The Bush administration is in the ground, the flowers wilted, and the social graces extended to bitter rivals complete and forgotten. Business as usual.
Mr Sarkozy is pouring cold water on President Obama's efforts to recast American leadership on the world stage, depicting them as unoriginal, unsubstantial and overrated. Behind leaks and briefings from the Elysée Palace lies Mr Sarkozy's irritation at the rock-star welcome that Europe gave Mr Obama on his Europan tour earlier this month.The American President's call "to free the world of the menace of a nuclear nightmare" was hot air, Mr Sarkozy's diplomatic staff told him in a report. "It was rhetoric – not a speech on American security policy but an export model aimed at improving the image of the United States," they said. Most of Mr Obama's proposals had already been made by the Bush administration and Washington was dragging its feet on disarmament and treaties against nuclear proliferation, the leaked report said.
Everyone reading this already knows this. The people who believe the Obama drama aren't particularly literate in the first place.
Sarkozy's actions reflect the simple, unalterable reality of international politics--we are rivals, not lovers. The politics of national pride insure that the U.S.A. will always be the target of international criticism, while the realities of an economically integrated world demand American leadership. One could argue that Obama is playing the international politics completely wrong, but upshot is that there is no "right way". The bottom line is that the U.S. is always in somebody's way.
Obama is no doubt counting on the fact that black people don't read the Times...
Comments (6)
"... counting on the fact that black people don't read the Times?"
(Seemed out of character and out of context with your thread of thought)
What's up?
Posted by lynn christensen | April 16, 2009 6:31 PM
Posted on April 16, 2009 18:31
Seems pretty clear. Blacks as a constituency have routine and predictable behaviors and preferences--Reading the London Times wouldn't be one of them, hence not causing Obama too much political worry.
Posted by Mick Stockinger | April 17, 2009 2:29 PM
Posted on April 17, 2009 14:29
Where did you mention blacks at all, until the last sentence? It's a non seqiutur.
Even if it's a spontaneous after-thought, why do you disparage? Blacks aren't even a critical constituency for Obama's foreign policies. Yet, you pick on them as a group.
And what's with the "seems pretty clear" response? If it was clear, it wouldn't have warranted a question.
You're a great writer, good thinker- but being a little condescending here.
Posted by lynn christensen | April 17, 2009 6:42 PM
Posted on April 17, 2009 18:42
Since the post deals with the dichotomy between the realities of foreign policy and the exigencies of domestic politics, mentioning Obama's critical black constituency is entirely syllogistic. The optics of apologizing for gun-running into Mexico or whatever imaginary sin this sonofabitch lays at the door of his fellow citizens, is what really counts.
How is it disparaging to say that African Americans don't read the London Times? Do you read the London Times? Would you feel disparaged if I said you didn't read it?
This ridiculous sensitivity to racial slight is literally mind-numbing--its preventing you from thinking clearly about what's going on in our political environment.
This frankly is one of the big reasons I've retired from blogging--its become impossible to have an honest discussion without tripping over either a right or left-wing shibboleth. I just don't want to play any more.
Posted by Mick Stockinger | April 17, 2009 9:07 PM
Posted on April 17, 2009 21:07
My 2 cents: I agree with Mick on this. The monolithic black support of Obama in the election is an issue, especially when that support hurts America and especially blacks. See eg Thomas Sowell.
Posted by mark | April 18, 2009 2:46 AM
Posted on April 18, 2009 02:46
I understand.
Thanks.
Posted by lynn christensen | April 18, 2009 2:52 PM
Posted on April 18, 2009 14:52