In truth, this “Barack Obama’s first foreign policy test” has been a red-hot label looking for something to which to affix itself ever since he won the election, if not even before. For one thing, remember the remarks on the campaign-trail by Joe Biden - comments apparently not particularly welcomed by the Obama campaign - about how there surely would occur some international crisis early in the new administration, one deliberately engineered to test the new president’s resolve. As Muscat points out, this “evil prophecy” was also a line White House press spokesperson Dana Perino was pushing - for obvious partisan purpose - just before the election, and it was certainly part of John McCain’s own pitch, implicitly if not explicitly. In these early-transition days, then, it would not have taken much of an unpleasant nature, happening anywhere in the world, to turn into “Obama’s first foreign challenge,” with all eyes swiveling to Chicago to see what he intended to do about it.

And the eyes all swivel to Chicago because there are ever-fewer reasons, when something like this happens, to look to what is supposed to be the official American reaction-center, namely the White House. George W. Bush moved awfully slow even to acknowledge the Mumbai massacres, Muscat maintains, as silly turkey-pardoning pictures still dominated the official White House homepage well into the course of the attacks. Bush similarly lagged far behind the “Office of the President-Elect” in finally coming up with a reaction, namely calling up the Indian premier Manmohan Singh to offer CIA aid in investigating the attackers. The overall impression to the outside world was one of Bush as, in Muscat’s phrase, a “lame chicken.” (That’s apparently a “lame duck” in German, but one that’s really, really lame.)

The silly thing is, though, that Obama is not in fact President of the United States, that he will not become that until January 20, 2009. There is really very little that he can do, even as Americans are again reminded, in Muscat’s words, of “how quickly their own land can be the target of violence,” as apparently heightened security measures were imposed on New York City’s subway system because of some terror-warning. (And here again we have the Northeast Corridor-centric view of what is supposedly happening through all 50 states that foreign correspondents like Sabine Muscat have so much trouble escaping. Were residents of Butte, Montana, say, recently reminded of this vulnerability as well - or even the denizens of LA?) He has not even formally unveiled his team of national security advisers, although the top names are pretty much known (Robert Gates remains at Defense, Hillary Clinton at the State Department, etc.). Of course, he has now presented his economic team - he completed that task last week - and the logic of giving that precedence remains clear to all in light of America’s, and the world’s, serious economic troubles.

We should have to wait no more than a day or two into this upcoming week to find out the composition of the Obama national security team, anyway. In the meantime, articles such as Muscat’s merely represent the latest outpouring of the world-wide frustration over the curious agenda prescribed by the US Constitution (as amended) that stipulates this delay of two-and-a-half months before a newly-elected president can take assume power. Gruesome incidents such as occured last week in India only serve to heighten the world-wide worry that things are falling apart just too fast, and seemingly on multiple fronts, for the US and the world to have the luxury of waiting that long for the new administration. Yes, it’s also true that the fiasco of the election of 2000 warns us against mandating a take-over by a new administration that follows too closely on the heels of the election (although many would assert that the elongated recount-and-appeal process that occurred then still did not produce the correct result, even with all the time that it was allowed).

An optimal solution - at least for 2008 - would be the one recently advanced by New York Times columnist Gail Collins: Bush should simply resign, together with Cheney, so that Nancy Pelosi would take over as head of government until Inauguration Day and so enable that federal government machinery immediately to start implementing required measures, in close coordination with the President-Elect. But not only will that not happen - if only because George W. Bush utterly lacks the humility and true love of country to ever do such a thing - but it also should not happen (and here I merely cite Collins’ reasoning), if only because of the possibility such a maneuver would open up to some misstep which would see George W. Bush gone but Dick Cheney still remaining as the American Chief Executive.

First, as German blogger Yaschka Mounk reported, there was the rumor that Sarkozy might have had one too many drinks with Putin before a Press conference in 2007 (see video below):

Then, as you can see in French blog rue89, there was the infamous cover of a Polish magazine that displayed a modified photo of Putin spanking Sarkozy, graphically criticizing the current leader of the European Union for being too lenient with Russia over the Georgian crisis. It turns out that Sarkozy did have some influence over Putin when they met to discuss this matter. In the Netherlands, Michael Van der Galien at the Poligazette, quoting from the Times of London, writes that Sarkozy was successful at preventing Putin from further escalating the crisis in Georgia:

When Sarkozy was in Moscow in August this year, in order to establish peace between Georgia and Russia, Vladimir Putin told Sarkozy he wanted to hang Saakashvili “by the balls,” meaning forcibly removing him from power.
Sarkozy told Putin that the international community would not accept that from Moscow. Putin didn’t care. ““I am going to hang Saakashvili by the balls,” he said.
Sarkozy thought he had misheard. “Hang him?” — he asked. “Why not?” Putin replied. “The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein.”
Sarkozy, using the familiar tu, tried to reason with him: “Yes but do you want to end up like [President] Bush?” Putin was briefly lost for words, then said: “Ah — you have scored a point there.”

He adds:

Lessons learned:
1. Sarkozy saved Saakashvili
2. Fear of “ending up like Bush” now functions as deterrent

World bloggers are picking up the meme that the fear of being like Bush might be the most effective way to prevent world leaders from acting too impetuously.

Alex Massie from Scotland, calls President GW Bush: “the Inadvertent Peacemaker“. Superfrenchie ( France) is amused that the language of diplomacy can be so colorful.
However, others are not pleased that this conversation was leaked to the Press. In the comment section of the original article, Richard Grey in London writes:

good Bush joke, but shame the French leaked this out. Sarkozy is Europe's strongest leader, he needs other leaders of the world to trust he wouldn't send confidential conversations out to the press

In the same comment section,Angel, from Sofia, Bulgaria, agrees:

This is french propaganda campaign which sought to reassure other european countries that their security and well-being can depend on the french paper tiger.
It is also possible for them to play good cop bad cop with the russians, with the aim of replacing NATO with ESDP.

Even a French blogger concurs. Pierre Vienot in New York, US, protests:

“Monsieur le President, self promotion is unacceptable! Your advisor should shut up.”

ThinkProgress.org has the lengthiest rundown. Spain’s president expects “a more fluid and positive relationship” under Obama, no doubt a reference to some feuding with Bush over Iraq. Germany’s chancellor has had fairly close relations with Bush, but even she envisioned “closer and more trusting cooperation between the United States and Europe.”

But as I said, a few world leaders have already communicated their expectations. Afghanistan’s president said: “The fight against terrorism cannot be fought in our country, rather, our country is a victim of terrorism and we demand for civilian casualties to be eliminated.” Obama’s remarks about the need to cut down on those casualties and do more than military intervention were of course a subject of some controversy after Republicans made a political issue out of it. Russia’s president didn’t congratulate Obama at all, and aside from a vague expression of hope that Obama could improve relations between the two countries, Russia’s primary response was to announce its intention to station missiles near Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans for Europe – plans that Obama has been decidedly cool toward. Israeli and Palestinian leaders expressed a desire to see Obama bring peace in the Middle East.

Even the upbeat European Union was hinting at some potential conflict, as one of its officials said she would be in touch with Obama to “make sure we are working together on opening free trade,” arguably the area of Obama’s policies that makes Europe most nervous. A few countries were decidedly cool about the election of Obama. Other countries hinted more vaguely at hoping Obama would work with the world on the international financial crisis, energy, terrorism, food shortages, global warming and more than a few other subjects.

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.

We would like to know who would be the next president of the United States of America - if the world could vote!

In the presidential election in 2004 122,267,553 people voted. 6,500,000,000 people did not.

Our mission is to get more people to vote than voted in the last election. Mission impossible, we know, but still, wouldn’t it be great to see what the whole world thinks?

If we are to have any chance of reaching that goal we need your help. Tell all your friends around the world about iftheworldcouldvote.com. You can send them email, share it on Facebook (we also have a group you can join), digg it, reddit, save to delicious … Or all of it. So go ahead. Let’s see who would be the next president of the United States of America - if the world could vote;)

In the UK, England for Obama rejoiced at the news that Obama emerged victorious in the first election returns of the 2008 presidential race, winning 15 of 21 votes cast in Dixville Notch, New Hampshire.

And that was a full voter turnout! Woo-hoo!

Hang on – shouldn’t John McCain be the winner in a place called Dicksville[sic]?

Seriously, though: this is the first time that Dixville Notch – which is always the first town to announce its results – has voted for the Democratic candidate since 1968.

People in Dixville Notch, which has a population of 75, voted just before midnight Tuesday (Nov 4). The last Democrat residents there picked was Hubert Humphrey over Richard Nixon in 1968. (Source: CNN)

After having read Italian blogs that covered the Dixville Notch results, bloggers seemed to delight that this might be a prediction of what’s to come in the next few hours. One blogger, ultimenotizie, is looking forward to the results and has promised to stay up late to wait for the results at home in Italy. Calling the Dixville Notch result “symbolic”, ultimenotizie noted that Obama also won in another New Hampshire village called Hart’s Location.

“Anche a Hart’s Location, l’altro villaggio del New Hampshire dove si vota a mezzanotte, ha vinto il senatore nero per 17 voti a 10.”

However, the Italian warned still that even though Obama had the lead in polls for months, the numbers could be deceiving if the “Bradley effect” comes into play. The Bradley effect is named after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American who ran for California governor in 1982. Polls then showed him leading by a wide margin, and the Democrat thought it would be an early election night. But it turned out Bradley and the polls were wrong. He lost to Republican George Deukmejian.

“In testa ai sondaggi da mesi, Obama aspetta l’esito sereno e ha detto alla Cbs di non credere al cosiddetto “effetto Bradley”, ovvero alla teoria secondo cui gli elettori dicono ai sondaggisti che votano per un afro-americano come lui, ma poi non lo fanno nella segretezza dell’urna. Per contro, da parte repubblicana ammoniscono di non compiere lo stesso errore delle ultime elezioni, affidandosi a exit poll regolarmente smentiti, ma di aspettare i dati ufficiali.”

Christian Rocca joins the many Italians who believe that the game is now over for McCain.

“… ma se Obama dovesse prevalere in Indiana sarebbe il primo segno di una vittoria a valanga per il democratico. All’una di notte italiana, le sette sulla costa est d’America, chiudono le urne in Florida e in Virginia. In questi due stati vinti da Bush nel 2004 si comincerà a delineare il profilo del prossimo presidente.

“Ma nel momento in cui uno dei due verrà messo nella colonna di Obama, per McCain la partita sarà finita, non ancora aritmeticamente, ma di fatto.”

Voters in Dixville Notch may have voted early in the US, but according to Lars Von Torne Berlin, Germany says Americans there were ways ahead of them.

“Berlin hatte als erstes gewählt: Schon Stunden, bevor am Dienstagabend in der deutschen Hauptstadt zahlreicher Partys zur US-Präsidentschaftswahl begannen, meldete die US-Botschaft, dass die Wahl in Berlin bereits gelaufen war.”

Von Torne said that all over Berlin, Obama had much support.

“Zumindest, was die Stimmung unter den Berlinern anging, die sich am Abend bei einem Dutzend größerer und zahllosen kleinen Wahlbeobachtungspartys versammelten.”

Speaking about a US election party hosted in the city and attended by more than 1,000 Berliners, Von Torne said that

“Fast jeder der Gäste ging davon aus, dass Barack Obama das Rennen machen würde.”

The party was held in the offices of Telekom and Bertelsmann. Amongst the attendees were US Embassy officials and other diplomats.

Major celebratory events for whoever wins the election are reportedly already scheduled to be held in Berlin within the next few days.

“Fast alle meldeten schon vor Tagen: ausgebucht. Wesentlich mehr Anmeldungen als Plätze verzeichneten auch die Veranstalter der größten Pro-Obama-Party der Stadt, die Democrats Abroad. Die Auslandsorganisation der US-Demokraten wollte bis Sonnenaufgang am Mittwochfrüh im Babylon-Kino in Mitte feiern – inklusive „Sunrise“-Drinks, eine Anspielung auf das Wahlkampfsymbol Obamas, eine aufgehende Sonne.”

Brazilian Marcelo Donati asked who will be the new “chairman of the world” in his blog Abrigo Na Net.

“Façam suas apostas. Obama está praticamente eleito, mas como a eleição americana é confusa e bagunçada, nunca se pode afirmar nada… Nós aqui, vamos vivendo, absorvendo o resto da crise mundial…”

Another Brazilian, cursoblogcorp took it to another level. He has already declared Obama the victor of the election.

He wrote:

“O candidato democrata Barack Obama foi eleito o mais novo presidente dos Estados Unidos, com 68% de aprovação da população norte-americana. Ele é o primeiro negro a chegar à Presidência. Além desse marco, o candidato foi audacioso ao dispensar o financiamento público de campanha, optando apenas pelas contribuições de seus apoiadores, feitas através de seu blog. Com isso, conseguiu mais de US$ 660 milhões.”

Perhaps he's psychic? Perhaps.

Columbia University, School of International and Public Affairs, United States; GPPN
London School of Economics, United Kingdom; GPPN
Sciences-Po, France; GPPN
Hertie School of Governance, Germany
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Singapore; GPPN
Moscow State Institute of International Relations, Russia
Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo, Fundação Getulio Vargas, Brazil
University of Toyko Graduate School of Public Policy, Japan

The liveblogging event will begin at 12 p.m. EST on November 4th and finish at 12 a.m. EST. Readers are welcome to participate in the liveblog and ask questions of the bloggers.

With that in mind, let’s catch on the last bit of campaign news.

It was last week when John McCain’s campaign attempted to tie Barack Obama to a certain Rashid Khalidi, whom they refer to (at different times) as a “neo-nazi,” “radical professor,” a “former PLO spokesman” who is an “anti-Semite” and a “political ally” of the Democratic candidate for President.

Rashid Khalidi is, in fact, the Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies at Columbia University. He is American born and has denied working for the Palestine Liberation Organization. He did teach at the University of Chicago, where his family came to know the Obama’s. In April, the Los Angeles Times reported that Obama attended and spoke at a 2003 farewell party for Khalidi when he left for New York.

The McCain campaign has demanded the newspaper release a video it possess of the event, claiming that voters should know more about the relationship between Obama and Khalidi. The Republican campaign also said that former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers attended the party, which the LA Times did not report. Russ Stanton, editor of the LA Times, argues the tape was given to the newspaper by a confidential source on the condition they not release it.

The Obama camp professed that Khalidi is not an advisor to the campaign and pointed out that the International Republican Institute (where John McCain is the Chairman of the Board) admitted to funding projects for the Center for Palestine Research and Studies during the 1990s. Khalidi was a founder of this organization and had served on the board of directors.

Anyway, let’s get to the bloggers.

Could an Israel hater be on his way to the White House? From Cuban-American blog Babalu:

The fact that the Times refuses to release a video tape of US Presidential candidate Barack Obama attending a going away party for former P.L.O. operative Rashid Khalidi has outraged many; but the real outrage is the fact that someone who attended what was most probably a Jew bashing party is a hairs-breath away from occupying the White House. Just imagine the outrage if McCain had been an active presence at a going away party for a member of the KKK.

If Obama’s ties to Middle East terrorists don’t trouble you, they should.

A comment to the post from Mandingo takes umbrage in the Left’s dislike of Sarah Palin while supporting a guy like Rashid Khalidi:

The sad thing is that all the secular well educated liberal Jews in the Upper West Side of New York and around the nation are still voting for Obama because they fear the Republican party, especially Sarah Palin, as some kind of Torquemada fascist Christian fundamentalist movement that will institute pogroms against their families. They are so wrong, but out of white guilt they are voting for a man Obama that has ties to terrorists and that will most probably abandon the state of Israel, Taiwan, and most certainly dissidence in Cuba!

From Israel, Dr. Savta’s weblog gives us a quick note on a new form of cognitive dissonance:

1) For 20 years, Barack Obama sat in Reverend Wright’s congregation and didn’t know that he preached anti-Semitic, anti-white, anti-American sermons
2) Barack Obama didn’t know that Bill Ayres was an unrepentant terrorist.
3) Barack Obama didn’t know that his aunt was living in the US illegally.

Do we really want a president who is that oblivious?

Melanie Phillips, a columnist who also maintains a blog at the Spectator in the United Kingdom worries that Obama isn’t providing his true views on Jihadism:

Senator McCain declared that the threat to the Homeland is a movement and an ideology, Jihadism. Senator Obama didn't tell us if that is his view as well. Instead we saw shreds of political alliances between his campaign and groups affiliated with this particular ideology. I am not impressed with the ‘Weather Underground’ network story as much as I am concerned about the access the political Jihadists will have to US National Security.

If that happens, Homeland Security will be at risk. Hence until I get answers to this fundamental question from Senator Obama's campaign, I do have a national security concern. Until then I can project a spread of Jihadi sympathizer networks within the country and even throughout many layers of Government. Over four years, and possibly eight, such a growth would become malignant. Over less than a decade, Americans could find themselves in situations never experienced since the Civil War.

Guy Rundle Live from Australia thinks that this campaign against Khalidi may gain some traction mostly because America's dysfunctional relationship with Israel.

No-one’s accusing Rashid Khalidi of any crimes, but the whole hypocritical US thing about Palestine and the intifada is so tangled that the Obama-Ayers-Rashid circle of acquiantanceship /friendship in NY/Chicago can be made to look like some deep cover plot to take the Presidency.

The smoking gun would be the video the LA Times has and won’t release because of journalist-source confidentiality. But does any footage remain unreleased these days? To be sure, if it hit the streets on Sunday or Monday, and it’s Obama laughing when someone says ‘Intifada? hell I married her!’ or something, or even sitting there while someone goes on a great Satan rant, then that could be a killer.

Me, I’d love to have a friend of communists and Palestinian radicals in the white house, but that’s kinda why team Obama haven’t led with that angle.

However, he blames the right wing media for not picking up on the story earlier:

Still it’s really weird that this was all there in plain sight - the LA Times report was in 2007 - and no-one on the right picked it up until a Wall Street Journal writer added it to the Ayers material about a fortnight ago. The right keeps going on about silencing by the media, but FOX, and Limbaugh et al could have been running it for yonks.

Possibly they were dissuaded by the fact that McCain’s International Republican Institute gave the guy a half million dollars - enough money to look kinda dumb, compared to having dinners with him. But since McCain has nothing to lose well, he’s got nothing to lose.

Otto, from Otto’s Random Thoughts has a personal tie — a brush with campaign greatness, if you will. It so happens that Khalidi was the Phd supervisor to Otto’s Phd supervisor at the School of African and Oriental Studies at the University of London:

I saw him speak once at SOAS. I thought his talk was very good. It was certainly not “radical” compared to many other speakers on Palestine at SOAS. Indeed, other than in the context of US politics, where any criticism of the State of Israel is taken as “radical” could Khalidi be considered anything, but a moderate. But, of course in the US even opposition to such extreme Israeli policies as torture and killing children is often denounced as “anti-semitism.”

Will at KABOBFest, writes a defense of Rashid Khalidi and finds the McCain verging on desperation.

Besides the obvious point that the Rashid Khalidi-Obama connection is a complete non-story, it also reeks of the ugliness of political desperation: hate-mongering.

Arab-bashing, to borrow liberally from the saying about anti-Semitism, is the ideology of scoundrels. How easily talking heads readily assume that professor Rashid Khalidi is an anti-Semite because he criticizes Israel. This is driven not by the “content of his character” or the substance of his critiques, but by his ethnicity. His Arabness is what enables the failure by anyone to challenge this. And an innocent and highly recognized scholar’s name is trudged through the mud

The post also contains a link to a two-year-old interview KABOBFest conducted with Khalidi.

Nervous about the election yet? Here's a triple dose of McCain favoritism brought to you from bloggers around the world.

1) Mexican actor, singer, and devoted Catholic, Eduardo Verástegui has been campaigning against Obama and for McCain on the basis of his anti-abortion and “traditional family value” beliefs. Numerous videos explaining his views are in circulation on the internet, including the one below. While Christian media rejoice, New York Latin culture blog, El Daily Remix, wish he would just stick to acting and stop interfering with women's rights.

Obama has rejected accusations made against him on “partial birth abortion” on the website, Fight the Smears.

2) German blogger “Hans Fritz” (aka Jan Becker) was an exchange student at a high school in Texas many years ago. He makes a film of his “homecoming” and talks to students of Tom Bean High School about who they think people in their community will vote for. Guess who.

Don't miss Hans Fritz' humorous take on the last presidential debate (where candidates “decided not to bomb Germany”).

Untitled from Jan Becker on Vimeo.

3) On Global Voices Online, Onnik Krikorian links to two separate blogs that each examine the general preference for McCain over Obama among citizens and politicians in Georgia (the country) and the Caucasus region.

From Social Science in the Caucasus:

McCain, of course, is popular in Georgia for having said “Today we all are Georgians” during the recent conflict. He has also previously visited the country, and apparently a missile was fired at his helicopter as he was flying over South Ossetia. His willingness to stand up to Russia, directly, makes him understandably popular in Georgia.

From Ghana, rapper Blakk Rasta on Obama performs the following rendition in support of Obama:

For the Japanese, Obama is Beautiful World, as ampontan explains:

HERE’S A YouTube video lasting just under four minutes with a catchy song and video performance based on the idea that Obama (the man, not the city in Japan) is Beautiful World. (Though the city is probably where the shoe store in the video got its name.)

It’s a lot of fun and is worth watching regardless of your political preferences, because it’s a great demonstration of how positive and unselfconsciously playful the Japanese can be. It’s one of the reasons I like Japan so much. There’s not a lick of cynical irony or tiresome politicizing in there at all–just a bunch of people goofing off and having a good time.

Here's the YouTube video:

German Michel Montecrossa shares this song which already celebrates Obama as president:

And finally dancing to the tunes of a popular Indian song, Anantha from Uber Desi, posts this video not in support of the John McCain/Sarah Palin ticket:

Here goes:

It seems to be a reality: Barack Obama will probably be the next president of the United States. Since George W. Bush is very unpopular in Germany, people here are happily awaiting Obama. One might say, he even inspires people to dream of a better world. All the biases people have collected in the last years seem to disappear. For Germans, America could be the Land of the Free again if Obama wins.

So we ask: In your country, what does the prospect of an Obama presidency mean? Does it make your fellow citizens dream, like we do in Germany? Is it a topic of discussion at all? Or do they actually mistrust any American leader? What does the shopkeeper around your corner think of Obama?

Jewish blogger, GoldnI, stated that the endorsement must have hurt Palin.

“Newspaper endorsements may not count for all that much anymore, but just as a symbolic gesture, this one has to sting. The main paper in Sarah Palin's home state, the Anchorage Daily News, has made its presidential endorsement, and it's not for the ticket that contains a native Alaskan.”

Mirrorofilan, from Germany, also commented on the endorsement.

“Ouch.

Many wonder what Gov. Palin's face will be like when she finds out, but I think she has other things to worry about.”

The German blogger then listed the points made by the newspaper including the fact that rumors have spread stating “…she [Palin] appears to be looking out for herself more than the McCain campaign.” And further stated he could understand the limits on Palin:

“While I can certainly see her desire to break free from the restraints the campaign has put on her, she should also realize the restraints were there for a reason. Whenever she was allowed to say something, she made a complete idiot out of herself. And also, it's just nine days before the election! Way to sabotage your own campaign! It's not like it's already struggling…”

In Israel, Yaacov Lozowick, commented on the New York Times’ endorsement of Obama and Journalist Charles Krauthammer’s endorsement of McCain.

“Neither of these endorsements is remotely surprising. Any other result would have been news so startling it would have made the front page of the New York Times (ah… Well, forget I said it). Actually, the only serious endorsement out there that is in any way not fully obvious in advance is that of the Economist, next week, and they're going to flow with the tide and endorse Obama, just wait and see.

Still, one can make a number of comments about the Krauthammer-NYT comparision. In a nutshell, the NYT backs Obama for being a healer; Krauthammer supports McCain for being a fighter. These two preferences are the result of a deeper difference of opinion, where the NYT feels that top-notch human-relations skills, such as they think Obama has, will tame the world, while Krauthammer feels that at this moment in time (and perhaps always) the world is a very dangerous place, no matter how good the American president is at diplomacy.

So that's an interesting contrast.”

Paul Bryant, in Canada, analyzed the newspaper endorsements as a whole.

“Obama just picked up the NY Times endorsement for President. This is not a surprise as the last Republican they endorsed was Dwight Eisenhower. That being said there is an interesting contrast developing between the two candidates. Obama has picked up 133 endorsements from newspapers and publications vs McCain who has picked up 44. Twenty eight of Obama's endorsements were from papers that endorsed Bush in the last election. The most significant switch was by the Washington Post which has never endorsed a Democrat. Many of the endorsements express concern about Palin as choice for VP as well as the tenor of McCain's campaign. Some express concerns about McCain's ability to handle the economic crisis.”

Bryant further states that the amount of newspaper endorsements reflect the candidates.

“While I don't believe the newspapers have a significant effect on the election. It displays a few interesting things. First, the complete disaster that appears to be the McCain campaign. Second, the ability of Obama to convince individuals who may not traditionally support him to give them their support even if it is with some reservations. Third, that many periodicals regard Obama as the best candidate to deal with the economy.”

Lastly, Iranian blogger, Liana, states the oddness of newspapers endorsing candidates in the first place.

“It’s interesting that newspapers feel the need or desire to endorse potential presidential candidates. In a profession where objectivity rules overs subjectivity and fair and balanced is the ultimate goal (Sorry Fox News, you fail at your own motto), should newspapers endorse candidates? Is it there place to do such a thing? Or are they meant to provide you a service of news without injecting opinions in it? What is accomplished by endorsements? Are people really swayed by their respective newspaper’s decision to endorse a candidate?

These are important questions to be asking. My particular feeling about the matter is divided. I love seeing the publications I read take a stance on issues, at the same time, I feel that remaining neutral is completely respectable and credible. One thing I can tell you, is that even though it’s not Nov. 4 yet, history has already been made in so many ways. As far as newspapers are concerned, it is interesting to note that that the Chicago Tribune endorsed Obama, the first time the paper has endorsed a Democrat for president. In another move of epic proportions, the Los Angeles Times’ endorsement of Obama marks the first time the paper has endorsed anyone for president since 1972. Even Esquire magazine has gotten in the game and endorsed Obama!”

In today’s favorite round up, a German blogger writes about the irrelevance of Palin’s wardrobe, meanwhile an American in Palestine talks about her recent Obama-filled trip and an Obama supporter has sad news for Jews wanting to purchase an accessory.

1. Sarah Palin’s $150k wardrobe

While citizen media throughout the blogosphere are commenting on the importance of Palin’s pricey wardrobe, German blogger lists two points on why it’s an irrelevant piece of information. Claire writes about her “ ‘Come, on!’ moment”:

“Turns out that the RNC has paid a lot of money for Ms. Palin's clothes.

Let me tell you why this doesn't matter:

1. It's the RNC's money, not hers. If they want to make sure that their candidate looks good that is their prerogative. They have got plenty of money. Personally, I think it is money well spent as I have envied many of her coats.

2. No one talks about the costs of Obama's suits or McCain shirts. If you are going to talk about one you should talk about them all.”

Claire also adds a note for the Republican nominee:

“Oh, and one more thing, Sarah. Don't claim to be “just like me.” I don't tote around Louis-Vitton. Although I wish I did.”

2. Obama-mania trip home

American blogger living in Palestine, Marcy Newman writes about her recent trip home and her experience with “Obama-mania” at the American Studies Association conference.

“I’m still reeling from the experience of not only coming back to the U.S. in the midst of a racist, offensive presidential campaign, but also the ways in which this affected the American Studies Association (ASA) conference. Normally this is a conference I look forward to. Some of the smartest people–and some of the most politically radical people–are usually in attendance. This is a conference where Angela Davis and Ruth Gilmore–two of the most important voices on the prison abolition movement regularly discuss this subject, for instance. But this year even those voices that one might normally expect critical analysis from seem to be swept up in Obama-mania. Starbucks sipping, Obama button wearing colleagues abounded. Yes, it took some walking and seeking to find non-Starbucks coffee, but of course the local variety was far superior.”

Newman then speaks about her support for third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney and how progressives paved the way for people like Obama.

“It’s not so much that I expected everyone to embrace progressive or radical candidates like Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader. But at ASA I did expect to hear critical analysis and discussion that brought them into the fold. By excluding other candidates these scholars participate in the same sort of exclusionary practices that the duopoly American government upholds by keeping third party candidates out of debates or off ballots. But it just seemed that everyone was so fixated on Obama and had such rose-colored glasses or people were just so mesmerized by this phenomenon that even McKinney’s name never came up. Even in a Stuart Hall panel where Hall’s important legacy in cultural studies came up the discussion related to the election centered on discussing whether or not “we should take credit for the emergence of Obama.” Mind you, they made it clear that taking credit is not the same as celebrating or endorsing, and certainly the work of radicals and progressives paved the way for a candidate like Obama. But this is precisely the point: all sorts of radical political movements made his candidacy possible but his candidacy speaks to none of the issues of any of those movements from anti-racism to labor.”

3. Obama yarmulkes out of stock

Newman can rest assure knowing that a little less “Obama-mania” will be found in some areas, as Jewish blogger Matt Walters reports that Obama yarmulkes are sold-out.

“We regret to inform you that we are now sold out of Obama-kah yarmulkes and due to the holidays of Sukkot and Simchat Torah, our manufacturer cannot provide a new shipment in time for us to re-distribute the yarmulkes to you before the election on Nov. 4.”