The announcement of Mike Pence as Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s running mate on July 15 was decidedly lackluster, if not downright awkward. Far from his normal persona of self-assurance to the point of hubris, Trump seemed uncomfortable and even nervous throughout, shifting plans and issuing contradictory statements in the days leading up to his running mate’s finalization.

As Pence’s name began to circulate last week, Trump signaled his malaise by insisting that the leaks were not a “final, final decision,” revealing his inability to confidently stick to Pence. Trump cancelled his first joint event with Pence scheduled for Friday, citing a desire to pay tribute to the victims of the attack in Nice, France the day prior; regardless, Trump drew attention back to himself and announced his choice on Friday evening anyway, via Twitter. Insiders reported that Trump sought assurance from advisors that Pence was the man for the job, even as Trump’s campaign fielded a last-minute appeal from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

The selection of Pence represents Trump committing himself to the Republican Party and its unification. Alliance building is Trump’s strategy, but drawing in Republicans is risky as it requires shunning others. A polarizing candidate is what Trump feels his campaign needs but comes with the unease of sacrificing his ability to say or do whatever he pleases, Trump’s characteristic trademark.

With the Democratic Presidential Nomination in sight, Hillary Clinton must still contend with a continuous conversation about her email practices. How will this scandal, or non-scandal, affect the presidential race yet to come? A look at the perspectives of the American constituency and pending investigations may predict Clinton's likely future... and the future of the American presidency.

Poll numbers are the life blood of politics these days. Anything expressed in digits has a claim to truth that assertions without digits cannot make. They inspire confidence - especially among those aspiring to public office - that they actually understand what public sentiment is.

There are moments in life when you receive an unmistakable sign that the game is over. That it’s time to fold your tent, to pull up stakes, to pack it in, to furl the flag, to trim the sails, to let go of a lost cause. At best, to wait for next year. In the extreme, to write it off permanently. And if one chooses to breast the tide, to do so stoically.

Accountability is on the endangered species list. No - not the word. Indeed, “accountability” reverberates around the electronic ether almost as frequently as “thwarking.” It is the reality of persons, especially public persons, taking responsibility for acts of malfeasance in ways that entail exemplary punishment and personal costs.

Hillary Clinton has been enthroned as the presumptive next President of the United States - by the celebrity mongers, by the trendy Hollywood set, by the media, by the pundits, by the big donors, by Congressional Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer and by the Las Vegas odds-makers. The crystallization of a consensus three years before the event is as intriguing as the questions about what sort of president she would make. 

The near meltdown of the United States government evoked worldwide dismay and confusion. Both reactions were especially acute among America’s well-wishers. For not only would they have suffered the consequences of a global economic crisis but they also feel dependent on the probity of American leadership. That dependence may stem in part from their own failures to assume their reasonable share of responsibility for sustaining an orderly international system - a state of affairs remarkably unaffected by the costly flaws in Washington’s custodianship over the past several years. It is nonetheless real.