After the media firestorm arising from Notre Dame’s choice, many wondered whether the president would actually be speaking at the ceremony. Some conservatives at the Catholic university opposed the invitation because of the president’s stance on abortion and on gay marriage, although the former was the more hostile issue. Many protested the president’s speech on Sunday, about two dozen of whom were new graduates who refused to attend the ceremony.

The speech

In his speech, President Obama encouraged the crowd not to “shy away from things that are uncomfortable.” He made the point that the two side of an argument may be virtually irreconcilable, but hoped that the students could engage in open discussion “without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”

Obama’s specific views on abortion did not come into play during his speech — he instead chose to focus on less explosive issues such as preventing unwanted pregnancy. While this was not the most direct way to deal with the controversy at hand, the President should be commended for deftly dealing with a topic that has caused so much discussion and upheaval at the university.

The other issues

Discounting someone on a singular basis is immature and uninformed. The extremity with which some treat abortion — and judge the President by his views on it — is irrational.

War, diplomacy, the economy, health care: on all of these issues, Obama’s detractors at Notre Dame have been nearly silent. They have not commented on his commitment to maintaining stability in Pakistan, about the possibility of immediately removing American soldiers from Iraq or his wish to provide health care to all Americans.

What of this? Critics do themselves a disservice by completely rejecting even the presentation of a differing viewpoint, the campus pro-life movement hurts the values Notre Dame should stand for. It is an honor to have the President of the United States, arguably the most powerful man in the world, speak at commencement.

The precedent

After the pro-life movement raised a fuss over the honorary degree given to Obama and the invitation extended to him to be a keynote speaker at the 2009 commencement, one is led to the conclusion that all commencement speakers at Notre Dame must uphold all standards of Catholic piety and doctrine.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. In lesser offenses than say, killing a fetus, immorality is tolerated and even celebrated. At the 1989 commencement, MLB commissioner Peter Ueberroth was invited to speak despite being accused of collusion with team owners during the 1985-1987 seasons. Activists turned the other cheek when Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. graced the stage at Notre Dame’s sister school, St. Mary’s College. Justice Alito wrote the dissenting opinion in Doe v. Groody, where he affirmed the constitutionality of strip searching a 10-year-old in her own home, making him hardly a champion of respect for human dignity.

Indeed, few (if any) speakers are likely to follow all religious ideals honored by institutions like Notre Dame. This does not mean that these people should be barred from giving an address. On the contrary, critical thinking and diversity of ideas are vital to the university system. When met without rancor, differing viewpoints can even lead to constructive discussion.

If someone disagrees with President Obama on some of his political views, more power to them — the Constitution protects their right to say what they believe. A university commencement, however, is not the place to spout one’s politics. To politicize the event, rather than celebrate the achievement of the more than 2,000 graduates, is inappropriate. Take the debate to Washington, and leave the celebrating in South Bend.

Obama is expected to ask for fiscal responsibility on part of all Americans, something he himself can demonstrate when he submits his budget summary to Congress on Thursday. Join NBN’s political team (Weinberg senior Lara Kattan, Weinberg sophomore Ben Armstrong, Medill sophomore Aubrey Blanche, Weinberg freshman Matt Zeitlin and Medill freshman Matt Connolly) in liveblogging the president’s address.

Of course, this inauguration means different things to different people. To cynics, it is a case of inflated expectations. To Obama supporters, it is the consummation of a tireless two-year pursuit of change. To many Americans, but particularly African-Americans, it is a celebration of new hope for the future of equality of opportunity in this country. Most of all, it appears to be a chance for America to reboot its political sensibilities.

It is at once scary and humbling to realize that America’s relative power is quickly evaporating. American politics has become less of a model and more of a punchline. It was difficult to become hopeful for the future of America when its flag was more often burned than heralded, its leaders more often targeted by shoe than praised in appreciation. I, for one, felt rather helpless during the Bush administration. The “perfect union” to which we aspire was becoming increasingly distant.

As citizens, we are taught that our country is not only the best, but the most opportune. We are told that the greatness of America rests in its flexibility, in the ability of its citizens to influence their government. The Obama election is the materialization of our civics lessons. Obama was the quintessential underdog. He did not have the political connections, nor did he have the political profile to become president. Instead, he had the ideas and the leadership ability to organize and inspire millions. He made it so that Americans no longer felt helpless. They felt as if they were part of something that was bigger than anything individual or political. They soon felt both engaged and inspired, American and optimistic.

This inauguration will capture for many Americans what we strive to be: a meritocracy founded on innovation, optimism and diligence. I hope that tomorrow’s inauguration speech will refuse to dwell on the past. I hope that it will reject calls to “reclaim” this or “restore” that. America is in uncharted territory. While the majority of our history was spent growing toward hegemony, we are now faced with the unenviable challenge of maintaining our grandiosity. Though Obama’s speech should recognize the challenges and successes of America’s past, it should not seek to emulate them.

I hope that Americans will take away three key points from Obama’s speech:

1. The solutions that we propose today will have serious implications for the future of the country. All policy solutions must duly account for their potential effects on forthcoming generations. Any spending binge must be succeeded by significant fiscal restraint. In order to preserve our power in the short-term, we must not sacrifice our solvency in the long-term.
2. It’s going to be hard. Obama has tried to tamp down expectations in his speeches leading up to the inauguration. However, the inauguration speech must make it clear that his desired changes will not occur immediately or without resistance. He must set forth a clear list of priorities and speak honestly with the American people about what he can and can’t do in his first few years in office.
3. He needs your help. The inauguration is not meant to represent a conquest or consummation; it is meant to kick off a new era. The activism and excitement that Obama supporters displayed during the campaign was just a warm-up. I hope that Obama will seek to usher in a new style of politics. I hope that the speech will call Obama supporters and detractors to work on behalf of the progress for which they sought in the campaign.

Tomorrow afternoon, I hope that Americans will feel as if they were invited into a new kind of political coalition. I hope that we will no longer feel helpless. I hope that we will have the opportunity and find the imagination to make the Obama presidency everything that we expect it to be. I hope.

We entreat world leaders to address big issues. You read the entreaty. You learn about the issues. World leaders address them… maybe.

Dear Soon-to-be President Obama:

Violence between Arabs and Israelis has fallen into a devastatingly predictable cycle. Step one, insurgents lob rockets into Israel. Two, Israel retaliates. Three, condemnations and recriminations shoot back and forth between international power players (as Northwestern’s Students for Justice in Palestine and other grassroots organizations send out mass e-mails calling for protests). Four, rocket, mortar and gunfire from both sides continues with increasing intensity. Five, the parties sign an internationally-brokered peace treaty to global fanfare. Six, break the truce and repeat.

The current all-out war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza has followed much the same process of violent retribution, but has found step five – a peace treaty – much harder to reach. The United States has often sought to play a central role in the peace process, but with minimal success. As I write, the attention-starved French President is trying – and failing – to secure a temporary ceasefire between the parties. Egypt, sharing a border with Gaza; Russia, seeking to increase their international diplomatic muscle; and the UN Security Council, looking to secure a peace that abides by international law — all have failed in their efforts to broker a truce. Now that the Israelis have escalated their military response from targeted airstrikes to a ground invasion, it is less clear when and how the war will end.

There is inevitably pressure on your administration to craft a quick and sustainable peace. However, it would not be beneficial to any party – except Hamas – for the current conflict to end in another superficial ceasefire. Israel and the United States label Hamas – Gaza’s governing party – a terrorist organization, refusing to engage in any economic or political relationship. Past American presidents have injected themselves into the conflict with vigor, as have European and international diplomats. Their failures have called into question the very idea of intervention in a conflict that has become absurdly complex.

Critics of Israel point to the huge disparity in civilian deaths between the two parties. While few Israelis have been killed in the fighting, over 600 Palestinian civilians have died. The gap is largely due to inaccurate Palestinian weaponry and strong Israeli civilian protections including bomb shelters and other defenses. While critics of Israel often point to tragic instances of civilian loss such as the recent bombing of a UN school in Gaza, the Israeli armed forces are not malicious and do seek to avoid civilian casualties, focusing on known militant targets. However, it is common for insurgents to hide behind civilians. Of course, Hamas’s detestable tactics do not excuse civilian casualties, but they do put the difficulty of the war that Israel is fighting into context.

Any resolution to the current crisis must consider both short-term and long-term implications: the humanitarian implications for the Palestinian population and the lasting security threat to Israel. A sustainable peace that favors international human rights norms requires a two-state solution. With Hamas in power, a sustainable two-state solution is near impossible. Your administration should arrange – but not direct – two-part negotiations that work toward a quick ceasefire for the current crisis and an internationally-recognized two-state solution.

While the United States should take a leadership role in putting these dual-purpose negotiations together, your administration should not act on its own. Instead, after the United States receives commitments from regional and international actors to take part in the peace efforts, American diplomats should take a step back and express their voice primarily through the UN Security Council. Using the UN as a vehicle will strengthen and moderate the UN’s position in securing peace. It will also serve to quell international criticisms of the United States as a partisan broker on the Arab-Israeli conflict. The United States must make it clear through public statements and actions that a friend to Israel need not be an enemy to the Palestinians.

Any resolution to the immediate crisis must eliminate the ability for Hamas to launch rockets from outposts in Gaza. It must provide for – and secure the delivery of – humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza, particularly children. The resolution should also set forth a timetable for the Israeli withdrawal of ground troops contingent upon specific benchmarks for the government in Gaza. For example, the government in Gaza must recognize the right of Israel to exist and undergo a verified, internationally-monitored disarmament before Israel withdraws. Other prerequisites for an Israeli troop withdrawal may include open parliamentary elections within Gaza and a peace agreement between Hamas and Fatah.

If Gaza adheres to these terms and others set in the negotiations, Israel should not only commit to withdraw, but also provide economic incentives. If Israel links the destiny of the short-term negotiations to the overarching concerns of the Palestinians, it has a better chance of seeing sustained peace. Israel should consider a timetable for opening up Gaza’s border that hinges upon the Gazan government’s ability to abstain from firing rockets. The United States and the European Union can also offer the government in Gaza aid and trade for keeping the peace. While the government in Gaza would receive carrots for adhering to the proposed peace plan, Israel is offered a temporary reprieve from international law. The proposed plan would sanction Israel’s temporary occupation of Palestine as long as the Israeli government allows the UN to investigate, report on, and respond to the humanitarian circumstances throughout the Gaza Strip.

Whether or not this would improve things at all, let alone bring about a lasting peace, is unclear. One of the biggest question marks is Hamas. I have used “the government in Gaza” because I hope that these negotiations will occur in a post-Hamas era. I do not believe that any peace will occur as long as Hamas bears political clout in the Gaza Strip. However, Israel can use political leverage to promote a transition to more moderate government.

In order to do so, it must convince Arab states interested in a two-state solution that the goal will not be met under a Hamas regime. Stratfor — a private intelligence provider — has reported that Arab states have begun to consider Hamas as more of a threat than an ally. In order to achieve a more economically fluid, politically peaceful Middle East with a Palestinian state, Hamas must go – and powerful Arab states can make this happen. Increased support for Fatah – coupled with a rhetorical campaign labeling Hamas as enemies of peace – could put Hamas even further on its heels. While I do not insist that your administration get involved in regime change, it must maintain that Hamas is not a friend to Palestinians seeking peace.

Moreover, the prospect of a two-state solution seemed impossible during peacetime. It would be crazy to look for a lasting solution when the two parties cannot even agree to stop bombing each other. While it may be tempting to focus solely on the most recent conflict, a temporary ceasefire would do nothing other than provide a time-out for both sides to regroup and plan more devastating attacks. When the sides come together to discuss how and when to stop their most recent explosive escapades, it will be a fitting opportunity to confront the more pressing underlying regional problems that the parties face.

On both sides, many close to the conflict have become divided and partisan. The parties’ interests seem so sharply opposed that peace is only possible in a matter of decades. Many programs today focus on the next generation. They seek to feed tolerance and teach reconciliation. But need we give up on the current generation of fighters? These are the times and the people that shape the perspectives of today’s youth. Your administration must make it clear that its desire for peace is stronger than its commitment to protect Israeli interests.

Happy New Year,
Ben Armstrong

Technology has undoubtedly brought constituents closer to their political representatives. As the world has flattened, legislation and fundraising have gone online. Politicians have addressed their supporters with text messages and YouTube videos. While citizens can more easily hear their representatives, politicians can just as easily tune out their constituents. Emails to your senator, even more so than letters, are swiftly returned with a boilerplate, “Thanks for your concern.” Despite the Internet revolution, the policy-making process remains slow, insular and opaque, an affair between lobbyists, think-tanks and politicians.

The ability for citizens to influence policy in this country is limited to their involvement in interest groups, where individual voices are drowned in a sea of ideological sameness. In Republic 2.0, Cass Sunstein argues that the advent of blogging and other online politicking has only exacerbated ideological divides. The Internet has allowed partisans to connect with other partisans and avoid opposing perspectives; though a wealth of information is available, readers will only ever access a fraction of it.

Though technology has brought news, pictures and video from around the world to our fingertips, the policies that affect us remain elusive. Bills are still hundreds of impenetrably formulaic pages; interest groups still cajole politicians behind closed doors. Our chief policymakers think that the “internets” is a “series of tubes,” while our government is facing some of the most complex and consequential policy challenges in history. Everyone should be invited to participate in the quest to find the best solution to our policy problems. Everyone has a right to know what policies are in place and what is on the table.

I propose that current policymakers (politicians, lobbyists and think-tanks) interact with citizens through an online policy catalog. The catalog will have three components.

First, it will include a database of policy briefs, short articles describing the purpose of a policy; the plan that the policy proposes to fulfill that purpose; and the resources needed to implement the plan. The database of briefs will be divided into policy that is on the books, on the table, and on our minds.

Policy on the books includes current state and federal law and practice regarding health care, education, executive power, energy and the environment, foreign affairs, the economy and so on. Policy on the table summarizes ideas that have been proposed by policy professionals: politicians, interest groups and think-tanks. These ideas are separated from the policy on our minds: the policy ideas that ordinary Americans submit to the catalog.

Op-eds will be the second component of the catalog. Each policy brief will include links to opinions in favor of and opposed to the proposed idea. Annotations may be comments submitted directly to the catalog or a piece originally published in a national newspaper, and editorial comments can include research or opinion. The comments provided by professionals will again be separated from those of lay-citizens. Editorial comments for and against each policy brief will stage a debate on the current or proposed policy. Through the discourse surrounding the idea, we will discover its strengths and weaknesses.

The third and final element of the catalog will be a system of evaluation. The catalog’s users will be able to vote for or against any policy brief and track the most popular ideas. Of course, we do not want policy-making to become a popularity contest, nor for every policymaker to develop a Clintonian addiction to poll-watching. However, the ability to rate policies affords the American public another way to share its opinions.

Through submitting their own ideas, opining on others and evaluating them all, citizens will have a new voice in the policy discourse. Furthermore, the current process for policy professionals will become more transparent and synthesized. State governments will be able to use the catalog as a resource to compare policy plans. Think-tanks can post their plans next to current policy and point out the differences in op-eds. Interest groups can submit their studies in support of, or opposition to, any policy proposal. The catalog can become a network for policy professionals to build upon each other’s work and ideas.

Of course, there are many flaws to the dream scenario as I have depicted it. The policy-making process is both competitive and fractured. Think-tanks and interest groups compete for influence and money, politicians and political parties vie for popular support and countervailing ideologies complicate it all. The existence of a catalog will remedy neither bitter partisanship nor shallow competitiveness. It is unlikely to expedite the policy-making process. But it can make the process of policy formation more accessible, transparent and interactive. It is an invitation for a more open and direct democracy fueled by innovative ideas.

North by Northwestern photo editor Sarah Collins flew to Gainseville, Fla. for a concert last weekend, with a layover on Friday in Charlotte, North Carolina. In her down-time, she talked to voters in the two swing-states, and then sent her impressions back to us.

The motorcade blares down University Avenue, police flanking buses and vans full of haggard advisers, journalists and Joe Biden. The last stretch runs through Gainesville, Florida. One more push to swing the state blue.

The candidates are everywhere here. Sen. Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin speak at competing events on different sides of party lines but within one state’s borders. T-shirts of Sarah Palin taking aim with a rifle share space with posters of Barack Obama that simply say “hope.” A van with “NOBAMA” scrawled on the side is parked around the corner from a Smart Car covered in Obama posters. They don’t call it a battleground state for nothing.

Floridians and North Carolinians, on the weekend before the election, are sure of only one thing: that come Tuesday, they will play a pivotal role in deciding who will be the next President of the United States of America. People can hardly speak of anything else. In everything they do there’s an allusion to the weight hanging over their state, a tension. For them, pushing through Tuesday will be like ripping off a band-aid.

The atmosphere is especially charged for young voters, who may have only voted a few times before, if at all. Their sense of importance in this election has been underscored by the media that constantly polls them and the campaigns that constantly try to court them.

Brentley Broomer, a 21 year-old US Airways employee and North Carolina resident, spoke of the ubiquity of the election and Barack Obama, saying, “We voted between Hillary Clinton and Obama, and everybody from North Carolina picked Obama. I feel as though that’s all anybody’s heard about. And being a new voter between 18 and 21… that’s all they’ve heard about.” Broomer recognized the unique position of North Carolina in deciding the election but tried to deflect, saying, “North Carolina is a big vote, but the way I’ve understood it, Ohio is even a bigger vote.”

No one wants that kind of pressure.

Shavon, who declined to provide her last name, is a first-time voter. She talked about her fears with the kind of excited hope that’s been seen in Obama supporters across the country. The 20 year-old North Carolinian stood in line for six hours to vote early on Wednesday, all the while worrying that she would be shot by racists attempting to stop African-Americans from voting in the deeply divided state, she said.

I asked Shavon why she would wait in line for almost an entire workday while considering that she might be killed. She didn’t pause a second before looking me in the eye and saying, “Obama.”

There’s a history of racial violence in North Carolina that’s fuel for Shavon’s fears. The state, traditionally a Republican stronghold, was one of the surprise swing states that emerged in the campaign season. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2006 North Carolina had an African-American population of more than 21 percent.

And though only 60 percent of African-Americans nationwide voted in the 2004 election according to the Bureau, many analysts are expecting that number to increase with an African-American as a viable candidate.

Bryan Peeler, a 29 year-old US Airways employee, saw this trend in early voting — a trend that has been reported by news outlets across the country. “The majority of people that were at the [polling place] I was at, it was predominately black. They had a few whites there, but it was predominately black. I was amazed, really, to see how many [African-Americans] were coming out.”

When Peeler and his fellow employees talk about the upcoming election, race and geography permeate the conversation. Swing states like North Carolina resemble the country in microcosm: red or blue communities instead of red or blue states, still divided, but coexisting.

Shavon spoke of how visible the dividing lines are throughout Charlotte, saying, “I went to a neighborhood, I see more McCain signs than I see Obama. I could go to another neighborhood, I’d see more Obama signs than McCain. It just depends on what side of town you live on.”

For Jerome Prite, a 29-year-old US Airways employee, Barack Obama’s candidacy has made him question some of his assumptions about white North Carolinians. “I was very surprised to see more white people in line, and a lot of them were saying they’re voting for Obama,” Prite said.

The excitement about Obama is also visible on the streets of Gainesville, home to the University of Florida. While McCain-Palin signs are definitely sprinkled around the town, you get the sense that Obama’s the favorite among college students here. A convenience store sells shirts with Obama’s picture next to Martin Luther King Junior’s face, with the first line of the “I have a dream…” speech printed at the top. A trendy boutique a few blocks away has a shirt of John F. Kennedy’s face super-imposed over Barack Obama’s face. Young men and women walk up and down the streets handing out fliers imploring passersby to vote Obama into office on Tuesday.

People everywhere are hanging their hopes on the man. For young voters that grew up during the eight years of the Bush administration, the thought of change and choice is tantalizing.

Peeler sees the same hope in North Carolina, and in himself.

“I think that’s what deterred a lot of people from voting too, they didn’t feel like they were voting for anything. Like, why vote, it ain’t going to help me none?” Then his mouth sets in a half smile and his eyes brighten, “I think this is going to be a big change.”

This is not a eulogy for John McCain.

If this election continues down the track it’s been on, there will be plenty of time for that come November. In politics, of course, anything can happen, but McCain’s prospects certainly don’t look good right now. Unlike Barack Obama, however, the Arizona senator is not just running for president — he’s running for his entire political legacy.

Consider two former presidential candidates: Al Gore and Bob Dole. In 2000, Gore lost the presidency to former Texas governor and current friend of bunnies George W. Bush. He moved on, however, becoming a crusader for the environment and winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. Bob Dole is a decorated World War II veteran who served 27 years in the Senate, serving as both Minority and Majority Leader for the Republican Party. Now, though, Dole is just the guy who lost to Bill Clinton in the 1996 presidential election.

A decorated war veteran with a long, established Senate career running for president — sound familiar? Given McCain’s age, he, unlike Gore or potentially Obama, likely does not have the time to reinvent his legacy after a loss. Because of this, there is a deeper reason for him to be cognizant of the way his campaign is being run.

If McCain continues his Tom Petty impression and loses this election, historians are going to look back (as historians are prone to do) and wonder why. They’re going to see a number of decisions that are questionable at best: the ill-received campaign suspension, the foolish housing proposal, and the insist focus on Bill Ayers and ACORN instead of the economy. The choice of Sarah Palin now seems like the worst casting this side of the Star Wars prequels (though to her credit, Palin delivers her scripted, tired dialogue much better than Hayden Christensen delivered his).

The most damaging aspect of the campaign, however, may be the crowds at some of his rallies. The screams of “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” are bound to be remembered, whether or not you can blame the shouts on McCain. Recently, he has made an admirable effort to try and quell the hatred at events, though he also defended his supporters at the last presidential debate, calling them “the most dedicated, patriotic men and women.” But when his campaign centered itself on how Obama “palled around with terrorists” and questions about who he really is, how were the hardcore supporters expected to react? McCain’s campaign is being torn up by the monster he helped to create.

So where does McCain go from here? The recent strategy of harebrained stunts and increasingly desperate attacks is not working. A change in tone certainly wouldn’t hurt his victory chances and would help his political standing. Sure, it’s an uphill climb, but what is there to lose from introducing an actual, well-thought out economic policy? At the Al Smith Dinner last Thursday, McCain gave a speech that was humorous, self-deprecating, and incredibly well-received. It would be great to see that same shift affect the whole campaign. Unfortunately, McCain’s tactics don’t seem to be changing. He and Palin recently started comparing Obama’s economic plan to socialism in their stump speeches. These kinds of distractions are likely to get worse as Election Day nears, and they are simply hurting both the campaign and the perpetrator’s reputation.

With only a few weeks remaining before Election Day, time is running out for the McCain campaign to right itself. What is the Arizona senator’s place in American politics? Will he be the crazy old man who threatened to skip the first presidential debate? The guy who picked a first-term Alaskan governor to be his running mate? The candidate who had supporters turn to racism and hatred rather than accept an Obama presidency? I’m sure McCain is looking for none of the above.

There are definitely better ways to leave a legacy. He could be remembered as a decorated Vietnam veteran, as a long-serving and significant senator, and, yes, maybe even as a maverick. Above all, of course, McCain wants to go down in history as the 44th President of the United States. If that doesn’t come to pass, though, a shred of dignity sure would be a great consolation prize.

That trend is growing across the nation, as more and more races have started going blue. People are unsatisfied with just about everything the government has touched lately, especially the economy. Conventional wisdom states that they should go against the incumbent party, hence the left-leaning shift. Besides the presidential race looking more and more like an Obama lock, Congressional races are starting to lean the Democrats’ way. It even has people talking about the possibility of The Magic 60.

The Magic 60 is the Holy Grail of politics — a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. With 60 Senate seats, a party can move any legislation and overturn any filibuster, effectively speeding up the lawmaking process. Currently, the Democrats (with 49 seats, one Democratic-leaning Independent and Joe Lieberman), hold a slim margin over Republicans (with just 49 seats and Joe Lieberman) in the Senate. But with 35 seats up for grabs, a big night for the Dems could bring them the coveted 60 seats. And with a strong majority in Congress and a Democrat in the White House, the party could effectively change the direction of the country and pass some sweeping reforms.

Filibusters won’t be possible on Capitol Hill anymore. Photo by Will Palmer on Flickr.com, licensed under Creative Commons.

Even though the goal may seem unattainable, the chances are looking increasingly better as time goes on and the economy keeps wobbling. Of the 35 seats up for election this cycle, 23 are currently held by Republicans, and with five conservatives retiring, Democrats are set to make big gains. Assuming they keep their 12 seats, they would need to pick up nine more to reach the threshold. The Republican party just gets more unpopular by the minute with the failing war, an unpopular president and the economy tanking faster than the Cubs. By almost a 2-1 margin, Americans blame the elephants for the economic crisis and ultimately, it’s the pocketbook that controls the polls.

Converting nine seats sounds like a tall order, but it might be possible. Democrats are already predicted to pick up seats in Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico. The race in North Carolina is surprisingly close and Republican Elizabeth Dole is in danger of being bounced from her seat. In Alaska, politicians who aren’t named Sarah Palin are involved in a tight Senate race and indicted Senator Ted Stevens might lose his seat even without the help of a judge. And let’s not forget about Stuart Smalley.

If everything goes their way, that’s six seats already. That just leaves the races in Oregon, Maine, New Hampshire, Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky, all of which aren’t quite close, but could be with an ill-timed racist joke.

If the stars shine on the Democrats and they capture the Magic 60, what does it even mean? The last president to have that powerful of a Senate was Jimmy Carter from 1977-1979, when he too faced uncertain economic times. He didn’t do much with it, and instead alienated senators with a “hit list” of projects he opposed. But with the country feasting for change, whether it’s the kind we can believe in or of the “mavericky” variety, a Deomcratic power bloc in Washington could actually make some major reforms. Already preparing for an Obama presidency, Congressional Democrats have been making plans for a post-election session to debate a vast rebate plan. Aimed at the middle and lower classes, this plan would extend jobless benefits, improve food stamp spending and might even include a tax rebate.

Without the threat of a veto, Democrats could speed that program through Congress, creating a bailout plan that directly helps most Americans. And that could just be the beginning. If that rebate plan goes through, there could be more quick programs designed to help the middle class, something Obama has been touting in campaign speeches.

Of course, there is one drawback: no more fun Senate sleepovers. But with Al Franken there, the Senate just might be laughed at enough without having to set up cots.

But the president is not a figurehead whose essence can fit in a crossword puzzle. We need a president who is mentally equipped to unpack complex problems and offer pragmatic solutions. We need a president who knows how to boldly and efficiently manage ideas, people and bureaucracy. We need a short big-city mayor who celebrates Yom Kippur. We need Michael Bloomberg.

Even Papaya King, New York’s famous hot dog joint, endorsed Bloomberg. Photo by • Eliane • on Flickr, licensed under Creative Commons.

During the primary season, rumors materialized that Bloomberg was going to invest $1 billion of his personal bankroll in an independent campaign for the presidency. Bloomberg, the current mayor of New York City, founded and built the financial information empire that bears his name. He is renowned for his effective management and innovative leadership, once summarized his strategy as “recognize what you don’t know; find people who do; and study hard.”

A Bloomberg presidency would likely focus on stabilizing the economy, reducing global carbon emissions and restoring America’s international credibility. But what makes Bloomberg more equipped to pursue these ends than McCain or Obama?

Bloomberg’s unique advantages are his independence and leadership credentials. Any race between the two American political parties risks devolving into a war centered on culture and class. Governor Hockey Mom and her fellow GOPers have argued that we need a leader who is intimately familiar with small town values. Senator Hope serenades the middle class in his attempt to justify protectionism. The debates are often recycled and frivolous. Bloomberg would shift the focus to reestablishing a strong economic foundation upon which American families can independently build.

As an independent, Bloomberg would neither need to adhere to a party dogma nor shore up a base constituency. Partisanship stands in the way of consensus-building. Pandering stands in the way of principle. Bloomberg’s wealthy independence represents a new kind of politics; it requires no fundraisers, no ideological obligation.

Though New Yorkers have reservations about abolishing term-limits to allow Mayor Bloomberg to continue his reign without inhibition, describing it as a benevolent dictatorship, a Bloomberg presidency would not be one. In fact, since no members of Congress would feel obliged to support him (and his advisers would be bipartisan), there would be significantly more checks on his actions. His proposals–this is, his ideas rather than his party–would elicit unbridled criticism from both parties, whereas party members in the House and Senate habitually feel obliged to support proposals from a president of the same party. With Bloomberg, the spheres of Congress would not feel bound to support or oppose any presidential initiative; rather, Congress would afford the initiative criticism unfettered by partisanship.

Bloomberg has the experience of running a multibillion dollar financial business. He understands international and domestic financial systems. He has led the largest city in the United States for the past seven years. His commitment to civil liberties and an equality of opportunity is coupled with a desire for efficiency.

And his accomplishments as mayor are not few and far between. In New York, Bloomberg helped lead the economy out of its post-9/11 doldrums and led a global campaign to stanch the flow of illegal arms. He promoted a ban on smoking in public places and restaurants and pushed for a carbon tax on cars entering New York City. He has also pushed for an education plan that stresses charter schools and an anti-poverty campaign that has attempted to increase the amount of public housing.

While some have criticized his egoism, others focus on Bloomberg’s benignity and pragmatism. His astoundingly high approval ratings will likely allow him to reform the New York City statute on term limits and continue serving as mayor until the next presidential election.

Bloomberg is not the messiah; his presidency will not bring an end to partisan politics. However, Bloomberg’s pragmatic approach to global cooperation is likely to restore America’s ability to exert peaceful power abroad. His economic acumen, too, is particularly important today as the world undergoes the first global crisis of the 21st century.

His candidacy would mean more electoral options and a more vibrant democratic fabric. It would extend the political debate beyond historical partisan issues in order to address the true purpose of the presidency. The novelty of Bloomberg’s independent approach could inspire a new faith in those who have become so disenchanted by partisan politics. He can appeal to voters looking for a more efficient, less divided government. If nothing else, a Bloomberg candidacy would challenge historical political institutions and reshape our political discussions. Wait until 2012.

American support of offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is on the rise. According to a recent Rasmussen Reports survey, 85 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of Democrats are in favor of offshore drilling. Even Obama’s stance on the subject has recently shifted from blanket opposition to a sort of limited support. But, it is still exceptionally difficult to find information on the benefits of offshore drilling in the mainstream media. And, with the recent vote in Congress to lift the 1981 ban on offshore drilling, it has become increasingly important for the American populace to be informed. Why have Republicans pushed for offshore drilling so strongly for so long? Why have Democrats let the ban expire? Is it a matter of popularity, or do the long-term benefits outweigh the risks?

The ban’s supporters generally cite environmental issues, a lack of short-term relief in the price of oil or even make claims that offshore drilling won’t meet the U.S. demand for oil. Meanwhile, Republicans, oil companies and a variety of research organizations provide a different view. Those who endorse offshore drilling frequently argue it would lower gas prices, decrease dependence on foreign oils and possibly avoid the advance of a major economic downturn. America certainly stands to benefit from these natural resources. Proponents of offshore drilling claim there are 18 billion barrels of drillable oil that are untapped.

Even if offshore drilling did not completely eliminate this problem it’s difficult to argue that it would not be greatly reduced. In addition to creating new jobs, as an increase in the size of oil companies will do, offshore drilling could give America more control over the market and the price of oil– both of which would bolster the economy in a time of major economic downturn.

It’s difficult to say when these resources will actually become available, and much will depend on how quickly oil companies act. Though some estimates, like those done by the Energy Information Administration, claim that we will not be able to access this supply until some time between 2012 and 2030, the White House claims that “acting now on a long-term solution would send a serious signal to the market that more oil supply will be coming on line.” In a blog post, economist Robert Murphy from the Ludwig von Mises Institute explains that a healthy futures market could stabilize oil prices. With speculators buying when prices are low and selling when prices are high, this would serve to increase the low prices and reduce the high prices, thus contributing to more reasonable, stable oil prices sooner than the oil supply becomes available.

The environmental consequences of offshore drilling have also been exaggerated. While offshore oil spillage does sometimes occur, environmental damage has been minimized since the start of the ban on offshore drilling due in large part to technological innovation. Norway, a major exporter of oil gets its oil from offshore, and has an minimally intrusive environmental record. Statoil, Norway’s national oil company, is working towards zero harmful emissions due in part to government incentives and to social accountability. With an environmentally aware public and environmentally responsible businesses, Norway provides an excellent example for the United States to follow in its offshore drilling practices. And, as stated in Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions blog, there is no reason why the United States would be less environmentally responsible than Norway.

Many oil spills are caused by tankers transporting oil from other countries, many that exercise lax environmental regulations. It is possible that drilling in America would actually reduce oil pollution by decreasing the number of international oil tankers traveling to the United States. Certainly, it is a preferable alternative to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which would have a far more pronounced affect on the environment and the wildlife inhibiting the Alaskan wilderness found to be so desirable for its extensive oil resources.

Perhaps the benefits of offshore drilling are years away, but they aren’t going to get any closer if we wait longer to start drilling. While this is no substitute for the research and development of renewable and environmentally friendly forms of energy, it could certainly buy some time for corporations to get to work on these issues as well as some relief at the pump for Americans in the meantime.