What would democrats think about Chuck Hagel as Obama's VP? There would be major domestic policy differences between Hagel and Obama, but as far as foreign policy goes, I think they are simpatico. Even with major domestic/economic issue differences, I think Obama would welcome and appreciate a different perspective. The thing about Obama and Hagel that I think would connect with many voters is that while they may come from different parties and have quite different philosophies about the country, neither of them appear to be ideologues; a bipartisan ticket of rational and reasonable people like Obama/Hagel would certainly be attractive for many disaffected voters who are tired of partisan gridlock.

Hagel totally out mavericks McCain; the Republican party basically pushed him to retire. As a war hero he would quell the "anti-American" meme that the Republicans are sure to push. He is against the war. Against the Patriot Act. His defection (well he'd probably be an Independent) from the Republican Party might help to bring the party back from the crazyland of Neoconworld.

Consider this statement Hagel made, from 2005--"I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president."

I started to read the article when I came across this sentence: "In conquering the settlement of Mavila, De Soto's army succeeded in massacring between 2,500 and 3,000 Indians -- a single-day death toll that rivals Antietam."

I think the number of Native Americans killed at Mavila was supposed to read "between 25,000 and 30,000." Estimates for the dead at Antietam are about 23,000 to 25,000 which is a whole lot more than 2500.

Correction to this article is needed.

It seems there were 23,000 casualties at Antietam--not deaths. The numbers in the article in regard to the Native American town is correct. I stand corrected.

I'll try to remember to think before I type next time!

@BostonMA, I too was hoping the the article would have taken a broader picture. Your post touched on a few points I have been pondering during this political season, and since reading William Strauss and Neil Howes' "The Fourth Turning" and "Generations" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Howe

I fear we may have already passed the point when government can do anything effective to solve poor and middle class problems. That's a hell of a thing for a progressive to say, I know, but it is clear that a serious contraction is in the works. I think we are at the point where there are only bad and worse solutions to be had; a true crisis where real sacrifice will have to be shared by all strata of society. Gen Xers will end up sacrificing a lot more because we will be in our "prime" earning years during this long contraction.

I largely agree with your righteous rant on page 3, however I believe we did have a chance: the boomer generation, when they began to assume power, could have taken rational steps to reign in and reform the excesses of the GI generation. Heck they had the education and the know how. But instead they engaged in empty ideological partisanship and the culture wars. It's a zero sum game with boomer leaders. And they wonder why a majority of us tuned out?

We don't have a chance because boomer leaders would rather argue and posture about gays, god, and song lyrics (well, now it's video games) rather than seeking reasonable solutions to growing economic problems. No, the boomers made damn sure they had their party; I'm sure it was groovy and all, but the hotel is pissed about the trashed room--good thing they left their kid's phone number.

I don't think it's a lack of spine on our part. That's unfair. What you perceive is the attitude of the reality of the world that we grew up in. You say that we have given up on family and security? We are the children of divorce and single parent homes. We are the latch-key kids. And you talk to us about family and security? The world is going to shit (economically culturally geo-politically) and you place the blame and burden on the apathy of the younger generation? How unfair, yet how typical of the boomers.

Ever since I was a child, I've heard about how "involved" and "aware" the previous generation was. Okay, good for you. Me? I just wanted someone at home when I got returned from school. We didn't take up your causes and attitudes because for many of us, your generation was nothing but a bunch of absentee and irresponsible parents. Our biggest cultural outlet was the mall and MTV (we didn't create these things btw). Don't blame us if we seem a bit detached and insular.

On the other hand I believe your students do have ideas, thoughts, and a firm grasp of the problems that they face. You don't realize this because it is essentially more of the same failure and mediocrity, so they are nonchalant about it. I believe we are a pragmatic group who will make the tough decisions you couldn't. Or perhaps they really just don't want to hear, again, about the time you and your friends took over the administration building and you smoked a doobie while sitting at the dean's desk.