Now that Senator Hillary Clinton's hat has been thrown into the ring as a possible future Secretary of State (I, amongst others, suggested her as a possible Secretary of State this past summer, though I ultimately endorsed New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson for the role), a certain amount of grumbling has emerged from various sectors of the blog-o-sphere. Much of this grumbling has focused on Senator Clinton's apparent unwillingness to take marching-orders from, well, anyone, really. This line of thought suggests that she would make a fine national chief executive but a less-than-stellar employee of anyone else who might be the national chief executive, no matter how suited she might be for the role of Secretary of State, or for a related role.
I disagree with this viewpoint, mostly because Senator Clinton has shown herself to be quite capable of backing-up Senator Obama on the campaign trail. Yes, she'd rather be the head of the executive branch, and, yes, her background suggests that she'd be well-suited for that role. Yet she has transitioned to the role of "Official Obama Supporter" in a rather seemless fashion. (Her husband, by contrast, has found her transition to be far more difficult to stomach.) So, from that standpoint, there is a lot to recommend her for the post of Secretary of State.
Yet I do have a problem with a potential Secretary of State Clinton in that I simply question whether she is "too big" for the role. Given that the Secretary of State needs to do a lot of her or his most sensitive work in a somewhat quiet, somewhat "under-the-radar" manner, would a Secretary of State Clinton be able to detach herself from the international public eye enough to spend considerable periods of time in a "subtle" context? (I'm obviously aware that some of the Secretary of State's time is spent very much in the public eye, as well.) And would a Secretary of State Clinton be able to keep the focus on President Obama's policies, as opposed to her own fame? At this point, I'm simply not sure.
Please notice that I am not "blaming" Senator Clinton for her status as a "political rock star." Besides, I think she's earned the international attention. But, in a sense, her ueber-fame is a bit limiting in that her options are somewhat more limited than those of someone like, say, Chuck Hagel or Bill Richardson or John Kerry, etc.; there are only certain jobs that she may not have "outgrown." The role of Secretary of State is indeed a very, very important one, but an ideal Secretary of State needs to be highly experienced in diplomacy, highly respected in international circles, and, quite frankly, less than internationally enthralling. Senator Clinton certainly fulfills the first two requirements, but not the third.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
"Minnesota Nice"? Nah, It's More Like "Minnesota Idiosyncratic."
We Minnesotans are supposed to be particularly "nice" people, or at least that's what I'm told (somewhat endlessly) by...my fellow Minnesotans. Given that we also pride ourselves on what is oftened termed our "Midwestern humility," this "niceness" assertion seems odd in that it suggests we "humble people" enjoy patting ourselves on the back about this particular trait--though we would probably suggest that we are simply "stating a fact."
And, oh, do we ever like to let ourselves know about our "niceness": people toss it about in an off-handed manner during conversations on a regular basis, and it's stated as a "fact" in local television and radio commercials. (In the Twin Cities, it's right up there with E=mc2.) There was even a reminder just the other week in the local paper that we are either #2 or #3 in the country on the "niceness" scale, according to some national study or other. (The writer seemed somewhat miffed to learn that apparently North Dakotans are slightly "nicer.")
But I wonder what criteria that study used to determine "niceness," which has always seemed a very nebulous (and therefore suspicious) term to me. What were they looking for, exactly? And, following that line of questioning, what does "niceness" even mean?
I bring all of this up because today I was reminded by yet another non-Minnesotan who has lived in the Twin Cities for quite some time that, "People here are immediately nice to you when you pass them on the street or see them in the shops. It's disarming. But they are also very difficult to get to know, beyond the smiles and kind greetings."
I don't write this to anger unduly my fellow Minnesotans, but rather because I have heard this same sentiment uttered countless times by folks from outside of the state who have come to live and work in Minnesota. For my part, as a former American expatriate, I found readjustment to Minnesota a somewhat difficult process because I, too, had to negotiate this rather odd cultural idiosyncracy.
In most places I've been to--both inside and outside of the United States--people are somewhat taciturn when they pass you in the street, but are quite gregarious when they meet you in, say, a pub or related setting; they are quite willing to meet new people and start new lines of communication in such settings. Friendships between people from different cultural backgrounds often spring from such interactions.
In Minnesota, however, the opposite often seems to be the case in that people are immediately friendly when they meet you on the sidewalks, or out in front of their houses, and the like, yet in a pub environment (or any of a number of social settings) they either talk almost exclusively amongst their peer group or watch the television and avoid eye contact with strangers. (The first two individuals I made friends with upon my return to Minnesota were both British expatriates living in the Twin Cities, probably because they sought-out conversations with whomever wished to converse in such social settings.)
Again, I don't mean to crap on my home state--I was born and raised in the Twin Cities, after all--but I find this notion of the "nice" nature of Minnesotans to be suspect in that it suggests a magnanimous cultural sophistication that might very well be inherent to the state, but if so it is often offset or even overridden by a rather insular clannishness on the part of a large percentage of the population. The suggestion seems to be that we Minnesotans like "outsiders" (domestic and foreign)--by which we apparently mean those who are either "from elsewhere" or "moved elsewhere" for a considerable length of time but have returned home--but are not particularly keen on getting to know them well, even if they live next door. Or perhaps it's just that, given our somewhat Scandinavian cultural background, we're simply not sure how to get to know them, which would be easier for me to accept emotionally because it suggests that we are not particularly equipped for such scenarios and instead excel in other areas.
Minnesota has a generally strong economy and features an unquestionably high quality of life, so there is a lot to recommend it. But I tire of Twin Citians suggesting that we're "worldly" and "culturally sophisticated" and then reciting the same half-dozen or so talking-points in order to back-up their assertions. (If I hear one more time how "...we have more theater seats per person than any other metro area in America except New York City," I might throttle the person saying it...or perhaps I'll throttle myself so that I needn't hear it again.) Whenever people start doing that on a mass scale, they immediately undercut the argument they are making, because the last thing that genuinely worldly, sophisticated people would do is recite the local handbook (so to speak).
I come back to my original point: if we're so "nice," how come so many people from outside of the area find it so difficult to create lasting friendships here? They will, however, receive a smile and a friendly "hello" on the street, so....
Is Minnesota a good place to live? Yes, and I would never for a moment suggest otherwise. Is it "nice"? By my definition, I'm not so sure. If we are truly worldly, sophisiticated people, we would stop repeating the party line and instead examine our shortcomings, both internally and verbally, in order to improve them. That's what truly sophisticated people tend to do, because they know that admitting one's shortcomings is the first step toward self-improvement. Who knows? Maybe such a proactive mindset could lead folks to start interesting conversations in certain social settings....
And, oh, do we ever like to let ourselves know about our "niceness": people toss it about in an off-handed manner during conversations on a regular basis, and it's stated as a "fact" in local television and radio commercials. (In the Twin Cities, it's right up there with E=mc2.) There was even a reminder just the other week in the local paper that we are either #2 or #3 in the country on the "niceness" scale, according to some national study or other. (The writer seemed somewhat miffed to learn that apparently North Dakotans are slightly "nicer.")
But I wonder what criteria that study used to determine "niceness," which has always seemed a very nebulous (and therefore suspicious) term to me. What were they looking for, exactly? And, following that line of questioning, what does "niceness" even mean?
I bring all of this up because today I was reminded by yet another non-Minnesotan who has lived in the Twin Cities for quite some time that, "People here are immediately nice to you when you pass them on the street or see them in the shops. It's disarming. But they are also very difficult to get to know, beyond the smiles and kind greetings."
I don't write this to anger unduly my fellow Minnesotans, but rather because I have heard this same sentiment uttered countless times by folks from outside of the state who have come to live and work in Minnesota. For my part, as a former American expatriate, I found readjustment to Minnesota a somewhat difficult process because I, too, had to negotiate this rather odd cultural idiosyncracy.
In most places I've been to--both inside and outside of the United States--people are somewhat taciturn when they pass you in the street, but are quite gregarious when they meet you in, say, a pub or related setting; they are quite willing to meet new people and start new lines of communication in such settings. Friendships between people from different cultural backgrounds often spring from such interactions.
In Minnesota, however, the opposite often seems to be the case in that people are immediately friendly when they meet you on the sidewalks, or out in front of their houses, and the like, yet in a pub environment (or any of a number of social settings) they either talk almost exclusively amongst their peer group or watch the television and avoid eye contact with strangers. (The first two individuals I made friends with upon my return to Minnesota were both British expatriates living in the Twin Cities, probably because they sought-out conversations with whomever wished to converse in such social settings.)
Again, I don't mean to crap on my home state--I was born and raised in the Twin Cities, after all--but I find this notion of the "nice" nature of Minnesotans to be suspect in that it suggests a magnanimous cultural sophistication that might very well be inherent to the state, but if so it is often offset or even overridden by a rather insular clannishness on the part of a large percentage of the population. The suggestion seems to be that we Minnesotans like "outsiders" (domestic and foreign)--by which we apparently mean those who are either "from elsewhere" or "moved elsewhere" for a considerable length of time but have returned home--but are not particularly keen on getting to know them well, even if they live next door. Or perhaps it's just that, given our somewhat Scandinavian cultural background, we're simply not sure how to get to know them, which would be easier for me to accept emotionally because it suggests that we are not particularly equipped for such scenarios and instead excel in other areas.
Minnesota has a generally strong economy and features an unquestionably high quality of life, so there is a lot to recommend it. But I tire of Twin Citians suggesting that we're "worldly" and "culturally sophisticated" and then reciting the same half-dozen or so talking-points in order to back-up their assertions. (If I hear one more time how "...we have more theater seats per person than any other metro area in America except New York City," I might throttle the person saying it...or perhaps I'll throttle myself so that I needn't hear it again.) Whenever people start doing that on a mass scale, they immediately undercut the argument they are making, because the last thing that genuinely worldly, sophisticated people would do is recite the local handbook (so to speak).
I come back to my original point: if we're so "nice," how come so many people from outside of the area find it so difficult to create lasting friendships here? They will, however, receive a smile and a friendly "hello" on the street, so....
Is Minnesota a good place to live? Yes, and I would never for a moment suggest otherwise. Is it "nice"? By my definition, I'm not so sure. If we are truly worldly, sophisiticated people, we would stop repeating the party line and instead examine our shortcomings, both internally and verbally, in order to improve them. That's what truly sophisticated people tend to do, because they know that admitting one's shortcomings is the first step toward self-improvement. Who knows? Maybe such a proactive mindset could lead folks to start interesting conversations in certain social settings....
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Cellular Saturation
Have you noticed that people whose cell phones feature quiet, "excuse-me" ring-tones have a tendency to answer their phones quickly and in a somewhat embarrassed manner when someone calls them while they are amongst other people in a public space? If so (or even if you haven't noticed that), have you also noticed that people who choose loud, ostentatious, rather annoying ring-tones for their cell phones have a tendency to answer calls in such a lackluster and astonishingly slow manner while in a public space that one might think their drink (or food, or whatever) had been inadvertently spiked with alarmingly enormous doses of emergency room anesthetics?
The latter scenario happened while I was at a coffee shop this evening. A woman's phone "rang" for about thirty seconds before she answered it (doesn't it have a voicemail option?), which is annoying in and of itself. Yet the phone rang so loudly, consistently, and screechingly that it seemed as though the entire London Symphony Orchestra was told in no uncertain terms that in order to save their pensions they would inexplicably have to play a musical rendition of the storming of Iwo Jima capable of being heard clearly from the inside of 1960s-era reinforced bomb shelters several hundred miles away. (I know I mixed my eras just then; I'm just going with the flow on this subject.)
I believe that my ears rang temporarily as a result, though I can't be sure because the ringing may have come from any of a number of nearby fire alarms accidentally set-off by someone crashing into one, due to having been startled by the unexpected assault on her or his eardrums. (A young lady sitting nearby made the very sensible decision of fleeing to the bathroom during the auditory assault.)
Please choose a less psychotic ring-tone and answer your phone quickly, madame. Better yet, turn off your cell phone for a little while, if any part of you feels as though you can survive such a "drastic" course of action.
The latter scenario happened while I was at a coffee shop this evening. A woman's phone "rang" for about thirty seconds before she answered it (doesn't it have a voicemail option?), which is annoying in and of itself. Yet the phone rang so loudly, consistently, and screechingly that it seemed as though the entire London Symphony Orchestra was told in no uncertain terms that in order to save their pensions they would inexplicably have to play a musical rendition of the storming of Iwo Jima capable of being heard clearly from the inside of 1960s-era reinforced bomb shelters several hundred miles away. (I know I mixed my eras just then; I'm just going with the flow on this subject.)
I believe that my ears rang temporarily as a result, though I can't be sure because the ringing may have come from any of a number of nearby fire alarms accidentally set-off by someone crashing into one, due to having been startled by the unexpected assault on her or his eardrums. (A young lady sitting nearby made the very sensible decision of fleeing to the bathroom during the auditory assault.)
Please choose a less psychotic ring-tone and answer your phone quickly, madame. Better yet, turn off your cell phone for a little while, if any part of you feels as though you can survive such a "drastic" course of action.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Hasslington's Obama Administration Cabinet Endorsements, #1: Bill Richardson For U.S. Secretary Of State
THE HASSLINGTON ENDORSEMENT PROCESS BEGINS
Over the next week or so, I will be making endorsements for important cabinet posts in the emerging Obama Administration (which takes over the reigns of executive power on January 20, 2009).
My first endorsement will be for the very (and increasingly) important role of U.S. Secretary of State, and here it is:
HASSLINGTON'S ENDORSEMENT FOR U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: BILL RICHARDSON
Why? Well, there are five or so major contenders for the role (at least if one believes the recent media reports), and they represent a very impressive field. Any one of them would do a fine job in the role, so making an endorsement is a very difficult process.
Prior to examining Governor Richardson's qualifications, let's look at the other four compelling candidates for the role.
DEMOCRATS:
* U.S. Senator John Kerry may be in the "lead" in the horserace for this post, and his intellectual talents and well-traveled world-view suggest that he deserves a lot of consideration. That he is also a former Democratic presidential nominee who lost a close election to George W. Bush in 2004 also might help him, given that a Kerry appointment to the post would suggest an immediate break with the Bush mindset. (And, of couse, he made sure that Barack Obama was the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention--which launched President-Elect Obama's national political profile in a dramatic manner--so the president-elect might feel as though he owes a debt to Senator Kerry.)
* Richard Holbrooke is a former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., as well as a former Undersecretary of State, so he would bring a lot of real-world experience to the role. He has worked in international affairs since the 1970s, and he has been a foreign policy advisor to several high-profile Democrats.
REPUBLICANS:
* U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel is a social conservative, but he's also a sharp critic of the Bush Administration's deployment strategies regarding (and subsequent use of) U.S. troops worldwide. Like John Kerry, he is a Vietnam veteran, but unlike Kerry, he is leaving the U.S. senate this coming January. (Senator Kerry was re-elected to his post last week, whereas Senator Hagel is voluntarily stepping away from his senate seat.) He has developed an impressive foreign policy portfolio over the last dozen years and, despite the fact that he is a Republican, he has not hidden his admiration of Barack Obama since Senator Obama entered the presidential race nearly two years ago. He even traveled to the Middle East with Senator Obama and Senator Jack Reed several months ago.
* U.S. Senator Richard Lugar is well into his seventies, but he has been an expert on nuclear proliferation issues for decades now. Furthermore, his willingness to work with Democrats, combined with his elder-statesman-esque mindset and calm demeanor, have served him well as a negotiator working to resolve seemingly irreconcilable differences between ideologues in the senate chambers and beyond. He is also from Indiana, a state that voted for Barack Obama for president this year, which marks the first time since 1964 that Indiana voted for the Democratic candidate. Surely the Democrats want to stay on the "good side" of Indiana voters....
*** NOTE: There are surely others, such as former Democratic Senator Sam Nunn (of Georgia), who will receive well-deserved consideration for the role. (In fact, he'd be a strong selection.) For the purposes of this post, however, I am merely examining the five individuals most often discussed in the media over the past week. ***
SO WHY SHOULD BILL RICHARDSON BE SELECTED FOR THE ROLE?
Though they are all impressive candidates, none of the above four individuals has as diversified a political portfolio as Bill Richardson, which can only help in the process of adapting to a new governmental role. He spent fourteen years as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, which he followed with substantive stints as the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., the U.S. Energy Secretary, and the two-term Governor of New Mexico. (In 2006, he was re-elected by an overwhelming majority of New Mexico voters.) This will be his final term as the chief executive of New Mexico, as that state limits its governors to two terms.
Governor Richardson is well-known throughout worldwide diplomatic circles, and for a number of reasons. First of all, he has been an international hostage negotiator for at least fifteen or sixteen years now, and has had considerable success in that heavy-pressure role. He has also negotiated with and/or delivered U.S. requirements to the likes of Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Slobodan Milosevic of the former-Yugoslavia, and the North Korean leadership structure. (The North Koreans, who refused initially to speak directly with President Bush's leadership team in his first term, instead flew to New Mexico in order to negotiate through Governor Richardson. The Bush Administration quietly sanctioned this unique set-up, and negotiations were largely successful.) He has often met with success in these types of roles, prompting former-President Clinton to suggest that this success is due partly to the fact that "bad guys like Bill" and his straight-forward, honest approach to negotiations; such a mindset has prompted many unsavory types to respect Governor Richardson, which has often led to foreign policy progress. (It also helps that he is a big, burly figure who cannot be intimidated easily, physically or otherwise.)
The fact that Governor Richardson is Hispanic might also help in that it would allow President-Elect Obama to fill an important cabinet post with someone from an ethnic group that swung heavily to the Democrats in several critical swing-states during this election cycle. That might help to solidify support among an ethnic group that is still considered very much "in-play" for both major parties during each election cycle.
Then there's this: Vice President-Elect Biden seemed to develop a rivalry with Governor Richardson during this past election cycle. Both ran for the Demcratic party's presidential nomination, and both leveraged heavily their considerable foreign policy experience. Governor Richardson made it out of the Iowa caucuses with his campaign alive, whereas Mr. Biden did not. If the president-elect wants to create what Abraham Lincoln did, which is to say a cabinet of rivals who are forced to use their considerable talents in order to work together, he could do much worse than choosing Governor Richardson as his Secretary of State, given that soon-to-be Vice President Biden will surely be involved heavily in foreign policy decisions (as will the president, of course) and will need to work closely with whoever is slotted-into the role. I, for one, would like to see those two foreign policy experts working together in order to find a concensus (and occasionally butting-heads in order to hash-out emerging concerns) as opposed to occasionally working at cross-purposes.
Given his impressive resume' (and I didn't even mention his five Nobel Peace Prize nominations), his magnanimous but tough negotiating personality, his familiarity with leaders worldwide (several worldwide leaders, including the head of Spain's government, Jose' Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, called him in order to congratulate the Democratic party on their electoral success last week), and other assorted reasons (such as his fluency in English, French, and Spanish), I endorse New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson for the role of U.S. Secretary of State in the forthcoming Obama Administration.
Over the next week or so, I will be making endorsements for important cabinet posts in the emerging Obama Administration (which takes over the reigns of executive power on January 20, 2009).
My first endorsement will be for the very (and increasingly) important role of U.S. Secretary of State, and here it is:
HASSLINGTON'S ENDORSEMENT FOR U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: BILL RICHARDSON
Why? Well, there are five or so major contenders for the role (at least if one believes the recent media reports), and they represent a very impressive field. Any one of them would do a fine job in the role, so making an endorsement is a very difficult process.
Prior to examining Governor Richardson's qualifications, let's look at the other four compelling candidates for the role.
DEMOCRATS:
* U.S. Senator John Kerry may be in the "lead" in the horserace for this post, and his intellectual talents and well-traveled world-view suggest that he deserves a lot of consideration. That he is also a former Democratic presidential nominee who lost a close election to George W. Bush in 2004 also might help him, given that a Kerry appointment to the post would suggest an immediate break with the Bush mindset. (And, of couse, he made sure that Barack Obama was the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention--which launched President-Elect Obama's national political profile in a dramatic manner--so the president-elect might feel as though he owes a debt to Senator Kerry.)
* Richard Holbrooke is a former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., as well as a former Undersecretary of State, so he would bring a lot of real-world experience to the role. He has worked in international affairs since the 1970s, and he has been a foreign policy advisor to several high-profile Democrats.
REPUBLICANS:
* U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel is a social conservative, but he's also a sharp critic of the Bush Administration's deployment strategies regarding (and subsequent use of) U.S. troops worldwide. Like John Kerry, he is a Vietnam veteran, but unlike Kerry, he is leaving the U.S. senate this coming January. (Senator Kerry was re-elected to his post last week, whereas Senator Hagel is voluntarily stepping away from his senate seat.) He has developed an impressive foreign policy portfolio over the last dozen years and, despite the fact that he is a Republican, he has not hidden his admiration of Barack Obama since Senator Obama entered the presidential race nearly two years ago. He even traveled to the Middle East with Senator Obama and Senator Jack Reed several months ago.
* U.S. Senator Richard Lugar is well into his seventies, but he has been an expert on nuclear proliferation issues for decades now. Furthermore, his willingness to work with Democrats, combined with his elder-statesman-esque mindset and calm demeanor, have served him well as a negotiator working to resolve seemingly irreconcilable differences between ideologues in the senate chambers and beyond. He is also from Indiana, a state that voted for Barack Obama for president this year, which marks the first time since 1964 that Indiana voted for the Democratic candidate. Surely the Democrats want to stay on the "good side" of Indiana voters....
*** NOTE: There are surely others, such as former Democratic Senator Sam Nunn (of Georgia), who will receive well-deserved consideration for the role. (In fact, he'd be a strong selection.) For the purposes of this post, however, I am merely examining the five individuals most often discussed in the media over the past week. ***
SO WHY SHOULD BILL RICHARDSON BE SELECTED FOR THE ROLE?
Though they are all impressive candidates, none of the above four individuals has as diversified a political portfolio as Bill Richardson, which can only help in the process of adapting to a new governmental role. He spent fourteen years as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, which he followed with substantive stints as the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., the U.S. Energy Secretary, and the two-term Governor of New Mexico. (In 2006, he was re-elected by an overwhelming majority of New Mexico voters.) This will be his final term as the chief executive of New Mexico, as that state limits its governors to two terms.
Governor Richardson is well-known throughout worldwide diplomatic circles, and for a number of reasons. First of all, he has been an international hostage negotiator for at least fifteen or sixteen years now, and has had considerable success in that heavy-pressure role. He has also negotiated with and/or delivered U.S. requirements to the likes of Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Slobodan Milosevic of the former-Yugoslavia, and the North Korean leadership structure. (The North Koreans, who refused initially to speak directly with President Bush's leadership team in his first term, instead flew to New Mexico in order to negotiate through Governor Richardson. The Bush Administration quietly sanctioned this unique set-up, and negotiations were largely successful.) He has often met with success in these types of roles, prompting former-President Clinton to suggest that this success is due partly to the fact that "bad guys like Bill" and his straight-forward, honest approach to negotiations; such a mindset has prompted many unsavory types to respect Governor Richardson, which has often led to foreign policy progress. (It also helps that he is a big, burly figure who cannot be intimidated easily, physically or otherwise.)
The fact that Governor Richardson is Hispanic might also help in that it would allow President-Elect Obama to fill an important cabinet post with someone from an ethnic group that swung heavily to the Democrats in several critical swing-states during this election cycle. That might help to solidify support among an ethnic group that is still considered very much "in-play" for both major parties during each election cycle.
Then there's this: Vice President-Elect Biden seemed to develop a rivalry with Governor Richardson during this past election cycle. Both ran for the Demcratic party's presidential nomination, and both leveraged heavily their considerable foreign policy experience. Governor Richardson made it out of the Iowa caucuses with his campaign alive, whereas Mr. Biden did not. If the president-elect wants to create what Abraham Lincoln did, which is to say a cabinet of rivals who are forced to use their considerable talents in order to work together, he could do much worse than choosing Governor Richardson as his Secretary of State, given that soon-to-be Vice President Biden will surely be involved heavily in foreign policy decisions (as will the president, of course) and will need to work closely with whoever is slotted-into the role. I, for one, would like to see those two foreign policy experts working together in order to find a concensus (and occasionally butting-heads in order to hash-out emerging concerns) as opposed to occasionally working at cross-purposes.
Given his impressive resume' (and I didn't even mention his five Nobel Peace Prize nominations), his magnanimous but tough negotiating personality, his familiarity with leaders worldwide (several worldwide leaders, including the head of Spain's government, Jose' Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, called him in order to congratulate the Democratic party on their electoral success last week), and other assorted reasons (such as his fluency in English, French, and Spanish), I endorse New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson for the role of U.S. Secretary of State in the forthcoming Obama Administration.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Busy Weekend
It's a busy weekend for me, folks. I have about a hundred final quarter grades to submit via the computer, which would be easier if I hadn't started my present teaching job just three weeks ago. Hence, I have to figure-out point totals and percentage "weights," as well as go through late papers assigned prior to my tenure and figure out how to grade them.
It's therefore the case that I won't have another substantive post for a few days or so. But I promise to examine the recent U.S. presidential election as well as the emerging cabinet soon.
For now, there are these Hasslington endorsements, which I'll flesh-out later:
Secretary of State: Bill Richardson (though there are a lot of good potential Secretaries of State from which to choose). Please see my July endorsement of Governor Richardson for further details.
Defense Secretary: Robert Gates (at least for a little while longer).
Attorney General: Janet Napolitano.
It's therefore the case that I won't have another substantive post for a few days or so. But I promise to examine the recent U.S. presidential election as well as the emerging cabinet soon.
For now, there are these Hasslington endorsements, which I'll flesh-out later:
Secretary of State: Bill Richardson (though there are a lot of good potential Secretaries of State from which to choose). Please see my July endorsement of Governor Richardson for further details.
Defense Secretary: Robert Gates (at least for a little while longer).
Attorney General: Janet Napolitano.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
America Rising
Dear President-Elect Obama,
I want to send my most heartfelt congratulations to you, sir, for your historic victory this evening. I was honored to cast my presidential vote for you and your running mate, Senator Biden. We have enormous challenges in front of us, and I know that there are bound to be many disappointments in the coming years. But I also know that, given the evidence before us, we ought never underestimate your ability to overcome the odds.
Sincerely,
Hasslington
*************************************************************
Dear Senator McCain,
I want to send my most heartfelt thanks to you, sir, for the extraordinary amount of service you have rendered to our country for decades, as well as for the healing and unifying nature of your concession speech this evening. You lost an election, but you have not lost the admiration of millions upon millions of people, including many of those who, like me, chose not to vote for you for president.
Sincerely,
Hasslington
*************************************************************
(Note: As of this moment, my electoral map predictions are accurate. That being said, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, the Omaha district of Nebraska, and North Carolina are still too close to call. If Senator Obama wins Missouri and loses the other aforementioned outstanding races, my prediction of a 349 to 189 final electoral tally will be correct. That being said, I may be proven at least somewhat wrong, which wouldn't bother me at all. Somehow, at this point, it doesn't seem to matter.)
I want to send my most heartfelt congratulations to you, sir, for your historic victory this evening. I was honored to cast my presidential vote for you and your running mate, Senator Biden. We have enormous challenges in front of us, and I know that there are bound to be many disappointments in the coming years. But I also know that, given the evidence before us, we ought never underestimate your ability to overcome the odds.
Sincerely,
Hasslington
*************************************************************
Dear Senator McCain,
I want to send my most heartfelt thanks to you, sir, for the extraordinary amount of service you have rendered to our country for decades, as well as for the healing and unifying nature of your concession speech this evening. You lost an election, but you have not lost the admiration of millions upon millions of people, including many of those who, like me, chose not to vote for you for president.
Sincerely,
Hasslington
*************************************************************
(Note: As of this moment, my electoral map predictions are accurate. That being said, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, the Omaha district of Nebraska, and North Carolina are still too close to call. If Senator Obama wins Missouri and loses the other aforementioned outstanding races, my prediction of a 349 to 189 final electoral tally will be correct. That being said, I may be proven at least somewhat wrong, which wouldn't bother me at all. Somehow, at this point, it doesn't seem to matter.)
Saturday, November 1, 2008
"Hasslington's Presidential Swing-State Voting Predictions" and "Hasslington's Electoral Vote Prediction"
Here is the final draft of "Hasslington's Presidential Swing-State Voting Predictions," followed by the final draft of "Hasslington's Electoral Vote Prediction." This has been a very difficult task for me, given that John McCain has a history of finishing in a very strong manner with "undecided" voters, but also that the overall trends (domestic and foreign in nature) benefit Barack Obama. So though Barack Obama is more likely to be the next president, it is surely the case that this election is still up in the air, even this close to election day....
HASSLINGTON'S PRESIDENTIAL SWING-STATE VOTING PREDICTIONS
A good friend of mine, who happens to be a Barack Obama supporter and lives in North Carolina, tells me that his state will most likely tip toward John McCain, if just barely. I'm torn evenly with regards to who will "eek" out a win in that state, so I will yield to his expertise.
I am also finding the following states very difficult to predict: Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio. Yet I will give them my best shot anyway. (For instance, I have settled on predicting that Ohio will lean very slightly toward Barack Obama, probably by 1% or thereabouts, due simply to the Obama campaign's impressive ground operations there and elsewhere. If that were not the case, Ohio would most likely lean slightly toward John McCain. In other words, I've no idea how Ohio will go, and have simply given up thinking about it by predicting a very close Obama win there....)
Months before they were chosen, I predicted both vice presidential running mates accurately. Might I also get the November 4 presidential results largely right, or not? Personally, I'm not so sure. We'll have to wait and see....
At any rate, HERE ARE MY PREDICTIONS:
1.) I predict that Barack Obama will win the following swing-states:
* Colorado (9 electoral votes) by 4%
* Florida (27 electoral votes) by 3%
* Iowa (7 electoral votes) by 9%
* Michigan (17 electoral votes) by 11%
* Minnesota (10 electoral votes) by 11%
* Missouri (11 electoral votes) by 2%
* Nevada (5 electoral votes) by 4%
* New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) by 6%
* New Mexico (5 electoral votes) by 6%
* Ohio (20 electoral votes) by 1%
* Oregon (7 electoral votes) by 10%
* Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes) by 5%
* Virginia (13 electoral votes) by 5%
* Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) by 8%
2.) Barack Obama should also win the following states (and one district):
California (55); Connecticut (7); Delaware (3); District of Columbia (3); Hawaii (4); Illinois (21); Maine (all of its 4 electoral votes, which are distributed somewhat separately); Maryland (10); Massachusetts (12); New Jersey (15); New York (31); Rhode Island (4); Vermont (3); Washington (11).
3.) I predict that John McCain will win the following swing-states:
* Arizona (10 electoral votes) by 5%
* Georgia (15 electoral votes) by 4%
* Indiana (11 electoral votes) by 2%
* Mississippi (6 electoral votes) by 7%
* Montana (3 electoral votes) by 4%
* North Carolina (15 electoral votes) by 2%
* North Dakota (3 electoral votes) by 4%
* West Virginia (5 electoral votes) by 6%
4.) John McCain should also win the following states:
Alabama (9); Alaska (3); Arkansas (6); Idaho (4); Kansas (6); Kentucky (8); Louisiana (9); Nebraska (all of its 5 electoral votes, which are distributed somewhat separately); Oklahoma (7); South Carolina (8); South Dakota (3); Tennessee (11); Texas (34); Utah (5); Wyoming (3).
HASSLINGTON'S ELECTORAL VOTE PREDICTION
Barack Obama / Joe Biden : 349 electoral votes (27 states and 1 district)
John McCain / Sarah Palin : 189 electoral votes (23 states)
HASSLINGTON'S PRESIDENTIAL SWING-STATE VOTING PREDICTIONS
A good friend of mine, who happens to be a Barack Obama supporter and lives in North Carolina, tells me that his state will most likely tip toward John McCain, if just barely. I'm torn evenly with regards to who will "eek" out a win in that state, so I will yield to his expertise.
I am also finding the following states very difficult to predict: Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio. Yet I will give them my best shot anyway. (For instance, I have settled on predicting that Ohio will lean very slightly toward Barack Obama, probably by 1% or thereabouts, due simply to the Obama campaign's impressive ground operations there and elsewhere. If that were not the case, Ohio would most likely lean slightly toward John McCain. In other words, I've no idea how Ohio will go, and have simply given up thinking about it by predicting a very close Obama win there....)
Months before they were chosen, I predicted both vice presidential running mates accurately. Might I also get the November 4 presidential results largely right, or not? Personally, I'm not so sure. We'll have to wait and see....
At any rate, HERE ARE MY PREDICTIONS:
1.) I predict that Barack Obama will win the following swing-states:
* Colorado (9 electoral votes) by 4%
* Florida (27 electoral votes) by 3%
* Iowa (7 electoral votes) by 9%
* Michigan (17 electoral votes) by 11%
* Minnesota (10 electoral votes) by 11%
* Missouri (11 electoral votes) by 2%
* Nevada (5 electoral votes) by 4%
* New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) by 6%
* New Mexico (5 electoral votes) by 6%
* Ohio (20 electoral votes) by 1%
* Oregon (7 electoral votes) by 10%
* Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes) by 5%
* Virginia (13 electoral votes) by 5%
* Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) by 8%
2.) Barack Obama should also win the following states (and one district):
California (55); Connecticut (7); Delaware (3); District of Columbia (3); Hawaii (4); Illinois (21); Maine (all of its 4 electoral votes, which are distributed somewhat separately); Maryland (10); Massachusetts (12); New Jersey (15); New York (31); Rhode Island (4); Vermont (3); Washington (11).
3.) I predict that John McCain will win the following swing-states:
* Arizona (10 electoral votes) by 5%
* Georgia (15 electoral votes) by 4%
* Indiana (11 electoral votes) by 2%
* Mississippi (6 electoral votes) by 7%
* Montana (3 electoral votes) by 4%
* North Carolina (15 electoral votes) by 2%
* North Dakota (3 electoral votes) by 4%
* West Virginia (5 electoral votes) by 6%
4.) John McCain should also win the following states:
Alabama (9); Alaska (3); Arkansas (6); Idaho (4); Kansas (6); Kentucky (8); Louisiana (9); Nebraska (all of its 5 electoral votes, which are distributed somewhat separately); Oklahoma (7); South Carolina (8); South Dakota (3); Tennessee (11); Texas (34); Utah (5); Wyoming (3).
HASSLINGTON'S ELECTORAL VOTE PREDICTION
Barack Obama / Joe Biden : 349 electoral votes (27 states and 1 district)
John McCain / Sarah Palin : 189 electoral votes (23 states)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)