards to Pakistan, Iran, and Russia right now. It would seem to me that someone with Senator Biden's foreign policy experience and personal gravitas is perfectly situated for the role of running mate this time around, and if he is selected it will indicate that Senator Obama's good judgment extends to his choice of running mate.
Remember, the section of the Hasslington Vice Presidential Poll centered on Senator McCain's running mate possibilities is still open. I am not a McCain supporter, but I've found the results thus far to be quite interesting indeed. Feel free to vote in that particular poll, the link to which is in the upper left-hand corner of this site.
As of this moment (Friday evening, August 22), Senator Obama has yet to announce publicly who he has selected to be his running mate. Recent reports suggest that the announcement will occur Saturday morning, perhaps a few hours prior to Senator Obama's Springfield, Illinois rally. Reports also suggest that there has been quite a bit of "activity" outside--and presumably inside--of U.S. Senator Joe Biden's house in Wilmington, Delaware this evening.
I have both endorsed Senator Biden for the position of Senator Obama's running mate and predicted that he would get the nod, and though it looks as though this will happen, we'll have to wait a few more hours to see if this will indeed be the case, or if a surprise is in store for us. (I sincerely doubt that a surprise will occur.)
One way or the other, it has become clear that I am not the only Hasslington reader who has endorsed Senator Biden for this position (and I'm surely not the only one who has predicted that he will get the nod, either). For evidence of this, here are the results of the weeks-long Hasslington Vice Presidential Poll, which was centered on the following question: "Who should Senator Obama select to be his running mate?"
Total votes cast: 134
1.) Joe Biden -- 64 votes (approximately 48%)
2.) Bill Richardson -- 22 votes (16%)
3.) Evan Bayh -- 16 votes (12%)
4.) Hillary Clinton -- 8 votes (6%)
5.) Chris Dodd; Al Gore; Tim Kaine; Kathleen Sebelius -- 3 votes apiece (2% apiece)
All other individuals (including "someone else") received either no votes or one vote apiece.
All things being equal, perhaps either Senator Bayh or Governor Kaine would be a good, safe pick, but things are not equal this year--we are still engaged in two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) and things are still very delicate with regards to Pakistan, Iran, and Russia right now. It would seem to me that someone with Senator Biden's foreign policy experience and personal gravitas is perfectly situated for the role of running mate this time around, and if he is selected it will indicate that Senator Obama's good judgment extends to his choice of running mate.
Remember, the section of the Hasslington Vice Presidential Poll centered on Senator McCain's running mate possibilities is still open. I am not a McCain supporter, but I've found the results thus far to be quite interesting indeed. Feel free to vote in that particular poll, the link to which is in the upper left-hand corner of this site.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The French Aren't So Bad, After All
In his Wednesday, August 20 post titled "Speaking Francly" on his blog-site (http://penigma.blogspot.com/), my friend Penigma addresses the tragedy of the ten French soldiers who were killed in the violence in Afghanistan this past week in a unique and, I think, important manner. I am not going to reproduce what he wrote here because I want folks to visit his site in order to read it for themselves in its entirety. (It's not long, so it can be read in a few short minutes.)
What I do intend to reproduce in this post is an extended version of the comment I posted after reading Penigma's post--which, for contextual purposes, also deals with the proclivity on the part of some Americans to over-generalize and misrepresent "The French," by which they apparently mean just about all 63 million of them, as "Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys" and the like.
Prior to doing so, I would like to point-out two things: 1.) France is certainly not perfect; like all countries, it features its own unique form of ugly societal racism and xenophobia, with which it struggles to deal effectively (yet, like the U.S. and Britain, it's a positive indication that France is trying to deal with it in more proactive manners than it has utilized in the past); and 2.) Penigma's blog-site is always interesting because his viewpoint is always unique and thought-provoking; I read it often, and I recommend it to my readership, as well.
At any rate, the following is an extended version of what I wrote (today) regarding the fad, alarmingly popular in the U.S. between 2002 and 2004 or thereabouts, to label the French "Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys":
I wonder just how many of those folks who suggest now, or have suggested often in the past, that the French are "Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys" have actually been to France.... If they have been there, I wonder how many of them have visited people who live outside of Paris, and I wonder how many of them have spent extensive time in that fine country, in order to give their viewpoints authenticity and the weight of actual substantive evidence?
I am only one person, and can speak only for myself, but I have spent considerable time in France and have found the majority of the French people to be broadly supportive of the United States (if not necessarily of the present Bush Administration). Mrs. Hasslington has spent more time than I have there--she lived and worked in both Paris and Reunion Island (a French department in the Indian Ocean, off the coast of Madagascar) for an extended period of time--and her observations on this topic are very similar to mine.
When the majority of the French people do disagree with us, which does happen from time to time, they let it be known vocally, which sounds an awful lot like us when we disagree with them.
Look in the mirror, folks. The Americans, British, and French often get fed-up with one another because we're often annoyingly similar to one another. The big difference is that we Americans have more international geopolitical leverage, given our superpower status. But leverage means increasingly little, even for a superpower, when our strongest allies decide to take vocal issue with our policies.
Given the realities of current geopolitics, the French and British have to listen to us closely, and they do. (Whether or not they agree with us, they listen closely to what we say.) They're also older countries who have been through a lot more historically than has the United States (though, given the relative youth of the U.S., we've gone through an impressive amount of history, both internal and external in nature, in the time we've existed as a country). Given this fact and given that history tends to repeat itself--particularly when people are paying little or no attention to the historical ramifications of foreign policy decisions--it might benefit us to listen to what they have to say a little more closely than we tend to do.
We needn't always agree with our allies, of course--in fact, we shouldn't always agree--but we should always listen closely. (As it is, we tend to pay too little attention to what our allies suggest too often.) Doing this would not make us weaker than we are now, and it might just make us smarter, which is a good thought when one takes into account the fact that, in a world filled increasingly with more and more geopolitical competition, smarter folks will have a tendency to stay on top of the heap longer than they otherwise would.
What I do intend to reproduce in this post is an extended version of the comment I posted after reading Penigma's post--which, for contextual purposes, also deals with the proclivity on the part of some Americans to over-generalize and misrepresent "The French," by which they apparently mean just about all 63 million of them, as "Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys" and the like.
Prior to doing so, I would like to point-out two things: 1.) France is certainly not perfect; like all countries, it features its own unique form of ugly societal racism and xenophobia, with which it struggles to deal effectively (yet, like the U.S. and Britain, it's a positive indication that France is trying to deal with it in more proactive manners than it has utilized in the past); and 2.) Penigma's blog-site is always interesting because his viewpoint is always unique and thought-provoking; I read it often, and I recommend it to my readership, as well.
At any rate, the following is an extended version of what I wrote (today) regarding the fad, alarmingly popular in the U.S. between 2002 and 2004 or thereabouts, to label the French "Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys":
I wonder just how many of those folks who suggest now, or have suggested often in the past, that the French are "Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys" have actually been to France.... If they have been there, I wonder how many of them have visited people who live outside of Paris, and I wonder how many of them have spent extensive time in that fine country, in order to give their viewpoints authenticity and the weight of actual substantive evidence?
I am only one person, and can speak only for myself, but I have spent considerable time in France and have found the majority of the French people to be broadly supportive of the United States (if not necessarily of the present Bush Administration). Mrs. Hasslington has spent more time than I have there--she lived and worked in both Paris and Reunion Island (a French department in the Indian Ocean, off the coast of Madagascar) for an extended period of time--and her observations on this topic are very similar to mine.
When the majority of the French people do disagree with us, which does happen from time to time, they let it be known vocally, which sounds an awful lot like us when we disagree with them.
Look in the mirror, folks. The Americans, British, and French often get fed-up with one another because we're often annoyingly similar to one another. The big difference is that we Americans have more international geopolitical leverage, given our superpower status. But leverage means increasingly little, even for a superpower, when our strongest allies decide to take vocal issue with our policies.
Given the realities of current geopolitics, the French and British have to listen to us closely, and they do. (Whether or not they agree with us, they listen closely to what we say.) They're also older countries who have been through a lot more historically than has the United States (though, given the relative youth of the U.S., we've gone through an impressive amount of history, both internal and external in nature, in the time we've existed as a country). Given this fact and given that history tends to repeat itself--particularly when people are paying little or no attention to the historical ramifications of foreign policy decisions--it might benefit us to listen to what they have to say a little more closely than we tend to do.
We needn't always agree with our allies, of course--in fact, we shouldn't always agree--but we should always listen closely. (As it is, we tend to pay too little attention to what our allies suggest too often.) Doing this would not make us weaker than we are now, and it might just make us smarter, which is a good thought when one takes into account the fact that, in a world filled increasingly with more and more geopolitical competition, smarter folks will have a tendency to stay on top of the heap longer than they otherwise would.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Senator Biden Will Be Senator Obama's Running Mate; Also, Who Else Thinks Rick Warren Is Really Creepy?
IS SENATOR OBAMA JUST "BIDEN" HIS TIME? I THINK SO.
This evening, NBC's Andrea Mitchell (who I thought should have taken over for Tim Russert as host of NBC's "Meet the Press," and I mean no offense to Tom Brokaw when I say that) reported that Senator Joe Biden is the name most of her sources are telling her will most likely be named as Senator Barack Obama's running mate. Her sources either can't or won't yet specify a particular date between now and the Democratic National Convention when the decision is to be made public.
Stability in Afghanistan is presently slipping; Pakistani President Musharraf (who represents nearly the entirety of the Bush Administration's Pakistan policy) is being forced out of office through the threat of impeachment in Afghanistan's nuclear-armed neighboring country; Iraqi progress is anything but set in concrete; Russia is still occupying one of its smaller and more democratic neighbors (Georgia); Iran is always throwing a potentially dangerous monkey wrench or two into the mix; and China and India (amongst many others) are demanding increasingly large amounts of worldwide oil supplies (with Russia flexing its petro-derived muscles). It seems clear to me that Senator Obama, whose judgment is very strong but who could use someone with decades of foreign experience on the ticket, would indeed be leaning toward Senator Biden to be his running mate.
Senator Evan Bayh is a good guy, and his centrist credentials would probably help Senator Obama in some swing-states, but he's primarily known as a careful politician with an easy manner...and little else. Alternatively, Governor Kaine's obvious chemistry with Senator Obama would most likely make for an impressive working relationship between the two, but he has little foreign experience. Hence, I will be a bit disappointed if the foreign and domestic political gravitas of Senator Biden isn't added to the Obama ticket. (Don't worry--if it's not an Obama/Biden ticket, I'll get over my disappointment quite quickly and support either Obama/Bayh, Obama/Kaine, Obama/Richardson, Obama/Clinton, or whatever Senator Obama decides upon.) In fact, with Senator Biden returning to the U.S. from Georgia (theirs, not ours) on a fact-finding mission today, I'm ready to make a prediction....
PREDICTION: I am convinced that Senator Biden will be Senator Obama's running mate.
(Feel free to laugh at me if I'm wrong; I've been wrong before.)
RICK WARREN: A CREEPY, GENERIC, TRADEMARKED PSEUDO-"PREACHER"
I don't find it surprising that the focus of the CNN "values"-oriented forum aired this past weekend was on the responses that Senators Obama and McCain gave to the questions posed by Pastor Rick Warren, because that's as it should be, given that they are presently the two most scrutinized people in the United States, and probably the world. My take on their responses is that I appreciated Senator Obama's humble, if politically careful, answers to such topics as "evil" and "energy," amongst others. I found Senator McCain's pat, morally certain answers a bit arrogant, if crowd-pleasing, in nature. We've had an arrogant, morally-certain individual in the White House for seven-plus years, and it's resulted in anything but consistent success, in both the domestic and foreign realms. Senator Obama may seem "too academically thoughtful" for some voters, but I much prefer his thoughtfulness and caution over policies based on under-preparation and culturally myopic thinking that plays-out like cowboys who've never read a book in their lives rushing-in where angels fear to tread.
What I do find mildly surprising about Saturday's event, however, is that there has not as yet been a lot of discussion about Pastor Rick Warren, who I admit I had never heard of before the event, and who I subsequently found to be a rather smug, self-satisfied, trademarked "reverend" type who had the effect of oozing pseudo-intelligence and a lack of authenticity nearly every time he asked an extended question. He reminds me of your next door neighbor who is rather intelligent and seems okay but who you know is a bit "off" somehow, and who confirms it by going off on tangents during which he suggests that he and God exchanged phone numbers long ago, and during which you think to yourself, "My goodness, he's just clever enough to get a lot of somewhat confused, mediocre people to think that he's their conduit to enlightenment."
In the interests of putting all of my cards on the table, I do believe in God as a concept and as a necessarily nebulous entity (if we knew the exact nature of God, religion would not be religion--it would be science), and I therefore disagree with both atheists and religious fundamentalists, both of which groups I often find to be arrogant in their "certainty" regarding the exact nature and/or existence of God. I'm not particularly enamored of organized religion, but I do admire small, local places of worship in which people and their religious guides must often deal with each other in a micro- and individual manner. It forces people to be authentic with one another. However, I find mega-churches to be like zombie holding-tanks, where folks go in order to hear macro-generic platitudes from so-called "pastors" who seem to have been pre-packaged and shipped all over the country from corporate warehouses. Their focus is centered on nothing but the status quo, in more ways than one, though it's not designed to look that way to those who would rather not examine the situation closely.
So we come full-circle to Rick Warren, whose every utterance and gesture projects "I'm-a-good-guy" to such an extent that you know it's pre-packaged nonsense. (Even his goatee and head hair--or at least one of the two--is artificially colored.) It reminds me of Pauline Kael's suggestion that in the late 1970's/early 1980's era the film industry degraded to such an extent that authentic films were shoved aside for video games and marketing strategies; "...if you want backing for a film [these days]," Kael wrote, "there'd better be a video game in it." Rick Warren is a mediocre, commercialized video game disguised as a good film, and millions of Americans love him for it. Or perhaps they love themselves for embracing the lazy commerical machine that is the status quo. After all, it keeps them from ever having to think critically.
This evening, NBC's Andrea Mitchell (who I thought should have taken over for Tim Russert as host of NBC's "Meet the Press," and I mean no offense to Tom Brokaw when I say that) reported that Senator Joe Biden is the name most of her sources are telling her will most likely be named as Senator Barack Obama's running mate. Her sources either can't or won't yet specify a particular date between now and the Democratic National Convention when the decision is to be made public.
Stability in Afghanistan is presently slipping; Pakistani President Musharraf (who represents nearly the entirety of the Bush Administration's Pakistan policy) is being forced out of office through the threat of impeachment in Afghanistan's nuclear-armed neighboring country; Iraqi progress is anything but set in concrete; Russia is still occupying one of its smaller and more democratic neighbors (Georgia); Iran is always throwing a potentially dangerous monkey wrench or two into the mix; and China and India (amongst many others) are demanding increasingly large amounts of worldwide oil supplies (with Russia flexing its petro-derived muscles). It seems clear to me that Senator Obama, whose judgment is very strong but who could use someone with decades of foreign experience on the ticket, would indeed be leaning toward Senator Biden to be his running mate.
Senator Evan Bayh is a good guy, and his centrist credentials would probably help Senator Obama in some swing-states, but he's primarily known as a careful politician with an easy manner...and little else. Alternatively, Governor Kaine's obvious chemistry with Senator Obama would most likely make for an impressive working relationship between the two, but he has little foreign experience. Hence, I will be a bit disappointed if the foreign and domestic political gravitas of Senator Biden isn't added to the Obama ticket. (Don't worry--if it's not an Obama/Biden ticket, I'll get over my disappointment quite quickly and support either Obama/Bayh, Obama/Kaine, Obama/Richardson, Obama/Clinton, or whatever Senator Obama decides upon.) In fact, with Senator Biden returning to the U.S. from Georgia (theirs, not ours) on a fact-finding mission today, I'm ready to make a prediction....
PREDICTION: I am convinced that Senator Biden will be Senator Obama's running mate.
(Feel free to laugh at me if I'm wrong; I've been wrong before.)
RICK WARREN: A CREEPY, GENERIC, TRADEMARKED PSEUDO-"PREACHER"
I don't find it surprising that the focus of the CNN "values"-oriented forum aired this past weekend was on the responses that Senators Obama and McCain gave to the questions posed by Pastor Rick Warren, because that's as it should be, given that they are presently the two most scrutinized people in the United States, and probably the world. My take on their responses is that I appreciated Senator Obama's humble, if politically careful, answers to such topics as "evil" and "energy," amongst others. I found Senator McCain's pat, morally certain answers a bit arrogant, if crowd-pleasing, in nature. We've had an arrogant, morally-certain individual in the White House for seven-plus years, and it's resulted in anything but consistent success, in both the domestic and foreign realms. Senator Obama may seem "too academically thoughtful" for some voters, but I much prefer his thoughtfulness and caution over policies based on under-preparation and culturally myopic thinking that plays-out like cowboys who've never read a book in their lives rushing-in where angels fear to tread.
What I do find mildly surprising about Saturday's event, however, is that there has not as yet been a lot of discussion about Pastor Rick Warren, who I admit I had never heard of before the event, and who I subsequently found to be a rather smug, self-satisfied, trademarked "reverend" type who had the effect of oozing pseudo-intelligence and a lack of authenticity nearly every time he asked an extended question. He reminds me of your next door neighbor who is rather intelligent and seems okay but who you know is a bit "off" somehow, and who confirms it by going off on tangents during which he suggests that he and God exchanged phone numbers long ago, and during which you think to yourself, "My goodness, he's just clever enough to get a lot of somewhat confused, mediocre people to think that he's their conduit to enlightenment."
In the interests of putting all of my cards on the table, I do believe in God as a concept and as a necessarily nebulous entity (if we knew the exact nature of God, religion would not be religion--it would be science), and I therefore disagree with both atheists and religious fundamentalists, both of which groups I often find to be arrogant in their "certainty" regarding the exact nature and/or existence of God. I'm not particularly enamored of organized religion, but I do admire small, local places of worship in which people and their religious guides must often deal with each other in a micro- and individual manner. It forces people to be authentic with one another. However, I find mega-churches to be like zombie holding-tanks, where folks go in order to hear macro-generic platitudes from so-called "pastors" who seem to have been pre-packaged and shipped all over the country from corporate warehouses. Their focus is centered on nothing but the status quo, in more ways than one, though it's not designed to look that way to those who would rather not examine the situation closely.
So we come full-circle to Rick Warren, whose every utterance and gesture projects "I'm-a-good-guy" to such an extent that you know it's pre-packaged nonsense. (Even his goatee and head hair--or at least one of the two--is artificially colored.) It reminds me of Pauline Kael's suggestion that in the late 1970's/early 1980's era the film industry degraded to such an extent that authentic films were shoved aside for video games and marketing strategies; "...if you want backing for a film [these days]," Kael wrote, "there'd better be a video game in it." Rick Warren is a mediocre, commercialized video game disguised as a good film, and millions of Americans love him for it. Or perhaps they love themselves for embracing the lazy commerical machine that is the status quo. After all, it keeps them from ever having to think critically.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Potential Democratic Running Mate Limericks
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ONE AVOIDS THE PROCESS OF THINKING CRITICALLY
Given the Democratic National Convention schedule released this past week, it looks as though such folks as Hillary Clinton, Brian Schweitzer, Kathleen Sebelius, and Mark Warner are probably not going to be selected to be Senator Obama's running mate, as they are scheduled to speak on Tuesday evening, whereas the Vice Presidential running mate is scheduled to speak on Wednesday evening. (Interestingly, Joe Biden, Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, and several others are scheduled to speak on Wednesday.) It would be easier to move people already scheduled to speak on Wednesday around in order to insert one into the running mate's time slot than it would be to move people from one day to the next, so it's most likely the case that either a Wednesday speaker or someone not on the schedule will be Senator Obama's running mate. (Don't panic, fans of folks speaking on Tuesday--there is always the very real possibility that the schedule will change between now and the convention, giving one or more of them a better chance of winning the job of running mate.)
As it looks right now, then, five or six individuals seem to have at least a better shot than some of their colleagues of winning the Vice Presidential running mate position. Several weeks ago, I let my readers know that, if pushed for an answer, I believed that Joe Biden would eventually be selected as the running mate (I had previously endorsed him for that position, as well). I still think that way, but his chances are only slightly better than the chances of a few others, so this won't be a "given" one way or the other until the announcement is made official.
At any rate, I have taken the opportunity to annoy my readership with limericks about five of the people who look to be best situated to be Senator Obama's running mate. (I'm sorry, Jack Reed--I just couldn't come up with one for you in the short amount of time I had to write these "poems"....) For what it's worth (and it may be worth very little indeed), here's what I've come up with:
EVAN BAYH
Democrat centrist Evan Bayh
Is a politically careful, nice guy.
Though he's never exciting
What does sound inviting
Is winning Indiana this try.
JOE BIDEN
Joe Biden is a smart, fighting mut.
In debates, he leaves opponents bruised and cut.
Though not a swing-state resident
He might still be Vice President
If he can keep his mouth semi-shut.
WESLEY CLARK
Supreme NATO Commander Wes Clark
Might provide a much-needed spark.
He's campaigned in the past
And lost footing fast,
But choosing him this time's no lark.
TIM KAINE
Selecting Midwestern-born Tim Kaine
Means Virginia this time's not in vain.
A strong point would be
That's he's Catholic, you see.
Still, his name's eerily close to "McCain."
BILL RICHARDSON
Though his resume's eye-poppingly great,
It might be Bill Richardson's fate
To be passed-by for Veep.
Still, he won't be sold cheap
If he's the next Secretary of State.
*** Late Saturday Update: Mrs. Hasslington and I co-wrote a Jack Reed limerick today. ***
JACK REED
If Obama chooses Jack Reed
His hopes will not go to seed.
Reed's armed forces years
Should allay people's fears
And fulfill a strategic need.
Given the Democratic National Convention schedule released this past week, it looks as though such folks as Hillary Clinton, Brian Schweitzer, Kathleen Sebelius, and Mark Warner are probably not going to be selected to be Senator Obama's running mate, as they are scheduled to speak on Tuesday evening, whereas the Vice Presidential running mate is scheduled to speak on Wednesday evening. (Interestingly, Joe Biden, Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, and several others are scheduled to speak on Wednesday.) It would be easier to move people already scheduled to speak on Wednesday around in order to insert one into the running mate's time slot than it would be to move people from one day to the next, so it's most likely the case that either a Wednesday speaker or someone not on the schedule will be Senator Obama's running mate. (Don't panic, fans of folks speaking on Tuesday--there is always the very real possibility that the schedule will change between now and the convention, giving one or more of them a better chance of winning the job of running mate.)
As it looks right now, then, five or six individuals seem to have at least a better shot than some of their colleagues of winning the Vice Presidential running mate position. Several weeks ago, I let my readers know that, if pushed for an answer, I believed that Joe Biden would eventually be selected as the running mate (I had previously endorsed him for that position, as well). I still think that way, but his chances are only slightly better than the chances of a few others, so this won't be a "given" one way or the other until the announcement is made official.
At any rate, I have taken the opportunity to annoy my readership with limericks about five of the people who look to be best situated to be Senator Obama's running mate. (I'm sorry, Jack Reed--I just couldn't come up with one for you in the short amount of time I had to write these "poems"....) For what it's worth (and it may be worth very little indeed), here's what I've come up with:
EVAN BAYH
Democrat centrist Evan Bayh
Is a politically careful, nice guy.
Though he's never exciting
What does sound inviting
Is winning Indiana this try.
JOE BIDEN
Joe Biden is a smart, fighting mut.
In debates, he leaves opponents bruised and cut.
Though not a swing-state resident
He might still be Vice President
If he can keep his mouth semi-shut.
WESLEY CLARK
Supreme NATO Commander Wes Clark
Might provide a much-needed spark.
He's campaigned in the past
And lost footing fast,
But choosing him this time's no lark.
TIM KAINE
Selecting Midwestern-born Tim Kaine
Means Virginia this time's not in vain.
A strong point would be
That's he's Catholic, you see.
Still, his name's eerily close to "McCain."
BILL RICHARDSON
Though his resume's eye-poppingly great,
It might be Bill Richardson's fate
To be passed-by for Veep.
Still, he won't be sold cheap
If he's the next Secretary of State.
*** Late Saturday Update: Mrs. Hasslington and I co-wrote a Jack Reed limerick today. ***
JACK REED
If Obama chooses Jack Reed
His hopes will not go to seed.
Reed's armed forces years
Should allay people's fears
And fulfill a strategic need.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Various Notions, Volume 11: Anger Management; Hasslington V.P. Poll Update; Thunder From Down Under; Far-fetched Summer Novels Are Never A Bad Thing
PRESENT HASSLINGTON MOOD INDICATOR READING: IT HAS JUST SHIFTED FROM "NORMAL" TO "LOOK-OUT, EVERYONE!"
I don't mind telling you that I'm angry right now. I'm quite angry indeed. You see, I just wrote an extensive post regarding the present scenario with Iran, but, just as I was about to publish it, the blog-site "went funny" and it was suddenly erased...even though I had previously saved it. It is presently nowhere to be found...nowhere at all, and I'm told by those more knowledgeable about computers than I that it has most likely gone to "Blog-Post Heaven." Upon hearing this unfortunate news, I almost "acted-upon" my computer in a manner that would have rendered it "nowhere at all," if you catch my drift, but I calmed down enough to at least refrain from such behavior, thank goodness. It's an indication of how inwardly-heated I became that I am presently drinking a soothing cup of tea, which Mrs. Hasslington loves but I often find pointless when compared with coffee. (Coffee would assuredly be counter-productive insofar as my present mood is concerned.)
I hope to discuss the Iran scenario with you sometime relatively soon, but for now I will simply state that a Hasslington reader e-mailed me regarding the Russia/Georgia scenario, to which I sent a reply. But if you're interested in my take on that situation, please refer to my August 9th post (that was last Saturday), which can be accessed by scrolling down the screen.
HASSLINGTON VICE PRESIDENTIAL POLL BLOG-SITE RESULTS, SO FAR....
The temporary Hasslington vice presidential poll blog-site has seen rather heavy voting traffic of late, and the results so far are not particularly surprising: U.S. Senator Joe Biden (Delaware) and Governor Sarah Palin (Alaska) are presently in the lead, though there is still time for that to change...or solidify.
As of early this afternoon, 112 people have voted in the Democratic poll, and Senator Biden is presently in the lead with 48 votes (42%). In second place is Bill Richarson (21 votes; 18%), with Evan Bayh in third place (16 votes; 14%) and Hillary Clinton in forth place (8 votes; 7%). This is unsurprising, as all four of these individuals bring with them years of foreign policy experience (particularly Joe Biden and Bill Richardson). I will repeat my suggestion that I consider an individual's judgment in both foreign and domestic policy to be the most important factor regarding whether he or she is qualified to be the next president; Senator Obama's judgment is very strong indeed. Yet it would greatly enhance his chances of winning the presidency if he were to marry someone else's experience with his judgment when he selects a running mate.
One thing that surprises me regarding this poll is the fact that foreign policy expert Sam Nunn has yet to receive a single vote.
So far, 39 people have voted in the Republican poll, and Sarah Palin is leading with 14 votes (35%). In second place is Mitt Romney (6 votes; 15%), with Joe Lieberman in third place (3 votes; 7%), and several other people tied for forth place (2 votes apiece; 5% apiece). This is also rather unsurprising, as Sarah Palin would bring both excitement and perhaps a sizeable amount of the female vote to the rather stodgy McCain campaign. Similarly, Mitt Romney would most likely help Senator McCain in swing-states such as Michigan and New Hampshire, and, since he is an Independent-Democrat, selecting Joe Lieberman to be his running mate would re-inforce the "maverick" image that Senator McCain has cultivated.
One thing that surprises me regarding this poll is the fact that both Tom Ridge and John Thune, who I consider strong potential running mate selections, have received only one vote apiece (2% apiece).
There is still time to vote in the poll, which is located at http://hasslingtonvicepresident.blogspot.com/ and will remain open until the candidates select their running mates and make their selections known to the public. If you feel the political spirit move you, go ahead and vote in the poll right now.
"AUSSIE TRAV" TAKES IN YANKEE FUNDRAISERS AND YANKEE BASEBALL GAMES
Before I forget, I would like to wish my good friend Trav--who is originally from Perth, Australia but who has for the past few years lived in Britain--a good and safe flight back to his native country, to which he is returning for the first time in a long time, and where he plans to stay on a semi-permanent basis. I met Trav when we both taught in a high school outside of Bury Saint Edmunds, England during the 2005-2006 school year. (I taught English and he taught...Religion, which is rather funny to think about if you know him.)
Trav just left the Twin Cities here in Minnesota, which he visited for a week after first visiting New York City for a week. He stayed with us, and, given his interest in international politics, it didn't surprise me that he insisted on attending the recent Elwyn Tinklenberg fundraiser which took place in White Bear Lake, Minnesota. He even asked Mr. Tinklenberg a question regarding the future of U.S. domestic energy policy as it relates to both internal U.S. transportation issues and U.S. procurement and use of foreign sources of oil, to which Mr. Tinklenberg provided a thorough response. Trav informed me later that he was impressed by Mr. Tinklenberg's response, which I guess would be a bit more of a positive development if Trav were an American voter who lives in Minnesota's 6th District, but, unlike me, he isn't, and, like me, he doesn't.
On Monday, we took in the Minnesota Twins vs. New York Yankees baseball game at the Metrodome in Minneapolis. If you could imagine me with my British wife and my Australian friend ordering food at the concession stand, you could most likely also understand why the lady working behind the counter thought we were doing a post-modern Marx Brothers-esque "funny accents" routine at her expense. But it got sorted-out, as these things tend to do. The Twins won, thankfully, which prompted Trav to suggest that it was "...good to root against the Yankees...." That statement contained multiple meanings, but most were in jest.
At any rate, he informed me that he enjoyed his time in the U.S., and that Mrs. Hasslington and I are invited to his home country at any time, which prompted me to think that it is indeed a small world, after all.
GEORGE D. SHUMAN'S "18 SECONDS" IS A NOT-SO-TYPICAL TAKE ON TYPICAL SUMMER READING FARE
Sherry Moore lost her sight due to a tragic and violent event during her childhood, but that event also opened the door to her future career as a police liaison who can "read" the memories of recently deceased people. (Yes, you read that correctly.) Kelly O'Shaughnessy is the daughter of a former cop who has risen through the police ranks herself, to the point where she has recently gained significant authority, though these professional accomplishments coincide with the apparent break-up of her marriage. Both women are intelligent, and both are extraordinary in other unique ways, as well: Sherry's insights help people find some semblance of resolution (if certainly not total reconciliation) regarding those they know who are killed tragically at the hands of others, and Kelly's tenacity and doggedness serve her well professionally, if less well personally.
Both women are very lonely in their own ways, and in his debut 2006 novel "18 Seconds" (yes, I know that the titles of novels are meant to be underlined or put in italics, but I don't have those options, so....), George D. Shuman clearly attempts to draw connections and distinctions between the two in order to suggest that they are foils for each other, if foils who genuinely admire one another and are on the same side of the law. Mr. Shuman succeeds in this task, mostly because in these two women he creates often distinct and almost always interesting (if occasionally generic) individuals and situates them in a story that, while a bit far-fetched, is nonetheless well-drawn, especially for a first novel.
Like many first novels, this one includes about a half dozen too many superfluous major characters, many of whom are similar enough to one another that they seem to morph into each other after a while, to the point where the reader simply doesn't see the purpose for their inclusion in the first place. (They're probably just there to move the plot along.) Also, is it really necessary that the serial killer both Ms. Moore and Ms. O'Shaughnessy are chasing has to be dying from terminal cancer...and does this cancer really have to be derived from the serial killer spending lengthy amounts of time in what amounts to a toxic waste dump?
Yet, due to their singular natures and determined mindsets, the two lead characters sustain the narrative throughout, and, though my attention regarding the story itself wavered in the latter stages of the novel, I found myself constantly interested in the interplay between these women and those with whom they surround themselves. The novel was good enough for me to have recently purchased Mr. Shuman's 2007 follow-up, "Last Breath." I'll be reading it soon.
I don't mind telling you that I'm angry right now. I'm quite angry indeed. You see, I just wrote an extensive post regarding the present scenario with Iran, but, just as I was about to publish it, the blog-site "went funny" and it was suddenly erased...even though I had previously saved it. It is presently nowhere to be found...nowhere at all, and I'm told by those more knowledgeable about computers than I that it has most likely gone to "Blog-Post Heaven." Upon hearing this unfortunate news, I almost "acted-upon" my computer in a manner that would have rendered it "nowhere at all," if you catch my drift, but I calmed down enough to at least refrain from such behavior, thank goodness. It's an indication of how inwardly-heated I became that I am presently drinking a soothing cup of tea, which Mrs. Hasslington loves but I often find pointless when compared with coffee. (Coffee would assuredly be counter-productive insofar as my present mood is concerned.)
I hope to discuss the Iran scenario with you sometime relatively soon, but for now I will simply state that a Hasslington reader e-mailed me regarding the Russia/Georgia scenario, to which I sent a reply. But if you're interested in my take on that situation, please refer to my August 9th post (that was last Saturday), which can be accessed by scrolling down the screen.
HASSLINGTON VICE PRESIDENTIAL POLL BLOG-SITE RESULTS, SO FAR....
The temporary Hasslington vice presidential poll blog-site has seen rather heavy voting traffic of late, and the results so far are not particularly surprising: U.S. Senator Joe Biden (Delaware) and Governor Sarah Palin (Alaska) are presently in the lead, though there is still time for that to change...or solidify.
As of early this afternoon, 112 people have voted in the Democratic poll, and Senator Biden is presently in the lead with 48 votes (42%). In second place is Bill Richarson (21 votes; 18%), with Evan Bayh in third place (16 votes; 14%) and Hillary Clinton in forth place (8 votes; 7%). This is unsurprising, as all four of these individuals bring with them years of foreign policy experience (particularly Joe Biden and Bill Richardson). I will repeat my suggestion that I consider an individual's judgment in both foreign and domestic policy to be the most important factor regarding whether he or she is qualified to be the next president; Senator Obama's judgment is very strong indeed. Yet it would greatly enhance his chances of winning the presidency if he were to marry someone else's experience with his judgment when he selects a running mate.
One thing that surprises me regarding this poll is the fact that foreign policy expert Sam Nunn has yet to receive a single vote.
So far, 39 people have voted in the Republican poll, and Sarah Palin is leading with 14 votes (35%). In second place is Mitt Romney (6 votes; 15%), with Joe Lieberman in third place (3 votes; 7%), and several other people tied for forth place (2 votes apiece; 5% apiece). This is also rather unsurprising, as Sarah Palin would bring both excitement and perhaps a sizeable amount of the female vote to the rather stodgy McCain campaign. Similarly, Mitt Romney would most likely help Senator McCain in swing-states such as Michigan and New Hampshire, and, since he is an Independent-Democrat, selecting Joe Lieberman to be his running mate would re-inforce the "maverick" image that Senator McCain has cultivated.
One thing that surprises me regarding this poll is the fact that both Tom Ridge and John Thune, who I consider strong potential running mate selections, have received only one vote apiece (2% apiece).
There is still time to vote in the poll, which is located at http://hasslingtonvicepresident.blogspot.com/ and will remain open until the candidates select their running mates and make their selections known to the public. If you feel the political spirit move you, go ahead and vote in the poll right now.
"AUSSIE TRAV" TAKES IN YANKEE FUNDRAISERS AND YANKEE BASEBALL GAMES
Before I forget, I would like to wish my good friend Trav--who is originally from Perth, Australia but who has for the past few years lived in Britain--a good and safe flight back to his native country, to which he is returning for the first time in a long time, and where he plans to stay on a semi-permanent basis. I met Trav when we both taught in a high school outside of Bury Saint Edmunds, England during the 2005-2006 school year. (I taught English and he taught...Religion, which is rather funny to think about if you know him.)
Trav just left the Twin Cities here in Minnesota, which he visited for a week after first visiting New York City for a week. He stayed with us, and, given his interest in international politics, it didn't surprise me that he insisted on attending the recent Elwyn Tinklenberg fundraiser which took place in White Bear Lake, Minnesota. He even asked Mr. Tinklenberg a question regarding the future of U.S. domestic energy policy as it relates to both internal U.S. transportation issues and U.S. procurement and use of foreign sources of oil, to which Mr. Tinklenberg provided a thorough response. Trav informed me later that he was impressed by Mr. Tinklenberg's response, which I guess would be a bit more of a positive development if Trav were an American voter who lives in Minnesota's 6th District, but, unlike me, he isn't, and, like me, he doesn't.
On Monday, we took in the Minnesota Twins vs. New York Yankees baseball game at the Metrodome in Minneapolis. If you could imagine me with my British wife and my Australian friend ordering food at the concession stand, you could most likely also understand why the lady working behind the counter thought we were doing a post-modern Marx Brothers-esque "funny accents" routine at her expense. But it got sorted-out, as these things tend to do. The Twins won, thankfully, which prompted Trav to suggest that it was "...good to root against the Yankees...." That statement contained multiple meanings, but most were in jest.
At any rate, he informed me that he enjoyed his time in the U.S., and that Mrs. Hasslington and I are invited to his home country at any time, which prompted me to think that it is indeed a small world, after all.
GEORGE D. SHUMAN'S "18 SECONDS" IS A NOT-SO-TYPICAL TAKE ON TYPICAL SUMMER READING FARE
Sherry Moore lost her sight due to a tragic and violent event during her childhood, but that event also opened the door to her future career as a police liaison who can "read" the memories of recently deceased people. (Yes, you read that correctly.) Kelly O'Shaughnessy is the daughter of a former cop who has risen through the police ranks herself, to the point where she has recently gained significant authority, though these professional accomplishments coincide with the apparent break-up of her marriage. Both women are intelligent, and both are extraordinary in other unique ways, as well: Sherry's insights help people find some semblance of resolution (if certainly not total reconciliation) regarding those they know who are killed tragically at the hands of others, and Kelly's tenacity and doggedness serve her well professionally, if less well personally.
Both women are very lonely in their own ways, and in his debut 2006 novel "18 Seconds" (yes, I know that the titles of novels are meant to be underlined or put in italics, but I don't have those options, so....), George D. Shuman clearly attempts to draw connections and distinctions between the two in order to suggest that they are foils for each other, if foils who genuinely admire one another and are on the same side of the law. Mr. Shuman succeeds in this task, mostly because in these two women he creates often distinct and almost always interesting (if occasionally generic) individuals and situates them in a story that, while a bit far-fetched, is nonetheless well-drawn, especially for a first novel.
Like many first novels, this one includes about a half dozen too many superfluous major characters, many of whom are similar enough to one another that they seem to morph into each other after a while, to the point where the reader simply doesn't see the purpose for their inclusion in the first place. (They're probably just there to move the plot along.) Also, is it really necessary that the serial killer both Ms. Moore and Ms. O'Shaughnessy are chasing has to be dying from terminal cancer...and does this cancer really have to be derived from the serial killer spending lengthy amounts of time in what amounts to a toxic waste dump?
Yet, due to their singular natures and determined mindsets, the two lead characters sustain the narrative throughout, and, though my attention regarding the story itself wavered in the latter stages of the novel, I found myself constantly interested in the interplay between these women and those with whom they surround themselves. The novel was good enough for me to have recently purchased Mr. Shuman's 2007 follow-up, "Last Breath." I'll be reading it soon.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Are We About To See A "Traditional" Presidential Candidate Obama? I Hope So.
There has been a lot of talk of late centering on what The Economist magazine recently termed "Obama Fatigue," which is, well, just that, really--the "burn-out" sensation a lot of American voters are feeling regarding Senator Obama's meteoric rise to fame, his near ubiquity on television newscasts (and on the internet and in magazines and newspapers) over the past year or so, and his sweeping speeches, which are complete with stirring-if-somewhat-generic "meta" phrases, such as (but not exclusively) "this is our moment; this is our time," "yes, we can," and "we need change in [filling in the blank with any of a number of areas of policy, domestic or foreign]."
With all of his media exposure over a lengthy period of time, it's no wonder that a certain percentage of somewhat politically ambivalent, rather independent-minded voters are feeling worn-out; these folks are generally reliable voters in presidential elections, and they also often tune-in for the presidential debates and follow the presidential race in the time between the conventions and the election, but they tend to tune-out the presidential goings-on prior to the conventions, especially in the summer. Yet this year, it's almost impossible for anyone to tune-out the presidential race--or rather it's almost impossible for anyone to tune-out coverage of Senator Obama.
That's my point, you see--Senator McCain is campaigning just as vigorously as is Senator Obama, but he hasn't grabbed the American (and, it seems, international) political zeitgeist by the throat at all, or at least he hasn't done it to the extent that Senator Obama has. This might suggest to those following the goings-on in a rather close manner that Senator Obama has the advantage come November, which in a sense he does because he has by far the larger legion of hyper-intense supporters, but it also might spell trouble with those for whom the political zeitgeist is less inspiring than it is often annoying, and who prefer their candidates to be centrist, sensible, and (sometimes above all) somewhat quiet, with very little hint of personal hubris.
That latter group of voters might very well swing the forthcoming presidential election one way or the other, which is what John McCain is banking on, because it may be the case that, without a bit of a change (there's that word again) of course and tactics, Senator Obama's campaign team may accidentially snatch defeat from the jaws of victory thanks to a potentially overheated, almost spiritual campaign that frightens/annoys independents into voting for the less-flashy "maverick" Senator McCain. (Many independent voters often like to think of themselves as "maverick" in a generic sense, but not when it reaches a sort of societal tipping-point into new paradigms; this is not a criticism, it's just reality, and it's of course the case that many independent voters do not fit that description...though enough just might to help Senator McCain to a November victory.)
So Senator Obama made entirely the right move when he took this week "off" for vacation (though he spoke to the media and issued statements on several occasions), which will allow folks to catch their breath in a moment when Obama-mania is at low ebb (it will be flowing in a major way in a few weeks...). It will also allow Senator Obama to work out a slightly altered strategy for the autumn campaign season--which starts at the convention, or perhaps just prior to it--in which he is both a bit more personable (which is to say less aloof) with independent voters by talking-up his very American roots (his international roots will be talked-up often for him, I'm sure, so he doesn't need to concentrate on that) and focusing heavily on policy proposals.
My suggestion would be that he begin previewing his convention speech after he arrives on the American mainland from his vacation in Hawaii, at which point he ought to begin to focus mostly on domestic issues, and primarily on how to jump-start the wounded economy, and leave the inspiring rhetoric in the background for a while. At the convention, his running mate should focus on foreign issues (with some domestic issues sprinkled into the mix), as he will surely choose a foreign policy expert as his running mate. That will allow Senator Obama to deliver an even-toned, rather centrist speech dedicated mostly to domestic policy, and he can weave in his own background to the speech, suggesting that the United States inspired both his native-born mother and foreign-born father economically and otherwise, and therefore as a native-born American he is dedicated to seeing the economy improve.
Then he should unveil somewhat sharper if lengthier versions of his domestic proposals in a serious way that displays his convictions without making him look as though he doesn't have a sense of humor (a few jokes would help with this). Whereas his running mate should repeatedly criticize Senator McCain's proposals, both domestic and foreign, as well as speak in an optimistic manner about Senator Obama's proposals, Senator Obama should most likely stay focused on his own domestic ideas (while occasionally criticizing Senator McCain for his), which will suggest a positive attitude married to serious thought in order to overcome the present economic troubles. He ought to stay serious, presidential, occasionally personable, and always pragmatic in his speech, and he ought to put the primary focus on the state of the economy and other domestic matters, while discussing the connections between the economy and foreign relations, as well. (During Senator Obama's speech, all roads ought to come back to the economy.) The soaring rhetoric should make an appearance (probably toward the end of the speech), but it ought to be minimized to the extent that his proposals take center stage; he needs to look like a home-grown pragmatist--a political version of a plumber--not a professorial preacher.
When the convention is over and he is on the campaign trail, Senator Obama should stick with this domestic-first method of campaigning, with proposals that have meat on their bones, and leave the inspiring rhetoric for certain "proper" moments. He ought to hit Senator McCain on multiple occasions regarding Senator McCain's political links to President Bush, but far more often he ought to draw distinctions regarding his own practical plans and those of Senator McCain, which will have the effect of making him look "presidential"--he should leave it to his running mate to really hammer away at Senator McCain.
If all of this sounds familiar, it's because it is--this is a tried and true method of winning a presidential election. It does not always work, but it works far more often than any other kind of campaign strategy, which obviously recommends it. In the specific case of Senator Obama, what also recommends it is that he is most certainly not what one might call a "normal" presidential candidate, at least not insofar as what most people would have considered "normal" up to this point. As the first mixed-ethnicity candidate (his father was Kenyan, his mother a white American), he has already blasted one door off of its hinges, for which I applaud him, but I would caution him to avoid blasting another door off of its hinges too quickly by campaigning in what some swing-voters might see as an "overly exotic" manner, which would be too hip by half and might very well lose him the election. (He's already ahead of the curve; if he gets too far ahead of the curve he might set a template for how to win the presidency in 2012 or 2016, while nonetheless losing in 2008.) He ought to stick to the rather traditional meat-and-potatoes type of autumn campaign, with an emphasis on the domestic side of things, and he ought to have his running mate stick to the traditional red meat attack strategy, with a further specialization in the foreign policy side of things.
With all of his media exposure over a lengthy period of time, it's no wonder that a certain percentage of somewhat politically ambivalent, rather independent-minded voters are feeling worn-out; these folks are generally reliable voters in presidential elections, and they also often tune-in for the presidential debates and follow the presidential race in the time between the conventions and the election, but they tend to tune-out the presidential goings-on prior to the conventions, especially in the summer. Yet this year, it's almost impossible for anyone to tune-out the presidential race--or rather it's almost impossible for anyone to tune-out coverage of Senator Obama.
That's my point, you see--Senator McCain is campaigning just as vigorously as is Senator Obama, but he hasn't grabbed the American (and, it seems, international) political zeitgeist by the throat at all, or at least he hasn't done it to the extent that Senator Obama has. This might suggest to those following the goings-on in a rather close manner that Senator Obama has the advantage come November, which in a sense he does because he has by far the larger legion of hyper-intense supporters, but it also might spell trouble with those for whom the political zeitgeist is less inspiring than it is often annoying, and who prefer their candidates to be centrist, sensible, and (sometimes above all) somewhat quiet, with very little hint of personal hubris.
That latter group of voters might very well swing the forthcoming presidential election one way or the other, which is what John McCain is banking on, because it may be the case that, without a bit of a change (there's that word again) of course and tactics, Senator Obama's campaign team may accidentially snatch defeat from the jaws of victory thanks to a potentially overheated, almost spiritual campaign that frightens/annoys independents into voting for the less-flashy "maverick" Senator McCain. (Many independent voters often like to think of themselves as "maverick" in a generic sense, but not when it reaches a sort of societal tipping-point into new paradigms; this is not a criticism, it's just reality, and it's of course the case that many independent voters do not fit that description...though enough just might to help Senator McCain to a November victory.)
So Senator Obama made entirely the right move when he took this week "off" for vacation (though he spoke to the media and issued statements on several occasions), which will allow folks to catch their breath in a moment when Obama-mania is at low ebb (it will be flowing in a major way in a few weeks...). It will also allow Senator Obama to work out a slightly altered strategy for the autumn campaign season--which starts at the convention, or perhaps just prior to it--in which he is both a bit more personable (which is to say less aloof) with independent voters by talking-up his very American roots (his international roots will be talked-up often for him, I'm sure, so he doesn't need to concentrate on that) and focusing heavily on policy proposals.
My suggestion would be that he begin previewing his convention speech after he arrives on the American mainland from his vacation in Hawaii, at which point he ought to begin to focus mostly on domestic issues, and primarily on how to jump-start the wounded economy, and leave the inspiring rhetoric in the background for a while. At the convention, his running mate should focus on foreign issues (with some domestic issues sprinkled into the mix), as he will surely choose a foreign policy expert as his running mate. That will allow Senator Obama to deliver an even-toned, rather centrist speech dedicated mostly to domestic policy, and he can weave in his own background to the speech, suggesting that the United States inspired both his native-born mother and foreign-born father economically and otherwise, and therefore as a native-born American he is dedicated to seeing the economy improve.
Then he should unveil somewhat sharper if lengthier versions of his domestic proposals in a serious way that displays his convictions without making him look as though he doesn't have a sense of humor (a few jokes would help with this). Whereas his running mate should repeatedly criticize Senator McCain's proposals, both domestic and foreign, as well as speak in an optimistic manner about Senator Obama's proposals, Senator Obama should most likely stay focused on his own domestic ideas (while occasionally criticizing Senator McCain for his), which will suggest a positive attitude married to serious thought in order to overcome the present economic troubles. He ought to stay serious, presidential, occasionally personable, and always pragmatic in his speech, and he ought to put the primary focus on the state of the economy and other domestic matters, while discussing the connections between the economy and foreign relations, as well. (During Senator Obama's speech, all roads ought to come back to the economy.) The soaring rhetoric should make an appearance (probably toward the end of the speech), but it ought to be minimized to the extent that his proposals take center stage; he needs to look like a home-grown pragmatist--a political version of a plumber--not a professorial preacher.
When the convention is over and he is on the campaign trail, Senator Obama should stick with this domestic-first method of campaigning, with proposals that have meat on their bones, and leave the inspiring rhetoric for certain "proper" moments. He ought to hit Senator McCain on multiple occasions regarding Senator McCain's political links to President Bush, but far more often he ought to draw distinctions regarding his own practical plans and those of Senator McCain, which will have the effect of making him look "presidential"--he should leave it to his running mate to really hammer away at Senator McCain.
If all of this sounds familiar, it's because it is--this is a tried and true method of winning a presidential election. It does not always work, but it works far more often than any other kind of campaign strategy, which obviously recommends it. In the specific case of Senator Obama, what also recommends it is that he is most certainly not what one might call a "normal" presidential candidate, at least not insofar as what most people would have considered "normal" up to this point. As the first mixed-ethnicity candidate (his father was Kenyan, his mother a white American), he has already blasted one door off of its hinges, for which I applaud him, but I would caution him to avoid blasting another door off of its hinges too quickly by campaigning in what some swing-voters might see as an "overly exotic" manner, which would be too hip by half and might very well lose him the election. (He's already ahead of the curve; if he gets too far ahead of the curve he might set a template for how to win the presidency in 2012 or 2016, while nonetheless losing in 2008.) He ought to stick to the rather traditional meat-and-potatoes type of autumn campaign, with an emphasis on the domestic side of things, and he ought to have his running mate stick to the traditional red meat attack strategy, with a further specialization in the foreign policy side of things.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Regarding: ...Russia And Georgia...John Edwards...The Rising Stock Of Biden-Types....
REGARDING RUSSIA'S INCURSION INTO GEORGIA....
The timing of Russia's incursion into neighboring Georgia, ostensibly in response to a Georgian crackdown in the often pro-Russian area of South Ossetia, is telling--it began on the same day as the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, which suggests that the timing is ham-handed but not haphazard. In other words, though it was clearly somewhat of a mis-calculation in the sense that it was at one level meant to occur while "everyone is somewhat distracted" by the Olympic festivities (with major heads of state occupied with viewing their Olympians circle the track in Beijing, waving to the crowds), it was nonetheless a calculated maneuver, which suggests that Russia was waiting and watching the goings-on in Georgia in order to move aggressively against at least part of that country at some point. That point has arrived.
Georgia has had aspirations of joining NATO for quite some time now. This combined with the cultural and political influence of the U.S. and other Western nations increasingly taking hold in former Soviet republics that border Russia (and planned U.S. missile defense systems ready to be put up in European countries who were once members of the "Soviet Bloc"), as well as the fact that the U.S. is involved in major military operations and/or "tough talk" regarding Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan (all relatively close to Russia's southern border), has an economically-emerging Russia feeling a bit caged-in by its old adversaries. (Let's also not forget the fact that the political situation in nearby Pakistan is presently tenuous at best, and probably worsening by the week, adding to this sense of regional instability.)
Russia is indeed witnessing its economic fortunes improve, and much (though not all) of this is due to its emerging status as an oil power; in recent years, Western European oil companies have been kicked-out of what Russia views as its territory in unceremonious manners, and Russia has expanded the reach of its petro-influence further into Western Europe in both subtle as well as often jarringly overt--and sometimes quite belligerent--manners. With this increasing ability to flex its strengthening oil muscles, the Russian government feels as though it can assert itself more openly and thoroughly in geopolitical manners, and it has therefore lately begun to challenge the United States and Western Europe with an aggressive, if sometimes clunky, set of maneuvers, ranging from turning off the oil pipeline to such places as neighboring Ukraine due to political disagreements (this worried much of Europe to a great extent) to flying a few of its very old spy planes over U.K. territorial waters (which was a bit of a joke, given the antique nature of the planes, but might yet prove a harbinger of gloomy, more geopolitically dangerous things to come).
So we come full-circle to the present situation in Georgia. I find it very difficult to believe that Russia's aggressive stance regarding its former satellite is due solely to a crackdown on separatist violence in a section of that presently pro-Western country. It is more likely the case that Russia is using this scenario in order to send a message, if one that is a bit muddled in manner; it seems to be suggesting that the issue is an "internal Russian" one (which is a bit odd, given that Russia no longer controls Georgia, even if it does help financially with South Ossetia), while at the same time it is sending another, more intuitive message that suggests that Russia will not stand by while the West further erodes its influence in the region, particularly now that petro-money is raising the monetary fortunes of the Russian government. Russia is an old country, but its post-Soviet geopolitical outlook is a very young one in the sense that it is still largely being developed (as is its overall cultural paradigm), which means that, when combined with new money, it is a potentially impetuous and volatile geopolitical outlook, as well.
The rest of the world would do well to study closely how Russia deals with this complex and violent scenario in Georgia; it may give us a few hints regarding how it will handle bigger, trickier affairs that are bound to arise in its region in the future.
REGARDING THE PROBLEM(S) WITH JOHN EDWARDS....
I don't particularly care about the extramarital affair to which former-Senator John Edwards has recently admitted, though I will say that while I consider such activities tacky, I find this particularly so given that his wife has undergone such a difficult time of late due to cancer-related health issues. Still, given the public nature of his work, what I most object to isn't this affair so much as it is the smarmy, put-together political character that Mr. Edwards is.
I have long-since come to the conclusion that Mr. Edwards exudes a complete lack of personal or political authenticity. His speeches are simpering and pandering in nature, which is no surprise whatsoever from a politician, but what is surprising is how obviously empty they are; most politicians are quite good at hiding the vapid nature of what they say inside some semblance of a personal viewpoint, but Mr. Edwards' speeches are nothing more than junior-high-level appeals to the most base emotions of his listeners. (When he talks, he sounds like a would-be precocious sixth grader who is all too aware of the fact that he has the best hair of anyone in the classroom.) What alarms me the most about this scenario is not the fact that a lot of people seem to like what he says (that is no bad thing at all), but rather the fact that many of them like how he says it (which does not particularly suggest that our national political maturity level has gotten anywhere near its high-water mark of late).
This is really too bad, because one could make a rather strong case suggesting that the sort of Hubert Humphrey-esque character niche that Mr. Edwards has tried to carve for himself (and largely failed at achieving, as far as I'm concerned) does need to be filled by someone at the national level, though I would suggest that it needs to be filled by someone with more political gravitas and less personal smarminess than John Edwards. (And Dennis Kucinich is most likely not the answer, either.)
REGARDING DEMOCRATIC BIDEN-TYPES....
With the political situation in Pakistan deteriorating (at least this week), and with Russia and Georgia coming to blows that are both political and military in nature, it was a good week for one group of upwardly-mobile people: high-profile Democratic foreign-policy experts with years of international experience who might look like a good fit to be the Vice Presidential running mate (or a strong potential Secretary of State) for Senator Obama, whose judgment is sound but whose foreign policy resume' is thin. Misters Biden, Nunn, and Richardson...as well as a few other highly-qualified folks...are you listening? I'll bet that you are....
The timing of Russia's incursion into neighboring Georgia, ostensibly in response to a Georgian crackdown in the often pro-Russian area of South Ossetia, is telling--it began on the same day as the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, which suggests that the timing is ham-handed but not haphazard. In other words, though it was clearly somewhat of a mis-calculation in the sense that it was at one level meant to occur while "everyone is somewhat distracted" by the Olympic festivities (with major heads of state occupied with viewing their Olympians circle the track in Beijing, waving to the crowds), it was nonetheless a calculated maneuver, which suggests that Russia was waiting and watching the goings-on in Georgia in order to move aggressively against at least part of that country at some point. That point has arrived.
Georgia has had aspirations of joining NATO for quite some time now. This combined with the cultural and political influence of the U.S. and other Western nations increasingly taking hold in former Soviet republics that border Russia (and planned U.S. missile defense systems ready to be put up in European countries who were once members of the "Soviet Bloc"), as well as the fact that the U.S. is involved in major military operations and/or "tough talk" regarding Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan (all relatively close to Russia's southern border), has an economically-emerging Russia feeling a bit caged-in by its old adversaries. (Let's also not forget the fact that the political situation in nearby Pakistan is presently tenuous at best, and probably worsening by the week, adding to this sense of regional instability.)
Russia is indeed witnessing its economic fortunes improve, and much (though not all) of this is due to its emerging status as an oil power; in recent years, Western European oil companies have been kicked-out of what Russia views as its territory in unceremonious manners, and Russia has expanded the reach of its petro-influence further into Western Europe in both subtle as well as often jarringly overt--and sometimes quite belligerent--manners. With this increasing ability to flex its strengthening oil muscles, the Russian government feels as though it can assert itself more openly and thoroughly in geopolitical manners, and it has therefore lately begun to challenge the United States and Western Europe with an aggressive, if sometimes clunky, set of maneuvers, ranging from turning off the oil pipeline to such places as neighboring Ukraine due to political disagreements (this worried much of Europe to a great extent) to flying a few of its very old spy planes over U.K. territorial waters (which was a bit of a joke, given the antique nature of the planes, but might yet prove a harbinger of gloomy, more geopolitically dangerous things to come).
So we come full-circle to the present situation in Georgia. I find it very difficult to believe that Russia's aggressive stance regarding its former satellite is due solely to a crackdown on separatist violence in a section of that presently pro-Western country. It is more likely the case that Russia is using this scenario in order to send a message, if one that is a bit muddled in manner; it seems to be suggesting that the issue is an "internal Russian" one (which is a bit odd, given that Russia no longer controls Georgia, even if it does help financially with South Ossetia), while at the same time it is sending another, more intuitive message that suggests that Russia will not stand by while the West further erodes its influence in the region, particularly now that petro-money is raising the monetary fortunes of the Russian government. Russia is an old country, but its post-Soviet geopolitical outlook is a very young one in the sense that it is still largely being developed (as is its overall cultural paradigm), which means that, when combined with new money, it is a potentially impetuous and volatile geopolitical outlook, as well.
The rest of the world would do well to study closely how Russia deals with this complex and violent scenario in Georgia; it may give us a few hints regarding how it will handle bigger, trickier affairs that are bound to arise in its region in the future.
REGARDING THE PROBLEM(S) WITH JOHN EDWARDS....
I don't particularly care about the extramarital affair to which former-Senator John Edwards has recently admitted, though I will say that while I consider such activities tacky, I find this particularly so given that his wife has undergone such a difficult time of late due to cancer-related health issues. Still, given the public nature of his work, what I most object to isn't this affair so much as it is the smarmy, put-together political character that Mr. Edwards is.
I have long-since come to the conclusion that Mr. Edwards exudes a complete lack of personal or political authenticity. His speeches are simpering and pandering in nature, which is no surprise whatsoever from a politician, but what is surprising is how obviously empty they are; most politicians are quite good at hiding the vapid nature of what they say inside some semblance of a personal viewpoint, but Mr. Edwards' speeches are nothing more than junior-high-level appeals to the most base emotions of his listeners. (When he talks, he sounds like a would-be precocious sixth grader who is all too aware of the fact that he has the best hair of anyone in the classroom.) What alarms me the most about this scenario is not the fact that a lot of people seem to like what he says (that is no bad thing at all), but rather the fact that many of them like how he says it (which does not particularly suggest that our national political maturity level has gotten anywhere near its high-water mark of late).
This is really too bad, because one could make a rather strong case suggesting that the sort of Hubert Humphrey-esque character niche that Mr. Edwards has tried to carve for himself (and largely failed at achieving, as far as I'm concerned) does need to be filled by someone at the national level, though I would suggest that it needs to be filled by someone with more political gravitas and less personal smarminess than John Edwards. (And Dennis Kucinich is most likely not the answer, either.)
REGARDING DEMOCRATIC BIDEN-TYPES....
With the political situation in Pakistan deteriorating (at least this week), and with Russia and Georgia coming to blows that are both political and military in nature, it was a good week for one group of upwardly-mobile people: high-profile Democratic foreign-policy experts with years of international experience who might look like a good fit to be the Vice Presidential running mate (or a strong potential Secretary of State) for Senator Obama, whose judgment is sound but whose foreign policy resume' is thin. Misters Biden, Nunn, and Richardson...as well as a few other highly-qualified folks...are you listening? I'll bet that you are....
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Happy Birthday, Mrs. Hasslington, And Many Happy Returns
Today is Mrs. Hasslington's birthday. She is a few months younger (older) than me, and, though she has celebrated birthdays while on vacation in the United States before, this is her first birthday as a permanent resident of the United States. She misses her native United Kingdom, but she also informs me that she is enjoying both the U.S. in general as well as the "actual summer" we Minnesotans expect as a matter of course.
I am now being informed that this will be the extent of my blogging activities for the day. Who am I to question such an assertion on this particular day?
Until next time....
I am now being informed that this will be the extent of my blogging activities for the day. Who am I to question such an assertion on this particular day?
Until next time....
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Various Notions, Volume 10: New Hasslington Vice Presidential Poll Blog-Site; El Tinklenberg August 9th Fundraiser Information; "Cheeseball" Music
NEW (TEMPORARY) HASSLINGTON VICE PRESIDENTIAL POLL BLOG-SITE
From now until the Democratic National Convention later this month, I have established a temporary blog-site devoted solely to two poll questions: "Who should Senator Obama select as his running mate?" and "Who should Senator McCain select as his running mate?" I have listed about thirty or so options for each candidate, as well as a "Someone Else" option.
I would be honored if folks were to vote in either or both of those polls. They can be located at the following internet address: http://hasslingtonvicepresident.blogspot.com/
Once Senator Obama or Senator McCain selects his running mate, his poll will close, so if you wish to make your voice heard, it might be a good idea to do it sooner rather than later.
Of course, this original Hasslington blog-site (http://hasslington.blogspot.com/) will carry on during and hopefully long-after the duration of the new poll site....
AUGUST 9th MEET-AND-GREET / FUNDRAISER FOR DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE ELWYN TINKLENBERG IN WHITE BEAR LAKE, MINNESOTA
On Saturday, August 9, Ali Giarushi and Nasir Mohammed are hosting a meet-and-greet / fundraiser for Elwyn Tinklenberg, who is running for U.S. Congress in Minnesota's Sixth District, and about whom I've written before. I hope to be there if it is possible (right now it's looking like it is), as I found the recent Minneapolis fundraising event for Mr. Tinklenberg to be both intriguing and energizing.
It should be pointed out that Mr. Tinklenberg is running against U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann, who has proven to be a polarizing figure in Washington, D.C., and who has not represented the rather independent voters of Minnesota's Sixth District well. Mr. Tinklenberg, by contrast, has not only secured the endorsement of the Democratic Party, but also the endorsement of the Independence Party; this is important because in endorsing Mr. Tinklenberg, the Independence Party decided not to run its own candidate this time around, which was not the case in 2006. Hence, Mr. Tinklenberg has an advantage that former Democratic candidates have not had in previous Sixth District congressional elections.
I endorsed Mr. Tinklenberg in an April post on this blog-site, so for now I will simply say that he has ample background experience (he was both Minnesota's Transportation Commissioner well before the current transportation problems occurred, a post he handled far better than the recent commissioners, as well as the successful mayor of Blaine, Minnesota, a growing Twin Cities suburb that, amongst other things, hosts one of the world's largest and most successful international soccer tournaments each year). He is also well versed in both national and international politics (in April, he and I discussed both the upcoming presidential race and the then-upcoming, now finished London mayoral race at length, and I found his comments regarding both situations to be insightful). It is my opinion that he will be a far less divisive, far more independent voice for Minnesota's Sixth District than Representative Bachman.
The details of the August 9th event are as follows:
Saturday, August 9th, 2008
10:00 AM to 12 Noon
Home of Ali Giarushi
6720 132nd Street
White Bear Lake, MN 55110
(White Bear Lake is located a few miles north-north-east of Saint Paul, Minnesota.)
Donations will be accepted.
Please RSVP by contacting Sam at 763-785-4676 OR by e-mailing him at sam@tinklenberg08.com
(Sam, who I've met on several occasions, is a nice guy, by the way, who is happy to take your call or receive your e-mail.)
The campaign also has an e-mail site: http://www.tinklenberg08.com/
THIS PAUL SIMON FAN COMES CLEAN ABOUT LOVING CHEESEBALL MUSIC (AT LEAST WHEN HE GOES FOR A JOG)
I was delighted to hear Paul Simon's "The Boxer" played on the radio during my jog a few days ago. (I can't remember the station; I switch stations a lot.) I consider that particular song one of the greatest tunes about being a bowed-but-not-beaten young man (well, okay, in my case, still slightly young-ish man) that the world of popular music has offered up over the last fifty years. (There are obviously other great songs about that topic, as well.) I found that my jogging pace picked up considerably when it began, and by the time it was over I felt as though I was flying down my running path; "flying" is a relative term, by the way, and in my case it is not meant to be taken anywhere near literally....
Our favorite songs seem to change the chemical balance of our brains; they seem to stimulate massive amounts of endorphins in very short periods of time, and elevate our sense of aesthetic bliss, almost to the point where this sensation takes us over completely for a while. Our favorite artists leave us in this elevated state for lengthy periods of time, as their songs linger in both the forefront and background of our minds for minutes and perhaps even hours after we hear them. This can be an annoying phenomenon when applied to songs we don't particularly like, but I've never been annoyed at finding myself humming the music that accompanies the words "...the fighter still remains...." When it's one of our favorite songs, we just don't seem to care that our lives have been disrupted for a certain amount of time.
Yet, from time to time, this phenomenon also occurs (at least to me) with songs that I know I should dislike yet I find myself enjoying. I am not speaking about songs I find utterly annoying that nonetheless worm their way into in my head, only to find the "repeat" button in there and press it incessantly (Ace of Base's "The Sign," a truly awful song, does this to me often); that scenario drives me around the bend for a while, as I'm sure it does for others. No, I'm talking about songs that are a million miles away from layered, thoughtful classics such as "The Boxer" in that they are incredibly "cheeseball" in nature and a bit overly simplistic (and they're certainly pre-packaged and generic), but are nonetheless not completely horrible.
I bring this up because during my jog yesterday evening, James Blunt's song "You're Beautiful" began playing over the airwaves. I consider this to be one of those generic, cheeseball powder-puff songs about which I just wrote, yet I found my pace, uh, well, picking up considerably (and not in order to get home before the song was over), and I found my previous thoughts dissipating as I dissolved into this junior-high level tune about a young man making eye contact with a young lady for a brief instant and...not much else, really.
In the past, I have made fun of this particular song while in mixed company, yet I must admit that I've always felt slightly guilty about mocking it because, well, I kind of like it, too, and I like it for many of the same reasons why I dislike it (if that makes any sort of sense); the cheesy nature of the lyrics both repel and attract me to it. Today's jogging experience was the most recent example of my conflicting viewpoints regarding "You're Beautiful," but, more than that, it was also evidence that we all need to be reminded, at least from time to time, of the way we processed information when we were in junior high, and how it felt when someone you might find "fanciable" (as Mrs. Hasslington puts it) walks by, making eye contact with you for a split-second. And then, just for a moment, we are forced to admit that, despite the fact that life becomes more complex and therefore more rewarding as we get older (as I see it), simple emotions retain their very important place for us adults, too.
This brings me to my ultimate point: as I see it, we should push to further explore the complexities and ambiguities of life as we get older, but we should also remind ourselves that a part of us all is still child-like in some ways, which, when in its rightful place, is no bad thing at all. So I'll keep embracing certain "cheeseball" tunes--if they're played alongside the more structurally and lyrically interesting ones, of course.
From now until the Democratic National Convention later this month, I have established a temporary blog-site devoted solely to two poll questions: "Who should Senator Obama select as his running mate?" and "Who should Senator McCain select as his running mate?" I have listed about thirty or so options for each candidate, as well as a "Someone Else" option.
I would be honored if folks were to vote in either or both of those polls. They can be located at the following internet address: http://hasslingtonvicepresident.blogspot.com/
Once Senator Obama or Senator McCain selects his running mate, his poll will close, so if you wish to make your voice heard, it might be a good idea to do it sooner rather than later.
Of course, this original Hasslington blog-site (http://hasslington.blogspot.com/) will carry on during and hopefully long-after the duration of the new poll site....
AUGUST 9th MEET-AND-GREET / FUNDRAISER FOR DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE ELWYN TINKLENBERG IN WHITE BEAR LAKE, MINNESOTA
On Saturday, August 9, Ali Giarushi and Nasir Mohammed are hosting a meet-and-greet / fundraiser for Elwyn Tinklenberg, who is running for U.S. Congress in Minnesota's Sixth District, and about whom I've written before. I hope to be there if it is possible (right now it's looking like it is), as I found the recent Minneapolis fundraising event for Mr. Tinklenberg to be both intriguing and energizing.
It should be pointed out that Mr. Tinklenberg is running against U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann, who has proven to be a polarizing figure in Washington, D.C., and who has not represented the rather independent voters of Minnesota's Sixth District well. Mr. Tinklenberg, by contrast, has not only secured the endorsement of the Democratic Party, but also the endorsement of the Independence Party; this is important because in endorsing Mr. Tinklenberg, the Independence Party decided not to run its own candidate this time around, which was not the case in 2006. Hence, Mr. Tinklenberg has an advantage that former Democratic candidates have not had in previous Sixth District congressional elections.
I endorsed Mr. Tinklenberg in an April post on this blog-site, so for now I will simply say that he has ample background experience (he was both Minnesota's Transportation Commissioner well before the current transportation problems occurred, a post he handled far better than the recent commissioners, as well as the successful mayor of Blaine, Minnesota, a growing Twin Cities suburb that, amongst other things, hosts one of the world's largest and most successful international soccer tournaments each year). He is also well versed in both national and international politics (in April, he and I discussed both the upcoming presidential race and the then-upcoming, now finished London mayoral race at length, and I found his comments regarding both situations to be insightful). It is my opinion that he will be a far less divisive, far more independent voice for Minnesota's Sixth District than Representative Bachman.
The details of the August 9th event are as follows:
Saturday, August 9th, 2008
10:00 AM to 12 Noon
Home of Ali Giarushi
6720 132nd Street
White Bear Lake, MN 55110
(White Bear Lake is located a few miles north-north-east of Saint Paul, Minnesota.)
Donations will be accepted.
Please RSVP by contacting Sam at 763-785-4676 OR by e-mailing him at sam@tinklenberg08.com
(Sam, who I've met on several occasions, is a nice guy, by the way, who is happy to take your call or receive your e-mail.)
The campaign also has an e-mail site: http://www.tinklenberg08.com/
THIS PAUL SIMON FAN COMES CLEAN ABOUT LOVING CHEESEBALL MUSIC (AT LEAST WHEN HE GOES FOR A JOG)
I was delighted to hear Paul Simon's "The Boxer" played on the radio during my jog a few days ago. (I can't remember the station; I switch stations a lot.) I consider that particular song one of the greatest tunes about being a bowed-but-not-beaten young man (well, okay, in my case, still slightly young-ish man) that the world of popular music has offered up over the last fifty years. (There are obviously other great songs about that topic, as well.) I found that my jogging pace picked up considerably when it began, and by the time it was over I felt as though I was flying down my running path; "flying" is a relative term, by the way, and in my case it is not meant to be taken anywhere near literally....
Our favorite songs seem to change the chemical balance of our brains; they seem to stimulate massive amounts of endorphins in very short periods of time, and elevate our sense of aesthetic bliss, almost to the point where this sensation takes us over completely for a while. Our favorite artists leave us in this elevated state for lengthy periods of time, as their songs linger in both the forefront and background of our minds for minutes and perhaps even hours after we hear them. This can be an annoying phenomenon when applied to songs we don't particularly like, but I've never been annoyed at finding myself humming the music that accompanies the words "...the fighter still remains...." When it's one of our favorite songs, we just don't seem to care that our lives have been disrupted for a certain amount of time.
Yet, from time to time, this phenomenon also occurs (at least to me) with songs that I know I should dislike yet I find myself enjoying. I am not speaking about songs I find utterly annoying that nonetheless worm their way into in my head, only to find the "repeat" button in there and press it incessantly (Ace of Base's "The Sign," a truly awful song, does this to me often); that scenario drives me around the bend for a while, as I'm sure it does for others. No, I'm talking about songs that are a million miles away from layered, thoughtful classics such as "The Boxer" in that they are incredibly "cheeseball" in nature and a bit overly simplistic (and they're certainly pre-packaged and generic), but are nonetheless not completely horrible.
I bring this up because during my jog yesterday evening, James Blunt's song "You're Beautiful" began playing over the airwaves. I consider this to be one of those generic, cheeseball powder-puff songs about which I just wrote, yet I found my pace, uh, well, picking up considerably (and not in order to get home before the song was over), and I found my previous thoughts dissipating as I dissolved into this junior-high level tune about a young man making eye contact with a young lady for a brief instant and...not much else, really.
In the past, I have made fun of this particular song while in mixed company, yet I must admit that I've always felt slightly guilty about mocking it because, well, I kind of like it, too, and I like it for many of the same reasons why I dislike it (if that makes any sort of sense); the cheesy nature of the lyrics both repel and attract me to it. Today's jogging experience was the most recent example of my conflicting viewpoints regarding "You're Beautiful," but, more than that, it was also evidence that we all need to be reminded, at least from time to time, of the way we processed information when we were in junior high, and how it felt when someone you might find "fanciable" (as Mrs. Hasslington puts it) walks by, making eye contact with you for a split-second. And then, just for a moment, we are forced to admit that, despite the fact that life becomes more complex and therefore more rewarding as we get older (as I see it), simple emotions retain their very important place for us adults, too.
This brings me to my ultimate point: as I see it, we should push to further explore the complexities and ambiguities of life as we get older, but we should also remind ourselves that a part of us all is still child-like in some ways, which, when in its rightful place, is no bad thing at all. So I'll keep embracing certain "cheeseball" tunes--if they're played alongside the more structurally and lyrically interesting ones, of course.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Club Stella-Sophisticate; Also, Equalizing Our Extradition Treaty With The U.K. Would Benefit Both Parties
STELLA ARTOIS, MARKETING SENSATION (THOUGH YOU MIGHT WANT TO ASK THE BRITISH ABOUT IT FOR AN INTERESTING COUNTER-POINT...)
Mrs. Hasslington and I went to a Minneapolis bar last night that was so self-consciously "hip" and "trendy" I was surprised it didn't display a registered trademark after its name on its outside sign. Come to think of it, the bar didn't even have an outside sign; for anyone standing on the street outside of it, its name was nowhere to be found. I guess it's one of those places that are so self-referential they don't seem to think they need to advertise their presence to folks from the "proletariat" who happen to pass by; with this place, I guess you're either in the know, or you're not. (I wasn't "in the know" about it until last night.)
You know an American bar is trendy when over half of the beer drinkers gathered there are sipping Stella Artois from gold-rimmed goblets that give communion chalices used in Catholic masses a run for their money. Now, in the interests of putting all of my cards on the table, I have no problems with either Stella Artois (which I think is a fairly nice Belgian lager) or people who sip it oh-so-preciously out of gaudy goblets. I do wonder, however, if such folks realize that, while it is basically marketed as the "sophisticated, erudite lager drinker's beer" here in the U.S., it has been referred to for years in the U.K. as "wife-beater" (which leaves very little to the imagination) and is often consumed in almost impossibly large quantities by those for whom life has not worked out according to plan, to put it delicately.
Stella became a marketing success in the U.K. years before it took off in the U.S., and though it was initially advertised as "reassuringly expensive" in the U.K. (I'm not joking about that tag-line), it wasn't too long before lager-headed soccer hooligans and the like were disrupting normal societal patterns in outrageous manners due to the side-effects of drinking a dozen or more bottles of Stella in about an hour's time. So though people dressed in expensive business clothes (on a Saturday evening) and projecting a sort of naive, affected "worldy sophistication" at one another are indeed enjoying the initial exotic image of Stella here in the U.S., I think it won't be long before Stella will be seen by most Americans as just another "Joe Average" beer (just as happened in the U.K.), along the lines of American beers such as Bud, Miller, and Coors. Then the marketing gurus will have to find another interestingly mediocre beer to dress up as the next path to social enlightenment.
By the way, at that trendy bar I drank one of the first Stellas I've had since I returned to the U.S. last autumn, though not by design. Someone was kind enough to buy it for me.
LET'S EQUALIZE OUR EXTRADITION TREATY WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM
In 2003, the Bush Administration pushed for and won a new, unbalanced extradition treaty with the United Kingdom, and of the many complaints directed at the United States I encountered when I lived in the U.K. (some warranted, many not), that was one of several about which people were most consistently vociferous. I don't blame them, because The Economist gets it right in its July 26th-August 1st issue when it states the following: "[The treaty] is seen as unfair because it has made it easier for America to extradite criminal suspects from Britain (with low requirements for evidence) than it is the other way round."
Now this may seem to be a minor point in the minds of many folks, and it can of course be argued that the United States ought to have an easier time extraditing criminal suspects from its closest ally in the age of international terrorism. (I agree with that latter point.) Yet the problem most Britons have with the scenario is not with that aspect of the treaty, but rather with the lack of reciprocal ease for the British government when it attempts to extradite criminal suspects from the United States.
This is both a legal and, perhaps more importantly, symbolic point of contention between two ostensibly "friendly allies," and it has contributed to a lot of internal and increasingly public British anger directed at the United States and its government. The treaty was forced through in 2003, when the Blair-led government erred on the side of giving the U.S. leeway in these matters without having the teeth to argue thoroughly and publicly enough for an equalization of the process. (It was put into effect during the tumultuous initial stages of the Iraq War, so it was done amidst other headline-grabbing goings-on.) Most Britons, however, disagreed entirely with Mr. Blair's handling of the issue (as they still do), and the post-Blair British government's recent grumbling about it is beginning to better represent the will of the British people.
Senator Barack Obama made the right move when he told the British press that he is generally in favor of equalizing extradition rights between the two countries and will look into the issue quite soon after entering the White House, should he become the next president. (Again, he is against weakening the U.S.'s rights, but he is for strengthening Britain's rights so that each country has an easier time extraditing criminal suspects from the other.) This would do a lot to ease some of the tension, at both the government and social levels, between the two countries (in particular, it would help to ease tension between the United States government and the British public, which could be helpful in the future should the U.S. government come to the conclusion that further options need to be explored insofar as extradition rights with its allies are concerned, and should the British government feel the need to listen more closely to its people regarding the issue). It would also be symbolic of the notion that the United States is ready to turn to a new page in its relationships with its various allies. Conversely, by doing this while also not decreasing the U.S.'s ability to extradite criminal suspects, another equally strong message would be sent, that being that the U.S. is not in the business of selling away the farm (so to speak) simply because it has a new chief executive.
I applaud Senator Obama's stance on the issue. I hope that Senator McCain views the scenario in a very similar manner, though it's difficult to tell because he has been more hesitant to address it. The time has long since come for him to do so.
Mrs. Hasslington and I went to a Minneapolis bar last night that was so self-consciously "hip" and "trendy" I was surprised it didn't display a registered trademark after its name on its outside sign. Come to think of it, the bar didn't even have an outside sign; for anyone standing on the street outside of it, its name was nowhere to be found. I guess it's one of those places that are so self-referential they don't seem to think they need to advertise their presence to folks from the "proletariat" who happen to pass by; with this place, I guess you're either in the know, or you're not. (I wasn't "in the know" about it until last night.)
You know an American bar is trendy when over half of the beer drinkers gathered there are sipping Stella Artois from gold-rimmed goblets that give communion chalices used in Catholic masses a run for their money. Now, in the interests of putting all of my cards on the table, I have no problems with either Stella Artois (which I think is a fairly nice Belgian lager) or people who sip it oh-so-preciously out of gaudy goblets. I do wonder, however, if such folks realize that, while it is basically marketed as the "sophisticated, erudite lager drinker's beer" here in the U.S., it has been referred to for years in the U.K. as "wife-beater" (which leaves very little to the imagination) and is often consumed in almost impossibly large quantities by those for whom life has not worked out according to plan, to put it delicately.
Stella became a marketing success in the U.K. years before it took off in the U.S., and though it was initially advertised as "reassuringly expensive" in the U.K. (I'm not joking about that tag-line), it wasn't too long before lager-headed soccer hooligans and the like were disrupting normal societal patterns in outrageous manners due to the side-effects of drinking a dozen or more bottles of Stella in about an hour's time. So though people dressed in expensive business clothes (on a Saturday evening) and projecting a sort of naive, affected "worldy sophistication" at one another are indeed enjoying the initial exotic image of Stella here in the U.S., I think it won't be long before Stella will be seen by most Americans as just another "Joe Average" beer (just as happened in the U.K.), along the lines of American beers such as Bud, Miller, and Coors. Then the marketing gurus will have to find another interestingly mediocre beer to dress up as the next path to social enlightenment.
By the way, at that trendy bar I drank one of the first Stellas I've had since I returned to the U.S. last autumn, though not by design. Someone was kind enough to buy it for me.
LET'S EQUALIZE OUR EXTRADITION TREATY WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM
In 2003, the Bush Administration pushed for and won a new, unbalanced extradition treaty with the United Kingdom, and of the many complaints directed at the United States I encountered when I lived in the U.K. (some warranted, many not), that was one of several about which people were most consistently vociferous. I don't blame them, because The Economist gets it right in its July 26th-August 1st issue when it states the following: "[The treaty] is seen as unfair because it has made it easier for America to extradite criminal suspects from Britain (with low requirements for evidence) than it is the other way round."
Now this may seem to be a minor point in the minds of many folks, and it can of course be argued that the United States ought to have an easier time extraditing criminal suspects from its closest ally in the age of international terrorism. (I agree with that latter point.) Yet the problem most Britons have with the scenario is not with that aspect of the treaty, but rather with the lack of reciprocal ease for the British government when it attempts to extradite criminal suspects from the United States.
This is both a legal and, perhaps more importantly, symbolic point of contention between two ostensibly "friendly allies," and it has contributed to a lot of internal and increasingly public British anger directed at the United States and its government. The treaty was forced through in 2003, when the Blair-led government erred on the side of giving the U.S. leeway in these matters without having the teeth to argue thoroughly and publicly enough for an equalization of the process. (It was put into effect during the tumultuous initial stages of the Iraq War, so it was done amidst other headline-grabbing goings-on.) Most Britons, however, disagreed entirely with Mr. Blair's handling of the issue (as they still do), and the post-Blair British government's recent grumbling about it is beginning to better represent the will of the British people.
Senator Barack Obama made the right move when he told the British press that he is generally in favor of equalizing extradition rights between the two countries and will look into the issue quite soon after entering the White House, should he become the next president. (Again, he is against weakening the U.S.'s rights, but he is for strengthening Britain's rights so that each country has an easier time extraditing criminal suspects from the other.) This would do a lot to ease some of the tension, at both the government and social levels, between the two countries (in particular, it would help to ease tension between the United States government and the British public, which could be helpful in the future should the U.S. government come to the conclusion that further options need to be explored insofar as extradition rights with its allies are concerned, and should the British government feel the need to listen more closely to its people regarding the issue). It would also be symbolic of the notion that the United States is ready to turn to a new page in its relationships with its various allies. Conversely, by doing this while also not decreasing the U.S.'s ability to extradite criminal suspects, another equally strong message would be sent, that being that the U.S. is not in the business of selling away the farm (so to speak) simply because it has a new chief executive.
I applaud Senator Obama's stance on the issue. I hope that Senator McCain views the scenario in a very similar manner, though it's difficult to tell because he has been more hesitant to address it. The time has long since come for him to do so.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Why "Veepstakes"? Why?; Also, Notes For Drunk McCain Strategists
LISTENING TO SOMEONE UTTER THE NON-WORD "VEEPSTAKES" IS AN INTOLERABLE "EX-PURE-IENCE"
The English language is filled with exceptionally intriguing words, such as "exceptionally" and "intriguing" (though probably not "words"). I've always loved the sound and texture of "erudite," though I've seldom used it and I've not always enjoyed how folks tend to (mis-)pronounce it. "Discerning," "simultaneous," and just about any well-placed adverb (even in such a pedestrian utterance as "...you did that well..." instead of the embarrassing and inevitable "...you did that good...") bring a smile to my face. A conversation containing such words as, say, "leverage," "luddite," "augment," "florid," apostasy," "vernacular," and, oh, perhaps "disingenuous" would most likely be an interesting one, to say the least, though it should be pointed out that big words need to be accompanied by a lot of little ones to feel authentic--otherwise, it's just a bunch of showing-off.
Of late, "perception" and "inclination" have also climbed up my list of favorite conversational words, as have several words about which I wrote a few posts ago, such as "gelatinous" and "vicissitude." It is therefore the case that I will use a couple of those words now as I state that, of late, it is my perception that American media outlets have an increasing inclination to utilize awful (hybridized) pseudo-words that are so jaw-droppingly stupid they make my stomach churn. For instance, in a country that ostensibly speaks a language containing the gorgeous words "sequence," "lament," and "porcelain," the major U.S. media outlets are insisting on referring to speculation regarding possible vice presidential running mates as "Veepstakes," which is an incredibly lazy combination of "Veep" (already a short, slangy stand-in for "Vice President") and "sweepstakes" (though God only knows why that word found its way in altered form into the term; this is not a Publisher's Clearinghouse drawing...).
It's a painful ordeal listening to adults prattle on endlessly about "Veepstakes" this and "Veepstakes" that, and what's wrong with the phrase "speculation regarding possible vice presidential running mates," anyway? It's only seven words long, not seventy words, so does it really need to be shortened? Have we become so slovenly with our vocabulary that we need to resort to an annoying non-word such as "Veepstakes" to describe the serious and engrossing process of Senators McCain and Obama choosing their running mates? ("Veepstakes" seems like the type of non-word that a precocious eleven-year-old would be proud to have invented and would utter repeatedly and seemingly endlessly while engaged in chewing a hot dog at the next extended family function.)
I hope that the majority of people who use that "word" are just joking around when they do so (the media, by contrast, seems taken with it, and in a serious manner), because, if not, I don't think we've got much further to sink when it comes to the spirit and active use of the English language, which, when used to intelligent effect, might very well be the most dynamic and exciting language in the world (due in no small part to the fact that English is largely an amalgamation of many other, older, less-flexible languages). Yet I'm not particularly hopeful, due in part to the mounting evidence suggesting that we're falling further and further off the track of good taste in vocabulary use each day; while I wrote this, a GMC television ad suggested that their fish oil is a "phenomen-oil" product, and the Kraft company was kind enough to inform me that their salad dressing, which is evidently made of "pure" ingredients (whatever that means), is a great "ex-pure-ience." My goodness....
MEMORANDUM TO THE McCAIN CAMPAIGN: THERE ARE OTHER THINGS TO DO WHEN YOUR ENTIRE STAFF IS SIMULTANEOUSLY DRUNK
There is no way that a single member of the McCain campaign team was sober when they gave the go-ahead for the incredibly off-putting Britney Spears/Paris Hilton television ad that clumsily suggested that Senator Obama is simply a celebrity whose resume' is too thin to be worthy of the majority of votes in November's presidential election. (There are about a hundred better ways to make a similar point without looking like a bunch of cultural and political amateurs, and any half-lucid individual knows this as a matter of course.) Hence, the ad is clearly the result of an office party that, with one drink leading to another leading to another, spun a bit out of control, as these things tend to do.
They most likely have learned their collective lesson (though why they needed to learn it at all, and in such a public manner, is still a bit beyond me), but in case they have not, off the top of my head I will now provide a list of a half-dozen better things to do when one's entire staff is simultaneously drunk:
1.) Recount in order the various mis-steps made by the 1988 Dukakis-for-President campaign between their 17-point mid-summer poll lead and their 8-point autumn loss. (Try to refrain from putting too much emphasis on any one mis-step, such as the ill-fated tank ride, and instead focus on how many mis-steps you can name.)
2.) Imitate President George W. Bush's response to the question of what he and French President Sarkozy were going to eat at his Crawford ranch, affected Texas accent and all: "He can have a hamburger 'r hot dog--his choice." (Make sure that the "or" is pronounced "'r.")
3.) Drive bumper cars in a big loop in the manner used by President George W. Bush when Gordon Brown first set foot on U.S. soil as British prime minister and the two climbed into the inevitable golf cart. (Please refrain from using an actual golf cart while drinking.)
4.) Pretend you are the defense council for Senator Ted Stevens; how would you go about the process of defending him? Now pretend that you are the prosecutor and the senator's lawyer is Matlock. How would you confront that altered scenario?
5.) Have a Howard Dean scream immitation contest, making sure to place the various mentioned states in the run-up to the scream in proper order. (Don't overdo it or you may not be able to speak for a week or more. That being said, if you were involved in the decision to put the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton ad on the air, losing your voice for the forseeable future might actually help your candidate's poll numbers.)
6.) Have a "Surge!" t-shirt design contest (pencil on paper, please; let's avoid working on actual clothing for the time being).
The English language is filled with exceptionally intriguing words, such as "exceptionally" and "intriguing" (though probably not "words"). I've always loved the sound and texture of "erudite," though I've seldom used it and I've not always enjoyed how folks tend to (mis-)pronounce it. "Discerning," "simultaneous," and just about any well-placed adverb (even in such a pedestrian utterance as "...you did that well..." instead of the embarrassing and inevitable "...you did that good...") bring a smile to my face. A conversation containing such words as, say, "leverage," "luddite," "augment," "florid," apostasy," "vernacular," and, oh, perhaps "disingenuous" would most likely be an interesting one, to say the least, though it should be pointed out that big words need to be accompanied by a lot of little ones to feel authentic--otherwise, it's just a bunch of showing-off.
Of late, "perception" and "inclination" have also climbed up my list of favorite conversational words, as have several words about which I wrote a few posts ago, such as "gelatinous" and "vicissitude." It is therefore the case that I will use a couple of those words now as I state that, of late, it is my perception that American media outlets have an increasing inclination to utilize awful (hybridized) pseudo-words that are so jaw-droppingly stupid they make my stomach churn. For instance, in a country that ostensibly speaks a language containing the gorgeous words "sequence," "lament," and "porcelain," the major U.S. media outlets are insisting on referring to speculation regarding possible vice presidential running mates as "Veepstakes," which is an incredibly lazy combination of "Veep" (already a short, slangy stand-in for "Vice President") and "sweepstakes" (though God only knows why that word found its way in altered form into the term; this is not a Publisher's Clearinghouse drawing...).
It's a painful ordeal listening to adults prattle on endlessly about "Veepstakes" this and "Veepstakes" that, and what's wrong with the phrase "speculation regarding possible vice presidential running mates," anyway? It's only seven words long, not seventy words, so does it really need to be shortened? Have we become so slovenly with our vocabulary that we need to resort to an annoying non-word such as "Veepstakes" to describe the serious and engrossing process of Senators McCain and Obama choosing their running mates? ("Veepstakes" seems like the type of non-word that a precocious eleven-year-old would be proud to have invented and would utter repeatedly and seemingly endlessly while engaged in chewing a hot dog at the next extended family function.)
I hope that the majority of people who use that "word" are just joking around when they do so (the media, by contrast, seems taken with it, and in a serious manner), because, if not, I don't think we've got much further to sink when it comes to the spirit and active use of the English language, which, when used to intelligent effect, might very well be the most dynamic and exciting language in the world (due in no small part to the fact that English is largely an amalgamation of many other, older, less-flexible languages). Yet I'm not particularly hopeful, due in part to the mounting evidence suggesting that we're falling further and further off the track of good taste in vocabulary use each day; while I wrote this, a GMC television ad suggested that their fish oil is a "phenomen-oil" product, and the Kraft company was kind enough to inform me that their salad dressing, which is evidently made of "pure" ingredients (whatever that means), is a great "ex-pure-ience." My goodness....
MEMORANDUM TO THE McCAIN CAMPAIGN: THERE ARE OTHER THINGS TO DO WHEN YOUR ENTIRE STAFF IS SIMULTANEOUSLY DRUNK
There is no way that a single member of the McCain campaign team was sober when they gave the go-ahead for the incredibly off-putting Britney Spears/Paris Hilton television ad that clumsily suggested that Senator Obama is simply a celebrity whose resume' is too thin to be worthy of the majority of votes in November's presidential election. (There are about a hundred better ways to make a similar point without looking like a bunch of cultural and political amateurs, and any half-lucid individual knows this as a matter of course.) Hence, the ad is clearly the result of an office party that, with one drink leading to another leading to another, spun a bit out of control, as these things tend to do.
They most likely have learned their collective lesson (though why they needed to learn it at all, and in such a public manner, is still a bit beyond me), but in case they have not, off the top of my head I will now provide a list of a half-dozen better things to do when one's entire staff is simultaneously drunk:
1.) Recount in order the various mis-steps made by the 1988 Dukakis-for-President campaign between their 17-point mid-summer poll lead and their 8-point autumn loss. (Try to refrain from putting too much emphasis on any one mis-step, such as the ill-fated tank ride, and instead focus on how many mis-steps you can name.)
2.) Imitate President George W. Bush's response to the question of what he and French President Sarkozy were going to eat at his Crawford ranch, affected Texas accent and all: "He can have a hamburger 'r hot dog--his choice." (Make sure that the "or" is pronounced "'r.")
3.) Drive bumper cars in a big loop in the manner used by President George W. Bush when Gordon Brown first set foot on U.S. soil as British prime minister and the two climbed into the inevitable golf cart. (Please refrain from using an actual golf cart while drinking.)
4.) Pretend you are the defense council for Senator Ted Stevens; how would you go about the process of defending him? Now pretend that you are the prosecutor and the senator's lawyer is Matlock. How would you confront that altered scenario?
5.) Have a Howard Dean scream immitation contest, making sure to place the various mentioned states in the run-up to the scream in proper order. (Don't overdo it or you may not be able to speak for a week or more. That being said, if you were involved in the decision to put the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton ad on the air, losing your voice for the forseeable future might actually help your candidate's poll numbers.)
6.) Have a "Surge!" t-shirt design contest (pencil on paper, please; let's avoid working on actual clothing for the time being).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)