The VPs: Joe and Claire

It's likely to be weeks or months still before Obama and McCain annoucne thier vice presidential running mates. But The Fledgling Blog has the scoop: these are the two people who will be on the tickets come November:

Barack Obama: He will choose Claire McCaskill, Senator from Missouri.Barack should be deciding between two politicians from swing states: Governor of Ohio Ted Strickland and Missouri's Claire McCaskill. Ohio would be the bigger prize to take on election day, but Strickland may not have the power to deliver the state the way Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell delivered his for Hillary during the primary. In the end, Obama will choose McCaskill, who will help him carry Missouri in November, will strengthen his message of "change" and will go a long way to helping him with women who may be distant after Clinton's defeat. Come November, I predict an Obama-McCaskill ticket.

John McCain: McCain's running mate should be Joe Lieberman. Nothing will blunt Obama's message of change and bi-partisanship more than having a Democrat turned Independent on the ticket. When Obama claims to be ready to 'reach across the aisle' and work with Independents and Republicans, McCain will be able to point to Lieberman and say "Done." He will be able to counter a major theme of the Obama candidacy if he makes this VP pick. Additionally, Joe Lieberman is Jewish, which may be able to help McCain win support of that ethnic group. There has already been rumblings of trouble between Obama and Jewish Americans, and putting Lieberman on the ticket could turn that group to McCain. With sizeable Jewish populations in the swing state of Florida as well as in several Northeastern states (including the potential swing state of New Jersey) this could be a big electoral windfall for McCain. When voters head to the polls in November, I predict there will be a McCain-Lieberman ticket.

The Residential Schools Apology

As a rule, I do not favour governments issuing formal apologies for past deeds. It does us no good to drag up past mistakes and grievances. For the most part, we all know certain things were done by governments of the past that were inappropriate and sad: the persecution of the Dukhobors, the internment of Japanese Canadians in WWII, the Komagata Maru incident. But the years that have passed allow us a perspective not available to the people at the time, and to condemn those who made such decisions is to ignore all context and history. Yes, what was done looks horrible to us today. But some of our decisions will likely appear barbaric or idiotic to future generations and no good comes from bashing those who came before you. That being said, the aboriginals who were sent to government supported residential schools absolutely deserve an apology. Children were ripped from their families and their culture and were emotionally, physically and in some cases sexually abused. Instead of welcoming First Nations into the broader society, we sought to viciously assimilate them by means of abuse and torture. This was not a single act perpetrated years and years ago, nor was it a policy thought up during war time like the examples above. The residential schools remained open well into the 1980's. The schools ran for decades upon decades, pushing tens of thousands of aboriginal youth through their process of cultural erasure. And now there are generations of First Nations who do not know their culture, their language, their customs, or in some cases their family. It is understandable that the government wanted to bring aboriginals into the greater society, to welcome them into the fold like we do with so many immigrants today. But they did not integrate them, or welcome them, or work with them. Instead, they attacked and abused them for decades. The results of this exercise are grim and are present in today's society. Canada's treatment, even today, of some of its aboriginal peoples is an embarrassment for us all. This apology will go a long way to reconciling Canada with its aboriginal population, it will expedite the healing process, it will begin to bring aboriginals back into the rest of society, and this apology will help us bridge the wide gap between our violent past and an eventual bright future.

Hillary's Best Bet is to Reject VP

The calls for a unity ticket with Clinton as Obama's running mate is growing, stoked (supposedly) by Hillary herself. But Hillary should take this piece of advice: stay as far away from that ticket as possible.
Throughout this campaign we have seen the tendency of the Obama campaign, its supporters and much of the media to turn on Hillary. A gaffe is suddenly an attack, perseverance is now blind ambition, a hard-working Senator is instead a cold, hard bitch. There is absolutely no reason to believe this will stop if Obama picks her to be Vice President. And if Hillary still has hopes of becoming President in the future, which is certain, then being Obama's VP is likely to cripple any such future effort. Imagine how this would play out: as Vice President, every word, every action, every look, will be combed over for hints of antipathy and ambition. If it is leaked that VP Hillary opposed Obama's Secretary of State choice, for example, it will be seen as her undermining him. If she misses a fundraiser or makes an error, she will be accused of gunning for his job. Everything she and Bill do will be scrutinized. Hell, the Huffington Post will probably secretly record Bill in candid moments like they did last week and use it to bash the Clintons. If an Obama administration fails to live up to the hype, you can be guaranteed that much of the blame will be laid at the feet of Hillary Clinton--and she'll never get the party's nomination after that.
And that's IF Obama wins. Imagine the outrage and hatred that will spew forth if he loses with Clinton on the ticket. An Obama loss won't be his doing. It won't be blamed on his shortcomings or gaffes, it will most certainly be Hillary who is crucified for this. She'll be blamed for hurting him too much in the primary campaign, she'll be accused of not working hard enough to bring her supporters over to him. I wonder what kind of "special comment" Keith Olbermann will have for her then? If an Obama-Clinton ticket fails in November, it will dash any hopes of a Hillary Clinton presidency in the future.
So, Hillary, please take this advice: stay away from the Obama ticket. You should, and you must, campaign for him: hold joint fundraisers, give speeches, raise his hand in unity, and the like. Not doing these things will make you a pariah in the democratic party. But if you hold any aspirations of still being the first woman President, your best bet is to reject the VP.

The Bizarre Behaviour of the Superdelegates

For the Clinton campaign, one of the most bewildering and maddening events of the Democratic primary season has got to be the behaviour of the superdelgates. I suspect that Hillary and Bill and all in their campaign must be flabbergasted that the superdelegates did not move to Clinton's side despite swells in momentum and some huge and important wins:
Take March 4th for example, the day of the Texas and Ohio primaries. Despite the fact that Hillary Clinton won both states, with a big blue-collar win in Ohio, only 4superdelegates endorsed her in the following 2 weeks. In fact, she only gained 6 superdelegates in the month that followed. But Barack Obama, who lost big in Ohio and couldn't take the Texas primary, was endorsed by 15 supers in just the 2 weeks that followed his losses.
April 22 was the next big showdown, with the Pennsylvania primary. Another big state, another big win for Hillary Clinton, who beat Obama by 10 points and more than 200,000 votes. This primary also cemented Obama's problems with working class voters and rural Americans, a point highlighted by his infamous 'bitter' comment. But the supers? In the 2 weeks following that Clinton win, 15 supers went to her--but 18 went to Obama. This had to have had the Clinton campaign furiously perpelexed. She wins big in a crucial contest that will be a battleground state come November and Obama gets more endorsements?
Finally, there was West Virginia on May 13. Yet another state, one that may be a critical swing-state in November, overwhelmingly backed Clinton: she took every single county and won the state by 41 points. Going into West Virginia, Clinton had 270.5 supers to Barack Obama's 275. Coming out of West Virginia, another lopsided victory under her belt, Clinton gained 6 superdelegates while Obama got the support of 22.5. Puzzled? I bet. Clinton wins a swing-state by 41 points, more than half the voters say Obama is not trustworthy and 30% say they would back McCain over Obama, and the supers come out nearly 4 to 1 for Obama?
The behaviour of the superdelegates has been most unusual. Their job is to pick the candidate that is most able to win and that best suits the party. That they have ignored Obama's stumbling to the finish line and have thrown their support behind him is mind-boggling. Maybe they just got too swept up in the mindless excitement; maybe they are fearful of angering the rabid Obama supporters, some of whom are already planning to campaign against those members of Congress who backed Clinton. Whatever the reason, one of the biggest mysteries of this primary season is why they did not show up for Hillary Clinton. And I think that's one puzzle that will be on the Clintons' minds for a while as this campaign wraps up.