January 11, 2008

THE ONLY WAY YOU COULD JUSTIFY A MEETING WITH THOSE THREE (AND LET'S ADD CASTRO AND BABY ASSAD FOR GOOD MEASURE)...:

Obama the European: Cry (for) the beloved country (Mona Charen, 1/11/07, National Review)

Clinton cannot lay claim to the leftmost edge of the Democratic party’s base on foreign policy. Her vote to approve the Iraq War settled that. Many of the liberal foreign policy gurus of the Democratic party (Anthony Lake, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Ted Sorensen) have signed on with Barack Obama, and as I write, Sen. John Kerry has endorsed him as well. But if Clinton extends that extemporaneous patriotic burble into a theme of her campaign, she might find a way to checkmate her rival.

When Obama campaigns, he often sounds as if he’s running for president of the world. He has offered that, “The security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people.” He’s a great fan of international agreements, international institutions and “dialogue.” He has said that if he wins the presidency, he looks forward to “going to the United Nations and saying ‘America’s back!’”

As a domestic matter, he treads very lightly on the whole “first African-American president” line because he doesn’t need to mention it. It’s an aura around his head. But in international relations, he does play the identity politics card.

“I think,” he mused to New York Times reporter James Traub, “that if I am the face of American foreign policy and American power . . . if you can tell people ‘We have a president in the White House who still has a grandmother living in a hut on the shores of Lake Victoria and has a sister who’s half-Indonesian, married to a Chinese-Canadian,’ then they’re going to think that he may have a better sense of what’s going on in our lives and in our country. And they’d be right.” [...]

Clinton and Obama have already clashed on the question of talking with Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong-Il. Obama feels strongly that President Bush’s failure to meet these leaders face to face was a “disgrace.”


...is if you brought along Count von Stauffenberg.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 11, 2008 9:02 AM
Comments

You don't need the Count, just his briefcase.

Posted by: Mike Morley at January 11, 2008 10:17 AM

Thanks Orrin, that punchline cracked me up.

Posted by: Bryan at January 11, 2008 1:56 PM

Questions: Why does a grand mother of a Harvard educated well to do lawyer, a US Senator, still huddle in a hut? Is that the best "hut" in Africa, akins to Gadaffi's tent? Does Obama's family value extend to his grand ma?

Obama: The American taxpayers must chip in to take care of the old folks.

Posted by: ic at January 11, 2008 4:34 PM

"Why does a grand mother of a Harvard educated well to do lawyer, a US Senator, still huddle in a hut?"

Because he was raised by his mother's family- his father ditched his son and wife to go back to Kenya.

Where did Obama's father get his family values from but that old woman in a hut?

Posted by: TSOL at January 12, 2008 1:16 AM
« ONE CAN'T BE ANGLOSPHERICAL IN ISOLATION: | Main | HOMERUN THREAT: »