Let's start off with the U.S. Presidential Contest

Some people make New Year's resolutions; I'm trying something new (this blog) on my birthday.

On the surface I appear to be conservative, but I've always felt a connection with the mavericks and gadflies in the political world. In past Presidential elections, candidates like Shirley Chisholm, Mo Udall, John Anderson and Ross Perot were intriguing to me. In my home state of Massachusetts, I've been drawn to gubernatorial candidates like John Silber and Chris Iannella. What makes these ostensibly rational and intelligent people run for office when it's so patently obvious that they have no chance of winning? Indeed, in some cases just as they begin to gain support and become viable, they make statements and take actions that sabotage their candidacies. It seems as if their main point is to bring greater attention to, and stimulate discussion of, certain issues about which they are passionate.

That's also the point of this blog - to engender discussion about national, state and local political issues that I believe warrant greater attention.

Let's start with the current Presidential election. It's come down, of course, to Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party and John McCain in the same position for the Republican Party. Both have from time to time exhibited certain "maverick" style elements that seem to be lurking within their personalities: Obama with his early stance against the U.S. military involvement in Iraq and with his initial support of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright; McCain earlier in his career with his crusade for campaign finance reform and more recently with his call for the surge in Iraq at a time when many other politicians were calling for withdrawal.

Which one would make the better President? I haven't made up my mind yet. Obama is clearly the more dynamic and inspiring speaker. His rhetorical ability would give many Americans that intangible sense of hope needed to move the economy forward (or at least to create that perception -see FDR). Is it just me, though, or are his positions on issues thin. Isn't it a bit simplistic to say that he will have all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of his election and no permanent bases there? See his official webwsite at: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/ Remember, there are nearly 60 years later, almost 30,000 U.S. troops in Korea. Those troops have certainly been a stabilizing influence there. The challenge is to come up with the right number and the right mission for U.S. troops in Iraq to help stablize the situation there.

Also, what about these statements from Obama's official campaing website on the economy: "Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. . . . Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers. " Again, those are examples of how simplistic and naive he seems to be.

McCain, on the other hand, has been showing his age more frequently of late. Even his aides acknowledged how horrendous his speech was several weeks ago on the night Obama wrapped up the Democratic nomination (with super delegates not regular delegates, by the way). McCain has seemed tired and lacking in passion for most of this campaign (in contrast to his 2000 campaign when the GOP party honchos stepped in and derailed his "straight talk express" in South Carolina). He is also in the unenviable position of being associated with G.W. Bush and his unpopular military and economic policies.

The question for both Obama and McCain as we await this summer's party conventions is how to address their shortcomings -- Obama's in the areas of depth, experience and "gravitas"; McCain's in the areas of personal vigor and association with policies that are perceived as failures. Can it be done through their choices of running mates? Perhaps. For example, what about former Senator Sam Nunn as Obama's V.P. candidate and incumbent Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal on the Republican ticket with McCain? Both would be somewhat "maverick" choices. Do Obama and McCain have enough of the maverick in them to make such choices?