…. otherwise they never would have made these extreme statements.  Rats have lives too. Mr. Abbas, tear down your anti-rat prejudice.    (Also, just how do you think the Israelis are able to restrict these rats to the Arab Quarter and not have them infest the Jewish Quarter as well? Inquiring minds want to know.)

It has been generally agreed that Obama knows how to talk the talk - at least when no one is asking him any questions - and his people are evidently very aware of it.  Jenny Backus, who is working on convention preparations for Denver, spoke with the Rocky Mountain News:
On that other Obama convention speech, in 2004, that introduced him to the nation:

“No one more than Barack Obama understands how important it is to deliver a convention speech well,” Backus said. “He wouldn’t be where he is if he didn’t know how to deliver convention speeches.”

No kidding.

One indication that Iraq may actually be evolving into a democracy is that its Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki seems to be emerging as a genuine “pol” of the type we are used to in the West.  His interview with Der Spiegel is right out of the conventional politician playbook, right up to the non-denial denial about taking sides in the US election.  This too sounds like a “talking point” from one of our Sunday morning “Sabbath gasbags”: “The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn’t.”  Ah… democracy.  What did Churchill say about it?

While Barack Obama burnishes his foreign policy credentials in distant war zones, I will burnishing my “kickback”  credentials in two domestic locales in the next two weeks - Paradise Base I (Bainbridge Island, WA) and Paradise Base II (Hanalei Bay, Kauai). So far I am not being accompanied by any media.  I will let you know if this changes. Blog reports to follow. 

Before making our travel reservations, we lovers of Korean food await word on the restaurant plans at the finally-to-be-completed “Hotel of Doom” in Pyongyang.

For those in the Los Angeles area, where there is plenty of great Korean food, rogerlsimon.com gives its official three forks (or three chopsticks) to Park Restaurant (we like it even better than the LATimes does).

According to the NYT, Obama has a brain trust of 300 (!) foreign policy advisers.  Talk about dizzying.  It’s a little hard to sift through five opinions let along 300.  But so it goes.  The man clearly wants to burnish his foreign policy bona  fides.  But it’s reassuring, at least in part.  If you page through the list, you find many familiar names who have worked in the field for years for various administrations.  [Who hasn’t Dennis Ross worked for?-ed.]

Still, you have to look at this list as a giant application form for job-seeking foreign policy journeymen.  A few weeks back when it looked as if Obama was a slam-dunk for the presidency, they were probably signing up in droves.  Now, with the election tightening, perhaps some of them will consider signing up with McCain.  Of course, then they might have to deal with someone who already has his own opinions about the subject.  Obama seems like a tabula rasa.

Of course in that regard she (Elizabeth Alexander) is hardly different from most of her ilk, sent out to force-feed the public with inanities to preserve the reputations of their bosses.  Her boss, Senator Joe Biden, just took some justifiable flak for doing a volte-face on Obama and Afghanistan.  Mark Murray and Domenico Montenaro wrote on First Read:

While Joe Biden is defending Obama over the Illinois senator’s lack of subcommittee hearings on the issue of Afghanistan, opponents of Obama’s candidacy have reminded us of some unflattering things the then-Biden campaign said on this topic.

“We find it a little disingenuous that Sen. Obama is hailing this as a new bold initiative when he has neglected to join his colleagues in the Senate when the opportunities have been there to redirect our forces into Afghanistan” Biden campaign manager Luis Navarro said at the time. “It’s good to see Sen. Obama has finally arrived at the right position, but this can hardly be considered bold leadership.” Ouch.

Poor Elizabeth Alexander, Biden spokeswoman, was rushed in for this puerile defense:

“I doubt many people would be surprised to find out that Senator Biden and Obama ran against each other last year. Unlike Senator McCain, Senator Obama understands that the responsibility of the next President goes beyond being Commander-in-Chief for Iraq — he has to be Commander-in-Chief for America’s security in the world. That’s why he supports re-centering our foreign policy and beginning a responsible redeployment of American combat forces from Iraq.” 

Say what?  John McCain not aware of global scurity? Is that a laugh line or about the dumbest “talking point” you could dredge out of the remains of a limited mind?  Inthis endless politics season, the level of discourse is increasingly wretched and insulting.

For Ms. Alexander’s benefit, John McCain discusses “global” issues here. Care to compare that to Barack Obama or even the vaunted Senator Biden?

I had been a huge fan of Greg Gutfeld’s posts on the Huffington Post.  They put the counter in counter-programming or the bomp in the bomp-bomp she-bomb - or something like that.  So I was mildly disappointed in the initial runs of his Red Eye Show on Fox.  Not lately.  He seems to have located his mojo - this Greg-a-logue especially.

When I read the following in the NYT, all I could think of was Dan Rather:

Senator John McCain’s trip to Iraq last spring was a low-key affair: With his ordinary retinue of reporters following him abroad, the NBC News anchor Brian Williams reported on his arrival in Baghdad from New York, with just two sentences tacked onto the “in other political news” portion of his newscast.

But when Obama heads for Iraq and other locations overseas this summer, Williams is planning to catch up with him in person, as are the other two evening news anchors, Charles Gibson of ABC and Katie Couric of CBS, who, like Williams, are far along in discussions to interview Obama on successive nights.

And while the anchors are jockeying for interviews with Obama at stops along his route, the regulars on the Obama campaign plane will have new seat mates: star political reporters from the major newspapers and magazines who are flocking to catch Obama’s first overseas trip since becoming the presumptive nominee of his party.

Poor Dan, deprived of a junket like this by a bunch of bloggers. [What’s he going to do with all those flak jackets?-ed.  Recycle.] In any case, Obama, a man who has spent an extraordinary percentage of his adult life running for office, is headed for Iraq to burnish his foreign policy bona fides in the company of an entourage of those same hoity-toity tuches kissers that boosted his campaign in the first place.  Sounds like a great prescription for “fact-finding,” doesn’t it?  [Actually, it would make a good premise for a black comedy à la Paddy Chayevsky.-ed.  You know, you’re right for once. Who gets caught in bed with Katie Couric?]

It seems the US is going to talk the happy talk with Iran (or at least listen).  According to the AP: “In a break with past Bush administration policy, a top U.S. diplomat will for the first time join colleagues from other world powers at a meeting with Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator…”

Well, not to quibble but we have been here before, although perhaps not on nuclear issues, but who knows even about that?  Secret back channel negotiations have always been a diplomatic staple.  Still it seems Ahmadinejad is obsessed with meeting the Americans face-to-face and mano-a-mano: “At the same time, though, he said he would welcome direct, bilateral talks with the U.S. if both parties are on ‘equal footing’ and told state television such talks could happen ‘in the near future.’ He did not elaborate nor say whether any definite plans were under way.”

Equal footing?  Well, let’s give the man what he wants.  Why not propose the President of the United States meets with his Iranian counterpart to iron things out?

That, however, is of course not Ahamdinejad.  As the bien pensants are repeatedly reminding and reassuring us when Crazy Ahmad makes one of his apocalyptic/racist pronouncements, he is not the real power in Iran. We should not be alarmed.  The real power is Ayatollah Khamenei.

Fine. That being the case, why should a President Bush (or Obama… or McCain) waste time negotiating with a semi-elected figurehead who goes around making statements like there are no gays in Iran?  It’s insulting and unequal.   So I propose our President request a direct meeting with his peer, their head of state, Khamenei. I know the State Department would snort because such things are “not done,” but why?  We are at a moment of historic impasse with drastic actions being contemplated.  Why not talk with the Ayatollah, exposing his answers for the world to see?  Perhaps whatever President could begin by asking him if he supports a period of global chaos to bring forth the Shia Mahdi. That would be interesting.  So I say, let’s start negotiating - but with the right man.