Attention NeoProgs: You DID NOT Defeat the PUMAs!

~~By Grail Guardian

Enough already! It’s been nearly 2 weeks since the mythical “post-racial” election that would change the world, purify acid rain, halt all crime, turn all hate into love, make rainbows appear simultaneously and permanently in the sky over every nation, end global warming, part the seas, cause God’s light to shine upon us, and make the Unity Pony the universally accepted mascot of the globe – yet still it persists! By it, I mean the gloating, the taunting, the childish harassment across the Blogosphere, the never-ending threats, and of course the omnipresent misogyny alternating between Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton.

Our own GRL posted a smattering of the nasty comments we’ve had here at InsightAnalytical earlier this week. The site has been in forced moderation ever since the election due to the attacks of the Oborg and threats promising to shut the site down (and GRL informs me that at least one of our “regular” trolls has been permanently banned due to abuse). In this same article, reader Leslie reports that she is still beset by combative co-workers trying to cure her of her “wicked ways”. The joy is not isolated to IA, however. A recent check at Not Your Sweetie showed someone artfully calling themselves “PUMA FAIL” asking:

“How’s that McCain landslide going?”

more than 10 weeks after the article was originally posted. Useful? I think not. Unprovoked? Most assuredly (note that the comment is preceded by 2 links to probama sites). Isolated? Hardly. At Texas Darlin’s blog, commenter Jennifer Boucher went way beyond the acceptable [Strong Language Warning!]:

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!! HOW IS HAVING BARACK OBAMA AS THE NEXT PRESIDENT GOING TO FUCK UP AND RUIN LIVES AND/OR THIS COUNTRY!!! HAVE YOU BEEN FUCKIN’ BLIND FOR THE PAST EIGHT FUCKIN’ YEARS!! LOOK AT THE FUCKIN’ MESS THAT BUSH HAS MADE! HOW ABOUT THE JOB HE HAS DONE! THE ENTIRE WORLD FREAKIN’ HATES US, THE ECONOMY IS HORRIBLE, A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE LOSING THEIR JOBS. DID YOU ENJOY PAYING OVER $4 A GALLON FOR GAS? DO YOU ENJOY PAYING HIGH HEALTH CARE COSTS? HIGH GROCERY BILLS? HOW ABOUT NOT HAVING A FREAKIN’ JOB! MCCAIN WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO FIX THIS MESS! HE’S OUT OF TOUCH WITH WHAT IT’S LIKE TO BE AN AVERAGE AMERICAN, HE HAS SEVEN FREAKIN’ HOUSES FOR ONE THING! BARACK OBAMA DIDN’T GROW UP WITH A SILVER SPOON UP HIS FUCKIN’ ASS, AND HE’LL WORK HARD FOR THE AVERAGE AMERICAN! THIS WHOLE FUCKIN’ BULLSHIT ABOUT BARACK BEING A TERROIST, AND HIS MIDDLE NAME IS HUSSEIN IS RIDICULOUS!!! SO WHY DON’T YOU STOP WASTING YOUR FUCKING TIME PUTTING UP THESE FUCKING WEBSITES! WHY DON’T YOU WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE AND OPEN UP YOUR FUCKING EYES WHY DON’T YOU, AND SEE WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON!!

Of course, I could go on with the examples, but you get the drift. They’re still bitter, they’re still hostile, and they’re still blaming the PUMA movement for…uh, gee – I guess for Obama winning the election? Nope. In fact, they’re still insisting that PUMAs don’t exist. To wit, blogger LastPlaneOut:

Nice try, but PUMAs are done.

They never existed.

I have spent every day of the last 5 months thwarting Darragh’s Legion of Lost Typists.

Every prowl she organized, I got there first. I warned the media and the politicos that you were coming for them. I helped Roland Martin at CNN duck you. I telegraphed your email swarms to every targeted delegate and superdelegate at Denver. I have an inbox full of “Thank you” letters from PUMA targets who listened to me and dumped your message swarms into unused voicemail accounts and fax machines in the utility closet. I have fought you on the HuffingtonPost, US News and a dozen other media outlets. I have blocked your disinformation at every turn, bombed your YouTube videos, pretended to be your friend in Denver and spoofed you in a thousand ways.

There aren’t 18 million of you, as tonight’s election proves. Hell, there doesn’t seem to be ANY of you, based on the vote. You’ve been living a fantasy.

Tonight, I am — like Lou Gehrig — the happiest man on the face of the earth,

Bravo, President Barack Hussein Obama.

And good luck, PUMAs, at whatever the hell it is you plan on doing now, at the fringes of American politics.

The conventional wisdom indicates that if we don’t exist we wouldn’t get bothered or even referred to anymore, right? Alas, there is no wisdom in the Oborg. Their attacks continue unabated. Not just against PUMAs, but, of course against, all women. And their favorite 2, of course, Governor Sarah Palin and Senator Hillary Clinton. This week’s Roundup mentions perennially perky “joke” CBS News anchor Katie Couric’s advice to Palin:

I think she should keep her head down, work really hard and learn about governing. But I’m not anyone to give advice to anyone about anything.”

No one seems to be mentioning that Couric could stand to learn something about journalism. Meanwhile, Politico snipes Palin for being more interesting to the press than her fellow Governors at a meeting last week:

While her other governors diagnosed the GOP woes that led to their second consecutive electoral thrashing and plotted a way out of the political wilderness, Sarah Palin did neither.
Two events were added to the annual Republican Governors Association meeting especially for the Alaska governor and former vice presidential nominee, but her objectives were unclear and her message, mixed. For somebody who is now seen as a prominent leader in the GOP and perhaps the party’s instant-front-runner for the 2012 presidential race, it was a less than auspicious return to the Lower 48.

Of course the big news making Obot heads explode was the offer to Senator Hillary Clinton to be Obama’s Secretary of State. At the Huffington Post writer Nico Pitney couldn’t disguise his disdain for the possibility, noting that Team Obama had to create an argument for him to swallow the news and that:

The offer shows that the Obama team is, in fact, serious about bringing all types of political officials — former foes included — into its governing tent. During the Democratic primary, Clinton was often accused by aides to Obama of inflating or over-dramatizing her foreign policy experience.

Enthusiastic HuffPo commenter BeltwayBette showed her support for party unity as follows:

HRC, in spite of huge efforts to pump up her foreign service credentials, which flopped on the tarmac you know where — is not qualitied for SOS.
HRC is not a team player, never has been. As we recall, she allegedly flopped the health plan Bill gave her because no one In DC could or would work with her.
HRC is same ole,same ole — and still too personally ambitious for the presidency to belong to her — or to the latest Clinton to be floated for the POTUS – Chelsea Clinton. The Dynasty refuses to die.
HRC, whose talking points against Sen.Obama fed the McCain campaign for almost two years — will have the power to undermine the man for whom it is said she felt only great contempt . .
BUT this is still only a rumor. I personally wish that President Elect Obama would put a sock in his leaks. And that he would show some loyalty to those who fought so hard for him — like the man HRC’s surrogate Carville villified for his Obama endorsement — Bill Richardson.
In 2012,we may need BR again.

So, to paraphrase the probable future Chair of the DNC Donna Brazile, why not Stop the Hate? No one appears to be immune to the bilious attacks. The Oborg even seems to be defying their beloved leader in opposing his Secretary of State offer to Clinton. The only answer I can offer is that these demented animals need somewhere to channel all the hatred they amassed during the past 2 years. You cannot be that bitter and vitriolic for that long and then suddenly stop. That probably means I should have some tolerance and compassion for these poor tortured troglodytes, but I can no longer muster any empathy or understanding. Instead, I offer the Oborg this thought:

You did not defeat the PUMA movement on November 4th!

You read that right! You couldn’t do it. McCain/Plain was defeated by our old nemesis, the NeoCons. The facts support it; they stayed home in droves! The supposed legions of new registered Democrats (courtesy of ACORN) never materialized. The other voters that never materialized were the Conservatives. According to the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza (yet another h/t to Not Your Sweetie):

much of the Republicans’ permanent political class has concluded that electing Sen. John McCain as president would have amounted to applying a Band-Aid to a gaping wound. Given the state of the party — bereft of a signature new idea and without many fresh faces — plenty of Republican operatives have come to subscribe to what I’d call the Ra’s al Ghul theory of rebuilding: Ghul, a villain in the movie “Batman Begins,” advocates destroying the city of Gotham to rebuild it from the ground up. “It is beyond saving and must be allowed to die,” he says — a sentiment echoed by many Republicans these days, who argue that hitting rock bottom was the only way to allow new faces and ideas to emerge.

What’s more, the final numbers seem to indicate that had Hillary Clinton been the Democratic candidate, she would have slaughtered John McCain according to CBS:

As voters left the polls on Election Day, many were asked how they would have voted if the election match-up were between Hillary Clinton and John McCain rather than Barack Obama and McCain. 52 percent said they would have backed the former Democratic candidate; 41 percent would have voted for McCain, wider than Obama’s 7-point margin over McCain.

Snip

While 85% of Obama voters said they would have voted for Clinton had she been the Democratic candidate, 13% would not have supported her including 6% who said they would have backed McCain and 7% who said they would not have voted. (Emphasis mine)

In short, one man can be considered responsible for Barack Obama’s victory: George W. Bush

The Washington Post concludes that:

…a look at this year’s political atmospherics suggests that the environment was so badly poisoned that no Republican — not Mitt Romney, not Mike Huckabee, not even the potential future GOP savior, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal — could have beaten Obama on Nov. 4.

Why not? Three words (and a middle initial): President George W. Bush.

snip

Enter Palin, who was embraced with a bear hug by the party’s conservative base. All of a sudden, cultural conservatives were thrilled at the chance to put “one of their own” in the White House. In fact, of the 60 percent of voters who told exit pollsters that McCain’s choice of Palin was a “factor” in their final decision, the Arizona senator won 56 percent to 43 percent.

For skittish conservatives looking for more evidence that McCain understood their needs and concerns, Palin did the trick. It’s hard to imagine conservatives rallying to McCain — even to the relatively limited extent that they did — without Palin on the ticket. And without the base, McCain’s loss could have been far worse.

So what’s my point? Well, it’s threefold:

1) An admittedly immature STFU to the Oborg

2) To establish that we PUMAs did our part to defeat Barack Obama

3) To remind PUMAs everywhere that we forgot who we should have been fighting and debunk an old adage: the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

It’s time to start ignoring the Obots and realizing how ineffectual they have become. We still have work to do.

The Scanner-International Edition, 11/14/08 (Insight into Obama’s Background, the Luo of East Africa; The Unrecognized Foreign Policy Work by Bush that Will Help Obama; How the Occupation of Iraq May Look in the Future)

~~By InsightAnalytical-GRL

Here are a few international stories that have caught my eye over the last few days. The first one gives a detailed background on Obama’s roots, including some of the reputed personality traits of the Luo’s that are evident in Obama. If you think that Bush was in Obama’s camp before the election, the second story may give you even more things to think about. Obama will be taking credit for a lot of the groundwork laid by Bush. The final story discusses some developments that might affect the future of Iraq that the reader might be unaware of.

***

From The East African, Kenya:

An ‘irresistible, awful, marvellous people’: The Luo of East Africa

By DAVID KAIZA

Obama’s name is unavoidable anywhere, but when pronounced at Mpaaro, thereis an added urgency to its sound…

It is not altogether fanciful to say that, some 628 years ago, a time barely thought of now, the seeds of Obama’s ascendancy to the world stage were sown here.

Dates and facts are hard to pin down, details are much disputed. But it was here that a Luo man, perhaps one of Obama ancestors, changed for good the world of his time.

The scale was smaller, distances were not so great, but the assumption of power, in the year 1380, over the lands that now comprise Uganda by one Rukidi Isingoma-Mpuga Labongo, son of Olum, leader of the migrating Luo who entered Uganda from Sudan towards the last decades of the 14th century, set in motion cultural-political changes whose impact echoes in many of the conflicts still taking place in northern Uganda and the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

For Andrea, as indeed for scholars and guardians of the traditions of Bunyoro-Kitara, the emergence of Obama was marked by a polish, drive and determination that had not been seen before in this part of the world.

“These were men of substance,” Andrea says of the Luo aristocracy that invaded and occupied Bunyoro. “They were very, very intelligent. They were generous. The people liked them.”

Historians speak of the “immense impact” that the Luo migration had on the societies they passed through.

Historian and Catholic priest, J.P. Crazzolara in his foundational study, The Lwoo (1950), writes hyperbolically, “They marched on and came upon people who trembled at their sudden appearance. The Lwoo were at sight the absolute arbiters of this population, who had no time left to think and try to repel such an unexpected mass of invaders.”

He describes them as an “irresistible, awful, marvellous people” that “spread (their) shadow” over the older areas of western and southern Uganda.

The displacement of former rulers and inhabitants by this “appearance” is said to be partly responsible for the ethnic pressures and traumas afflicting eastern Congo, for those who lost out in those years were never to regain their footing and continue to be landless, stateless peoples to this day.

Crazzolara’s heraldic language over-privileges Luo achievements, yet 2008, emerging as a hyperbolic year for Africans, is on a scale Obama’s Luo ancestors would never have dreamt of scaling on the plains of Sudan, Uganda and Kenya.

The year started on a bad, but well-publicised note. With the horribly botched Kenyan election, the word “Luo” started to circulate internationally.

Barrack Obama’s candidature would bring in the phrase “son of a Luo father.”

On a smaller scale, outside Kenya, President Yoweri Museveni, in the middle of a face-off with the kingdom of Buganda, sought to reduce the Kabaka’s standing by publicly stating that the latter was a Luo.

Much of the descriptions made of the Luo are stereotypes like those applied to any other ethnic group, but unlike other ethnic groups in the region, the Luo are spread across five countries, forming a continuous chain that runs 1,200km from Sudan to the southern shores of Lake Victoria.

Crozzolara’s contradictory label “awful and marvellous” points to a central Luo paradox: Their descendants’ occupation of Uganda’s thrones contrasts with the depths of their suffering in wars in northern Uganda, southern Sudan and southwestern Ethiopia. The pendulum of Luo history has swang dizzyingly from immense success to immense failure.

However, to traverse this 1,200km is to be overcome by the similarities in the physical, cultural and personal characteristics of the Dinka, Nuer, Anuak, Shilluk, Wau, Acholi, Lango, Alur, Padhola and Kenyan Luo.

The numerous elders along the trail keep track of their kith and kin.

It is an identity with real cohesive power that can break out in a visceral possessiveness on discovering each other.

It grips, whether felt at the entrance of a tomb in one country, or in victory jigs on the streets of Kisumu.

Spread across centuries and continents, similar descriptions are made of their leaders as “intelligent,” “socialist,” “generous,” “driven,” “aggressive…”

Indeed, putting aside for the moment the adjective-defying import of Obama’s achievement, the weird thing is that his oratorical skills, penchant for the extravagant and appeal to the crowd are right out of the standard caricature of a Luo politician.

Descriptions of Obama sound like a recycling of phrases used of men like the Odingas, Tom Mboya, Apollo Milton Obote, Kabalega and Labongo before him.

For East Africans, seeing Obama reduce crowds to tears is oddly reminiscent of Ugandan independence leader Obote, a man said to be devastating with a microphone.

Indeed, Obama, who rose to fame through his “mobilisation skills,” was himself literally the (accidental) product of the mobilisation skills of a man with whom he shares his ancestry, Tom Mboya. It was Mboya who sent Obama Sr to the US.

There are many barroom jokes in Nairobi now. The funnier one is that when McCain elected to deliver his nomination acceptance speech to a modest, indoor audience, and Obama went for a mammoth event, it was typical of the “outsized” egos of Luo politicians.

“When I see Obama, I see a typical Luo man,” says Kenyan anthropologist Othieno Aluoka.

(MORE)
***

From Inter Press Service News Agency, Italy

U.S.: Obama Foreign Policy May Not Require a Clean Break

Analysis by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Nov 10 (IPS) – While much of the world and many of his U.S. supporters are expecting a sharp break with his predecessor’s foreign policy after President-elect Barack Obama takes office Jan. 20, they may be surprised by the degree of continuity between the two administrations.

That continuity — which would be made more concrete if, as expected, Pentagon chief Robert Gates is asked to remain at his post — has less to do with Obama’s hesitation in following through on his more sweeping campaign promises than with the fact that President George W. Bush, has quietly — if grudgingly — moved key U.S. policies in directions that are largely compatible with Obama’s own intentions.

(SNIP)
n addition to earning Obama great goodwill overseas, all of these steps will help dramatise the contrast between his more open and inclusive approach to the world and that of his predecessor, whose unilateralism and cowboy image have brought Washington’s standing among foreign publics to an all-time low.

To be fair, however, that image — so richly earned during his first term when neo-conservatives and other hawks ruled the roost — is somewhat outdated. Chastened by the Iraq war and guided step by halting step by the foreign policy realists, notably Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Gates, and his top military commanders, who have come to dominate the last two years of his presidency, Bush has essentially — if not explicitly — laid the groundwork for Obama’s “new dawn”, especially with respect to key crisis areas that are certain to figure near the top of the new president’s agenda.

Despite loud protests and repeated efforts by hawks around Vice President Dick Cheney to deep-six the process, for example, Bush has stuck by Rice and her top Asia aide, Christopher Hill, in making the necessary concessions to keep the “Six-Party Talks” to de-nuclearise North Korea alive.

Similarly, Bush broke his own diplomatic embargo on Iran — along with Pyongyang, the last surviving member of the “Axis of Evil” — by sending a senior State Department official, Undersecretary of State William Burns, to sit down with his Iranian counterpart as part of a larger meeting including other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany last summer. Significantly, Burns will serve as the State Department’s chief liaison with Obama’s transition team.

The administration also appears close to announcing that it intends to set up an Interests Section in Tehran even before Obama takes office. Such a step will no doubt make it far less controversial for the new president to open comprehensive, high-level talks with Iran without conditions when he chooses to do so (possibly after Iran’s presidential elections in June so as to avoid boosting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad chances of re-election).

And after effectively ignoring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for nearly seven years, Bush finally re-launched peace talks at Annapolis last November. While those talks have made little progress and now, with Israeli elections scheduled for February, have no hope of reaching an accord by the time Bush leaves office, he will bequeath, as Rice, the effort’s most dogged booster, noted this weekend, a process that Obama can use to fulfill his promise to make a two-state solution an urgent priority.

Even on Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush has helped lay the groundwork for Obama’s plans to accelerate the withdrawal of combat troops from the former and rapidly deploying more to the latter, which the president-elect has long argued, unlike the incumbent, constitutes the “central front in the war on terror”. By acquiescing in a still-pending accord with the Iraqi government, Bush has also accepted a 2012 deadline for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops — not just its combat forces, which Obama has pledged to withdraw by mid-2010.

As for Russia, whose intervention in Georgia last August brought bilateral ties to their lowest ebb since the end of the Cold War, Bush, like Obama, has acted with relative restraint, particularly compared to the urgings of Obama’s Republican rival, Sen. John McCain.

And while his insistence on deploying missile-defence systems in central and eastern Europe is clearly more provocative than Obama’s cautious ambiguity on the subject, Bush has also moved in recent days both to address Moscow’s concerns and lay the basis for a new accord on sharply reducing U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, something that Obama is expected to make a high priority in the early days.

In other areas, Obama’s engagement strategy is likely to build on more positive achievements by Bush that have not received nearly as much attention as his “war-on-terror” debacles: most notably in East Asia, where, to the aggravation of the hawks, good ties with China have not only been preserved, but enhanced; India, where the new nuclear deal capped a rapidly growing strategic relationship; and much of Africa, where Bush’s five-year-old, 15-billion-dollar AIDS programme, strongly endorsed by Obama, is given credit not only for saving millions of lives, but also for making the region the most Bush-friendly by far, according to recent public opinion polls.

(MORE)
***

From Inter Press Service News Agency, Italy

IRAQ: U.S. Pushes In Their Excellencies

By Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa al-Omrani

CAIRO, Nov 7 (IPS) – More than five years after the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, Arab capitals are beginning to send ambassadors to Baghdad. But some Egyptian commentators question the timing of the move, which they attribute to pressure from Washington.

“Arab governments originally wanted a full withdrawal of foreign forces and a stable security environment before sending ambassadors,” Ahmed Thabet, political science professor at Cairo University, told IPS. “Yet the pending U.S.-Iraq security agreement promises to turn the current military occupation of Iraq into a constitutionally sanctioned one.”

(SNIP)

“Many Iraqis see this new Arab diplomatic drive as against their national interests,” added Thabet. “They see it as little more than a U.S. attempt to legitimise the occupation and bolster Arab support for the unpopular government in Baghdad.”

Thabet (Ahmed Thabet, political science professor at Cairo University) went on to say that some Iraqis fear recent Arab diplomatic activity “could eventually lead to the replacement of foreign occupation troops with a pan-Arab peacekeeping force to police Iraq.”

(MORE)

“Project Foreign Policy—Style!” Introducing This Season’s Newest Look–Obama’s Magic Foreign Policy Shoes!

Welcome to the new show on Bravo, “Project Foreign Policy-Style“!  Stay tuned as our resident style guru, Fahreed Zakaria, guides us through the trials of putting together a brand new foreign policy!!  Or is it really new, or just an expert tweaking to create a fresh new look for the season?

First, we’ll rewind to the day before the election to the preview show. Scat’s Blog picked up American Lassie’s pre-election post on the Trilateral Commission ties to the Obama crowd (see below) and provided a link to a CNN transcript of CNN’s Global Public Square with host Fareed Zakaria. Guest judges included former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; former chief of staff under Ronald Reagan, Ken Duberstein; and former national security adviser under Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Maddy went into her closet stuffed with classic foreign policy attire and came up with this ’80’s vintage look from her PERSONAL collection!  Dated? Well, the panel thinks they can “MAKE IT WORK!” by personalizing and updating the look for Barack Obama!!

Obamas Magic Foreign Policy Shoes!
Obama’s Magic Foreign Policy Shoes!

The gist of this entire “Cliff Notes” review of foreign policy, held entirely to enhance Obama’s appearance,  was the assumption that Obama had already won and John McCain was irrelevant; that “style” was a huge issue; that while Bush was WAY too arrogant in dealing with other nations, even Bill Clinton’s foreign policy approach was a bit too “arrogant” ; and that Colin Powell got the “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.”

Of course, there was no mention of how the Bush Administration, as arrogant as they’ve been, did finally begin paying attention to foreign policy fashion and began talking with North Korea (finally following Clinton’s lead) and enlisting the aid of China in the process; how there have been contacts with Iran, and how the plans to deploy defense shield missiles in Poland (with Polish approval) has kept Russia off-guard (until now).

So, what did the foreign policy style gurus opine the day before the election?

First, note the glaring, implied assumption that Obama and his style leadership would win as Zakaria questions Brzezinski who echoes the Biden “gaffe” about the “testing” awaiting Obama:

ZAKARIA: All right. Let me ask you on the issue of policy, though. Does the president-elect start thinking about sending signals to foreign governments? Does he start actually sending those signals?

BRZEZINSKI: I think it depends on two things — one, on the nature of the president himself, and, two, on the circumstances.

I think what is going on right now — which is nothing less than a global crisis of American leadership, nothing less than that — I think the president-elect, whoever he is — and I have my own preference — will have to start sending signals right away, and will have to get ready to deal with some imminent problems.

Then, catch the comment by Brzezinski on who could become the new, fashion trend-setter as Secretary of State…and it isn’t Kerry or Richardson:

But then there is a second task he has to address, and that is to choose his Cabinet, to choose his foreign policy leadership, with which he will then make decisions.

And here, I think, a very important possibility that’s open to him — for the first time in a long time — is to create genuine bipartisanship in the decision-making process. And he can do that either by appointing a very distinguished leading Republican to the post of secretary of state. And there are some. And he has mentioned some of them by name. He’s traveled with some of them.

ZAKARIA: Who would you suggest they be?

BRZEZINSKI: Well, I would think, of course, such names come to mind, Senators Hagel and Lugar. But there may be others, but particularly those two.

I think that would be extremely reassuring and encouraging, both domestically and internationally, and would send the right signal.

Oops, where’s Olbermann on this? What does HIS fashion sense make of all this?

We then take a short detour for a rather smug exchange about McCain’s chance of winning the elite fashion world’s approval:

ZAKARIA: I should point out, there is, of course, a chance that Senator McCain will be elected president.

ALBRIGHT: Yes, we know …

(LAUGHTER)

The conversation continues with Albright discussing how the Obama crowd will change how things are done with a Republican Secretary of State, because, apparently with William Cohen, a Republican as Secretary of State under Clinton, things weren’t “bipartisan” enough. Frankly, it seems like just a bit too much “sensitivity” and only a chance to make a subtle dig at Clinton:

ZAKARIA: But let me ask you, Madeleine. You worked alongside a Republican secretary of defense, Bill Cohen. Does it work?

ALBRIGHT: I think it does. Though it was very funny, because when Bill first joined us, he used to say, “Well, you all have to do this.”

And we’d say, “What do you mean, ‘you all’? You are part of us.”

And I don’t know whether he thought of himself more as a senator dealing with the executive branch, or a Republican dealing with Democrats.

(LAUGHTER)

Ken and I have talked about this a lot.

DUBERSTEIN: Right.

ALBRIGHT: And we, in our own way, are going to do something about that, because I think, generally, there has to be a bipartisan approach. And people find it hard to believe that I was able to work with Jesse Helms. And because I was, I think we managed to get much further on NATO expansion, for instance, or a variety of issues.

You have to be able to work with the opposing party. That’s our system.

So, you’ve got a Republican in as Secretary of State, following the policies of Bill Clinton, but because his “style,” at first, isn’t quite up to par, the whole deal isn’t “bipartisan”?  But, oh, working with Jesse Helms..HEAVENLY!! HUH??

Zakaria then turns to the subject of Iran. Again, note how McCain’s fashion acumen is totally ignored in the set-up:

Madam Secretary, you spent some time trying to deal with Iran in your term in office, and you actually made some overtures — I thought very innovative ones. You apologized, in some sense, for America’s role in a coup that had brought the shah of Iran into power. You expressed regret about it. Some of those moves were reciprocated, many were not.

Obama faces, in a way, a similar challenge with regard to Iran.

Should he do something? Should he try and do something ambitious? Should he try and somehow restart a process you began?

Albright begins:

ALBRIGHT: The question is what’s going on in Iran, and whether — what the changes — Ahmadinejad is apparently not feeling well. He is facing elections.

I think we think of Iran as very monolithic, and it may not be. And that’s even more reason to actually begin talks with them. And talking is not necessarily making nice. It is delivering tough messages and listening.

(SNIP)

ZAKARIA: Ken, Reagan faced the same challenge in a way, because the issue was negotiating with the Soviets. He had seemed to suggest in his campaign that where they begin to — as he famously put it — they began to die on him, one after the other.

DUBERSTEIN: And then he finally got one he could work with, which was Mikhail Gorbachev.

But Reagan always thought that the power of ideas could triumph. And so, the answer was, of course you’re going to talk to your adversaries. And you’re going to listen to your adversaries, as well.

Duberstein then says that the U.S. hasn’t been talking enough (and certainly Clinton NEVER talked about the “power of ideas”), but then Brzezinski appears to say the opposite before giving away the store and Duberstein seems to agree:

ZAKARIA: Zbig, what about this point that both Madeleine and Ken are making about talking?

So, you start negotiations, perhaps with the Iranians. It seems to me Iran is not yet ready to rejoin the modern world. The regime rests on a certain oppositional element of defiance and opposition to the United States.

So, maybe we start talking and the talks don’t go very well. What do you then do?

BRZEZINSKI: Well, don’t forget that we have been negotiating with North Korea for quite a while, and we finally have made some progress. It hasn’t been consummated yet, but the progress has taken place. And China has played a very constructive role here.

It seems to me that, if we engage Iran in conversations, in negotiations — without preconditions, without demanding that, in advance of the negotiations, the Iranians concede on the critical issue of the negotiations — then we might be able to make some progress, and other countries are more likely to join us.

DUBERSTEIN: Precisely.

BRZEZINSKI: They’re also more likely to join us, if we don’t conduct these negotiations in an atmosphere of mutual abuse or of military threats, because that doesn’t help the atmosphere in the negotiations, and it also helps the Iranian extremists to mobilize public opinion behind them.

So, the style involved in the process is almost as important as the substance.

Then it’s back to how Clinton wore his foreign policy outfits. Not very well, it seems, so we get another dig at Clinton who apparently, displayed “arrogance” toward Europe…according to Zakaria.  (Are you buying this? It’s a new line on my radar…)

ZAKARIA: Madeleine, people in Europe tell me that they found that even dealing with the Clinton administration was tough in this regard, that there was — both on the economic side and the foreign policy side — there was a degree of American arrogance.

Oh, dear.

Then we come to the topic of Colin Powell, which reveals how Republican insider Duberstein has decided that the Colin Powell endorsement is the “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” for Republicans. Yes, Colin Powell takes home raves for his stylish appearance and performance at the U.N.!  And his accessories–those fake photos–to DIE FOR! (literally)

ZAKARIA: Let me ask you about your friend, Colin Powell.

DUBERSTEIN: Right.

ZAKARIA: Powell endorsed Obama — very public and very successful, I think, a moving endorsement.

You’re a Republican. You were Reagan’s chief of staff. Will you tell us who you’re going to vote for on Tuesday?

DUBERSTEIN: Well, let’s put it this way. I think Colin Powell’s decision is, in fact, the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on Barack Obama.

ZAKARIA: And you’re going to take it?

DUBERSTEIN: I think so.

ZAKARIA: And we have to close. Thank you all.

So, the poster boy for the entire Bush Iraq-U.N.-Congress fake-out gets a free pass these days, I guess. If you’re an Obama supporter, history be damned! But, at least Powell LOOKS good, in either a uniform or a snazzy suit!

Remember, this little fashion preview/Obama infomercial happened the day before the election.  The judges simply swooned politely and in full agreement, over Obama’s haberdashery without one iota of concern about the man’ substance.  A waste of airtime if you wanted to find out anything about policy. But, SIGH, what a package they described!!! Perfect in every way, from his tasteful ties down to his classy footwear!

Now, let’s go back to that mention of Gorbachev.  Post-election, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the PLO, Gorby is on the list of Obama admirers, perhaps hoping to get some sartorial tips from the man himself. (But what’s this I hear? Iran firing some sort of  new surface-to-surface missile?)  But Gorby is even MORE smitten.  From RIA Novosti, the Russian News Agency:

Gorbachev calls on Obama to carry out ‘perestroika’ in the U.S.

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has said that the Obama administration in the United States needs far-reaching ‘perestroika’ reforms to overcome the financial crisis and restore balance in the world.

The term perestroika, meaning restructuring, was used by Gorbachev in the late 1980s to describe a series of reforms that abolished state planning in the Soviet Union.

(SNIP)

Gorbachev said that after transforming his country in the late 1980s, he had told the Americans that it was their turn to act, but that Washington, celebrating its Cold War victory, was not interested in “a new model of a society, where politics, economics and morals went hand in hand.”

(SNIP)

He told the paper that the world is waiting for Obama to act, and that the White House needs to restore trust in cooperation with the United States among the Russians.

“This is a man of our times, he is capable of restarting dialogue, all the more since the circumstances will allow him to get out of a dead-end situation. Barack Obama has not had a very long career, but it is hard to find faults, and he has led an election campaign winning over the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton herself. We can judge from this that this person is capable of engaging in dialogue and understanding current realities.”(MORE)

Oh, I get chills every time I hear someone talk about “politics, economics and MORALS” in the same breath, don’t you?  Makes me want to go out and buy a new outfit!

I guess Gorby is blinded by the glitz, perhaps…after all, he cites the Obama campaign as an indicator of being able to “engage in dialogue.”  “Hard to find faults?” What? Well, Gorby hasn’t been in power for about 20 years and is hopelessly stuck with those big shoulder pads from the era, which is unfortunate for Obama, judging from what the current Russian leadership thinks of the new fashionistas in D.C..

Seems Vladamir Putin’s hand-picked successor Dmitry Medvedev has just moved a few new missiles to Poland’s borders.  Now, it looks like Vlad himself maybe ready to strut his stuff on the runway again.

Constitutional Changes Go to Duma

…National media reports have suggested that Medvedev might step down as early as next year, perhaps on the pretext of the need for a new election under a new Constitution, clearing the way for Putin to return.

The Cabinet official said he also doubted that Medvedev would use the constitutional amendments as a pretext to leave before the end of his term. But he added that he had heard rumors since Putin’s first day as prime minister that he was already tired of being the prime minister.

Back during July’s European vacation,  Obama came out of a meeting with Gordon Brown “shaken” (British Commentators: The Chosen One Looked “Shattered” After Meeting Brown….and Did Cameron/Obama Discuss “Conservative Means” to Achieve “Progressive Goals”? and it looked like a repeat performance after his security briefing just after the election.

Can you image how the new Obama style will fare if he has to meet up with Putin? Obama will probably suggest a friendly round of shooting hoops and won’t those Magic Foreign Policy Shoes make it special! Putin himself showed great “anti-style style” when he took off his shirt and displayed some great beefcake photos out there before he left the top office, so I don’t know how Obama’s lightweight style will compare.

Maybe Obama will have to be carried out on a stretcher, with his Magic Shoe-bedecked feet dangling limply a la the Elton John’s big shoes as the he’s carried off in “Tommy,” after “The Champ” is defeated in spite of his rhinestone glasses and shimmering outfit!

The Big Boots

Oh, but you can bet that the little lights on Obama’s Magic Foreign Policy Shoes will still be flashing for the folks back home.  After all, even if you get creamed, you’ve gotta keep up your STYLE no matter what…and “MAKE IT WORK”!

*****

NOTES:

See Minute 4:25 of Elton’s Pinball Wizard video to recall how those big shoes were carried out with “The Champ” and disappeared in disgrace …

The Story Unfolds 2: Obama, Biden, Brzezinski, Carter…and the Trilateral Commission?

You can buy vintage LA Gear Lights here for about $400…


The Scanner–Readers’ Edition:Top Comments/Reader Suggested Links Edition 11/12/08 (Some Choice Words on the “Post-Racial” Atmosphere at Work; Young Women & Misogyny; The Penis Code; George Soros)(UPDATE: Favorite Hate Mail Post Just Arrived!)

During this busy week following the election, we’ve had so many wonderful posts from all our visitors that it’s been unbelievable. It’s been hard to select a few, but hopefully these reflect many of the thoughts expressed over the past week by our visitors!–InsightAnalytical-GRL

***

Right after the election, we heard all about how we were now truly in a “post-racial” America, but we’ve included one comment from someone who had a different experience at work:

Posted by Leslie…Posted 11/11/09 at 10:08 AM

This past week, one of my colleagues came into my office to crow about the “post-racial” state of our country. She then began talking about Gov. Palin and her lack of experience, her dishonesty, her stupidity, her poor mothering, etc, etc, etc. I said that if she had to speak about anything “post-racial”, then we weren’t post-racial at all. That if anything, race played a HUGE role in this election. I asked her if she could name any of our AA colleagues, who voted for McCain or anyone other than Obama. She was astonished that I could ask that question.
“Of course, there wasn’t anyone. Why would there be.”
I replied that was the point of my question. Why wouldn’t there be a Black person who voted for McCain? If people voted to see a black person as President, then there was nothing post-racial about their votes.
Then I asked her why she would come to my office and say those things about Sarah Palin? How could she speak about someone who worked her way from the PTA to the Governorship of a US state, as stupid? A heated discussion ensued. I then asked her why she was promoting misogyny. She was astonished again that I, a “loyal Democrat” who supported Kerry, Edwards, Bill Clinton, would consider that talking against Gov. Palin was misogyny. When I pointed out that the same things she was saying about Palin could easily be said about Obama she was stunned. I then said that every time she talks about Sarah Palin in the way she was doing, she was giving permission to attack women everywhere. That her own daughters could as easily be attacked as Sarah Palin was. I asked her to stop talking about Sarah Palin in such disrespectful and dishonest ways, or to leave my office. I also said that if she wanted to talk about equality, she should look at herself and see how her behavior, her “hate” speech said it is okay to be black, but not a female in this nation.
I guess I lost it.
Later that day, I was talking about this w/another doc, (male), who said, “you’ve really changed”. I replied that I hadn’t changed. I said the Democratic party had changed and I wasn’t about to take it sitting down. I said that I have just begun to fight – again for equality — for everyone. I don’t know where to start, though. or, maybe I already have.

My head is exploding when I see the “royalty” label applied. When I mentioned this to my sister, she said, “Look at the way they carry themselves. They look regal”. I can’t talk to her anymore.

Posted in response to:

From The Past Week, November 2-8: Recaps & Random Thoughts (Chicago Trib’s “RedEye” Pic of “Royalty”; Frightening Treatment of McCain Supporter in Philly on Election Night; The Price Paid Due to Non-Voters (Deals with Ministers); Help “Free Us Now Mavericks” Hosted by Betty Jean Kling; Stray Dog Update,

***

The same day we received another comment in response to same piece that further explored the frustration many of us feel about young women’s acceptance of the current onslaught of misogyny…In it, Northwest rain coined a particularly strong phrase, “…the word “experience” is a code word for penis.”

Northwest rain, on November 9th, 2008 at 4:50 am Said:

Thank you for the link to Betty Jean Klings online radio show.

Her guest Dr. Long — made the same observations as I did — about Obama the brand (illusion) and Obama the man. Axel-snot was selling a produce — an illusion that your life will be perfect if you buy the product.

Good news about your little visitor finding the food.

When are the young women going to take up the battle fighting sexism? The gentleman friend of a good friend was born before women could vote — and he clearly remembers when his mother won the right to vote. He does not understand why young women were so vicious toward Hillary Clinton.

And these young women who wore the C*** t-shirts — and the fool who hung Palin’s effigy — these were NOT off limits. We know full well what would happen if the N*** word was used on t-shirts with Obama’s name. But t-shirts saying Bro before Ho.

Sad state of affairs when the word “experience” is a code word for penis — as is Palin doesn’t have enough “experience” — but O-zero has “experience”.

(More coming on this latter comment….IA)

***

We got a post from one of our favorite trolls in response to our post on Sarah Palin’s interview with Greta van Susteren, Did You See Sarah Palin Live with Greta? WOW!! In the Kitchen, Meal Prep and Policy…(UPDATE 1X–Video Up) who queried:

How come you’re not covering this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/sarahpalin/3405336/Sarah-Palin-blamed-by-the-US-Secret-Service-for-death-threats-against-Barack-Obama.html

IA responded, but we liked this comment, too, from ks:

ks, on November 11th, 2008 at 10:21 am Said:

Good interview by Greta. It’s very appararent that the blogger boyz are intimidated by her though they desperately lust after her and the, for lack of a better term, feminist establishment, is irrationally jealous of her.

In terms of the latter, I’ve never seen so many normally rational women get so unhinged about another women. Several times, I’ve had to simply give several people the “you’re talking crazy” look when they’ve gone off on crazed tirades about Palin. There is something about her that so threatens certain women sense of themselves that pathologically react to her in an over the top fashion.

About that Secret Service article in the Telegraph, well, it’s nonsense. Notice that it doesn’t have a direct quote from the SS saying what the headline claims? Notice that it doesn’t point out that the “kill him” claim was investigated by the SS and was proved to be unfounded? Now there may have been an increase in death threats to Obama based on ERRONEOUS REPORTING of the media and the SS merely did it’s job but to try and spin that as the Telegraph does and say, “the SS blames Palin…blah…blah…blah” is garbage.

***

We finish off with some choice words from sonrisa in response to our post Sarah Palin, Nicolle Wallace, CBS, Katie Couric…Too Close for Comfort? (And What of George and Jeb?) which captured the cynacism many of us feel:

sonrisa, on November 10th, 2008 at 9:57 pm Said: Edit Comment

yeah, Something Wicked This Way Comes. I’ve been thinking about that old Bradbury carney novel for the past few weeks- & now we got the clown running the country. Puts me in mind of Stephen King’s It.

I agree that something’s going on here that we don’t know about, altho I have my guesses, especially after reading Grail’s post about Soros & Hillary. Grail, I don’t for a minute think Hillary & Soros are lily white & squeaky clean (but I’m not convinced they’re entirely bad either) my question, “if Hillary is Soro’s girl then how come she’s no longer running for Prez?” pertained to Soros, not Hillary. This dude eats punks like the ones that call themselves the Daley Machine for lunch. If Soros wanted Hillary in the White House we would of elected our 1st woman Prez last week. Instead he let the Daley’s put their prop in the White House. Something’s up.

Thanks again to everyone who’s posted this week!  We’ll keep our eyes open for more great comments for a future post.  And links to things you’ve seen around the internet are welcome, too!

***

Favorite hate mail post just arrived this morning in response to the Palin interview post! Let me share!

the panther’s claw

Keep mewing, PUMA-cowards. We’ll see how long IA stands.

The best way to kill the beast is to start in it’s belly.

Another U.S. is possible.

From Did You See Sarah Palin Live with Greta? WOW!! In the Kitchen, Meal Prep and Policy…(UPDATE 1X–Video Up), 2008/11/12 at 7:55 AM

Did You See Sarah Palin Live with Greta? WOW!! In the Kitchen, Meal Prep and Policy…(UPDATE 1X–Video Up)

~~By InsightAnalytical-GRL

UPDATE 1–The video of Part 1 of this 2 Part interview (Part 2 is tonight, 11/11) in up at FOX but I had to search for it!  (Maybe they’re burying this deliberately.) Here is the link to where I found it…Greta’s Inteview With Sarah Palin Greta has some pics of the Gov’s Office on her GretaWire blog right now.

9 PM  MT Time (7 PM Alaska Time)

I have to say this was an amazing thing put together by Greta van Susteren. Live from Alaska, an extensive interview with Sarah Palin. When the video goes up, WATCH!

I caught most of the filmed segment in the Governor’s Office where the discussion was about her being “handled” and her “feminism.”

Well, she was unapologetic about going off script…she wanted to talk more about the qualities of John McCain, the man, and she said she had no regrets when she did so.

As for the question about whether she was a feminist…She said she considered herself one, “whatever that means” and talked about all the things women who work and raise families have in common. Greta asked her if the flack from the left was about abortion, and Palin said most likely, but she said that the key thing was to work to lower the number of abortions through information, and all the other means at our disposal…She sounded pretty “Clintonian” to me on the subject. She clearly felt that if that was the “be end and end all,” then women were missing an opportunity to forge a stronger presence.

Greta also asked her about 2012 and she was quite open to 4 years or 8 years if things like family circumstances, etc. were favorable. In other words, she sounded like she was very open to the idea of getting out there again, and spoke about how much she would like to do something for the country on a broader scale.

The other subjects of conversation that stood out was when she talked about her family and how her kids saw that offensive 4-letter word on a T-shirt as they drove through Philadelphia.

And I was really ticked off again about all that degradation of Palin, how she was an insult and inexperienced, when, in the course of the conversation, said she was used to the hardball of politics even at the local level and how it didn’t faze her because she had been at it since 1992. Where was Obama in 1992?? What has he done that makes him more experienced as a leader than someone who has worked there way up since 1992??

By far the best part of the interview was conducted in her home….LIVE…from the kitchen, as she prepared dinner. She was taking the skin off a pile of big franks and she worked steadily on stuffing them with extras.  All the while, she spoke clearly on energy and how she wanted to see a cleaner planet and energy independence. She talked about how Alaska has as much coastline as the rest of the U.S. and how there are so many resources that can be developed through technology that can then be exported to other countries…tidal power, wind power, geothermal.  She felt that there was an opportunity for bringing together environmentalists and “the development crowd” as she described her leanings into a synergy where “something could get done.”

What really got me was how she MULTI-TASKED–cooking dinner and talking about all sort of complicated issues at the same time.  When have you seen a candidate for VP do THAT?? But this is what women do everyday, without skipping a beat…and what makes Sarah Palin a real person to so many people,  not just another pre-fabbed politician.

So the question I thought of was –Could BARACK OBAMA do that as smoothly and naturally?  I doubt it!  He is so scripted and basically, phony, that he wouldn’t even deign to pick up a hot dog and discuss energy policy at the same time!!  The joke used to be that Gerry Ford couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time…Well, Sarah Palin doesn’t have THAT problem.

Tomorrow, there’s part 2 of the interview (Tuesday, 11/11)…I’ll be watching, for sure! (Moose chili on the menu…)  This interview tonight made it clear that Alaska is not hicktown…It looks like everwhere else in the US, for those who think Palin dropped in from another planet…(boy, what a great kitchen), which might be news to some of the “elite” who fester in DC.

After Greta, I happened to see a couple of minutes of Glenn Beck on O’Reilly. O’Reilly had opened with Palin’s discussion of the “jerks” out there and then Beck said an interesting thing: that she TOOK ON THE POWERFUL in the party…which lends credence to our suspicions about how they’re trying to do her in. He also said that she disagreed with McCain on a lot of things.  He said that she called him and told him that people weren’t booking her on shows, so she was going to do it herself. And she did…going on his show among others. More indication that she was getting a bum deal from her handlers…Nicolle Wallace, perhaps?  (See Sarah Palin, Nicolle Wallace, CBS, Katie Couric…Too Close for Comfort? (And What of George and Jeb?) O’Reilly said the media would “kill her” and my reaction was, “NOT IF I CAN HELP IT!”

All I can say is…GO SARAH!!!