The controversy I wish to address has a little to do with Boyle.  Essentially, Britain’s Got Talent drops an emmense amount of fame and pressure on people who had never experienced anything like it before the show.  Some, like Paul Pott’s and last year’s champion, 14 year-old George Sampson, have handled the newfound popularity and scrutiny well.  Boyle is an example of someone who has struggled in a terribly unfamiliar pressure-cooker.

In the last semi-final of the show, viewers witnessed how the scrutiny of millions and indefensibly cynical producing could combine with overly-ambitious parenting to break a child.  Hollie Steel, all of ten, made a couple of mistakes while singing a Edelweiss from The Sound of Music, began to cry, and couldn’t go on.  She pleaded desperately for another chance while the hosts, judge Amanda Holden, and her mother attempted to console her.  After being rebuffed by the producers, Cowell stepped in and guaranteed Steel another shot, which she aced.  However, she continued to cry throughout the rest of the show.

Steel recovered for the final, only to not make the top three.  She walked right up to the brink, only to pull herself together at the last minute and give two excellent performances.  However, the lesson of Hollie Steel should be that we do not wait for a kid to get shoved onto a stage by a selfish mom or dad, only to suffer humiliation and potential emotional damage as a result.

Other child performers have shown mixed results.  This season, Callum Francis and Aidan Davis all gave excellent performances; Natalie Okri also performed well, only to outwardly suffer heartbreak after she was beat out by eventual winner Diversity.  I loved Connie Talbot’s rendition of Somewhere Over the Rainbow, which would lead to a second place finish behind Potts in the show’s first season.  In retrospect, though, Cowell’s apprehensiveness when Talbot walked out onto the audition stage was palpable and prescient.  Cowell gave 12 year-old Shaheen Jafargholi another chance after an audition mistake; what if Cowell had simply said, “Next.”  How would Jafargholi have felt?  At 12, could he have coped maturely with the disappointment?

Cowell has expressed disdain for the parents who live vicariously through their children.  When Katherine McPhee first performed, Cowell picked up right away that her mother was “possibly living her career through you.“  This pageant mentality is pervavise and puts children like Steel at risk.

Steel should be a cautionary tale, and this is an easy fix for next year’s “Britain’s Got Talent.”  Set an age limit, probably 14, but maybe even 16 or 17.  Also, before any children go on, screen the parents to see if they have their child’s best interests at heart.  If the show continues to trot out child performers, hopefully the British public turns the channel to more “mature” programming. 

Of course, despite Mrs. Steel’s claims that her daughter will be coming “back to normality,” little Hollie will soon begin touring with the other finalists.  Hopefully, Hollie finds some normalcy soon.

I am also going to focus the format quite a bit.  The blog will still be called “The Steve-o-sphere.”  However, I will no longer be spitting up just general thoughts and ideas about the stuff that interests me.  Instead, each blog post will be an idea I have to improve things that either interest me or have caught my attention.  Future posts will include everything from the NBA Draft Lottery to social security to weekend traffic in Seattle.  Hopefully, some of the ideas will be original, but more importantly I hope that they will stir discussion.  I will post every Tuesday and Friday with an idea.  There will be other posts that will be similar to the old blog, which will give me an opportunity to defend Joe Biden and complain about the Mariners/Seahawks/Huskies/all of my freakin’ teams that don’t win.

I hope you enjoy it.  Please leave comments!

Keeping in mind that, for many, it’s not over until the lady in the pantsuit sings.

I also have a few links I want to share:

McClellan slams Bush presidency.  Apparently, former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan is no longer much of a fan.

Bob Herbert loves Joe Biden. Clinton, not as much.

CNN has their own, graphically superior, content inferior version of Veepstakes.

Sydney Pollack passed away. He made Tootsie, one of my favorite movies of all-time, and for my generation is definitely one of those recognizable Hollywood faces where few would know who he was. He also was an executive producer for the HBO film Recount, which I watched yesterday and loved.

I am hitting crunch time leading up to finals, so the posts may look more like this through the middle of June. I encourage you to leave comments to keep the discussion going.

Before I discuss the three who were there, I want to talk about those who were not there. Many believe that Governor Mike Huckabee would be one of the top candidates for Vice President, bringing in many of the evangelicals who are turned off by McCain and shoring up his base in the South. Secretary of State Condolezza Rice is also not an invitee, or for that matter any woman, which would be an interesting choice now that Clinton is almost assuredly not going to be the Democratic nominee. Nor, for that matter, are any Senators on the list, despite McCain knowing those in the Senate better than other public officials. Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the conservative hero who defeated then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle in 2004, has been a darkhorse choice of a few pundits, and myself, yet this invite list makes it look like McCain is focusing on governors for the other spot on the ticket.

If McCain were to choose Crist, he would be strictly following the swing-state approach, which I have consistently criticized on this blog. The conventional wisdom is that Crist’s endorsement of McCain put the Arizona senator over the top in Florida, and essentially clinched the nomination for him. Furthermore, Crist is very popular in Florida, and some believe that a McCain-Crist ticket would guarantee a large swing state for McCain. McCain would then be able to focus time and resources elsewhere (although Obama would, as well). Crist is also younger, but not too young – and has gray hair – thereby mitigating without highlighting McCain’s age. Crist’s appeal outside of Florida, however, is virtually unknown, and it is unclear how he compliments a McCain ticket. Does Crist bring a feel for speaking about economic hardship? Is he a wizard when it comes to immigration? Are evangelicals enamored with him? As far as I can tell, none of the above are true, and all are weaknesses of McCain that would remain throughout the race with Crist by his side.

Governor Jindal, as an Indian-American, would be the first ethnic minority to be the vice presidential nominee for a major party. The immediate danger of placing Jindal on the ticket is that it would seem to be a naked attempt to counteract the appeal of Obama by asking someone of color to be his running mate.  Choosing Jindal would definitely set off a very interesting internal conflict amongst conservative independents and some Republicans who would feel guilty voting against Obama.  Indian-Americans have not suffered the same injustices as blacks in this country, but Obama does not have slavery in his ancestry because his father was Kenyan.  Jindal did spend some time in Congress as a representative, so the experience question would have less of an impact than it would with Crist.

Romney, in my mind, would just be a poor choice.  Romney made several attacks on McCain during the primary that would have to be answered.  Romney was also the least-liked of all of the major Republican candidates, and as was made clear when Kerry nominated Edwards in 2004, there has to be some chemistry between the two candidates.  There is also a question of whether Romney can help McCain with his problems in the evangelical community because of his Mormon background.  Romney does bring business savvy to the ticket, a focus on domestic issues, and the wild card of experience with a health care plan very similar to the one offered by Hillary Clinton (health care will be a major problem for McCain in the general).  The chemistry issue alone should keep McCain from making this selection, however.

We’ll see if more potential candidates make the trip for a “social visit” with McCain.  In the meantime, we have at least the beginnings of a short list.

Even though Hillary Clinton continues to make her case that she has a claim to the nomination because of her popular vote lead (as I said she would last week), the presidential race has moved into general election mode.  As I thought about the content of this post, today seemed like as good an opportunity as any to look back at some of the policies that emerged during the primary season.  I then realized that law school has largely kept me from delving deeply into any of these policies.  So, instead of discussing the intricacies of each proposal, I have compiled a short list of the policies I would like to know more about.  Look for some more detailed posts about each proposal during the summer.

Fair Tax: Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee’s proposal to get rid of the IRS is essentially a consumption, or sales, tax.  Huckabee argues that this is a fairer tax in part because everyone gets taxed, from the police officer to the pimp (bling would be taxed under Huckabee’s plan).  There are many concerns that consumption taxes are extremely regressive, and implementing such a plan would take a massive public relations campaign.  However, a successful fair tax could potentially increase revenue and save the government billions in overhead costs.  If my concerns about the regressive nature of the tax are assuaged, I may be amendable to Huckabee’s proposal.

Carbon Emissions: The fact that both McCain and Obama have plans to reduce carbon emissions is by itself very encouraging.  Furthermore, McCain is advocating the European model of carbon credits, where businesses who do not pollute nearly as much can be rewarded with carbon credits that they can then sell to other companies that pollute more.  However, there are several concerns about the effectiveness of this model.  Another option is a pollution tax, punishing major polluters.  Questions abound about the necessity of the tax, whether free market principles can be a major weapon in combating global warming, and whether low-polluting companies would produce much more than credits.

Health Care Mandates: The truest domestic policy difference between Clinton and Obama.  Clinton believes that there have to be penalties for those who do not purchase health care, while Obama believes that people will naturally buy health insurance as long as they can afford it, and the government’s role is to make it as affordable as possible.  Personally, I am a Kucinich Democrat when it comes to health care, and do not trust for-profit companies to prioritize an individual’s health over the bottom line.  However, government-run health care is a fantasy at this point, and I am torn about whether Clinton or Obama has it right.

Talking to Our Enemies: By the end of the general election, this topic will most likely be beaten to death.  President Bush has described it “appeasement,” which is funny because his own Secretaries of Defense and State have discussed the necessity of sitting down with Iran.  The question is, what sort of preconditions, if any, should a President Obama set out before any meeting with the Iranians or other hostile regimes?

Reforming/Scrapping No Child Left Behind: Governor Bill Richardson said that we should just scrap No Child Left Behind, and virtually everyone agrees that the legislation as it is currently being implemented has been a disaster.  However, the push for increased standards in our school has largely been a result of many schools failing to adequately teach basic subject matters to their students.  Funding is another issue altogether.  Education policy is my greatest public policy interest, and I always heed the advice of Senator Biden: don’t tell me what your priorities are, show me your budget.

If you know a fair amount about each of these, please post in the comments section why they are good/bad ideas.

If you are new to this blog (thank you Fox News – something I never thought I would say), you may not know the extent of my fanhood when it comes to Joe Biden.  I supported him for President, and some of my student loan money made its way to his campaign fund.  I downloaded as many web videos from CSpan and Charlie Rose, and podcasts and from Sunday morning shows, Bill Maher, etc. that I could.  I even spent part of my winter vacation volunteering for his campaign in Iowa, and met many other great and motivated people who saw what I saw in Joe Biden: a great speaker and an extremely knowledgeable leader who brought a pragmatic approach to politics and a plainspoken manner to the stump.  We also saw someone who could win in November.

Even though then end result was not what we were expecting, there were several positives for Biden that emerged during the primary.  He consistently received strong reviews from the press for his debate performances, and went a long way in minimizing his reputation as a “gaffe machine.” (After Obama’s “bitter” comment, Clinton’s “White Americans” argument, and McCain’s problems with the difference between Shia and Sunnis, it should be clear to everyone that all politicians make gaffes) He also showed off his superior command of foreign policy, consistently making stronger arguments than either Clinton or Obama; this was particularly evident when he successfully defended his vote in favor of funding the war – the only Democratic candidate to do so during the campaign.  Finally, even though he did not succeed in the caucuses, Biden drew crowds larger than any of the Republican candidates, and crowds that rivaled every Democratic candidate except for Obama.

Many of my friends have asked me about the possibility of Biden as VP for Obama.  Personally, in an ideal world, I don’t think he would take it.  Despite the role Dick Cheney has played in this presidency, most Vice Presidents wield little power, and Biden would not see the VP slot as a springboard to his own future run (he would be 74 when he took office in 2016).  He would much rather be Secretary of State, a position that commands a tremendous amount of influence in his primary area of expertise, foreign affairs.  Yet, if Obama quickly slips in the polls, and the question of whether he is ready to be commander-in-chief gains traction, Biden might join in order to save the ticket.

Should Obama pick Biden, or another well-healed politician in the Dick Cheney mold, minus the evil?  There are a couple of immediate benefits of picking someone like Biden.  First, it does assuage some of the fears people have that an Obama administration would be wet behind the ears, just as Cheney did with a potential Bush administration.  A Biden choice would also place a voice on the ticket that can be a formidable attack dog, slicing and dicing the Republicans while Obama remains above the fray.  Also, Obama has really struggled with older whites, and having someone on the ticket who can connect with this large bloc of voters that actually votes could help Obama make major inroads with this largely untapped demographic (or, he can just bribe the Hallmark Channel to run a Matlock mega-marathon on election day).

There are a number of problems picking someone like Biden.  One of them is not that he isn’t from a swing state, because the fact that the Vice President is from your state rarely is the difference for voters.  However, while a Biden would add experience to the ticket, it would also highlight Obama’s inexperience and remind people that McCain, not his running mate, is the expert on the other side.  A Biden choice also runs counter to Obama’s “change” message in two ways.  The first is that Biden has been in D.C. forever, and is entrenched in the Washington scene.  The other is that “change” is not just about the past, but also specifically about Bush, and picking Biden undercuts Obama’s message because it would be seen as strikingly similar to Bush’s choice in 2000.

As I have written before, Obama must maintain his message at the expense of other benefits a running mate could bring, so I see the difficulties of a Biden choice outweighing the benefits, at this point.  If we see experience become an increasing concern among voters, the case for someone like Biden will increase.  Over the next couple of months, we will see how this plays out.

Something else McAuliffe said on Sunday, however, caught my attention. McAuliffe said several times that Senator Clinton trails Senator Obama by roughly 100,000 votes in the popular vote. Russert knew immediately where McAuliffe got this number, responding, “You’re counting Florida and Michigan.” McAuliffe replied that the votes from both states should count, and that it would be unfair to the voters in Michigan and Florida if they weren’t.

We have heard this line from the Clinton campaign for a long time. This talking point, though, has taken on an additional level, which McAuliffe said on Sunday: Obama made a political decision when he took his name off the ballot in both states to appease Iowa and New Hampshire voters. The argument that the votes in Michigan and Florida should count towards the popular vote tallies has yet to include this rationale until recently (as far as I am aware – if someone has evidence that multiple surrogates were peddling this argument, please post in the comments section).

That Clinton is continuing to massage her case with the popular vote is a clear signal that not only is she remaining in the race, but that, in her mind, she can still sway superdelegates. Why is this so important? If Clinton wins a landslide victory in West Virginia today and is somehow able to makeup the 100,000 votes between now and June 3, then she and her surrogates will blanket the airwaves with the contention that she now leads in the popular vote, and if the superdelegates pick Obama they are going against the will of the people.

Obama supporters and most neutral observers, as well as some Clinton supporters, will not be swayed by this argument. Just because Obama’s decision is now supposedly “political” does not mean that superdelegates are going to change their minds on how to calculate who won the popular vote; can Clinton legitimately argue that her decision to be the only major candidate on the Michigan ballot was not a political decision? Also, the candidates were not allowed to campaign in either Michigan or Florida, yet Clinton is arguing that those votes are equal to those in states where the candidates were allowed to campaign, which intuitively is rife with problems. Superdelegates who are not already in Clinton’s corner will remain unpersuaded, as will the press.

Who are endangered of being swayed, or having their perspectives hardened, are Clinton’s supporters. There is a significant difference between your candidate falling short of the necessary delegates and your candidate falling short of the necessary delegates despite receiving more votes than her opponent. Democrats are particularly sensitive to this proposition already, thanks to the 2000 election fiasco. That Clinton is the first woman who has come this close to a major party nomination adds the additional complication that many of her supporters will feel that a societal prejudice has kept her from capturing victory (just like how many African-Americans will become even more disillusioned if the superdelegates choose Clinton, which I discussed in a previous post). Will women turn out for Obama if their candidate of choice had the nomination stolen from her by a bunch of powerful men? There is a real chance that too many women will stay home, thus giving the presidency to McCain.

At this point, Clinton cannot win unless Obama somehow completely implodes between now and the convention. Yet, she can still do a significant amount of damage through strengthening the resolve of her supporters to the point where they become so disillusioned that they do not vote at all in November. We are not at that point right now, but the Democrats run that risk if Clinton seizes on the popular vote argument. It is time for party leaders to step in, especially her allies in the Senate, and end this race before she sabotages Obama’s chance beyond repair.

If this is your first time in the Steve-o-sphere, please take a look around.  I have written primarily about politics and sports, so don’t be thrown by the recent American Idol post.  I encourage comments, regular visits, and even subscriptions.  I also want to thank you for unwittingly helping raise my blog views by 50 percent in the last couple of days.