Lost Season Finale - My Thoughts

Having watched “Lost” from the beginning like the good Dharma-orientation film-watching person I am, I felt very satisfied with last night’s finale. If anything, there wasn’t that cheated feeling of leaving too much hanging … but there was still a lot to chew on.

My random thoughts. Obviously, don’t read ahead if you haven’t seen the finale yet…

- While three years have passed for the Oceanic Six, have three years passed on the island? If so, things might be a LOT different with those left behind. Keep in mind that the four seasons we’ve watched were just a span of months in island time. We’re talking THREE YEARS. That could mean Kate gets back to Sawyer, only to see he’s been married to Juliet for a couple of years. Just no babies, unless Juliet figured that out. Too bad… there’s a part of me that actually wanted to see Jack and Juliet more than Jack and Kate. They could also easily go the Narnia route and have a LOT of time passing on the island, where the Oceanic Six will arrive to find the grown grandchildren of Sawyer, Juliet, etc.

- Let’s keep in mind that whether three years have passed on the island or not, to them Jack, Sayid, Hurley, Kate, etc. are dead. They watched that ship go kabloey. And knowing what apparitions Jacob/Christian Shepherd served up for them in that time, they may not only have a shock when the Oceanic Six return, but may not believe they’re real.

- Heck, three years is such a long amount of time that it’s reasonable to think that the left-behind Losties at this point are rag-wearing mad members of the Richard Alpert Others, with possibly Sawyer as leader in Locke’s absence.

- Why is Locke not on the island? My theory, going back to a lot happens in three years, is for some reason the island had to be moved again. This time, it was Locke who had to make the sacrifice to leave the island.

- Probably the biggest hanging question from the episode I hope gets answered but may not be: What happened to physicist Daniel and his raft of unnamed Losties? I thought they did too much development of Daniel and his knowledge of the island’s properties to just discard him like that. Maybe he was close enough to the island to be swept up in that vortex and go along with it? And in a case of probably wishful thinking, maybe he happened to pick up a former Korean mob henchman who jumped off an exploding freighter? Michael’s a goner for sure, however, as the island let “him go.”

- Loved the effect of the island disappearing, complete with the ocean filling up the empty space the island left like an empty tub. Though my theory is not so much that the island moved somewhere else, but moved a couple of minutes ahead in time and is ALWAYS there, just not in the present. Think of missing a train that left the station a few minutes ago and is out of sight. Even if you run as fast as the train along the tracks, you won’t catch it and you won’t see it, but it's there. The challenge for the Oceanic 6 will be to figure out how to catch that train.

- The Ms. Wildmore boat moment wasn’t quite as tear-jerking as the Desmond Christmas message moment, but it was still sweet.

- Sun blames Jack for Jin’s death and has now taken her dad’s role as the callous leader of a corporation – and talking alliance with Wildmore no less. Why do I see her as Ramses to Jack’s Moses? Though the twist here is Jack will need to convince her to come back to the promised land as well.

- Octagon Global Recruiting obviously reflect a viral marketing event surrounding the San Diego Comic Con. Sound similar to what the “Dark Knight” folks did last con to get folks looking around Old San Diego for the Joker.

- In case you’re wondering about the two “alternative endings,” they simply show - I stick with my theory that Claire actually died in the explosion of that house in Dharmaville and she’s as much an apparition right now as daddy Shepherd.

- I’m surprised not many have brought up that the island itself may be the fabled lost city of Atlantis…

Hillary's Appalachia Adventure

A few quick thoughts on the West Virginia post-mortem…

I’m trying desperately not to adopt the Hillary Clinton philosophy that when you don’t win a state, that state becomes illegitimate. That, said, I’m having a hard time taking the West Virginia electorate seriously when, according to exit polls, three out of every 10 people won’t vote for Barack Obama because he’s black and one out of every two people thing Obama and Jeremiah Wright share the same views. Read a book. It’s called “Audacity of Hope.” Sorry, it doesn’t have pictures.

With all the talk of Saturday Night Live’s connection to this campaign, last night could have easily been an Appalachian Emergency Room skit.

On top of that, the general media is taking the Clinton win on a higher scale of “this could mean trouble for Obama” that I would have expected. It was especially off to see pundits talking this morning about the West Virginia results being indicative of where the country is going in the general election, as if this nation’s population as a whole is anything like Appalachia. That’s as bad as assuming the nation’s high school kids want to listen to Perry Como because folks in an elderly-care home do.

But saying Clinton is back in the race at this point is akin to going into a morgue, seeing a finger move in rigor mortis and yell out, “I saw a finger move! They’re going to recover and beat this!”

What Clinton Did Right

Excellent articles like Time’s recent piece on what Hillary Clinton did wrong are why there is still a place for in-depth news magazines like Time, but let me take a sec in the postpartum to actually praise Clinton for something she did right.

Namely, her 180-degree turn towards the outreaching of rural voters that probably kept her in the race, or at least gave her the appearance of doing so to the general public.

All you have to do is look at the difference between the January caucus here in my home state of Nevada versus the recent primaries in Indiana and Pennsylvania.

If you look at one of the John King-style maps from the Jan. 19 Nevada caucus, you’ll see that it was Obama who was winning the rural, low-population counties in this purple state that’s blue at the bottom and bloody red at the top. It was Obama who was getting the blue-collar endorsements and support.

Meanwhile, Clinton took the big population centers, including my hometown of Las Vegas, on the way to winning a slight majority of the state’s delegates overall.

What followed was the moment when Clinton who abandoned her pervious strategy of “vote for me because I’m me” into “vote for me because I’m you.” While many of us didn’t see through her $100 million account and lobbyist donations, it was still a very effective strategy -- even though it was reminiscent of a GOP campaign where they say they want to give you help, but then pick your pocket when your back is turned.

The result was what we saw in the last three months of the primary campaign where the primary cities were colored by Hillary, with small, but well-populated, specks of Barack.

For the general election, Obama needs to adopt a similar strategy of reaching out to the rural voter that would pay even bigger dividends in a general election. And perhaps, in her first moment of humility in this entire campaign, Clinton may even help.

Obama will be in no danger of losing his big city vote against McCain. One can argue that the cities have been hurt the most by the last seven years. People in big cities are paying more for gas, dealing with homeland security snafus, watching their infrastructure crumble and watching their stock portfolios dwindle. They’re not going to be as willing to keep the White House Republican for another four years.

It’s the rural voter that Obama will need to win over, and he can take a lesson from the thing that Clinton did right.

And as we mark the end of the primary campaign, we might as well give Clinton credit for something. Because for a lot of people in the Democratic Party, it may take some marriage counseling before they’re willing to get back in a relationship with the Clintons again.

Who Wants to Be a Vice President?

When I married my wife, it seemed just minutes after we said “I do” before people were already asking us, “So when are you having a baby?” In the same sense, it doesn't take long after a candidate wraps up a nomination for the presidential ticket that they’re immediately asked,” Who’s going to be your vice president."

With the media and public now seemingly on board with the fact Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate for president, speculation begins on who the senator will pick as his running mate.

Such a question used to be dismissed with the flick of the words, “All the vice president does is attend funerals.” Say that now after the last two men who have held the office. In divergent ways, Al Gore and Dick Cheney greatly changed the influence a vice president has on governing, and the first-in-line to the presidency can’t be taken lightly anymore.

The recipe for an ideal VP choice for Obama is a candidate who can make up for his deficiencies in experience, while helping draw people from the right of the political center and build on his strengthening Southern base. It also helps to get a running mate who attracts voters who may have supported Clinton in the primaries or have yearnings to vote for McCain.

Being as that Obama’s name was, until recent history, generally unknown to the general public, it will also be important to have a running mate with instant name recognition. A sign of a bad choice by Obama will be if the first thing out of people’s mouths is “Who?”

Doing a little brainstorming of my own, I arrived at my personal list of choices to be vice president under Obama. Take it with a grain of salt no different than if I gave you a list of my picks for the upcoming NFL season or my choice for “American Idol.” But like those contests of sport and gaining Simon Cowell’s approval, it’s certainly a lot of fun to play the VP game.

1. Chuck Hagel – How’s this for deflating any potential GOP campaign in the coming months: Have a Republican on the ticket. But beyond the politics of such a move, it will also play up what many see as appealing about Obama in his promise to bring true bipartisanship to Washington. In Hagel, you get a running mate who has appeal on both sides for standing on his principles, whether they are his stance against the Iraq war or his work in the Reagan administration. He’s also a purple-heart-wearing veteran of the Vietnam war. For those who believe the Obama ticket is about bringing the country together, there isn’t any better pick than Hagel.

2. Wesley Clark – In a time on worldwide instability – much of it was brought about by our current executive branch – and the threat of Osama bin Laden still looming, it may be key to have a running mate who stands as a pillar of not just America’s strength, but also America’s wisdom. At this point, Wesley Clark would rightfully raise his hand. For a potential commander-in-chief without military experience, Clark brings a smorgasbord of distinguished military service, including leading the military forces of a coalition of nations in a successful campaign to free Bosnia. He’s also had the wisdom to make the right call from the get go when it comes to our carrots and sticks abroad, supporting the move into Afghanistan, while denouncing the Iraq push from the get-go. At the same time, he also really seems to get it when it comes to domestic policy. As a Clinton supporter, he stands to bring some her supporters along and also has a Tony Bennett-like appeal to the youth vote. Only drawbacks would be he doesn’t bring any geographical gain to the ticked, being a Chicago native.

3. John Edwards – If it wasn’t for Obama capturing the nation’s imagination, Edwards would have been the de facto candidate of change and a return to the America as a beacon of hope to the world, rather than as an invading wall of ugliness. And with recent electoral history demonstrating that you need some Southern component on your campaign to win, Edwards brings that. Drawbacks are the right’s aversion to trial lawyers of any kind and the dreaded hair jokes the GOP will be ready to pounce upon.

4. Loretta Sanchez – My pick for best VP candidate no one is mentioning. I’m not a stereotypical demographics person, but Sanchez would be a great choice for those seeing Obama as needing to get back Clinton’s female and Latino vote. Beyond that, Sanchez shares a couple of traits with Obama, including standing against corruption and politics as usual (which got her kicked out of the Congressional Latino Caucus when she wouldn’t support a Joe Baca handout) and being against the Iraq war from the beginning. She’s also demonstrated an ability to defeat a top GOP candidate in Robert Dorman – in Orange County no less. Her fiscal conservatism makes her likable by conservatives. My only reason for not making her my top pick would be the higher profile for Hagel, Clark and Edwards.

5. Al Gore – After we left the theatres or turned off the DVD after watching “An Inconvenient Truth” two years ago, we yearned for Al Gore to announce he was running for president. It didn’t happen, any we’ve moved on. That said, there’s noting in the Constitution about having more than two terms as vice president and if Obama was already a candidate that had a cult following, you might as well break out the Kool-Aid if Gore joined the ticket. Of course, there are also those on the far right who pander against Gore because they live in a fantasy where there isn’t global warming and the universe is just 5,000 years old. But as Bush’s time passes, so will theirs. There also may be the sense among the public that Gore’s time as a politician has passed no matter how much they respect him. I’m starting to believe Gore when he says his cause to end global warming is better served being Joe Q. Public, rather than the Honorable Al Gore.

6. Max Cleland – We call your war hero with ours. Hard not to like Cleland, who would appeal to both the veterans and the seniors, and it would certainly be poetic justice for the person Karl Rove unjustly put down to end up in the White House.

7. Joe Biden – Was my third choice behind Obama and Edwards and I have a great respect for him as a politician and a mind, though I’m not sure he would bring that many extra votes to the ticket.

8. Barbara Boxer – I’m a big Barbara Boxer fan going back to when I met her when she was first running for U.S. Senate. No question she is as strong a legislator as they come, and can certainly be the alternative not-Clinton woman for the ticket for those that care about gender. Her big drawback is the GOP love to vilify strong female candidates from the Bay Area that may make her more polarizing than Obama needs.

9. Anthony Zinni – An alternative to Clark if he doesn’t take the job. Problem lies in that most of the general public has no idea who Zinni is. But the decorated general was one of the first during the Bush administration to be blacklisted for not following the program and marching off to Iraq. Military and foreign policy credentials are there, though we don't know yet if he can be the wunderkind on domestic policy like Clark has been.

10. Caroline Kennedy -- Makes the comparison to JFK even more apparent, but while she has a great deal of respect from the public for her charitable work and other philanthropy activity, her political resume is as blank as a sheet listing President Bush’s pullout strategy from Iraq. She would serve Obama better as an apolitical endorser than being on the ticket.

11. Oprah Winfrey – Don’t laugh…. One of the reasons Oprah has earned billions is people really, really like her and Winfrey’s by far the person most recognizable to the public on this list. Problem lies in her never having served any kind of public position and if you think lack of experience becomes a talking point against Obama, watch out. Obama/Oprah is a great fantasy and not entirely out of the realm of possibility, but this is reality folks. That said, I think I’d like it even if the political pundits sour on it and what was Schwarzenegger’s experience before he became the governator?

12. Christopher Dodd – Like Biden, doesn’t add any more electability.

13. Ted Kennedy – Also makes the comparison to JFK while also eliminating experience as a worry, but he’s as polarizing as Clinton to the right who just might see him as the anti-Cheney (is that such a bad thing?). That said, there’s no disputing his experience and if people get past the Sean Hannity rhetoric and the fat jokes, they may just see a candidate they can admire.

99999999999999. Hillary Clinton – On one end, you can just about applaud Clinton for the tough campaign she ran against Obama as toughening him up for the general campaign. The Wright/Ayers controversies and any of the flag lapel questions will have run their course before the GOP even has a chance to swift boat him. At the same time, while you respect your opponent for making you a better player, you don’t get in bed with them. Clinton shouldn’t be rewarded for nearly tearing the Democrats apart.

Wishful Thinking. Yes, Arnold Schwarzenegger crossed my mind, especially with his wife’s vocal support for Obama and is vast appeal with both sides of the aisle, but the Constitution implicitly states that a person ineligible to be president can be vice president (which is why Bill couldn’t have been a running mate for Hillary).

That said, no reason Schwarzenegger couldn’t be in his cabinet … or at least allow Obama to join with him for his inevitable cameo in the new “Terminator” film.