Senator Obama's "Aces-In-The-Hole"?: The Potential Edwards and Levin Factors

EX-SENATOR EDWARDS ENDORSES SENATOR OBAMA.  WELL, SORT OF....

OR

UTILIZE HIM ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, YES, BUT DON'T MAKE HIM THE RUNNING MATE

In a move that stays true to his politically put-together nature, ex-Senator John Edwards of North Carolina endorsed Senator Barack Obama's candidacy for the Presidency of the United States on Wednesday.  This typically occurred long after such an endorsement would have been considered politically brave, given that the "math" (as nearly everyone seems intent on calling it these days) suggests that Senator Obama will win the most pledged delegates for the nomination once the preliminary rounds of caucus and primary voting are done after June 3.  Hence, instead of putting his political muscle (the extent of which is still an open question to many, including myself) behind one of the two frontrunners prior to, say, the Pennsylvania primary, Senator Edwards today essentially endorsed the person who will win his party's nomination in any case.

I have no real problem with this because both of the Democratic frontrunners (Senators Clinton and Obama) are strong candidates (though I prefer Senator Obama, for reasons I've discussed often on this blog-site).  And, at any rate, it is what we've come to expect from Senator Edwards:  he talks often about the necessity to put political conviction in front of political calculation, but he is one of the most politically calculated individuals we've seen run for the presidency in recent years (which is really saying something...).  Remember, he won a U.S. Senate seat for a term, and then "gave it up" when it looked as though he would be beaten for re-election, "choosing" to run for President in the 2004 election cycle instead.  I still say that this latter decision was itself a politically calculated move in that he knew he'd probably lose the nomination race in 2004, but it would set him up to run early and often for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 election cycle.

To his credit, he managed to win enough support in 2004 to become the Democratic nominee's (Senator John Kerry) running mate in that cycle.

And so yesterday, well into May of 2008, John Edwards publicly endorsed Senator Obama's candidacy in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  In doing so, he all but admitted to his penchant for the political equivalent of "playing it safe" when he said, "The Democratic voters in America have made their choice, and so have I."  Unlike, say, Senator Chris Dodd or Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Edwards waited until the numbers suggested that Senator Obama's pledged delegate lead had become all-but-insurmountable before throwing his support behind the leader.  The people chose first, and he followed later.

Yet it is certainly Mr. Edwards's right to hold out until the scales have very nearly tipped fully to one candidate or the other, and his endorsement is important in at least one sense:  I have always thought that the moment the the extremely politically calculated Senator Edwards endorsed anyone would be the moment that people would finally and fully realize that one candidate or the other was the presumptive winner of the nomination (at least insofar as the will of the voters was concerned), because there was no way that he would otherwise support any one candidate publicly, in case he wound up on the losing team.

Thus, the race for the nomination is effectively over (though I still say that Senator Clinton should fight in the remaining races, up to and including June 3), and the general election campaign is ready to heat up, though it may have to wait for a while prior to getting fully started, due to the trickiness of how Senator Clinton ends her candidacy, and when.  (Unless, of course, she plans to fight this to the convention, which I doubt she will do but which, one must admit, is still a possibility.)

Mr. Edwards's endorsement is also important for another reason:  Mr. Edwards brings with him the respect of a sizable percentage of white,  blue-collar voters, who at present happen to be one of the two electorally-necessary groups from whom Senator Obama is struggling to win support (the other being Hispanics).  So this endorsement may help to start bringing at least a certain percentage of white, blue-collar voters over to Senator Obama's side, if initially in a grudging manner.  As such, it could prove to be enormously important.  Or it could prove to be overblown.  Right now, we just don't know, and I must say that I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with the wait-and-see approach that many in the media are taking regarding this endorsement.  (I've been agreeing in large part with the media for a few weeks now; something is a little "off" in the galaxy....)

Beyond what I've thus far stated, Senator Edwards's endorsement has started a discussion regarding his potential role in the upcoming general election campaign.  On Wednesday, History Professor Julian Zelizer of Princeton University put is this way in an interview with McClatchy Newspapers:

"It's a nice reminder for the Obama team of what Edwards might bring to the ticket.  Obama needs to get these [blue-collar] voters.  There's a real fear that McCain could pick up Democratic voters in states like Ohio and Florida, white working class voters that are not enthused about Barack Obama either for racial reasons, elite reasons, whatever."

Yet before anyone jumps the gun and decides that Mr. Edwards would make a good choice for Senator Obama's running mate, Professor Zelizer adds the following:

"The timing of his endorsement is classic Edwards.  One of Edwards' problems is that he doesn't seem authentic.  He made his whole campaign about populism, but I think a lot of people see him as a traditional senator who'll say whatever it takes to win....  He comes out after the race is basically over.  He doesn't have to take any risk; he's endorsing the winner.  It's always good to get an endorsement, but if this is about a running mate, there's a lot of serious thinking the Obama campaign would have to do before they go with him."

Yes, there would indeed have to be an awful lot of serious discussion prior to making Mr. Edwards the running mate for Senator Obama.  For one, can anyone name the last time someone who was a running mate on a losing Presidential ticket for a major party was selected to be the running mate for that party's ticket in the next election cycle?  Anyone, anyone?  Well, you'd have to go back to 1908, when Eugene Debs selected Benjamin Hanford to be his running mate for the Socialist Party's ticket (that party had a substantial amount of support back then--enough for them to be considered a major party--though they obviously never came close to winning the presidency).  That was the exact same Presidential ticket that the Socialists had fielded in the 1904 election cycle.  (It would be the equivalent of the Democrats running a Kerry/Edwards ticket again this year....)

It's also the case, of course, that Mr. Edwards did not help Senator Kerry win a single Southern state in 2004, including Mr. Edwards's home state of North Carolina.  Ironically, Mr. Edwards may be on Senator Obama's running-mate list this time around because, though Senator Kerry's background was far more of what so many have taken of late to calling "elitist" than Senator Obama's background is, Senator Obama is suffering from more "elitist" claims (at least recently) than Senator Kerry did in 2004 (which is saying something...).

So it may be natural for Senator Obama to put Mr. Edwards on his shortlist of potential running mates.  But, though it may help in some ways, it would ultimately be unwise for Senator Obama to eventually choose Mr. Edwards as his running mate.  A good compromise would be to assure Mr. Edwards that he will be nominated by a potential President Obama to be the U.S. Attorney General if Senator Obama were to win the general election.  In return, Senator Obama would reap the benefits of having Senator Edwards alongside him while he campaigns in primarily blue-collar, politically important areas of the country.  I think Mr. Edwards, still a lawyer at heart (as so many politicians are), would jump at the chance to be the country's top attorney.

HOW ABOUT CARL LEVIN FOR SECRETARY OF DEFENSE...OR EVEN V.P.?

Senator Obama's general election strategy is taking shape, and so far it's a good, if naturally incomplete (at this stage in the campaign) one.  He still seems unsure of how to handle the fact that Floridians in general seem to dislike his candidacy when set alongside that of Senator McCain.  (Senator McCain is still clobbering Senator Obama in Florida polls; these dire results for Senator Obama have held steady for several months now.)

So he's currently focusing on the other state that has had primary-dispute troubles with the Democratic Party this time around:  Michigan.  (Polls in Michigan suggest that an Obama vs. McCain contest is close there.)  Senator Obama visited that heavily blue-collar state yesterday, and he brought Mr. Edwards with him, which was a good move given Mr. Edwards's still-considerable support amongst blue-collar white voters.  This suggests that Senator Obama will make winning Michigan a priority in his effort to win the general election.

This is a good idea.  Michigan is largely blue-collar, but its economy is hurting badly right now, and there is a lot of residual distaste for the past seven-plus years of the Bush Administration.  Also, Senator McCain lost the Michigan primary to Governor Mitt Romney, despite and perhaps because of the fact that Senator McCain tried to suggest that many of Michigan's manufacturing jobs were gone for good, and therefore the state needed help in order to transition a healthy percentage of its economy in other directions.  Many Michigan voters did not like the sound of that rather pragmatic idea.

So Senator Obama senses an opportunity in Michigan, a perennial swing-state that has leaned ever-so-slightly to the Democrats over the last few Presidential elections.  He should keep working hard in Michigan so that whatever the fallout from the disputed Democratic primary is, he does not suffer personally for it.  I would suggest that he also concentrate on healing rifts with voters in Pennsylvania, another very important swing-state that has leaned slightly to the Democrats of late.

If he wins both Michigan and Pennsylvania, Senator Obama could lose Florida and Ohio and still conceivably win the election--that is, if he manages wins in places such as Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, etc...which polls suggest that he could do.  He would also need to win at least two of the following four states:  Nevada, Missouri, Iowa, and New Hampshire.

In order to better his chances in Michigan, Senator Obama may wish to let Michiganians know that their most tenured Democratic U.S. Senator, Carl Levin (who always wins re-election by large margins, despite tight Presidential races), will be asked to be the U.S. Secretary of Defense.  (If Senator Obama wins the general election, chances are very strong that Senator Levin's seat would be won by a fellow Democrat in a special post-November election if he were chosen to be a member of the President's cabinet.)

Senator Levin is the highly-respected Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (his knowledge on the subject is immense) and he has many years of foreign policy expertise on his resume', both of which could help to offset Senator Obama's perceived lack of experience in those areas.  Senator Levin has worked for years to promote affordable health care for all Americans, which dovetails with Senator Obama's viewpoint, and he has been a critic of President Bush's Iraq strategy from the start, which also dovetails with Senator Obama's views.  Finally, Senator Levin is in his early-seventies, which counterbalances Senator Obama's relative youth.  (Hmm...he almost sounds like a potential running mate....)

It is my opinion that Senator Obama will want to win either Ohio or (a longer shot) Florida in the general election in November.  It is also my opinion that he will absolutely have to win Pennsylvania and Michigan (along with other states, of course) if he is to become the next President of the United States.  Utilizing Senator Levin while campaigning in Michigan (and elsewhere) should be a priority, and indicating that he would have a powerful role in a potential Obama Administration could send a positive message to voters in Michigan.

Senator Clinton Wins the West Virginia Primary; Nutrition, Money, and Energy Concerns in the Food Crisis Era

THE "HILL"-S ARE ALIVE....

Regarding the West Virginia Democratic primary results, which were (as expected) skewed heavily toward Senator Clinton, I don't exactly know what to say. I suppose I could do what I normally do--find an angle and wax lyrically about it. But does this particular primary really mean anything substantive? If so, what? (I know a West Virginian. To that person I'd like to say that I'm sorry to seem as though I am downplaying this particular primary; the fact of the matter is that I really don't know what to say about it, because I really don't know what its importance in the grand scheme of this election cycle is, since we have long since anticipated the [West Virginia] outcome we've received...).

Yet I feel as though I should say any of a number of things, given the importance of West Virginia in the general election. It is, after all, a potential swing-state....

I suppose, however, that we may have to wait in order to see what happens next week in Kentucky and (especially) Oregon in order to gauge the importance of the West Virginia primary. For now, all we know is that the outcome hasn't cut deeply in any way, shape, or form into Senator Obama's existing delegate lead, and it also seems to have given Senator Clinton a day of good press.

IT'S A GLOBAL SUPERMARKET, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT

Whoever is elected the next President of the United States will have to increasingly find ways to deal with what amounts to a present global food crunch. U.S. News and World Report's May 19, 2008 issue features a lengthy article on this global food crisis ("Fixing the Food Crisis"), which is widening and deepening by the month. In the United States and much of Europe, the "crisis" consists mostly of rather strikingly higher prices of late for food items produced overseas, as well as some items produced at home (in the U.S., domestically produced eggs and cheese seem to be particularly high in comparison to a year ago). In many poorer parts of the world, the crisis is far more dire, with food supplies and food prices squeezed by the rise of what might be called "affluent tastebuds" elsewhere.

The increased food prices in the Western world (and a few other already-developed nations) are due to a number of factors, the biggest of which is the fact that much of the developing world is doing just that--developing. China and India are leading the charge toward rapid mass industrialization, and in doing so their economies are growing by enormous leaps and bounds each and every month. It is therefore the case that they are increasingly demanding more and more of the world's resources, particularly, but not exclusively, oil. (I wrote about this in my May 9, 2008 post that centered on Fareed Zakaria's new book "The Post-American World," which can be found below...). And they now have the money to pay for the oil they demand.... Thus, in demanding a larger and larger percentage of oil resources, they are increasingly resembling Western countries such as the United States and much of Europe, etc.

Along with worldwide oil resources, people in many rapidly developing nations are eating in a different manner than they used to. This is to say that they are now, by and large, in a better position to eat enough food to move beyond "subsistence" levels (of course there are exceptions); their increasing wealth means that, at a general level, they can demand to eat more "filling" meals. It also means that they are demanding the right to eat more and more meat (again, this means that they are resembling many Western countries) as each year goes by. For instance, according to U.S. News and World Report, Brazil's yearly meat consumption per person has more than doubled since 1980 to its present level of 197 pounds per person per year; China, with its population far in excess of a billion people, has seen its yearly meat consumption quadruple to 109 pounds per person per year. The already-affluent U.S., by contrast, has seen its meat intake increase steadily (if not at such enormous percentages) to its present level of over 270 pounds per person per year.

Meanwhile, many poorer countries (many, though not all, located in Africa) still struggle to feed their populations in a way in which they at least achieve subsistence levels, and people in wealthier Western nations are feeling the money squeeze each time they purchase food, whether it be at a grocery store, a farmer's market, or a restaurant.

It is no wonder that one of the suggestions of the authors of the U.S. News... article is that we start shifting global paradigms regarding meat consumption, and one of the best ways to do that is to set a good example in the already-developed world. This will take the strain off meat production and it means that more (meatless) food can be available to all people, both domestically and globally. The article, for instance, suggests that it takes about seven pounds of corn to produce one pound of beef (the animal that will be slaughtered is fed, among other things, large amounts of corn), and nearly seven pounds of corn to produce one pound of pork. It also suggests that it takes nearly three pounds of corn to produce one pound of chicken. (Perhaps not surprisingly, some vegetarian groups claim that, when all forms of food are taken into account, it takes far more than seven pounds of food that humans could potentially eat to produce one pound of beef or pork.)

Now, one could argue that the particular type of corn used to feed livestock is not what most people would consider desirable and/or "tasty," but that is missing the point. At the risk of being labeled a "vegetarian" (which would be no bad thing, of course), the point is that a lot of valuable farmland is presently being used up in order to produce meat, but, if converted, a solid percentage of it could produce far, far more meat-less food, which could then be sold at cheaper prices, considering the amount that could be produced. This could help to take some (though certainly not all) of the strain off of both domestic and global food supplies when they are set against demand, and it could help to provide a counter-balance to some of the rising food price trends.

Since I (and the authors of the aforementioned article) am not advocating that we abandon eating meat altogether, but rather reduce the amount of meat that we eat, this also means that we folks in wealthier nations may have the opportunity to re-discover, at mass levels, other sources of protein--particularly plant-based protein, which has the added bonus of being economically inexpensive in comparison to meat-based protein--and therefore have more balanced diets. (Imagine how much more balanced our diets would be if, say, Americans and Europeans reduced our average yearly meat consumption by half.)

The article goes on to list several other ways that we can help at least slow down both the rapidly-rising price of food at home and alleviate hunger in areas hit hard by the growing affluence (and therefore growing food consumption) of much of the rapidly-developing world. Among the ways suggested are: improving how food aid schemes are structured and delivered to struggling portions of the globe; curbing our present (and ridiculous, as far as I'm concerned) mass development of ethanol as an alternative fuel resource and instead focusing on biofuels that do not remove potential sources of food from the market; rapidly developing renewable sources of energy; expanding funding for research focused on improving yields worldwide; and lifting tarrifs and taxes on imported foodstuffs to and from struggling nations worldwide.

(I would also suggest developing modern, up-to-date sources of atomic energy, much like France does. This would not be antiquated, Three-Mile-Island-esque atomic power, but far-safter, more modern atomic power, the likes of which the United States and, until quite recently, Great Britain have refused to consider to a serious extent. This would help alleviate the strain on some oil supplies, such as those used for home heating oil in a surprisingly large percentage of North American homes, which in turn would help to curb food price increases by freeing-up some more oil for the transportation of foodstuffs.)

If we get onboard insofar as this is concerned (and reduce our U.S.-average of throwing away 320 pounds of food per person per year, according to U.S. News...), we could and would do the following: rediscover our environmentally conscientious natures; save our families money on a monthly basis; reduce the global food shortage; and help our gas-money stretch further at the pump as alternative (and increasingly renewable) sources of powering our methods of transportation are developed on a mass scale.

Various Notions, Volume 5: A Scandinavian-Themed Birthday; Appalachia Loves Hillary; Obama/Clinton or Bust?; Bookworming Our Way Through May

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MINNESOTA

Though its age is most likely rather unimpressive to many people from far, far "older" places around the globe, my home state of Minnesota, to which I somewhat recently returned form a lengthy period of time overseas, turned 150 years old this past weekend.  The U.S. as a whole is older than that--either 232 years old this coming July 4 (which most Americans would assert) or a few years younger than that (many European scholars mark the end of the Revolutionary War with Britain, and not the Declaration of Independence, as the beginning of the U.S. as an independent nation-state).

Either way, Minnesota is not nearly as old as the nation of which it is a part, but in the first few years of its statehood it did play an integral role in the Civil War, during which it fought for the North.  (A Minnesota regiment was one of the very first promised to President Lincoln in the run-up to the war.)  Though the thirteen original colonies (which, of course, became states) are far older than Minnesota, folks in the "Land of 10,000 Lakes" can take heart in the fact that their home state is about a hundred years older than the most recently added states, Alaska and Hawaii, which were long-standing U.S. territories before achieving statehood in the second half of the twentieth century.

ALMOST HEAVEN, WEST VIRGINIA

Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is on life support (the funding for which has in large part come from herself, as she has loaned her campaign over eleven million dollars in the past few months...), but she is hoping that a big primary win in West Virginia this coming Tuesday (May 13), coupled with another big win in Kentucky on May 20, will at least in part offset Senator Barack Obama's projected victory in Oregon on the same day of the Kentucky contest.  The "math" (as pundits have taken to calling it of late) suggests that even huge West Virginia and Kentucky wins will do little to cut into Senator Obama's delegate lead; it further suggests that Senator Clinton would have to win late contests, such as those in Puerto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota, by enormous margins (the latter two of which would be difficult for her to win at all, let alone by large margins) if she is to make any sort of run at Senator Obama's pledged delegate lead.  (A surprise big Clinton win in Oregon, on the order of about ten points, may also have to factor into the equation, which is not likely to happen.)  And even if all of these things were to unexpectedly occur, she is likely only to get close to Senator Obama's delegate totals, as opposed to pulling even with him.

So why in the world is she staying in the race?  I think she's staying in for a variety of reasons, the first of which is the fact that she would be perfectly positioned to be the Democratic Nominee if Senator Obama's candidacy were to unexpectedly and spectacularly implode, in a Gary Hart-esque manner, or the like.  (I'm reminded of the popular British politician who once answered a question regarding how he could possibly lose the upcoming election in his district by stating, "Two ways come to mind--one being if I were to be found in bed with a dead twelve-year-old girl; the other being if I were to be found in bed with a live twelve-year-old boy....")

Such an Obama-implosion is not likely to happen.  But Senator Clinton is also probably staying in the race in order to rack up big margins of victory in West Virginia and Kentucky, which would work in a psychological manner on the remaining undeclared superdelegates in the sense that they would be given reason to pause regarding Senator Obama's "electability" in swing-states (such as West Virginia) and amongst necessary blue-collar white voters (such as represent a large percentage of the voters of such states as West Virginia, Kentucky, and any of a number of other states in that general region, such as the electoral-vote-rich swing-states of Ohio and Pennsylvania).

Senator Clinton is not playing the more straight-forward "pledged-delegate game" any longer (in fact, she hasn't been playing it for quite some time), but rather the trickier "psychology game," in the hopes of turning the tide against Senator Obama and stemming the slow-but-sure movement of superdelegates into his camp.  It's a good strategy for her to utilize now because it's the only one left available to her, and, given her rather impressive wins in Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as her impressive poll numbers in Florida and her upcoming assured-victory in West Virginia, she most likely senses that her path to the nomination is very slim and it would have to be done in a rather insidious, almost anti-Democratic manner (the superdelegates would have to essentially overturn the pledged delegate totals, which are based on the popular vote...), but it is still a possibility nonetheless.

The Obama camp is most likely happy that Senator Clinton is carrying on, because Senator Obama would most likely lose West Virginia and Kentucky even if she were to drop out today, so her continued presence in the race gives him a little bit of "cover" for those contests.  Once May 21 rolls around, however, watch for the Obama camp to put added public pressure on Senator Clinton to stand down and concede the nomination to Senator Obama.  (I, on the other hand, would still like to see both of them compete up to and including the final--not counting Florida and Michigan messes--June 3 contests, so that there is less of an understandably frustrated "...what might have been..." general grumbling from Clinton supporters nationwide.)

SOON-TO-BE-OBSOLETE WEST VIRGINIA PRIMARY PREDICTION

She's been there this past week, he hasn't.  She's way ahead in the polls.  The state is tailor-made to her still relatively recent blue-collar political re-invention.  She's going to win, and big.  My guess is:  CLINTON BY THIRTY-TWO PERCENTAGE POINTS.

A READER ASKS, IF NOT OBAMA/CLINTON, THEN WHO COULD WIN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FOR THE DEMOCRATS?

A Hasslington reader recently commented that an Obama/Clinton ticket may be the only winning one for the Democrats in November (I guess this might translate into a Clinton/Obama ticket if the highly improbable happens and she pulls the nomination out of a hat...).  Though I think such a ticket would be electoral gold come November, I'm not so certain it's the only winning combination.

I have previously posted my ideas regarding potential running mates for Senator Obama (I believe that Joe Biden, Wesley Clark, Sam Nunn, Bill Richardson, and Kathleen Sebelius were in my top five just a few weeks ago; all but Sam Nunn have received a lot of media attention regarding the V.P. slot of late, from both domestic and international media outlets).  If asked to expand that list I would add such names as Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, Chris Dodd, Clare McCaskill, John Edwards, Ted Strickland, Ed Rendell, Jim Webb, and, of course, Hillary Clinton.  (And, as "...why not?..." choices, George Mitchell and John Kerry).  I realize that some of those folks are fervent Clinton supporters, but I guess that's part of my point.  I also realize that some combinations would likely be stronger than others (an Obama/Dodd ticket could surely get pegged, rather unfairly, as "'Elitist' Obama meets New England 'Privilege' in Dodd"; and an Obama/Kerry ticket...really?!?).

I have also stated that Senator Clinton would surely have to ask Senator Obama to be her running mate.  If he were to turn her down, I suppose her list would include many of the aforementioned names (minus Bill Richardson, due to recent tensions between the two), and would look something like this (in no particular order):  Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Wesley Clark, Sam Nunn, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Ted Strickland, Ed Rendell, Jim Webb, Mark Warner, etc.  Given his youthful nature and African-American ethnicity, surely Harold Ford, Jr. would also be on her list (despite being only in his late-thirties).

I still assert that Senator McCain's field of potential running mates looks quite weak by comparison, and that he may be forced to settle on the young (47) and conservative (but not tainted by Bush associations) John Thune, who would prove a safe but far from electrifying choice.  If not Thune, then two women (Kay Bailey Hutchison and Sarah Palin), a friend (Tim Pawlenty), a "tough guy" (Tom Ridge), and a few others (Charlie Crist, Rob Portman, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, etc.) are amongst the rather uninspiring group from which a running mate may be chosen.  (Obviously, if Colin Powell, etc., were to imply interest, the playing field would shift rapidly.)

Given the present possibilities in front of us, if someone is likely to choose a "surprise" running mate, it would almost assuredly be Senator McCain who does so, and not either of the Democrats.

If you care to, let me know what you think about an Obama/Clinton ticket, or any other combination....

BOOKS

*  Fareed Zakaria's new book titled "The Post-American World," portions of which I referenced in a recent post, is indeed now available at book stores and on-line.  If you find the title a little off-putting, the first two sentences of the book may put you a bit more at ease:  "This book is not about the decline of America but rather about the rise of everyone else.  It is about the great transformation taking place around the world, a transformation that, though often discussed, remains poorly understood."  I think that it is essential for the future of American global influence to understand what Zakaria and others are writing about...and what many of us Americans have encountered while working overseas during the last several years.

*  As one part of my "get to know your country again" re-exploration of America, I've been reading many American-themed novels of late, among which was David Wiltse's 2001 novel "Heartland," which is set in his native Nebraska (the state I lived in for four years in the 1990s while attending Creighton University in Omaha).  Clearly written prior to the September 11, 2001 Twin Towers terrorist attacks, the novel is evocative of the tail end of a somewhat more insular era (the still-influential vestiges of which we still see woven in manners both subtle and overt into many parts of American culture today), when our collective national paradigm had not yet been shaken by another seismic--and in this case tragic--shrinking of the geo-cultural world.  The story follows Billy Tree, a recently-injured Secret Service agent, as he returns to his home town in rural Nebraska, and is confronted by a multiple shooting at the town's high school.  As he attempts to solve the mystery of who the gunman (or -woman) might be, he is confronted by the duality of life around him, and in particular the sense of general emotional repression that becomes so stunningly apparent as the story unfolds.

"Heartland" is a wonderful singular achievement, and I plan to read the follow-up Billy Tree adventure, "The Hangman's Knot" (published in 2002), sometime soon.

Newsflash to Provincial Isolationists on Both the Political Right and the Political Left: Globalization is a (Mostly) Good Thing

Fareed Zakaria, who is (among other things) a columnist for Newsweek magazine, has a new book out titled "The Post-American World," in which he postulates that, though the United States will continue to see its ability to dictate its wishes to much, if not all, of the rest of the world diminish in the coming years, it can still provide necessary global leadership in this rapidly paradigm-shifting twenty-first century. Small portions of the book were published in the May 12, 2008 edition of Newsweek, and they provide a capsule review of what many broadly left-ish folks (such as myself) as well as many broadly right-ish folks have been saying for quite some time: when the vitriol, sloganeering, and over-generalizing rhetoric is stripped away, the present consternation felt at a national level in the U.S. is due largely to our confusion regarding how our global influence should adapt to fit our changing needs in this new century. Yes, even many local concerns are due in large part to this scenario.

(In the interests of full disclosure, I have not read the entire book, only the snippets in Newsweek magazine. I stopped by a local bookstore yesterday in order to purchase the book, but it was not there, and the staff seemed quite busy with other customers, so it was either sold-out at that particular store, or it has yet to be published. I will purchase it the moment I see a copy of it on the bookshelves.)

The passages from the book that were printed in Newsweek suggest that Zakaria's mindset is mostly optimistic regarding America's ability to lead in ways that differ from the more heavy-handed methods used in the Cold War- and post-Cold War eras, but he also suggests that, at a societal level, Americans need to be at least broadly informed of the globalization process in order to do that. (Again, this is what I and others have been saying for quite some time.) The first step in that process is to understand that globalization is occurring at vastly accelerating levels. States Zakaria:

"The global economy has more than doubled in size over the last 15 years.... Global trade has grown by 133 percent in the same period. The expansion of the global economic pie has been so large, with so many countries participating, that it has become the dominant force of the current era. Wars, terrorism, and civil strife cause disruptions temporarily but eventually they are overwhelmed by the waves of globalization."

So the ugly side of human nature continues to be displayed, but, in a very real sense, increasing numbers of countries around the world have an increasing stake in each other's futures. Generally speaking, globalization ultimately means that we increasingly rely on economic growth elsewhere, and they rely on economic growth here. Obviously, this is difficult to accept for someone who has lost a manufacturing job here in the U.S. because it is cheaper to ship that job overseas--at least emotionally speaking--and I certainly don't blame that person for feeling that way.

But, overall, the trend suggests that interdependency can work as an increasing deterrent to, say, large-scale armed conflict. Even the potential rise of a Chinese/Russian mega-superpower conglomerate and a North American/European mega-superpower conglomerate will most likely not mean that nuclear war, or the like, between the two sides is imminent, even though tensions will be apparent, because we will largely "own" each other and therefore have a large economic stake in each other's futures.

Zakaria goes on to describe the main (if not only) reason why we are paying a higher price for commodities (such as gasoline) of late, and he is right that it has to do with higher worldwide demand:

"[Massive global economic] growth also explains one of the signature events of our times--soaring commodity prices. $100 oil is just the tip of the barrel.... Food, only a few decades ago in danger of price collapse, is now in the midst of a scary rise. None of this is due to dramatic fall-offs in supply. It is demand, global growing demand, that is fueling these prices. The effect of more and more people eating, drinking, washing, driving, and consuming will have seismic effects on the global system."

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Yes. The fact of the matter is that about 2.5 billion people live in China and India combined (as opposed to slightly over 300 million in the United States), and many, many more of them are consuming larger and larger amounts of resources at present, even as opposed to a single decade ago, due to the fact that their economies are far more robust now and growing exponentially every month. They are rapidly industrializing, and as they and other countries around the globe become more and more industrialized (and therefore more closely resemble the United States and Western Europe, et al, at least in economic ways), they will do more often what we have been doing for quite some time: continue to demand a larger share of worldwide resources.

Zakaria, by the way, does not dismiss this issue as a silly concern on the part of us Westerners; instead, he suggests that it will increasingly present a "deep problem," though the rise of this problem is a natural result of economic affluence, the likes of which we are accustomed to enjoying, spreading throughout the world. It is therefore a problem that should not--and cannot--be solved by denying people elsewhere the benefits of economic growth, which could eventually create a very dangerous march toward worldwide war (my wording, not his). It must instead be solved through other, creative manners in cooperation with other peoples around the world (again, my wording, not his), amongst which would surely be the rapid mass development of alternative sources of energy.

So is the United States destined to fade in worldwide influence in an increasing manner as this century carries on? Zakaria doesn't necessarily think so, and his rationale for this is, as far as I'm concerned, right on the money: if Americans reclaim, in new and updated ways, our first-with-immigrants status, the United States will continue to prosper and inspire people across the globe. States Zakaria:

"America's hidden secret is [our special history regarding] immigrants. [Presently] foreign students and immigrants account for almost 50 percent of all science researchers in this country. In 2006, they received 40 percent of all PhDs. By 2010, 75 percent of all science PhDs in this country will be awarded to foreign students. When these graduates settle in the country, they create economic opportunity. Half of all Silicon Valley start-ups have one founder who is an immigrant or first generation American. The potential for a new burst of American productivity depends [largely, though not wholly] on our immigration policies. If these people are allowed and encouraged to stay, then innovation will happen here. If they leave, they'll take it with them."

Yes, again. Illegal immigration is indeed a problem, but one of the ways to deal with it is to sort out our cumbersome, increasingly bureaucratic and time-consuming system of legal immigration, which will have the added benefit of better enticing highly-skilled individuals from all over the world to live and work in the United States. We have done that in the past, but the trend is starting to waver right now, due to the ueber-bureaucracy of our system. (Surely we can do background checks and "vet" people in a more streamlined but no-less-thorough manner than we do now...just ask my highly-educated European wife about the levels of patience that are required of one in order to enter legally the United States....) We need to fix this problem and we need to fix it quickly.

Zakaria is optimistic that we can do just that:

"...this is America's great--and potentially insurmountable--strength. [America still] remains the most open, flexible society in the world, able to absorb other people, cultures, ideas, goods, and services. The country thrives on the hunger and energy of poor immigrants. Faced with the new technologies of foreign companies, or growing markets overseas, it adapts and adjusts.... When you compare this dynamism with the closed and hierarchical nations that were once superpowers, you sense that the United States is different...."

Now, before we Americans start patting ourselves on the back for a job well done, Zakaria (again, rightly) suggests that in order to counter the wavering of this trend due to new international economic competition (and, amongst other things, the aforementioned ueber-bureaucratization of our legal immigration system), we need to do a few things, which include continuing to help globalize the world, joining more fully into mutually beneficial agreements regarding this process of globalization, and becoming smarter as a society regarding how the twenty-first century world works:

"To bring others into this [globalized] world, the United States needs to make its own commitment to the system clear. So far, America has been able to have it both ways. It is the global rule-maker but doesn't always play by the rules.... For America to continue to lead the world, we will have to first join it."

He continues:

"For 60 years, the United States has pushed other countries to open their markets, free up their politics, and embrace trade and technology. American diplomates, businessmen, and intellectuals have urged people in distant lands to be unafriad of change, to join the advanced world, to learn the secrets of our success. Yet just as they are beginning to do so, we are losing faith in such ideas. We have become suspicious of trade, openness, immigration, and investment because now it's not [only] Americans going abroad but [also] foreigners coming to America. Just as the world is opening up, we are closing down."

Again, I acknowledge that the loss of manufacturing jobs in heavily industrial areas of our country is for many an economic tragedy, but, as Zakaria suggests, if it is replaced with a new, dynamic, educated mindset in our workforce (made up of both native-born Americans and immigrants), the United States can and will adjust. And let's also bear in mind that we are seeing a slight wrap-around effect even in manufacturing: due to the weak dollar, the European airline company Airbus recently announced that it was closing some of its European manufacturing plants and opening plants in...the southern United States.

Zakaria concludes by stating the following:

"Generations from now, when historians write about these times, they might note that by the turn of the 21st century, the United States had succeeded in its great, historical mission--globalizing the world. We don't want them to write that along the way, we forgot to globalize ourselves."

I can't put it better than that. But I will add a bit to what Zakaria says: I'm tired of hearing how I (and those of a like mindset) are being "elitist" when we suggest that Americans need to be savvier about geo-politics and geo-culture and more sophisticated regarding our role in it. To suggest that those of us who believe such things are "elitist" is ignorant and idiotic (...oops, that must be my "elitism" again...).

What I and others are suggesting is not elitism, but rather the exact OPPOSITE of elitism, because it suggests that we Americans ALL (or at least the VAST MAJORITY of us) need to push ourselves beyond our rather insular, often parochial thinking patterns in order to elevate our individual and collective understanding of the world, because this will help us all adjust to the new worldwide realities in positive, proactive ways. That is both an individual and ultimately communal (in the sense of society-wide) mindset.

An elitist, on the other hand, would suggest that a select group of people, of whom the elitist is a member, should be the ones to elevate their understanding of the world, and thereby perpetually hold power and influence. In this mindset, the vast majority of Americans would be encouraged to stay ignorant of the world beyond our borders, at least regarding anything beyond the most general, "tourist" levels of global understanding and interaction. These people would be kept out of the overall globalization conversation, on a number of different levels.

So, to those folks who suggest that the vast majority of Americans need not work to adjust and deepen our understanding of the world in accelerated manners, I ask you this: Who exactly is elitist?

p.s. Inevitably, the argument between "buying globally" and "buying locally" tends to work itself into this type of discussion. But one need not buy into such a dichotomy, because they need not (and should not) be seen as being necessarily mutually exclusive. This is to say that the most conscientious, "worldly" path to choose insofar as this is concerned is not to join fully with one side or the other, but rather to do both.

The Indiana and North Carolina Verdict: It's Just About All Over, Except For the Posturing

Barring an incredible political collapse, the likes of which Senator Obama has thus far not shown a proclivity to produce on what would basically be the political equivalent of a moment's notice, the results from last night's North Carolina and Indiana primaries suggests that the race for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States is effectively over, with the result being that Barack Obama will be the individual who will take on who I still consider to be the formidable presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, this coming November. (What a fascinating fight to the finish that is likely to be, from a number of different standpoints....)

That being said, though Senator Clinton could very well drop out of the race sometime in the next few days, I doubt that she will, which means that Senator Obama will most likely have to wait for a while (as will we all) for Senator Clinton's concession speech. This is due to a number of factors, but the biggest one is that Senator Clinton has some necessary posturing left to do, which includes winning the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries, which would put her in a position to perhaps leave the race for the nomination on or just after May 20, the date on which she is likely to win the Kentucky contest and Senator Obama is likely to win the Oregon contest. (Yet I feel compelled to say that I'd still like to see her compete through June 3 in order to erase any "could-have-beens" that might be muttered to harmful effect, as far as Senator Obama is concerned, by her most fervent of supporters; if she competes everywhere, it will be difficult to argue how she "should be the nominee" if and when she ends up with fewer pledged deleates than does Senator Obama.)

Such a split-decision on May 20, coupled with a very-probable victory in West Virginia the previous week, would allow Senator Clinton to leave the race in a position of relative strength. This in turn would put her in a position to perhaps dislodge Senator Harry Reid out of his lofty Senate Majority Leader perch, with Senator Clinton stepping into that most powerful of Senatorial posts. She would then be able to rightly claim that, though she did not win the nomination as many (indeed, most) pundits and voters had previously expected her to do, she has nonetheless put herself in a position to influence legislative policy to an enormous degree, particularly after the Democrats (hopefully) pick up two or maybe three more Senate seats in November, creating their first real working majority in quite some time. (The present 51-49 Senate split is a bit of a misnomer, with Independent-Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman siding with the Republicans regarding the Iraq war and Democratic Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota recovering slowly from a horrific brain hemorrhage he suffered some time ago; and, remember, in the event of a voting "tie," the Vice President casts the deciding vote in the U.S. Senate....)

I bring this up because North Carolina voted heavily for Senator Obama last evening (he won by a whopping 230,000+ votes in that state, which translated into a victory margin over Senator Clinton of approximately 14%), and because Indiana, even with popular U.S. Senator Evan Bayh's strong support and a solid percentage of Clinton-friendly blue-collar voters, was not particularly beneficial to Senator Clinton's overall chances, either (she won the state, but only by about 20,000 votes, which translated into a victory margin over Senator Obama of approximately 2%). The remaining undecided superdelegates are now unlikely to be attracted in any direction but (perhaps slowly, but probably quite surely) that which points towards Senator Obama, given his hefty pledged delegate haul from yesterday evening, despite the fact that the past few weeks have been anything but smooth for his campaign (what with the Reverend Wright debacle, the re-emergence of his "bitter" comments on televison and radio, etc., etc.).

If what Senator Obama achieved in these two primaries is the "damage control" we've heard so much about in the wake of his disappointing Pennsylvania primary results, it's the kind of damage control any politician would love to have....

For her part, Senator Clinton surely knows that both the delegate math (which had already been against her) and the all-important psychology of voters nationwide (which she had seemed to tap into in a rather positive manner of late) are now decidedly on the side of Senator Obama. She therefore can see her chances to win the nomination slipping away, despite what she may say publicly, given that no real possible "upset" states are left on the calendar (tonight's results probably sealed the deal for an Obama victory in Oregon on May 20). So now the posturing begins, because in a way this electorally disasterous evening has put her in a new, powerful position in that she can begin to demand certain concessions from her party prior to stepping down.

She could, for instance, make a real play for the Vice Presidential slot; if she demands it persistently enough, the pressure could force Senator Obama's hand and he might have to give it to her. But the result of such a pairing, though very strong indeed from an electoral standpoint, would most likely prove quite disappointing from a governing standpoint, with power struggles and New Guard vs. Old Guard rivalries breaking out everywhere, hurting both the Democrats' chances for re-election to the White House in 2012 and (just as important) their potential continued national legislative dominance. Senator Clinton must understand this, which is one reason why I don't think that she will demand the post, the other reason being rather cynical--if Senator Obama loses the upcoming election and she is not on the ticket, she may be in a good position to run for the nomination again in 2012, particularly after time goes by and she is increasingly seen as having been the "better" choice in retrospect. (This becomes moot if Senator Obama wins the general election, of course.)

Senator Clinton would be particularly ready to re-run for the Presidency in 2012 if she were to be appointed to the high-profile position of Senate Majority Leader, which is one reason why I think this is what she most likely has her sights set on right now. (If she returned to the Senate at her current level of seniority, she may or may not have the leverage to beat another upstart in 2012 or 2016, given what second-place finishes have done to many fine politicians in the past....) Another is the fact that the leaders of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate have a great deal of sway regarding exactly when and how (as well as, in many cases, if) the President's legislative wishes are carried out. She may not be the President, but as Senate Majority Leader she could and would greatly affect national policy, both domestic and foreign in nature, particularly with a larger Democratic majority in the Senate....

And so it may behoove Senator Clinton to stay in the race for the Democratic nomination, which would translate into two more primary wins (in the aforementioned states of West Virginia and Kentucky) by May 20, and probably put enough pressure on her Senate colleagues to "convince" Senator Reid to "voluntarily" step down from his Senate Majority Leader post effective after the new Senate is in place in January of 2009. This would entail Senator Clinton making the announcement that she is leaving the presidential race and endorsing Senator Obama on May 21 or 22, or perhaps shortly after June 3, whenever the machinations are in place for her to be assured that she will assume more authority within the party effective early 2009.

Then it would be to her advantage to campaign strongly and positively for both Senator Obama and for Senate Democrats across the country, to provide a bridge of unity between her supporters and those of Senator Obama, and to come across as both graciously accepting defeat in the Democratic nomination process and determined to "carry on working in powerful manners to see that the values for which the Democratic party stands become reality" (or some wording thereof). It would be difficult to forget about the importance of Hillary Clinton in any case, but it would be very, very difficult for people to fail to respect her if she carried on in this manner.

Oh, and let's remember what many reporters are now (rightfully, for once) saying--she may help Senator Obama by staying in the race until at least May 20, because if she dropped-out now and he subsequently lost to her in West Virginia or Kentucky or both despite her having dropped out, the Republican attack machine would jump all over that fact as a sign of Senator Obama's perceived "electoral weakness."

Please, Senator Clinton, don't take this fight all the way to the Democratic Convention in Denver, but don't drop out of the race just yet, either, for there is some necessary posturing to do.

Various Notions, Volume 4: Let the Fight Carry On...and On, and On; Soon-Irrelevant Primary Predictions; Boris's Big Johnson

GOING, GOING...GUAM

My previous position regarding the status of the Democratic race through the "final" contests, in Montana and South Dakota, on June 3 has solidified:  both Senators Clinton and Obama should stay in the race, campaigning in every state (of which several remain) and commonwealth territory (Puerto Rico has yet to vote), in order to put to rest any "could have beens" that could arise from Senator Clinton leaving the race sometime this month.  (I put "final" in quotation marks, by the way, because how to deal with the previously-bogus Florida and Michigan contests, and therefore their delegates, is still an open question).

It wasn't as though I needed much prompting to solidify my "all-the-way-to-June-3" stance; I have written about it on a few other occasions, both on this and other blog-sites.  But, odd as it is to say, the results this past weekend in, uh, Guam, forced my previously "still-somewhat-fluid" opinion into the "solid" category.  But why has this happened in the wake of the Guam caucuses, and why now?

A lot of it has to do with where we are in the calendar right now--it is currently slightly less than a month until June 3.  This race has gone on for a long, long time (it started after the election returns came in during the 2006 mid-term elections, though it started in earnest a couple of months later), so what's wrong with carrying on for a month and discovering exactly how each state votes, rather than postulating "how things could have been" if one of the two remaining candidates were to drop out?  Why not cross the finish line, as long as we're around the final bend?

Of course, it could turn out that, once we cross the finish line, the rules have been changed and we find that we've got another few laps to go.  This could make the general atmosphere far nastier than it is at present.  So the best result would be for the Clinton and Obama camps to meet during the week following the June 3 contests in order to broker a deal that would have one or the other candidate dropping-out in the interests of party loyalty and, most of all, creating a winning ticket for November.

In this scenario, Senator Clinton would most likely drop out (she's still behind Senator Obama in the overall delegate count by a not insubstantial margin), and be awarded for it.  I would suggest pressuring Harry Reid to step down as the Senate Majority Leader and giving the position to her, which would mean that she comes out of this election cycle in a stronger political position than she possessed prior to entering it, and it means that if Senator Obama loses the general election, she will (at least technically) have more authority in the U.S. legislature than he will.  If things look dire for her candidacy come June 4, this offer might entice Senator Clinton.  It would also allow Senator Obama to choose someone else to be his running mate without creating catastrophic damage to the Democrats' chances in November.

If, on the other hand, Senator Clinton begins to steam-roll through states, winning just about everywhere after the Indiana and North Carolina contests (which would include Clinton-friendly states such as Kentucky and West Virginia, Obama-friendly states such as Oregon and Montana, and the wild-card contests in South Dakota and Puerto Rico), she might find herself in a position to at least attempt to offer Senator Obama the Vice Presidential slot, though chances are fifty-fifty that he would accept it.  If he does accept it, they will most likely win the general election in November.  If he does not accept it, he might find himself eyeing the election for the governorship of Illinois, which he would almost surely win, thereby acquiring the chief executive experience he presently lacks, in anticipation of a future White House run.

Of course, these scenarios are not as likely to happen now as they might have seemed to be a few months ago.  No, what is far more likely is that June 4 rolls around and the Clinton and Obama camps dig in for a while, calling the remaining undecided super-delegates incessantly and fighting over the Florida and Michigan messes.  So be it.  That scenario would be far, far less-than-ideal, to be sure, but it isn't as though we haven't seen it before (remember 1960, when John F. Kennedy won the nomination during the convention--and only when he put Lyndon Johnson on the ticket--and then went on to win the White House?).

It would also be far better than the muttering those who strongly support Senator Clinton would do if their candidate dropped out of the race prior to competing in all of the remaining contests, which would surely occur if and when the Obama campaign had an inevitable tough week on the general election campaign trail....  I suggest that this latter scenario would be more damaging insofar as critical demographic turnout on election day is concerned.

So now we come back to Guam, which became the unexpected tipping point for me insofar as the solidification of my mindset is concerned.  But, my goodness, why Guam?  Well, both the Clinton and Obama camps were hoping for a solid victory in that U.S. territory, in order to claim at least a little more momentum going into the Indiana and North Carolina contests (they knew that they could not claim a lot of momentum in the wake of Guam's vote, but every little bit helps in such tight races).

However, the final vote (it was a caucus vote, not a primary vote, and Guam has a small overall population, so the numbers were lower than just about everywhere else) proved much trickier to "spin" than each side had hoped, with Senator Obama receiving 2,264 votes (50.1%) and Senator Clinton receiving 2,257 votes (49.9%).  The margin of "victory" was razor-thin (in this case, just seven votes), and the candidates will be forced to split Guam's delegate votes evenly, which is beginning to look both familiar and indicative of the overall race.

Furthermore, Guam's voting dynamics--the most heavily-populated area leaned toward Clinton, everywhere else leaned toward Obama--were indicative of the overall dynamics of this race, with Senator Clinton having won heavily-populated states such as New York, California, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (and she would surely win Florida), but with Senator Obama having won far more total contests (about thirty or thirty-one) than she has (about fifteen).

Guam is geographically tiny and features an almost statistically insignificant population (when compared to the whole of the U.S.), and it is located in the Pacific Ocean, far from the west coast of the continental United States.  That being said, during this past weekend that "statistically insignificant" population showed everyone how close this race is, both on Guam itself and, in some very real ways, in the country as a whole.

So, Senators Clinton and Obama ought to carry on and keep this going up to and including June 3.  If Senator Obama performs very well over the next month, Senator Clinton may be enticed to drop out at that point, with some more political capital than she had previous to entering the race.  If Senator Clinton performs very well over the next month, the fight may go all the way to the convention in Denver in August, and probably for good reason, because Senator Obama will still most likely lead in the pledged delegate count.

This race has been going on for quite some time now, but it may be only starting.  Let's (try to) enjoy the ride.

NORTH CAROLINA AND INDIANA PRIMARY PREDICTIONS

I'm not one for predicting the outcome of particular primary and/or caucus races, but I notice the that latest blogging fad is for folks who don't live in upcoming election states, and who have not been to them recently, to somehow attempt to predict the outcome of the races held in those states.  Well, who am I to swim against the current, particularly when predicting the outcome of various races is a "win-win" proposition (either you are wrong and blame it on the fact that you're not "on the ground" in those states, which is plausible; or you're right and can claim intellectual fortitude and/or secret knowledge, which is a bit silly but sounds good)?  So, for what it's worth, here goes:

NORTH CAROLINA:   Of late, Senator Clinton has made a somewhat impressive run in North Carolina, cutting Senator Obama's once-sixteen point lead (in several polls) down to about eight points.  That being said, her gas-tax holiday prank seems a bit desperate, and many (though not all) Africa-Americans in North Carolina (African-Americans make up a significant proportion of the Democratic vote in that state) seem to be taking an "Obama at all costs" approach to this primary.  Also, the university-educated crowd, already leaning toward Senator Obama, seems to be sticking with him, at least for the most part, which is a good sign for his campaign, given that North Carolina is an increasingly university-educated state.  (It is certainly not the nearly-universal manufacturing/agricultural state it was several decades ago.)  Clearly Senator Clinton, knowing she will probably lose the popular vote in the Tar Heel state, is simply trying to cut into Senator Obama's delegate haul.  My prediction:  OBAMA BY TEN POINTS.

INDIANA:  Senator Obama will win the vote in the northwestern-most section of the state (in and around the city of Gary), as well as in the capital city of Indianapolis.  Senator Clinton will win most (if not all) everywhere else.  This election, then, may come down to the voters in the Indianapolis suburbs, and I've got to think that with popular former-Indiana Governor and present-U.S. Senator Evan Bayh's unflagging support over the last several weeks, Senator Clinton has got the edge on those voters.  Plus, what happens when a Clinton's back is against the wall and the fire is heading right at her/him, whether that Clinton has the first name of Bill or Hillary?  What happens is that they find a way to stay politically alive...EVERY time.  Senator Clinton will most likely find a way to stay politically alive and relevant this time by winning Indiana in a close vote.  My prediction:  CLINTON BY FOUR POINTS.

THE BLONDE-HAIRED BEHEMOTH OF LONDINIUM

The new Mayor of London, England is Boris Johnson of the Tory Party, who led after ballots were initially counted last Friday, and subsequently came out with a majority of the overall votes after "second-preference" votes were counted.  The final tally, once the various other candidates were removed due to lack of support,  was as follows:  Boris Johnson, 53%; then-Mayor Ken Livingstone, 47%.  This provided the jewel in the electoral crown for Tory Leader David Cameron, who saw his party capture the majority of the 333 (or thereabouts) local council seats lost by Prime Minister Brown's Labour Party during last Thursday's local elections in England and Wales.

For those not "in the know" regarding Mr. Johnson, well, he's technically both American and British (as he was born in New York City), he's highly-educated, and he's given to suggesting that if men vote for the Tories their wives will magically acquire "bigger breasts."  (This will evidently not be the case, at least in his mind, for folks who choose to vote for another party, or abstain from voting altogether.  As to what beneficial things will happen if women vote for the Tories, well, he seems a bit hesitant to openly conceptualize.)

And now-Mayor Johnson's hair "style" is another story altogether....  Yet there is something incredibly, almost rebelliously ingratiating about this rather eccentric, Silver-Spoon-fed politician.  For instance, he seems to have crafted a method of circumventing damaging criticism by making off-the-wall statements in an off-handed manner in public on a consistent basis, as if to show that he's too cool to believe what he's saying and way too cool to care about criticism of what he says.

And John McCain fancies himself a "maverick"....

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

NORM IS NOT SO PRETTY IN PINK

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

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

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

FEELING BLUE, MR. BROWN?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IS JOHNNY MAC THINKING THUNE?

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

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

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

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

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

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