Wow. An article that so perfectly assesses the madness of this presidential campaign that it’s almost cliche–something so obviously, so undeniably right that its brilliance flirts with a kind of banality. We’ve heard this argument before, because it’s what any sane person has been thinking since February or March. 
The article is a compendium of this season’s scandal, innuendo and media-generated hysteria, and every passing sentence secretes still greater frustration. One of its better portions is in response to an article published yesterday in the Times:

Read the rest of this entry »

Not often we get to break a news story, but a pretty interesting one landed in my inbox an hour or two ago. Lit theory rockstar Bruce Robbins (who is on leave this semester) has been forwarding a letter of support for Bill Ayers, the domestic terrorist turned TC-trained education professor who has been at the center of several attacks on Barack Obama’s character and judgement. There was some controversy a week ago about TV ads linking the one-time University of Chicago colleagues: liberals cried character assassination; conservatives claimed that the Obama campaign was trying to squelch discussion on an issue of alleged public relevance.

A little closer to home, the Ayers row means that the cultural and political allegiances of academics is now fair game in the public sphere. While a professor like Todd Gitlin is great partly because of his participation in the social and ideological conflicts of the 60s, I can understand the fear that academics must have about their profession getting swept up in our country’s always-lively culture wars. Then again, I’m not sure the Ayers fight is a particularly smart one to pick–for one thing, it gives off the impression that radical academics could care less about the lives that were ruined (and in some cases ended) by militant, left-wing radicalism. It’s another example of professional self-defense functioning as professional self-insulation. Letters below:

“It seems that the character assassination and slander of Bill Ayers and other people who have known Obama is not about to let up.  While an important concern is the dishonesty of this campaign and the slanderous McCarthyism they are using to attack Obama, we also feel an obligation to support our friend and colleague Bill Ayers.  Many, many educators have reached out, asking what they could do, seeking a way to weigh in against fear and intimidation.  Many of us have been talking and we agree that this one gesture, a joint statement signed by hundreds of hard-working educators, would be a great first step.  Such a statement may be distributed through press releases or ads in the future.  (*Title/Affiliation will be listed for identification purposes only.  Please be assured that we have no intention of using your name for any other purpose than beneath the words on this
page.)
 

EDUCATOR STATEMENT 

We write to support our colleague Professor William Ayers, Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who is currently under determined and sustained political attack.  Ayers is a nationally known scholar, member of the Faculty Senate at UIC, Vice President-elect of the American Educational Research Association, and sought after as a speaker and visiting scholar by other universities because of his exemplary scholarship, teaching, and service. Throughout the 20 years that he has been a valued faculty member at UIC, he has taught, advised, mentored, and supported hundreds of undergraduate, Masters and Ph.D. students. He has pushed them to take seriously their responsibilities as educators in a democracy – to promote critical inquiry, dialogue, and debate; to encourage questioning and independent thinking; to value the full humanity of every person and to work for access and equity.  Helping educators develop the capacity and ethical commitment to these responsibilities is at the core of what we do, and as a teacher he has always embraced debate and multiple perspectives.

That’s how John Nance Garner once described the Vice Presidency. Yet, somehow one of the most beloved games the media plays every four years is a mixture between 1) guess the nominees’ respective choices for VP and 2) think up pie-in-the-sky dream teams that are “unbeatable.” And to be honest, I don’t blame them: this is their version of the NCAA Tournament bracket. That being said, I’ll throw in my two cents anyway.

The truly amazing part of this whole process is that despite election after election to the contrary, people continue to believe that the magic to winning is in finding the perfect running mate. Ginia posted an interesting pro/con look at four pols being mentioned as potential running mates. I’d like to take a slightly different look at the same issue. Specifically, the ways in which a VP can and cannot boost the ticket.

Myth: A strategically chosen veep can deliver a home state or a region of the country.

People love to cite the 1960 election in which LBJ allegedly “delivered Texas.” Even if we grant this example—and it certainly is a disputed claim—it’s just about the only example. First, the only close elections have been in 1960, 1976, 2000, and 2004. Mondale in ’76 may have swung Minnesota, but Carter’s victory was decisive there. Gore may have helped in Tennessee in 1992, but Clinton beat Bush comfortably. Did Cabot Lodge help Nixon in ‘60? What about Bentsen’s boost to Dukakis in Texas in ’88? How did Edwards do in NC in 2004? A veep will very rarely swing an election by helping in a home state, let alone in an entire region.

Fact: A vice presidential candidate’s policy agenda is virtually unknown to the country and thus inconsequential in the election.

Quick, name a policy proposal advocated by Spiro Agnew? Edmund Muskie? Lloyd Bentsen? Dan Quayle? Exactly. People want to know what the President will do if elected, and they want to be confident that in the case of tragedy, the veep won’t screw it up.

A running mate CAN help compensate for perceived weaknesses in the Presidential candidate. Most people focus on the top of the ticket and the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. A well known veep candidate with some generally acknowledged strengths can compensate well for a candidate’s weaknesses.

So what are Obama’s weaknesses? Well he’s the first candidate since 1960 to be unseasoned both in governmental management (i.e. no gubernatorial experience) AND in foreign policy chops (i.e. first term senator). But Obama’s main strength is that people perceive him as less partisan than most politicians and also as a uniter. With that in mind, here are a few names Ginia did not mention who should be considered:

Mark Warner – Sure, he’s running for (and likely to win) a Virginia Senate seat currently held by retiring Republican John Warner (no relation). But he also was an exceptionally popular governor who passed a necessary tax increase through a heavily Republican state legislature. Warner reasoned and compromised with lawmakers to create a bipartisan bill. If that doesn’t fit Obama’s alleged message of “change” than I don’t know what does. Problems: aforementioned Senate seat; a wife who hates the limelight.

Ted Strickland – Extremely popular Governor of Ohio. From Appalachia, and very comfortable talking about, and backing up talk of, family values and religion. A progressive who appeals to heartland moderates and liberal Republicans. Problems: Short on experience, and only two years into the governorship. Would it be prudent to jump to the national stage so soon especially with another green candidate?

Kathleen Sebelius – Popular Governor of Kansas, in the middle of her second term, and long on managerial experience; she appeals to constituents despite being decidedly and openly pro-choice. She must be doing something right. Problems: I hate identity politics, BUT, a black man running with a woman might just be too much for some Americans to handle at this point.

Case in point:
1. Hillary Clinton on calls for her to drop out of the race.

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it.

Great, Hill. So I guess we shouldn’t vote for Obama because he might be assassinated! Good timing, too, for the Kennedy family.

2. Clinton asserts that the reason she hasn’t secured the nomination already is sexism. A May 19 WaPo article says:

In an interview after church services in Bowling Green on Sunday, Clinton for the first time addressed what women have been talking about for months, what she refers to as the “sexist” treatment she has endured at the hands of the pundits, media and others.

Compared to racism, she says:

The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable, or at least more accepted,

Great. When you’re ready to stop whining and driving a stake through our party, let us know, Hillary.

Now that North Carolina has become a major battleground in the never-ending race for the nomination, and Barack Obama is paying more attention to UNC Chapel-Hill than he likely ever will to his alma mater, Canadian indie prophets The Arcade Fire have announced two free concerts in the Tar Heel State to encourage young voters to get out.

Funny considering the band is Canadian! Actually, frontman Win and drummer Will Butler, brothers, grew up in Texas, but have lived in Canada since their respective graduations from Phillips Exeter. Win Butler has publicly expressed his support for Obama before, but it’s really hard to imagine Obama rocking out to the Arcade Fire’s antics.