Are they part of the "Axis of Evil"? Or is that just Dick Cheney?

Remember "The Boy who Cried Wolf"?

vote for McCain

Obama's Brandenburg Concerto

By ROMESH RATNESAR

Berlin has not always been a friendly place for American politicians. Shortly after the Soviet Union began construction of the Berlin Wall, John F. Kennedy sent Vice President Lyndon Johnson to West Berlin. "They'll be a lot of shooting and I'll be in the middle of it," Johnson told an aide. "Why me?" Seven years later, West German leftists plotted to hurl pudding-filled balloons at Hubert Humphrey during his trip to the city; the police managed to disrupt the plan, but Humphrey was booed and heckled everywhere he went. And while history remembers Ronald Reagan's challenge to Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Wall, it's usually forgotten that Reagan's visit to West Berlin occasioned the worst rioting the city had seen since the 1960s, prompting officials to shut down the city's subway system for the only time in its history.

Barack Obama will surely receive a warmer reception in Berlin next week. But the mini-controversy that has surrounded his planned visit highlights the mix of admiration and suspicion with which Berliners view Presidential pilgrimages to their city. The current source of dispute is Obama's purported desire to give a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate, the backdrop for Reagan's 1987 address. Through a spokesman, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said she regards the possibility of Obama's speaking there "with a certain bewilderment ... No German politician would come up with the idea to do such a thing at the National Mall in D.C."

To some, it's Merkel's bewilderment that's bewildering. Speculation abounds that the White House pressured the Germans to deny Obama his made-for-cable-TV moment. So far not a shred of evidence has surfaced, but the whole affair led at least one German commentator to call on Obama to "put all this fuss to an end," have a quick tea with Merkel, pose for some pictures and get out of town.

Why the touchiness? Berlin has long been used by Presidential image-makers as a political prop. During the Cold War, the city was the proving ground of the East-West conflict, the principal theater in the struggle between freedom and authoritarianism. Truman made the first Presidential visit to postwar Berlin, driving through the ruins of the city in the wake of the Allied bombardment. The Allies' refusal to abandon the city to the Soviets, demonstrated most dramatically during the Berlin airlift of 1948, endeared a generation of Berliners to the U.S. When Kennedy arrived in Berlin in 1962, the city was gripped by something approaching mass hysteria; Kennedy later confided that had he called on the throng - an estimated 750,000 witnessed his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech at Schoenberg City Hall — to tear down the Wall, they would have done it.

Kennedy's speech was highly choreographed: in the book Kennedy in Berlin, Andreas W. Daum writes that the White House wanted Kennedy "to see, to be seen and to publicize this visibility as much as possible throughout the world for the benefit of those not participating." Reagan's visit in 1987 was a similar exercise in stagecraft, orchestrated by the Michael Deaver-trained White House Advance office. Early that year, U.S. officials in Berlin approached the WEST German authorities with the idea of Reagan's speaking in front of the Reichstag or the Brandenburg Gate, in view of the Wall. The Berlin officials adamantly opposed the idea, fearing disturbances on the eastern side of the Wall. Once they got a glimpse of the Brandenburg backdrop, though, Reagan's men knew they had their site. "I've always felt that the content was driven by the location," says Jim Hooley, the head of Reagan's advance office. "The speechwriters came away inspired by the fact that Reagan would be giving the speech with the Wall at his back. Could you imagine Reagan saying, 'Tear Down that Wall that's over there three miles away, Mr. Gorbachev?'"

As it turns out, though, Kennedy and Reagan are remembered today less for the staging that went into their visits than for the power of the words they delivered. The two phrases that resonate — "Ich bin ein Berliner" and "Tear Down this Wall" — embodied the personalities of both Presidents and their intuitive flair for the moment; in both cases, Kennedy and Reagan personally saw to it that those phrases stayed in their speeches, despite the misgivings of some of their aides. Even more importantly, though, both speeches underscored the U.S.'s unshakable commitment to a free and unified Europe, a resolve that helped bring an end to the Cold War. Obama has yet to show that kind of clarity in articulating how to promote American ideals and interests in a much different world, but now would be a good time to do so. In the end it won't matter whether he speaks in front of the Brandenburg Gate. What matters is what he says.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1822247,00.html

A FEW WISE WORDS

During this political season lets be reminded of these wise words...

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

In other words, Vote for John McCain.

Since neither candidate is doing any of these things, I don't se the relevance of this.

That's it! Mr. Babe does his own laundry from now on!!

McLaughlin takes heat for 'Oreo' comment

(CNN) — Longtime Washington talk-show host John McLaughlin is facing fire Monday for referring to Barack Obama as an "Oreo" during a segment on his Sunday political program, "The McLaughlin Group.

The veteran Washington journalist was discussing the recent comments from the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who was caught last week by an open microphone on Fox News saying the Illinois senator is "talking down to black people" as he campaigns for the White House. Those remarks were largely seen in reference to Obama's recent admonishment at a Chicago church of some black men who he said were not living up to their responsibilities as parents.

Referencing Jackson's comments, McLaughlin said Obama "fits the stereotype blacks once labeled as an Oreo — a black on the outside, a white on the inside."

"Does it frost Jackson, Jesse Jackson, that…an Oreo should be the beneficiary of the long civil rights struggle which Jesse Jackson spent his lifetime fighting for?" McLaughlin asked his panelists.

The term "Oreo" is often viewed as a derogatory term toward some African-Americans who appear not to exhibit certain stereotypes of their race.

Watch: McLaughlin's comments cause uproar

Panelist Peter Beinart, a senior fellow on the Council of Foreign Relations, immediately called that depiction of Obama "completely unfair."


Michelle Bernard, another panelist on the program and the president of the Independent Women's Forum also said she disagreed with the comments, saying "If Barack Obama is an Oreo, then every member of this generation of African-Americans is an Oreo, because we stand on the shoulders of the people who fought for our rights, and all of us say that you cannot blame 'the man' or white racism for everything that ails the black community."

Roland Martin, a CNN contributor and host of a syndicated radio show, says some people may be overreacting to McLaughlin's remark.

"Obama's candidacy is bringing to light to the internal conversation that is taking place in black America and white America. I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with the dialogue," he said. "If John McLaughlin was an African American and who had made the comment, people would have said, well, he probably understands what he's talking about."

"The reality is we also have a white, his mother is white and his dad is from Kenya," Martin also said. "I think that is the qualifier there and this is a debate that you have heard take place inside of the black community that you also have people who question someone like Obama, where does he stand? Is he black enough?"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/14/mclaughlin-takes-heat-for-oreo-comment/

Just wondering what the thoughts are here regarding the Obama cartoon on the cover of the New Yorker. I understand when they say that the purpose was to highlight all of the stereotypes that he's been smeared with; however, I can't help but think that some people are too stupid to get it. And those are the people who will perpetuate the stereotypes.

New Yorker

Wait, Obama isn't Muslim?

Seriously, though, stereotype subversion always courts the same problems: that there are some who, as you say, won't "get" it. I've done it several times on this board and people have taken it the wrong way (because, essentially, the "joke" is an in-joke, not really designed to be understood by all).

I don't see what's wrong with the cover.

Doesn't bother me, either. And I've been a supporter of his since the beginning.

I just envision some people looking at it and saying, "See! I was right about him all along!".

Are those the same people who wouldn't have considered him as a candidate anyway? Probably. They also probably don't read The New Yorker.

I doubt THE NEW YORKER sells much in West Virginia.

Well,maybe I'm the only one,but I think it's awful...and I do believe in freedom of speech/press. I'm kind of torn.

I have seen the NYer publicaton before, but can't say I've read it to any extent. I only recently heard it tends to "lean left". By the cartoon, I would not have guessed it. They did explain that the joke is what all the falsehoods about Obama are. Ok, I get that now, BUT hadn't they explained it, I wouldn't have gotten it. And Yes, there are many many people who will take this as fact and/or confirm what people want to believe about him. I keep reading/hearing in their defense, how "sophisticated" the NYer is and that "it's" readers totally get it. Well, does that mean those who don't read it are idiots???? Unsophisticated? I don't think so.

By contrast, can they do one on McCain (I'm adding to a suggestion I read on a blog), perhaps in "depends" diaper (indicating the jokes about his age) and perhaps he can have his first wife by his side, while his hand can be on the ass of Cindy?? Would that be ok? Is there a line to be drawn?

I guess my analysis would be it's tasteless to say the least.

TIS

Though Obama's opinion is as irrelevant as those who don't and won't understand the joke, would your opinion of it change if he said himself he found it amusing?

Since he called her a c*nt I think his hand should be elsewhere.

The New Yorker knew what it was doing. So to be fair, why not put McCain on the cover with an enraged look on his face while being held captive as a POW? Or having McCain shouting at his wife, calling her the c-word? The New Yorker did it to sell copy and create a controversy, plain and simple.

I'd give kudos to Obama if that was the case, and say "good for him." Would I still find it "tastelss", yes.



TIS

One commentator yesterday, on one of the cable news stations, suggested it would have been totally different and more understandble take on this picture, had they inserted someone like Rove drawing these pictures.


TIS

This cartoon is satire that doesn't work very well. Though it’s a caricature of the stupid superficial nature of American politicking, it is way too subtle satire for most people. For example this cartoon is all over the right-wing blogosphere as fact, so it is being taken seriously as a boost to those it is meant to make fun of! So it fails because it instead of the intent of skewering the common misconceptions people have of the Obamas, it just further fuels the rumors.

Well said. You put into words what has bothered me about it.

True, but when it comes to politics of any kind (politics per se, religion, etc.), satire is always going to be "way too subtle for most people". The vast majority of people are too embedded in their own beliefs to see the (in)significance of it all. The Left takes it on the chin and smiles along with it, while the Right nods in ironic agreement how correct it was to hold firm to its stubborn beliefs.

All satire preaches to the converted, when looked at from within its own political sphere.

How funny and brilliant the joke is if no one really gets it? Oh we and the New Yorker writers may chuckle and lavish in our narcissistic irony and intellectual superiority over the masses, but this election is just too important right now this stuff. I am sensitive because I've been living under the Bush regime for 8 years, you haven't. See it from THAT perspective. I heard the polls going dead even today and it now looks to me like there's a good chance we're going to have a 3rd term of Bush. And if it happens it will be the sort of mindless bigotry portrayed by that cartoon that carries McBush over the top. Mindless bigotry the cool urban hip New Yorkers care more about chuckling over than using some of their power to change our actual lives and get us away from this neocon nightmare.

Good satire in which we are meant to comprehend that the satirist does not believe what he or she is ostensibly portraying but is criticizing those who nurture such a belief, provides a context or a frame. It should have been deep in the magazine where people that actually READ the New Yorker that get it would understand. Not on the cover, this election is just far to important. Do the New Yorker editors have NO CLUE what the rest of the country thinks?

Yes, in essence, this is correct. Satire is different from propaganda (though many may mistake it for propaganda) in that it's created by and for those who lie outside of the sphere involved. It's a cultural product, a form of intellectual humour, however much it strokes one's ego. However,

Yes. I hadn't thought of it that way before, because, I must confess, I don't know the consequences; I didn't even know Bush could run for another term, and I've never heard of "polls going dead".

The magazine involved is aware of who it writes for, who reads it, and must have been aware of the feathers this would ruffle at this particular time. Your concern is a genuine and valid one.

It seems more badly-judged (or -timed, the two may mean the same thing) than "tasteless", though.

Well, not BUSH third term, just a Bush-like third term with McCain/McBush.

We are meant to comprehend, and should comprehend. (Satire is intellectually superior for the reasons that people don't comprehend it, choose not to comprehend it. But I mustn't think about it too much; it's too lamentable, too depressing, to think some people have reacted to this in the way they have.)

Agreed.

If the fate of the elections and in turn the country itself depends upon one cartoon, then there isn't much hope anyway, right?

If a satirist has to go public to explain "it was just a joke," as the New Yorker did, then it was poor satire. This magazine appears on racks all over the country and many people have no idea what the New Yorker is, what its political leanings are or anything else. This was an irresponsible and tasteless act and it has lowered the standing of a great magazine.

BTW there is a counter cartoon going around the net depicting McCain as a senile old coot with his wife handling and popping all kinds of pills, a constitution burning in the fireplace and a picture of Cheney on the mantle. It is equaly tasteless.