U.S. bloggers were outraged apparently. Australian bloggers were just as vocal.

Open Democracy used their signature cartoon to comment. They also quoted online media service Crikey.

from Crikey …..

Our Johnny keeps the Obamas out

Richard Farmer writes:

It is always a bit embarrassing in Washington when there's a new President. The old one hangs around in the White House for two and a half months after the election while the new one prepares his team to take over.

The normal thing to make the home switching as painless as possible is for the incoming President to take up residence a couple of weeks before the official inauguration in Blair House, the President's guesthouse, managed by the Office of the Chief of Protocol at 1651 Pennsylvania Avenue. This January things have been different and Washington insiders were puzzled as to why Barack Obama, his wife and two children were spending their time in a Washington Hotel.

Did this mark a new point in relations between incoming and outgoing, Democrat and Republican? Was George W Bush practicing some final form of revenge?

At last such unwholesome speculation has ended with the Washington Post revealing this morning “Blair House Mystery Solved: It's John Howard”. The veil is lifted, said the report. “We now know who is booked at Blair House, kicking President-elect Barack Obama and his family to the waiting list and across Lafayette Park to the Hay-Adams Hotel. The only overnight visitor at the presidential guest manse is none other than John Howard, a former Australian prime minister and leading member of President Bush's coalition of the willing in Iraq.”

Our Johnny will be in Washington to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom from his retiring friend George Dubya on 13 January. Whereas fellow recipients of that honour, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, declined the presidential invitation to stay at Blair House and found private accommodation the Howard entourage accepted the invitation to bunk down at Blair House on the night of 12 January.

The Obama family are now scheduled to move in on 15 January.

the value of a self-important rattus …..

 Jeremy Sear used his usual sarcasm at An Onymous Lefty:

Our exiled former leader (only overseas can he escape the cruel derision of his former subjects) tries his hand at humility:

“This is very nice, but it is a compliment to the country”, says John Howard of the ironically-named “Medal of Freedom” he's about to accept from Bush.

I think I speak more on behalf of Australians than you do, John, when I say - please, feel free to keep that “compliment” from George W Bush all for yourself. No need to pass it on to the country that rejected you. No, really, we insist. Don't ascribe it to us - we don't want it, the man who's giving it, or the man who's receiving it.

Thanks, but no thanks.

I still represent you, even if you don't want me

Scott at GrodsCorp explains through a series of links why those on the left are laughing.

Former Prime Minister John Howard is set to receive the US Medal Of Freedom from outgoing President George W. Bush. Of course, the award has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Howard was one of only a few leaders who pledged his full support for the flailing President in the face of overwhelming opposition from most of the world.

The Medal Of Freedom is awarded to people who “work to improve the lives of their citizens and… promote democracy, human rights and peace abroad.”

I could only fit one link on each “achievement”, so what are some other examples of John Howard’s commitment to improving lives, promoting democracy, defending human rights, and fighting for peace?

UPDATE: Of John Howard, MK sez: “Humble as always.” The larfs!

Howard’s “achievements” recognised

The reference to MK is to a post on right wing blog Crusader Rabbit that defines its purpose in no uncertain terms as: “Radical islam has two allies here in the West - the Left and political correctness. The fight is with all three.” The post:

LiveNews - Former prime minister John Howard will receive the US Presidential Medal of Freedom at a White House ceremony next week. The award is said to be the highest civilian honour bestowed by a United States president. Mr Howard is being honoured for his role in fighting terrorism and for standing by the US as an ally during his 11 years as prime minister.

“Yes, I am honoured by it, more because of the compliment it pays to our country Australia,” Mr Howard told ABC Radio. “It's an indication of the very close relationship between our two countries and I'm very pleased that during the time as prime minister I was able to contribute too.”

Humble as always.

Good on ya John Howard

Soon both Howard and Bush will both be men of the past. History can make its judgment on their political contributions. The man of the present may well remember Howard's remarks in early 2007:

“I think he's wrong. I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory,” Mr Howard told the Nine Network.

“If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.”

Obama blasts Howard on Iraq

You may have even thought you were watching an episode of Saturday Night Live before reality kicked in and that yes, you had just seen breaking news on TV. And that yes, Bush, at 62, still has catlike reflexes and managed to avoid both shoes. The conference was held in Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki’s office to mark the signing of a security agreement.

Several news reports explained that in Arab culture, throwing shoes is a grave show of disrespect. “This is the farewell kiss, you dog,” Al Zeidi reportedly yelled at Bush in Arabic. In the Twittersphere, that sentiment may be shared by an even greater number – with thousands of ‘tweets’ expressing their desires to throw their very shoes – and other inanimate objects – at the outgoing 43rd US president.

David Hughes, from Glasgow, Scotland, said simply:

“If I had a shoe, I would throw it at Bush too.”

Rami Ismail, from the Netherlands, said:

“An Iraqi decided to throw a shoe at Bush during a conference. I can only imagine how sad fundamentalists are that the shoe wasn't a grenade.”

Several others commented on Bush’s reflexes and his shrugging the incident off, including Australian Kyle Buttress, who said:

“Bush had some good ducking and weaving action there during the Shoe toss… Good to see he didn't turn his back or anything.”

Erik Rasmussen, in Spain, said:

“This video of Bush & the shoe was the lead story on the news in Spain. Very telling, really, of his “accomplishments”. Needed a bloody nose.”

The Blogosphere is sure to come up with more reactions with each passing hour, but Englishman Georgie Hammerton was one of the quick ones to blog about the incident on My Bloggy Wog.

“I know this isn’t funny.. but, well it is isn’t it?

“On a side note; is this what passes for journalism in the US!? *shudder*. BBC, I salute you!”

Malaysian blogger Shamsul Yunos noted how the media covered the incident.

“If you watch CNN or BBC, they have put a fantastic spin on the story. It goes something like this: ‘Sure the image of someone throwing a shoe at Bush is bad but the fact that the man lived to tell the tale shows just how free Iraq is right now.’

“Great.

“The BBC interviewed people on the ground and the few Iraqis they met agreed with the shoe thrower in wanting Bush and the Americans out of their country.

“Apparently the white house doesn't think the image will seriously damage Bush's legacy.

“So what exactly is his legacy? Leaving a lot of mess behind? I'm sure that legacy is only being reinforced by the shoe throwing incident.”

Yunos was one of the few bloggers I came across that noted that Al Zeidi, the now well known shoe-attacker, had covered events in Sadr City extensively.

“(He) had lost several relatives in the conflict. He was also recently kidnapped and tortured in a three-day ordeal.”

Chicago-based Indian blogger Saqib Salman Shafi in his blog SaqibSaab questioned what Al Zeidi was really trying to accomplish.

“Now, based on the fact that he was using shoes, one may ask what exactly was he trying to accomplish? Best case scenario, Bush gets a black eye or a scoffed up nose. But you know what, I feel the disgruntled journalist, along with millions across the globe, could care less at the effectiveness of his weapons of choice. It was the statement that spoke loudest. Upset with the leader of the super powerful nation of the world? Take off your jutha(shoe) and chuck it at him. I can see the internet jokes of “epic shoe maneuver,” already.

“And check out how quickly he launches the first one and then removes his other shoe (reloads) and fires away. Maybe he had them untied and ready for deployment? Or rather, perhaps he wore slip-ons or loafers that day.”

Egyptian blogger, Zeinobia, was quite sorry Al Zeidi missed Bush’s head.

“This is the news of the day , sorry the news of the week or may be even the month and the end of the year.

“Bush was having a press conference today in his surprise visit to Baghdad with Al Maliki when Muntader Al-Zeidi , a reporter threw his shoes at him. Unfortunately he missed him :(”

She continued to blog about Al Zeidi, being a correspondent for Al Baghdadia Television, an Iraqi-owned station based in Cairo, Egypt, Zeinobia said she feared for his life.

“He has entered the history, already I wish that someone tells his news now in Baghdad because I fear on his life.

“Idiot Bush of course tried made fun from the incident and said these words : All I can report is a size 10.”

And in the Philippines, someone was up late enough - or way too early - to blog about it almost immediately as it broke. Dreamer4U asked why there was so much hatred in the hearts of Iraqis for Americans and other Westerners.

“It is for sure I thought an embarrassing time for America and Iraq, now I knew how mad is the Iraqi to the American, if you know why let me know here.

“Anyway the shoes of the Iraqi reporter is size 10, Bush should be glad it didn't hit him or else he would be injured before going home in the states. Now I know “W” is good on something, he could have been a good military guy, sadly he was a very ineffective President though.

“Why is it that there are hatred in the heart of the Islam/Iraqi for the American or western people?”

Bush arrived today in Baghdad on a surprise visit — his last to Iraq as commander-in-chief — to celebrate the agreement, thank U.S. troops and meet with Iraqi leaders.

It was Bush’s fourth visit to a nation transformed by the U.S.-led war he started in 2003. It follows three weeks after Iraq’s parliament approved an accord with the U.S. that provides for the withdrawal of American troops by the end of 2011.

Will Obama resist Zionist pressure and reveal his progressive side on Israel? Writing from the US, Antony Loewenstein isn’t optimistic

I’m currently in the US on a book tour and I’ve been struck by the ubiquitous belief that Obama will soon reveal his progressive side. He’s yet to assume office but that he’ll be a conservative Democrat on foreign policy is denied by realists and dreamers alike.

A few nights ago at the New York Public Library I attended a fascinating discussion between former Speaker of the Israeli Knesset Avraham Burg and historian Omer Bartov. Burg says that Israel must get past its Holocaust mentality in order to achieve a lasting peace in the region. He fears that this is unlikely to be achieved on current trends. A longer report on the evening by my friend, blogger and writer Phil Weiss, is here.

Burg’s new book, The Holocaust is Over, We Must Rise From its Ashes, expands these arguments thoroughly. The debate was both necessary and illuminating, not least because it revealed the paucity of thinking in the Zionist establishment.

Burg, a religious Jew who has spent most of his adult life immersed in the Zionist movement, now wants an honest appraisal of the damage this ideology has wreaked on his country and the Palestinians. “We’re so traumatised by the memories [of the Holocaust]“, he said, “and maybe we’ll never get over it. Maybe a nation can’t get past it.”

“We monopolise suffering,” he continued. “Holocausts only happen to us. We must be more generous to others. The Holocaust must be removed from nearly daily use and manipulation in Israeli society.”

Burg and Bartov talked excessively about “utopian” ideas for Israel and barely mentioned the Palestinians. It was a glaring omission - although when asked, Burg said he believed the window for a two-state solution had virtually shut, leaving a need to seriously discuss alternatives - and reflected the trauma the conflict has inflicted on all players. Burg painted an Israeli society afraid to debate ideas, fearful of taking risks, with the Arabs and the Messianic Jews in the West Bank and Israel proper threatening the very existence (and establishment) of a truly secular nation. “As soon as the Arabs declare peace with us,” lamented Burg, “Israel will have a profound clash internally between the theocrats and democrats.”

Afterwards at dinner, with The Israel Lobby co-author John Mearsheimer, historian Norman Finkelstein, blogger Phil Weiss and others, the argument was put forward that because younger American Jews are increasingly embarrassed by Israel’s occupation policies — studies bear this out, and indicate less ethnic identification (because of intermarriage and other factors) with the concept of a Jewish nation — support for Israel is declining, forcing more moderates to the fore. I’m far from convinced. Older hardliners still hold the balance of power — and were just promoted into Obama’s cabinet. Although the stranglehold of the Zionist old guard is clearly crumbling — witness the growing global public recognition of Palestinian suffering — the situation on the ground remains dire.

The Zionist lobby is still immensely powerful in Washington. Many younger Jews simply refuse to get involved in any organisations, frustrated with the myopic mindset. The West Bank occupation deepens every day. The UN even reported this week that Israel has refused to allow spices, kitchenware, glassware, yarn and paper into the Gaza Strip. None of these facts seem to disturb the Jewish leadership in America; they merely encourage Israel to tighten its noose around the territories.

Obama has major challenges to even address any of these issues yet seems determined, at this early stage, to ignore the more uncomfortable facts in front of him. With the appointment by of a hawkish national security team, including hardline Zionist Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it’s become clear that no strong anti-war voices will have the ear of the new leader. Neo-conservatism is not dead as a movement; it has merely changed its political stripes. A military strike against Iran, as just one example, remains firmly on the table. Wishful thinking will not change this brutal reality.

The Nation’s Jeremy Scahill doused optimistic expectations in The Guardian:

“Obama’s starry-eyed defenders have tried to downplay the importance of his cabinet selections, saying Obama will call the shots, but the ruling elite in this country see it for what it is. Karl Rove, ‘Bush’s Brain’, called Obama’s cabinet selections, ‘reassuring’, which itself is disconcerting, but neoconservative leader and former McCain campaign staffer Max Boot summed it up best. ‘I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain,’ Boot wrote.”

Israelis are reportedly pleased that Obama’s choices are unlikely to press the Jewish state for any major concessions while the Palestinians are understandably concerned.

“I was frankly surprised by this choice,” Manar Shorbagy, an expert on American foreign policy who teaches at the American University in Cairo, said. “Obama’s talking about bringing diplomacy back to a US foreign policy that has been militarised under President Bush. Senator Clinton has different ideas. She voted for the Iraq war and has supported many things Bush has done in his two terms.”

Maintenance of the status-quo — Israel’s settlement project expands, apartheid in the West Bank worsens and Gazans are continually strangled under collective punishment — remains the likely future. Without a serious international push towards resolution, Israel will forever increase its colonial project, making a two-state solution an utter impossibility. Ironically, the mainstream Jewish Diaspora leadership remains mute about this possibility. Inherently, they support a one-state answer, where, in a few years time, Arabs will outnumber Jews. What will they say then?

While it’s encouraging that a growing number of leading pundits are speaking publicly against Israel’s race to enforce its territorial gains, Israel suffers no real tangible price for flouting UN resolutions and breaking international law. The Holocaust is the eternal moral shroud with which the Jewish state protects itself.

What is desperately needed, as articulated by conservative International Herald Tribune columnist Roger Cohen this week, is the following:

“Imagine Ehud Olmert, the outgoing Israeli prime minister, saying this to Barack Obama:

‘The United States has been wrong to write Israel a blank check every year; wrong to turn a blind eye to the settlements in the West Bank; wrong not to be more explicit about the need to divide Jerusalem; wrong to equip us with weaponry so sophisticated we now believe military might is the answer to all our problems; and wrong in not helping us reach out to Syria. Your prospective secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said during the campaign that ‘The United States stands with Israel, now and forever.’ Well, that’s not good enough. You need to stand against us sometimes so we can avoid the curse of eternal militarism.”

If only more politicians across the Western world could see that their “pro-Israel” stance is killing the state they love.

For Immediate Release Contact: Adam Bitely
November 24th, 2008 Phone: (202) 689-9266

Dear Fellow Blogger,

It is my distinct pleasure, as the president of Americans for Limited Government, to invite you today to become a key member of the exciting new conservative “bloggers central,” NetRightNation.com.

At ALG, we recognize the critical role you as a blogger play in gathering, assimilating, and disseminating news and commentary. And I, personally, am deeply grateful to you for taking the lead in fighting some of the most important battles our country has faced over the past decade, and more.

That's why I am so pleased to announce that NetRightNation.com is providing bloggers like you, the mainstream media, politicians, and other opinion leaders free, instant access to nearly 60,000 conservative blogs nationwide. And counting.

As a complete service bureau, NRN provides you a wide new array of blogger opportunities. As a featured blogger on NRN, you will be able to post your own blogs and interface with other like-minded bloggers nationwide. You will soon be able to “claim” your blog and customize your blog profile.

Information on NRN – blogs, as well as Twitter feeds -- will be divided by state, as well as by issue, to make it easy for you and others to access. NRN will also include a sophisticated search engine function and will soon have the capability for you to subscribe to customized email blog feeds on your topics of choice. Stay tuned, for these features will soon be online!

And all of that is just the beginning. In fact, I have asked ALG's Director of New Media, Adam Bitely, to follow up on this note with a letter of his own providing you the exciting details on how NRN can help you grow your own blog.

Above all, we want to make sure NRN is all that you, an important member of the conservative blogosphere, want it to be. So, as you visit NetRightNation.com, I urge you to please give us your input on how to make it the valuable asset we are committed to providing, at absolutely no charge.

Thank you for all that you are doing. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Bill Wilson
President, Americans for Limited Government

###

Americans for Limited Government is a non- partisan, nationwide network committed to advancing free market reforms,private property rights and core American liberties. For more information on ALG please call us at 703-383-0880 or visit our website at www.GetLiberty.org.

Forward to a Friend

Obama’s core economic team has been revealed to consist of New York Federal Reserve Bank President Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary, Larry Summers as White House economic director, Peter Orszag as head of the Congressional Budget Office and Christina Romer as head of the Council of Economic Advisers.

These are some very interesting picks.

Geithner is of course already well known and respected as head of the NY Fed.

Orszag has an interest in health policy and is a protege of the fiscally conservative centrist Robert Rubin. He also has a blog.

Larry Summers of course needs little introduction as he was a centre of a little storm in a tea cup over factually correct comments made about differences in the variances of male and female IQ though interpreted in a sufficiently loose way as to make him fodder for PC activists. He is also an economic rationalist par excellence willing to go wherever his economic logic takes him, a trait which also landed him in a spot of bother years ago when he wrote a (again logically correct) memo arguing that pollution has a lower opportunity cost in developing economies.

Romer is a very interesting pick indeed as she and her husband are well known for their work in New Growth Theory and the impact of taxes on macroeconomic:

That the Romers are so well-regarded by their peers of both parties has many economists cheered that the Obama administration is going for the top minds in the field rather than those who adhere most closely to party lines. The Romers’ work has even been cited by Republicans as supporting the idea that tax increases negatively impact economic output.
Much of Ms. Romer’s work has been on macroeconomic history – studying, for example, the causes of the Great Depression, something that proves quite valuable now as the U.S. economy faces down a similar crisis.

Here is her contribution to the Encylopaedia of Economics on business cycles:

The empirical evidence is strongly on the side of the view that deviations from full employment are often the result of spending shocks. Monetary policy, in particular, appears to have played a crucial role in causing business cycles in the United States since World War II. For example, the severe recessions of both the early 1970s and the early 1980s were directly attributable to decisions by the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates. On the expansionary side, the inflationary booms of the mid-1960s and the late 1970s were both at least partly due to monetary ease and low interest rates. The role of money in causing business cycles is even stronger if one considers the era before World War II. Many of the worst prewar depressions, including the recessions of 1908, 1921, and the Great Depression of the 1930s, were to a large extent the result of monetary contraction and high real interest rates. In this earlier era, however, most monetary swings were engendered not by deliberate monetary policy but by financial panics, policy mistakes, and international monetary developments.

Of interest to libertarians, one of her papers co-authored with her husband is sceptical of the starve the beast (PDF) theory:

The hypothesis that decreases in taxes reduce future government spending is often cited as a reason for cutting taxes. However, because taxes change for many reasons, examinations of the relationship between overall measures of taxation and subsequent spending are plagued by problems of reverse causation and omitted variable bias. To derive more reliable estimates, this paper examines the behavior of government expenditures following legislated tax changes that narrative sources suggest are largely uncorrelated with other factors affecting spending. The results provide no support for the hypothesis that tax cuts restrain government spending; indeed, the point estimates suggest that tax cuts may increase spending. The results also indicate that the main effect of tax cuts on the government budget is to induce subsequent legislated tax increases. Examination of four episodes of major tax cuts reinforces these conclusions

Update:

The first knives are out. Here is a whinge from the left wing Nation:

Not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive has, as far as I can tell, even been mentioned for a position in the new administration. Not one. Remember this is the movement that was right about Iraq, right about wage stagnation and inequality, right about financial deregulation …[etc]

And yet, no one who comes from the part of American political and intellectual life that has given birth to all of these ideas is anywhere to be found within miles of the Obama cabinet thus far. WTF?

Sit back and enjoy the fun. And also check out the comments thread below that Nation piece.

One from the time capsule - here’s Lefty-Kim from 2 weeks ago engaging in some scoffing:

Most of this speculation - and the accompanying predictions that Obama may be a steady as she goes moderate - is just that. It’s basically worthless, except for what it reveals about the politics of those doing the predicting. We don’t know exactly how Obama will govern. We do know that he’s stated that big challenges will require bold measures. And we do know that an agenda of de facto universal healthcare, economic revival and redressing the plight of middle and working class voters is what he won on. That’s surprisingly radical in the American context. And this election saw a lot of the anti-government rhetoric Reagan ran into town with finally kicked to the curb.

In denial or prescient? Only time will tell …

Fresh from the talented pen of Joel Watson from HijiNKS Ensue - his efferverscent comics are well worth following. [Republished with permission]

Wonder what Obama thinks of Oz’s rather more fiercesome drop bears?

GrodsCorp do not tolerate fools gladly, especially conservative ones. You could even say they’re unforgiving. They certainly don't forget. They’ve put together a collection of bloggers who called it for McCain, with their way-out predictions laid bare:

The US election came and went, and now it’s time to laugh ourselves stupid at those who predicted an overwhelming win for McCain.
Owned. Every last one.
Goodness! There’s skullduggery afoot!

These dismal failures haven’t stopped the political soothsayers who fancy themselves as futurologists. John Passant of En Passant is a self-styled socialist who is “a liberationist - I believe in Marx’s idea of the self-emancipation of the working class.” His take on the election is couched in terms of old-fashioned class warfare:

I put Barack Obama’s victory down to one thing - class. Working people are scared. Scared for their jobs. Scared for their families. Scared for the future.

US workers have had 16 years of rule for the rich from Clinton and Bush. They’ve had eight years of foreign adventures which are or will be defeats.

The wages of low and middle income earners have not increased in real terms over the past 8 years. The minimum wage has fallen. The reward for all this sacrifice - bailouts for the fat cats on Wall Street and more sacrifices for workers on Main Street.

…Obama will not be able to deliver substantive change because to do so would require a challenge to the very structures of US capitalism.
All change at Obama station?

Homepage Daily brings us a video of a panel discussion - Obama: What Can We Expect?

Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalist Leigh Sales recently chaired a panel at the University of Sydney’s United States Studies Centre: David Brady (Stanford University), Michael Parks (former editor of the Los Angeles Times) and Geoffrey Garrett (US Studies Centre).

From Michael Parks:

Nothing is going to happen in international relations and foreign policy, nothing is going to happen well, without getting the economy right.

From David Bradbury:

Of course he’s going to fail on foreign policy… European and Australian expectations are way too high.

From Geoffrey Garrett:

There is something to be said for the amount of political capital that Obama comes in with… Extraordinary times sometimes generate extraordinary leadership… I wouldn’t rule success out but it would be naïve to underestimate the magnitude of the challenges he is going to inherit.

Parts 1 and 2 of this program are available through Slow TV on The Online Monthly

Talking about morality in international affairs is easy. What about action? Antony Loewenstein examines the tough foreign policy challenges facing the President-elect

An unprecedented amount of hyperbole from the international media heralded last week’s election of Barack Obama to the US presidency. Fortunately, a healthy dose of scepticism was also administered. Take Charlie Booker in The Guardian earlier this week:

“President Barack Obama. President Barack Obama. Nope, still can’t get used to it. It’s literally too good to be true. I must’ve died in my sleep and am now having an insane fantasy pumped into my head by the Matrix. Any minute now Salma Hayek is going to float through the door with a tray of biscuits and I’ll know the game’s up.”

And The Onion joked: “[Obama’s] win causes obsessive supporters to realise how empty their lives are.”

Despite profound inequalities that won’t disappear overnight, Obama undoubtedly represents a monumental achievement for race politics in America. As the hype dies down, however, the real task of assessing the political ambitions of the President-elect emerges.

His foreign affairs plans have been met with concern by analysts and activists who spend time on the ground in nations under American bombs and who don’t inhabit think-tanks in Washington and New York.

In the first instance, Obama’s decision to appoint Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff — a radical Zionist whose father was in the fascist Irgun in the 1940s in an attempt to form a Jewish state — indicates that he is not as progressive as some may hope. The editor of The Nation rightly urges caution.

Many on the global left have welcomed Obama as a rejection of the disastrous Bush Administration, but its difficult to know what he will deliver. The Los Angeles Times predicted last week that many of Obama’s foreign policy picks would come from academia:

“The good news is that Barack Obama’s intellectuals are fine scholars who have produced some thought-provoking books and articles on the best way to deploy American power. The bad news is that Walt Rostow and Paul Wolfowitz were also fine scholars who had produced interesting books and articles on the best way to deploy American power.”

Beware the “humanitarian hawk”, a concept that is proudly extolled by those on the left who love to use the American military to pursue a “moral” foreign policy. Many of these figures embraced the Bush Administration’s policies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Tony Judt has written eloquently in the London Review of Books of the acquiescence of liberals to “President Bush’s catastrophic foreign policy”.

Lest we forget too the infamous 1997 speech by late British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in which he announced an “ethical foreign policy”. During his tenure, as Medialens reminds us, he “supplied Hawk fighter-bombers to the Suharto regime committing genocide in East Timor. He propagandised on behalf of US-UK sanctions that killed one million Iraqi civilians. He defended the cynical December 1998 bombing of Iraq and spread government lies about Iraq’s alleged failure to cooperate with inspectors.”

Talking about morality in international affairs is easy; putting it into action is far more difficult. Besides, many of the advisers congregating around Obama are former Bill Clinton hacks who pursued similar policies to Robin Cook.

Obama will face immediate foreign policy challenges in Israel/Palestine. The Jewish state may soon elect a man, Benjamin Netanyahu, who opposes any cessation of settlement building. Unless America decides to pressure Israel in an unprecedented way — such as cutting aid unless certain conditions are met — the occupation will only deepen. Jerusalem’s mayoral race symbolises the racial fault-lines that are worsening by the day.

One Israeli commentator has already asked Obama to ignore his country, as “Clinton, our ‘friend,’ promoted Oslo, which cost us 1500 murder victims, and Bush brought Hamas to Gaza”. Clearly colony expansion on Palestinian land, and the impossibility of the two-state “solution”, is preferable to direct talks.

Even the Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said again last weekend that his Government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. Political negotiations with Hamas, as Haaretz encourages, are essential if peace is to be achieved. Will Obama acknowledge the importance of engaging the Islamists? This is unlikely in the short term.

But perhaps Obama has already inspired the Rudd Government in subtle ways. The minor, but important, shift in Australia’s position towards Israel at the UN should be celebrated but has already been condemned by the Zionist establishment. Does the Jewish community want the mainstream population to believe that condemnation of settlement building is against Israel’s best interests?

Leading Palestinian thinker Ali Abunimah — who recently visited Australia — urges clear-eyed thinking on the President-elect:

“What does it say that the sort of things he [Obama] was prepared to do just a few years ago he is no longer prepared to do, that he didn’t visit a single Muslim community centre or mosque or associate publicly with Arab Americans during the campaign? And it’s not as if, the day after the campaign, he started to send more conciliatory signals. On the contrary, there could not be a more provocative appointment than Rahm Emanuel, if he wanted to send a signal that he is going to stick by a quite hard-line pro-Israel policy.”

While the reality checks are vital, there is no doubt that great portions of the world have welcomed Obama as a breath of fresh air. The Arab blogosphere shouted loudly about the history-making event. An American friend living in Cairo blogged the following:

“A new day dawned in Cairo today. As it does every day. And it started as it always does: with birds, schoolchildren, and car horns. No national holiday here. I’m looking forward to going out in the streets to hear the reaction. The best reaction I’ve heard so far: ‘Black Man Given Nation’s Worst Job.’ Bah humbug. I confess I’m moved.”

Blogger ‘Neurotic Iraqi Wife’, who lives in a country destroyed by the American war machine, wrote:

“For me, this is not just about history, this is about someone who was able to bring down the very people that broke my country. It’s a great punch to the very people that destroyed the individual Iraqi. And that to me is enough victory. I will only have to say to Mr Obama, don’t let us down.”

As we watched the world rejoicing at the election of Barak Obama last night* Secondborn, Firstborn and I wondered at the fate of Sarah Palin, who stood behind McCain as he conceded the election with tears in her eyes, apparently gobsmacked to realise she wasn't going to be president… oh, I mean vice president of the USA.

She has left us with a lasting legacy, however. For generations to come, people will be saying things like “I can see a restaurant from my house, so I must be a chef” and other variations on the I can see, so I must be theme. Long after she is forgotten, that joke will be with us, as will the phrase “pallin' around”.

She made an international superstar of Tina Fey. She gave every comedian on the planet so much material they probably all voted for her just to keep her around. And now the election is over, and the journalists following her are no longer trying to keep their seat on the campaign plane, there are other details emerging, like the news that she didn't understand that Africa was a continent rather than a single country. Or that during debate prep Palin was unable to name all the nations in North America.

Even more salacious, is the Newsweek report which describes her $150K wardrobe spending spree, estimating “she spent ‘tens of thousands' more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband…. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast,” and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books'.”

I doubt the Wasilla hillbilly pitbull mom will just fade away. She's far too telegenic and ambitious to be totally dismissed. I just hope that, for her sake (and the sake of her supporters), before she steps on to the national stage again, she does some homework on basic things like geography. It's going to be hard for her to be taken seriously as a presidential contender in 2012 while pundits are referring to her as “Tickle-Me Elmo” or the “Wasilla hillbilly”.

I'm all for women in politics, but can we just put up the smart ones, please?

Here's a random thought… I wonder what would have happened if McCain had picked Hillary Clinton instead of Sarah Palin as his running mate? Now that would thrown a cat among the pigeoens:)

Ah well… enough of the politics. Those of you who know me well enough to know my political bent, should get a smug laugh out of this post at the very least.

And you can stop smirking, right now, Sonny Whitelaw:)

*sorry to those US readers who supported McCain, but it's hard to explain how unpopular Dubya and his heir apparent are internationally, or the hope of a new world order the rest of the planet has been looking to the US to provide. One that embraces peace rather than pre-emptive strikes on other countries over oil that have nothing to do with the war of terror.

With votes still being counted in a few states, New York Magazine’s John Heilemann claimed that the web played a transformative role in this year’s election, much like television did for the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon contest. Arianna Huffington boasted that without his mastery of the internet, Barack Obama would not be President-Elect today.

For politicians, the worst thing that can happen is to be ignored. ReadWriteWeb reports that between the two political conventions and Election Day, Obama-Biden recorded more than 500 million blog postings. Of course, it couldn’t have all been positive, but compare that to the McCain-Palin ticket, which only received 150 million posts.

Obama also beat out McCain on social networks. In the Summer of 2007, the President-Elect’s campaign began signing fans up to receive “tweets” on Twitter. Obama’s Facebook page has more than a million friends. There’s also the official Barack Obama blog and a separate channel on You Tube. The campaign also leveraged new media platforms like LinkedIn, MySpace, FriendFeed and MeetUp. All these tools helped keep the candidate in peoples' thoughts, help organize supporters and assisted in get-out-the-vote campaigns, especially important considering the number of people who turned out to cast ballots.

Then came the real-time connection with supporters, from Obama texting people to announce his choice for Vice President (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/08/11/obama_plans_novel_text_vp_anno.html) to posting Flickr photos from election night. (http://flickr.com/photos/barackobamadotcom/sets/72157608716313371/) These tools worked far from perfectly, but they allowed the campaign to circumvent traditional media and control the flow of information.

From ZenGuide in the United Kingdom, here is a good overview on the importance of social media in this election:

If anyone is still sceptical about the power of social media, all you have to do is take a look at its role in the making of America’s first African American president. Of all the candidates, Barack Obama has probably been the most socially connected online throughout the Democratic nomination race and also in the last year going head to head with John MCain….

But a bunch of social media tools in themselves are not going to make a president all by themselves. The key is how they were used by the Obama campaign. Supporters, fans and followers were encouraged to take an action to show their support for the campaign - whether by organising local events or giving a donation, however small or large, or raising funds. According to the BBC, Obama’s online campaign “attracted more than three million donors. They donated about $650m (£403m) - more than both presidential contenders in 2004 combined.” With an overflowing war chest, he could out-do McCain by buying more airtime in the traditional broadcast media and also extend his own on-the-ground real world contact through more local outreach offices than the Republican campaign.

Obama’s success was not entirely due to social media but he used it smartly in conjunction with other communication tools. Broadcast media is still hugely influential and there’s nothing that will replace face to face human contact whether it’s through speeches at rallies or simply walking among the people and kissing babies. But social media broadened his reach to those people he might not have otherwise been able to connect with and it also enabled ordinary people to do small things which came together as a whole to contibute to an enormous win.

Marc Rogatschnig writes in the South African site Ideate covering small business issues that “the politics of power may be disappearing right before our eyes.”

Obama has secured the most financial support ever in a US presidential campaign and has mobilized over 2 million facebook members to his profile. He has leveraged social media and relied almost entirely on the networks of supporters across the country to mobilize the population. He couldn’t have done that by giving each small support base a daily pep talk; he could only have done that by engaging high energy followship through trusting relationships!

An interesting comment on branding from Fred:

One thing that strikes me about Obama is his brilliant ability in personal branding. He has been consistent and pervasive, his ‘brand positioning’ has been spot on in differentiating himself from the opposition, and his provision of solutions within his message has been outstanding.

Now, the big question is (this is where many marketing and branding campaigns fall flat) is his ability to deliver on the very big promises contained within the message he’s conveyed.

Trevor Cook, who covers PR, social media and politics for the Crickey site in Australia doesn’t expect the Obama administration to put down these tools when it moves into power.

If Obama keeps using social media in the White House, and why not, the impact on corporate, NGO and government interest in social media is going to be huge.

Those of us who have been evangelising corporate social media are in for a fairly exciting time I reckon.

From Grant at One Rock at a Time, entrepreneurs have a lot to learn from the Obama campaign, which won with “perfect (marketing) precision.” Here are a few:

The brand and message stayed the same from start to finish (can anyone remember McCain’s first message??) - it incorporated ‘experience’

…The Obama online campaign didn’t waiver or deviate based on polls or public opinion – it had a well planned strategy and timeline that it followed to the letter. I’m certain there was some flexibility and ‘tweaks’ that happened, but with no prior roadmap or campaign precedent to learn from they leveraged non-political ‘real world’ experience and success to plan a multi channel branding & marketing campaign as if they were launching a new cereal or auto brand.

…Treating the Presidential Candidate as a consumer product, carefully packaged and promoted (and at the right price to make the sale easier), the Obama campaign stepped out of the ‘normal’ mold of big smiles, big promises and baby-kissing. Obama, as an eloquent and effective ‘brand ambassador’ was able to deliver and embody the brand message with a high degree of success (what greater change than a string of white to black?)

Finally, a comment on the blog The Lovable Rogue Also Known as Chris from Danny Brown asks us to get a little more realistic in how we approach social media:

Although I feel social media has more pros than cons, I'm not naive enough to think it's going to solve the world's ills or make your business suddenly take off into the stratosphere.

It's like anything - it has its pluses and benefits. What you get out of it is down to how you use it and using the right tools for your needs.

The one thing I don't like about social media is the surge of self-pronounced experts and gurus. There are definitely some that stand head and shoulders above anyone else in knowledge, but even the best of these experts admit to still learning.

Harry Clarke’s ‘commentary on economics, politics & other things’ discovered an Obama policy that is already under challenge. He seemed attracted to the idea of community service though his source didn’t:

Gregory Mankiw points out that Barack Obama supports the conscription of youth into community service. I wonder how many aged lefties will now dump on Obama on the basis of past Vietnam Moratorium ideals. Well of course its not this aged lot who now face the prospect of being conscripted so that a certain amount of soundly-justified hypocrisy is plausible.

Maybe spending the last week in China has dented my democratic ideals but I think the Obama suggestion makes a lot of sense.
Obama supports conscription

Nicholas Gruen, CEO of Lateral Economics  who posts at Club Troppo focused on the one big thing which Obama has done since Tuesday:

Paul Krugman was always critical of Obama for not being more partisan. We’ll see what happens. In my ignorance I’m expecting Obama to be like Clinton - a pro when it comes to policy who hires the best advice he can get unlike Republicans who haven’t done that since - well perhaps someone can remind me. But I don’t expect him to be particularly bold. But who knows. The thing that always struck me as ridiculous about Krugman’s critique is that being all post-partisan was a good way to build a coalatition and get into power. You find out how people are going to govern after they get into power - or hasn’t Krugman noticed. FDR was elected on a platform of balancing the budget.

And now we get to see how Obama governs. And his first decision is to go for a hard man as a chief of staff - Obama plays the good cop and everyone is telling us that Rahm Emanuel gets to play the bad cop. I’ll be interested to see if Krugman has anything to say on this - I’ve not seen it yet. But it’s a first sign that Obama is under no illusions about how lovely the Republicans will be towards him.
Rahm Emanuel - the enforcer

Another economist, John Quiggin, whose blog presents itself as a ‘Commentary on Australian & world events from a social-democratic perspective’ looked forward to:

a revival of the progressive politics of the New Deal, in retreat ever since the 1970s. If Obama can combine an economic recovery with a new commitment to social equity, his election victory could prove more significant than any since that of Roosevelt in 1932.

He mentioned several policy areas, one of which is global warming:

… looming over all of this is climate change. Obama has promised a cap-and-trade scheme, and a return to world leadership at Copenhagen. But, as in Australia, there will be powerful voices calling for a continuation of the Bush policy of delay and denial, and putting the financial crisis forward as a pretext. Neither the world nor the position of the US as a world leader can afford this.
A tough road ahead

I feel a ‘three economists in a boat’ joke coming on. So let’s give Tigtog at Hoyden About Town the punch line. She speculated about what Obama’s priorities should be:

Just like a gazillion others, I’ve been thinking about what Obama could/should do, in his first 100 days in office, that would be small in terms of the effort required (falling within executive powers entirely, no Congressional courting/approval required) but that would make an immediate, huge, difference to many people.

I ended up deciding that there were so many things that needed fixing, that I would be better off focussing on what I would be horrendously disappointed to find that he was not going to do. So here’s my One Thing that I will be broken-hearted if he does not do it:

1. negate the Global Gag Rule (aka Mexico City Policy)

Our continuing research shows the gag rule is eroding family planning and reproductive health services in developing countries. There is no evidence that it has reduced the incidence of abortion globally. On the contrary, it impedes the very services that help women avoid unwanted pregnancy from the start.

What's your One Thing?

Just one thing

According to the blog, a hoyden (hoid’n) is a woman of saucy, boisterous or carefree behavior. A match for 3 economists anyday.

Certainly, some post-election grousing against the media is opportunistic. By painting the media as pro-Obama, could it be that John McCain's loyalists are looking to place the blame somewhere? Yet this year even so-called “independent” viewers have brought up the problems facing U.S. media: treating the election like a horse race; focusing on candidate personalities rather than policy; foolishly devoting important resources to follow the scandal du jour while missing the larger picture: what voters want from their leaders.

The list goes on. Here is what a few international bloggers are talking about:

In a post before Election Day regarding the difficulty predicting this election because of polling irregularities, Sam Westrop, writing in the the Nouse blog from York University, UK, bemoaned the loss of objectivity in U.S. reporting.

The true villain is actually the media - their shameless selective reporting, their composition of supercilious ideals and their lack of objectivity have irrevocably destroyed the continuation of a nonpartisan candid and free press. Although keen to malign other Democrats and the Republicans, the media has been hesitant to report news and rumours about Obama: from the incongruous gap between the discovery and the media report of the villainy of Reverend Wright’s speeches, to the bizarre association with Bill Ayers, and now the LA Times is overrun with requests that they persistently ignore, to release videotape they possess of Obama with a suspected PLO terrorist named Rashid Khalidi. Why would a very large newspaper not release a sensational news story so pivotal as this?

Are the associations with Obama uncovered by the right as serious as some would paint them? Not at all. However, the burnt soul of the unscrupulously bias media is poisoning the democracy of the Western countries. This same media is to blame for the misinformation and intolerance in politics that breeds bountifully during times of wanton ideals. Furthermore, there is always independent thought, which leaves the opinionated editors and columnists shouting at deaf ears. And certainly the hurly burly media world can no longer explain a truth or encourage an honest purpose; it is an impotent force, multiplying in presence but with a fading influence; useless in a world of disobedient readers.

Over at New Zealand's Kiwi Blog, in a post mortem on the McCain campaign, a commenter named Redbaiter laid the Arizona Senator’s loss in the polls on the mainstream media:

If Obama does win, the lying communist inspired mainstream media will forever be remembered for their dereliction of duty in failing to subject this Marxist thug and his shady US and international backers to the scrutiny they should have. A massive failure of responsibility and one that in my mind will forever make them worthy only of contempt and disdain. Liars, propagandists and fakes who have betrayed the craft of journalism to the craft of Joseph Goebbells.

In a different comment, Redbaiter had this to say of people who found Sarah Palin to “be a shallow, mis-informed person who has probably risen further than she should have.”

..and you find that because you have brought lock stock and barrel into the lies of the propagandists at TV One, TV 3, the Herald and every other lying left wing pro-Obama outlet out there. (and a few embittered Conservatives with political axes to grind) You should have more f**ken sense. Surely by now you can see past the lies of these manipulators of public opinion? The cowards and smearers who daily sacrifice individual liberty to their great god of universal socialism.

Double Blind in Canada points out before Election Day that if Obama wins, negative voting stories won’t surface.

Because of an expected wide (wider than this prediction) margin of victory, you don’t see the pro-Obama media talk about voter fraud or anything of that ilk, unlike 2004. I’d almost be curious to see the reaction (voter fraud accusations) if McCain actually managed to win the election, but this won’t happen.

According to Blog Bot writing in the UK-based Democracy Forum, the problem with the mainstream media isn’t new. In fact, it helped hobble the Bush administration. Here’s how Blog Bot described that coverage:

Nasty, vicious and distasteful or, as the Americans put it, classless. You don't have to agree with the man or his politics but the sort of hate campaign we have watched in the last eight years (and, let's face it, with our own media participating in it) is a disgrace to politics. Mind you, the sort of hate campaign that was produced against anyone who challenged The One, President-Elect Obama, was also a disgrace and bodes no good for the next four years….

Why is it important to us apart from the fact that who is elected to the American presidency matters and if this happened after a dubious campaign it is of great importance? Just think of the way our own media reports matters unchallenged and you will see the connection.

Unfortunately they won in America in 2008 not least because the Republican presidential candidate was not exactly top notch. But I predict that this will be their last hurrah. Even people who decided to vote for Obama could see the manoeuvrings and the MSM will pay for their behaviour. Can we say the same in Britain? And if not, why not?

Representing the defense, Megan Case, who is now in Falun, Sweden, dispels a few theories on “the nonexistant liberal bias” in the U.S. media. Here are a few out takes:

“Balanced” news coverage does not mean taking the sum total of every crazy thing that everybody believes and finding the center point. The non-opinion pages of the news are supposed to report facts. Do they always? No. But if the facts tend to fall to the left of your nutjob opinions, what does that tell you? This reminds me of the argument that we have to teach creationism in school to give kids a “balanced” perspective. Come on.

There's also the problem of putting stories in context:

Maybe the problem lies in the fact that the media doesn’t really foreground the issues anymore. Instead of saying, “here’s Obama’s tax plan, here’s McCain’s tax plan, you decide”, the media reports on what the candidates were wearing and how many people were at the last rally and which commentator on the competing network said something mean about one of the candidates and don’t even get me started on Joe the Freaking Plumber. It’s not news, it’s meta-news, and it is a huge waste of time and resources.

Lest we forget about the right-wing dominated media, Jennifer Fallon's Blog (from Australia) published a post after keeping an eye of Fox News in the US.

I have watched this election in utter fascination, particularly the language of the spin doctors. My favourite network, the… ahem… news channel, Fox, is so adept at this that once I have my Masters, I'm tempted to go ahead and do my PhD on the Language of Spin.

The spin doctors are quite something to behold, but Fox takes it to a whole new level. Under the banner of “fair and balanced” they have headlines like:

“Does an old friend from Obama's scout troop when he was 10 have proof that he may be a communist!”

“Is Sarah Palin really being put forward to the Pope as a possible saint?”

“Is is true that Joe Biden was found drunk in a strip club at Halloween dressed as a transvestite?”

“Was Joe the Plumber kidnapped by aliens?”

You see, that's the brilliance of their rhetoric. They suggest the most outrageous things in the form of questions (over which they cannot be sued), and even if the answer is “of course not, don't be ridiculous!” it doesn't matter, because they repeat the headline a score of times in the hour, before getting to the 30 second sound bite where they announce, “well, actually, no, but an anonymous blogger suggested it on Twitter so we thought we'd run with it for a while.”

By then, of course, through the power of repetition (remember how you learned your multiplication tables) you're quite convinced Joe Biden is a transvestite, or poor Joe the Plumber is being anally probed (which might account for a few things..hehehe) because you never get to hear the clarification.

It is utterly masterful and I can tell you now, if I ever decide to take over the world, I'm gonna make sure Fox is on my side, first.

After that, mere world domination ought to be easy….

Muwahahahaha…

Andy Worhtington, a UK-based writer writing in Information Clearing House, brought up journalists' refusal to quiz either candidate on the Bush administration’s “unprecedented adherence to the controversial ‘unitary executive theory’ of government.”

Writing in the Netizenblog in Germany, Rhonda Hauben first explains that European (mostly German) media coverage of the race to the White House followed the too simple formula of only talking to convicted Republicans or Democrats, while most of Americans are middle-of-the-road independents. However, she reserved her most potent criticism for U.S. media, which is neglecting it’s Constitutionally mandated role:

The conversations I have had while in Europe have helped to clarify that the press is an important component of a functional political system. There is a need for a press that accurately presents the problems of the society and provides the basis for a broad ranging debate on these problems. The failure of the American media to fulfill this function not only contributes in a significant way to the serious political and economic problems facing American society, but similarly leads others around the world to develop a false view of America and of the American people. Instead of U.S. institutions providing an inspiration or a helpful model, they are an example of the abuse that unchecked power can lead to. The lesson from the many conversations with Europeans about the U.S. presidential campaign I had these past two weeks is that there is a serious need for an alternative to the U.S. mainstream media if there is to be any significant change in U.S. government policy toward the rest of the world and for there to be elections in the U.S. that have any chance of expressing the needs and choices of the American people. Relying on any of the candidates to bring the needed policy changes is not adequate.

Let’s take the open press argument one step further. If one role of media is to expand political dialogue, why is it only covering America’s two major political parties? From Gottfried Stutz who blogs from Syria:

Why do CNN, Fox, the BBC, TF1, ZDF, Al-Jazeera, you-name-it call this particular vote “historic”? The vote is not. The result… perhaps.

Imagine a 2% vote or more for all third parties lumped together despite having been kept out of any debate and having benefited from very little media time. Now that would be historic.

Is part of the problem that journalists think readers are too shallow (or busy) to bother with complicated political debates? We have a rare glimpse into the minds of working journalists, from the blog at Maclean’s — Canada’s only national weekly current affairs magazine:

There is a constant debate in newsrooms about whether readers have any patience for long discussions of politics. And of course, a hell of a lot of readers don’t. What we’ve found at Maclean’s since we started giving it a try, however, is that there are always enough readers who will follow us as far as we want to go in such discussions.