Well, That Settles It All, Right?

Hold Still For Your Inauguration

Samantha Power, a senior foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama, was born in Ireland, won a Pulitzer prize for her book on genocide and has played basketball with George Clooney. She is keen to preserve the special relationship with Britain and says that, contrary to reports, Gordon Brown didn’t snub Obama. With her long, straight auburn hair, blue eyes and freckles, Samantha Power looks as though she has stepped out of a photograph of the Kennedy clan. She was born in Ireland, lives in Massachusetts and shares the admiration of America’s royal family for the candidate they regard as the new JFK. I wonder: could she be a relation of Caroline Kennedy from the wrong side of the blanket?

Can’t make it up. Naturally, MoDo comes at it from her typical chromosomic obsession; subliminally telegraphing why she can never get a second date. Nonetheless, both have good points, even if inadvertently. Opposing the Warlord and Cheney’s madness does not mean American interests are be secure by muddled headed Dupont Circle sushi bar thinking. It really is time for the Crown Prince to step forth, put out his foreign policy team, put out the template of his strategic vision besides Iraq, and see if he understands Power. And not just the power of a good speech, a fierce wife and Joe Klein swooning. Or simply doing the 180 degree opposite of whatever Kristol and those clowns (war criminals? we think so) bloviate. What does the Crown Prince believe is the proper use of American Power in the world besides bromides of “doing good” or “bringing people together”. What architecture is needed — political, economic, military, soft power — not just for the Middle East but the Pacific Rim and the neglected Latin America. Can the boy wonder set forth this critical information anytime soon?

We don’t hold out much hope. And sadly, the American people may not even demand it. As long as he keeps everyone hoping for change. Pathetic as the Warlord in its own empty way.


  1. Hunter says

    that last link, btw, speaks directly to the issue of this blog post: Obama’s foreign policy team

  2. Hunter says

    I don’t think I was referencing steyn… the sun article was a transcript of Obama’s speech to the cleveland jewish community:


    the buchanan bit was genius. poor mika. she deserves better foils…

    on another note, what does anyone think of this:

    there were a lot of names thrown around, and I don’t know much of any of the players in question…

  3. A Random Quote says

    “Aren’t you embarrassed by the absence of these weapons?”
    ~William F. Buckley
    (asking Norm Podhoretz)

  4. Hunter says

    btw… i’m in texas as no one around here will recall and am voting in the primary and caucus for the crown prince on the theory that he is a gamble for our nation, but that the others are more or less certain to be (at best) more of the same: more empire, more pnss, more etc… I don’t know if Obama knows the depth of the tasks facing him, and if he does whether he has the skills to truly change things for the better, but it doesn’t seem to me that anyone else (Hillary very much included) will even try [I might have supported Dodd, had he made it this far]. as the SAS says “who dares, wins”…

  5. Hunter says

    re: the sun article above…
    over at the edge of the american west (which is a good read most days, btw) there’s an interesting discussion of the article:

    in particular, one commenter said:
    “This language

    I will strengthen Israel’s security and strengthen Palestinian partners who support that vision

    is also questionable, I think. Is Obama echoing the claim by successive Israeli governments that they can’t negotiate because they have no negotiating partner from the Palestinian side? Is he signaling Abu Mazen that he would continue US support for Fatah and refusal to deal with the Hamas leadership? Both, I suspect (which is getting a lot of mileage from a single dog whistle.)”

    I figured the members of the stiftung might appreciate this… does the doktor have any thoughts on whether this points to more or less acumen than the crown prince is normally accused of around here?

  6. Comment says

    Ambinder is a smart guy, but his tactical advice to Obama has been so bad that it makes Tweety’s look good. We heard Tweety tonight complaining that Obama doesn’t know how to make slashing debate attacks even though he can make a good speech.

    No matter what you think of Barack – he is winning an improbably victory against a collosas. Political advice from Tweety is the last think he needs. Tweety is passsing. The old order is dying. They don’t even know – Maybe Zarathustra will tell them

  7. Anon says

    Just because Ambinder doesn’t know anyone who calls Lou (our nickname) “Minister Farakhan” does not mean that people in Chi-town follow suit.

    One suspects Ambinder has limited contacts in NOI circles.

  8. Anon says

    We are amused by KLO kvetch about Rev. Wright. That kind of stuff will slide off Obama in such a way that makes RWR look Teflon free by comparison. A while ago we saw Sailor on Yglesias blog trying to flog this – hoping against reason that Rudy and the neocons would do his dirty work.

    re The Debate – Russert swung the question to Obama’s advantage – Guess we are please by that. When he questioned HRC, he was adamantine but factually dubious. But when he questioned Obama he just used HRC’s words against him – most of the time – making HRC’s attacks look partisan.

    HRC complained about the bias, but it was too late. She should have pushed back earlier. She should not be referring to Tweety or SNL skits. HRC is getting bad advice.

    Wolfson is good, Grunwald is so-so, and Penn is bad. Reverse order in pay.

  9. Comment says

    If you read that whole transcript in the NY Sun – what stands out, IMO – is that Obama speaks like a normal person speaks about normal things. He says nothing spectacular. He is respectful, explains with humor some politically touchy relations. But above all he does not speak in this freak-like applause lines that most politicians roll out. He contextualizes his departures from conventional wisdom and he corrects, with humor, some of the smears generated against him

    There is no doubt that he won over people in the audience – Something that is rare for a politician these days.

    Compare this to Rudy – a smart man who yet demagogues Israel issues all the time and belittles and distort people who dissent from his tendencious advocacy. We recall seeing Rudy on tv speaking to a liberal leaning Bnai Brith audience in Rockville about Israel. Did Rudy talk about things like Israel’s comprehensive health care system and its excellent education system? He could have addressed these issues – where Israel excels and he could have tried to convince the audience that his conservative approach to these problems was a better approach for America. But he did not do that – instead he bragged about his friendship with Ehud Olmert, an unpopular man who led Israel into its worst war. It was such a ludicrous pander.

  10. Anon says

    Leo, you seem puzzled sometimes by Obama’s appeal – That’s fine, but there is simply no other mainstream politician who comes close in his ability to critique our Mid East policies in such a reasonable and non mean spirited way. There is just no way any other serious figure on the national scene would say something actually ordinary like this:

    “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress.”


    Many other critics of Bush polices vis-a-vis Israel have a bad undercurrent and attract some dubious support. Or they come from people who have a political lead foot like Giraldi (his latest column is litany againt Clinton neocon-lite with a list of old vrwc favorites – some quite questionable) or Scheuer or others like that . They have zero persuasive power and are read only by their friends and enemies. They never try to convince anyone of anything. They never try to change minds, to build bridges – to creat trust.

  11. Anon says

    It’s funny that Crowley gets everything opposite – The skit was unfunny (YMMV), highly conventional and predictable content, and insincere (Fey told people she was supporting Obama and had some sympathy for Rudy) – So Crowley is just too young to be so un-hep.

  12. Anon says

    This “Bitch” skit from SNL is being reported as a funny endorsement of HRC by Tina Fey –


    It was not funny, imo. Good comedy tells truth – sometimes hidden truth. The hidden truth is that HRC is not a b**** – at least not deep down the way people think. And most Nuns are not either – That’s an extremely weak reference for someone who had lots of time to come up with original material. It’s doubtful that Tina ever met a Nun – She’s just lazy and seems intent to be vindicating Hitch re female comics

    But Fey did what a lot of weak, insecure, and slow minded liberals do – She embraced the negative stereotype thrown by tactically wise enemies.

  13. Comment says

    Olberman’s rise must really annoy Matthews in a way that it cannot annoy O’Reilly. Ultimately O’Reilly will always have his own thing no matter how often he promises not the “lynch” people. But Matthews is trouble because he does not represent a large slice of his listeners like Bill does. His success is partially contingent on his impressive resume and broadcasting skills, but large part of his success is due to trends that are now passing.
    He’ll recover from his Media Matters problems, but the cloud will remain and he will sound less and less relevent as time goes . He can gain points by embrassing that Austin mayor who could not recite a dumb litany, but even HRC fans who liked that epiosode will admit they just saw a nasty man pull a stunt on an unprepared pol.

  14. Comment says

    Amazingly – Tweety was on the Dais at some Woman’s Journalism awards on c-span this weekend and he went into a weird rage againts some people in the audience. It was really weird but all of a sudden he started scowling and looking really hurt when he was being introduced and then gets up the mic and begins his spiel by lecturing the audience to shut up and stop talking. He had the same look he gets when he learned Gore made a 100 million last year.

  15. Comment says

    Yes – They all seem spent. Dowd was not even funny on her own level in her last two columns. Making fun of “Hillaryland” for spending money at Dunkin’ Donuts? 1200 dollars is not too much to spend at Dunkin’ Donuts in a month for a large campaign – It’s puzzling why the press thinks that’s such a big deal and why Dowd clucks along.

    MoDo once said she never reads her mail because she is afraid of mean letters and she never reads criticism about her. That’s probably a good career move for her, because if she was more self aware she would probably have a tough time writing her Pulitzer gems. LOL

    We turned on Olberman tonight and he was naming once of his most hated people and we made a note to find out the details, but now we forget who the hated person was.

  16. Dr.LeoStrauss says

    Olbermann has jumped the shark. Appalling. The only thing that keeps one amused is that his success enrages Tweety so much.

  17. Anon says

    Dowd has serious problems – She has little idea what she is talking about, but feels she must inverse the genders of Democrats. It has something to do with her own blinkered view of things. She is actually panicing now because few people in Obama’s inner clique know who she is or care that she won some awards. Her time is passing.

  18. inquire says

    I think the best of all possible worlds right now would be the seemingly-inevitable Obama presidency with Hillary Clinton as a strong, trusted Secretary of State. That is, a secretary of state who has the president’s ear and the president’s confidence while retaining their own credibility to carry with them when they go abroad.

    Although you call for a near-term elucidation of foreign policy goals, if all parties could be persuaded, I think in the long run Clinton as Obama’s international ambassador and close adviser would be ideal; provided that egos can be checked sufficiently before the inauguration. Any thoughts on this as a long-term desirable, plausible outcome?

    A return to a strong secretary of state as the most important cabinet position as it was in the pre-Bush II years would help correct some of the power-centralization domestically, defray bad feelings within the democratic party, set a positve tone with the international community, and hopefully signal a return to viable American diplomacy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


CommentLuv badge