And now, to the interview:

Sigh. So, yeah, Secretary Clinton says she won’t run for President again. Sure, there was this (funny to me) quote in there:

“Maybe there is some misunderstanding which needs to be clarified,” she said. “I believe in delegating power … I am not one of those people who feel I have to have my face in front of the newspaper and TV every day … It’s just the way I am.”

Clearly a little dig at He Who Must Be On TV Every Day, which was enjoyable, I must confess. Okay, it was downright funny.

And then there was the part where even Andrea Mitchell, of all people, is commenting on how surprising it is hat President CLINTON has not received the Nobel Peace Prize despite raising BILLIONS of dollars for the Clinton Initiative which does great work all over the world. Never mind all of the work President Clinton did with President Bush (I) in terms of the Indian Ocean Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. So, yeah, sure, it makes perfect sense that Mr. Talker No Walker Man would be the one who gets it. Pathetic.

Back to Hillary Clinton. I was hoping that maybe, just maybe she was trying to shift the focus off of her, and was trying not to steal the limelight from her boss (and her water carrying for him is a bitter pill to swallow). But, no, she has repeated that claim again in this article, the title of which is also bitter, Clinton: I’d Have Hired Obama. Yeah, she said it after the claim indicated in the title. I’ll let the article set the stage:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that if she had won presidential election, Barack Obama would “absolutely” have served in her Cabinet.

Recalling the conversation she had with then-president-elect Obama about her joining the administration during an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Clinton said that she was at first surprised when the president offered her the secretary of state post.

“It was, you know, about … five, six days after the election. And my husband and I were out for a walk, actually, in a, sort of, preserve near where we live in New York. And he had his cell phone in his pocket. It started ringing in the middle of this, you know, big nature preserve,” Clinton said. “Instead of turning it off, he answered it. And it was President-elect Obama wanting to talk to him about some people he was considering for positions.”

Clinton said she then picked up the phone thinking Obama wanted to talk generally about Cabinet picks when he surprised her by asking the former New York senator and Democratic rival to become his chief diplomat.

“He said I want you to be my secretary of state. And I said, ‘Oh, no, you don’t,’” Clinton recalled. “I said, ‘Oh, please, there’s so many other people who could do this.’

“But, you know, we kept talking. I finally began thinking, look, if I had won and I had called him, I would have wanted him to say yes,” Clinton continued. “And, you know, I’m pretty old-fashioned, and it’s just who I am. So at the end of the day, when your president asks you to serve, you say yes, if you can.”

Asked if she would have made the same call to Obama if she had been elected president, Clinton responded: “Absolutely. Absolutely. Oh, of course.”

Well, I can see that she would have to do so, but SHE would have been the boss, and SHOULD have been, as many of us think given te votes she received in the Primary.

And that brings me to this:

Additionally, Clinton backed up her statement from earlier in the week that she will not run for president a second time.

“I have absolutely no interest in running for president again. None. None,” she said. “I mean, I know that’s hard for some people to believe, but, you know, I just don’t.”

“I feel like I have had the most amazing life in my public service,” the secretary of state continued. “And for the last 17 years, ever since my husband started running for president, I have been, you know, in the spotlight, working hard. And this job is incredibly all-encompassing. So I think I’m looking forward to maybe taking some time off.”

She HAS had an amazing life, no doubt about it. She is an amazing woman – no one would expect anything less from someone of her stature. But I have to say, the thought of NEVER having a President Hillary Clinton is demoralizing. I feel like the DNC Elite have won (again), getting the Clintons out once and for all, despite the tremendous successes they have had independent of each other, and for the good of the country. It just burns me up that they might actually succeed. Dammit it to hell.

That despite the fact that k, Secretary Clinton has higher approval ratings than President Obama does now. I’m not kidding – hot off the Gullup wires, her ratings are 62%, and Obama’s are 56%. Maybe it’s because people are seeing that SHE is out there working her ass off on our behalf, on behalf of the country, and for the greater good of the world. They see Obama hemming and hawing, incapable of making hard decisions, or fulfilling campaign promises, yet showing up on YouTube doing the salsa (more or less) the other night while Clinton has been to the following countries between 10/9 – 15: Zurich, London, Dublin, Belfast, Moscow and Kazan. Holy smokes – makes me tired just reading the list.

She is just a remarkable woman, isn’t she?? Incredible energy, devotion, good humor, intelligence, and compassion, all in one person who SHOULD be the boss.

So I have been in denial, not wanting to believe my ears and eyes when she says she won’t be running again. Someone wake me when she changes her mind. Or Obama’s out of office. Whichever comes first…

(And a grudging thanks to Bronwyn’s Harbor for sending me the video. Thanks, BH – kinda!)

Naturally, it’s about Secretary Hillary Clinton. For once, there was a GOOD article, calling out some of the sexism with which she has had to deal, while highlighting the incredible work she has been doing on behalf of the State4 Department, and our country. David Rothkopf had this article, “It’s 3:00 a.m. Do you Know Where Hillary Clinton Is?” I admit, when I first saw the title, I thought he was being snarky, and it was going to be yet another hatchet job on this amazing woman, this bright star. Imagine my delight when I read it, and discovered, far from snark, this was a serious article, about a serious role, and a serious person. All I can say is, it’s about damn time:

When it comes to Hillary Rodham Clinton, we’re missing the forest for the pantsuits.

Clinton is not the first celebrity to become the nation’s top diplomat — that honor goes to her most distant predecessor, Thomas Jefferson, who by the time he took office was one of the most famous and gossiped-about men in America — but she may be the biggest. And during her first seven months in office, the former first lady, erstwhile presidential candidate and eternal lightning rod has drawn more attention for her moods, looks, outtakes and (of course) relationship with her husband than for, well, her work revamping the nation’s foreign policy.

Even venerable publications — such as one to which I regularly contribute, Foreign Policy — have woven into their all-Hillary-all-the-time coverage odd discussions of Clinton’s handbag and scarf choices. Daily Beast editor Tina Brown, while depicting herself as a Clinton supporter, has been scathing and small-minded in discussing such things as Clinton’s weight and hair, while her “defense” of Hillary in her essay “Obama’s Other Wife” was as sexist as the title suggests.

Indeed, sexism has followed Clinton from the campaign trail to Foggy Bottom, as seen most recently in the posturing outrage surrounding the exchange in Congo when Clinton reacted with understandable frustration to the now-infamous question regarding her husband’s views. Major media outlets have joined the gossipfest, whether the New York Times, which covered Clinton’s first big policy speech by discussing whether she was in or out with the White House, or The Washington Post, where a couple of reporters mused about whether a brew called Mad Bitch would be the beer of choice for the secretary of state.

May I just pause here to say, THANK YOU for calling these “news” sources out for these sexist depictions/attacks on Clinton. Thank you.

As to the work of Secretary Clinton, the article continues:

Amid all the distractions, what is Clinton actually doing? Only overseeing what may be the most profound changes in U.S. foreign policy in two decades — a transformation that may render the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush mere side notes in a long transition to a meaningful post-Cold War worldview.

The secretary has quietly begun rethinking the very nature of diplomacy and translating that vision into a revitalized State Department, one that approaches U.S. allies and rivals in ways that challenge long-held traditions. And despite the pessimists who invoked the “team of rivals” cliche to predict that President Obama and Clinton would not get along, Hillary has defined a role for herself in the Obamaverse: often bad cop to his good cop, spine stiffener when it comes to tough adversaries and nurturer of new strategies. Recognizing that the 3 a.m. phone calls are going to the White House, she is instead tackling the tough questions that, since the end of the Cold War, have kept America’s leaders awake all night.

In these early days of the new administration, it has been easy to focus on what Clinton has not achieved or on ways in which her power has been supposedly constrained. Indeed, some of her efforts have been frustrated by difficult personnel approvals or disputes with the White House about who should get what jobs. But this is the way of all administrations. More unusual has been the avidity with which the new president has seized the reins of foreign policy — more assertively than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton before him. Obama’s centrality amplifies the importance of his closest White House staffers, while his penchant for appointing special envoys such as Richard Holbrooke (on Afghanistan and Pakistan) and George Mitchell (on the Middle East) has been interpreted by some as limiting Clinton’s role.

Given the challenges involved, it was perhaps natural that the White House would have a bigger day-to-day hand in some of the nation’s most urgent foreign policy issues. But with Obama, national security adviser Jim Jones, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates absorbed by Iraq, Afghanistan and other inherited problems of the recent past, Clinton’s State Department can take on a bigger role in tackling the problems of the future — in particular, how America will lead the world in the century ahead. This approach is both necessary and canny: It recognizes that U.S. policy must change to fulfill Obama’s vision and that many high-profile issues such as those of the Middle East have often swamped the careers and aspirations of secretaries of state past.

Which nations will be our key partners? What do you do when many vital partners — China, for example, and Russia — are rivals as well? How must America’s alliances change as NATO is stretched to the limit? How do we engage with rogue states and old enemies in ways that do not strengthen them and preserve our prerogative to challenge threats? How do we move beyond the diplomacy of men in striped pants speaking only for governments and embrace potent nonstate players and once-disenfranchised peoples?

In searching for answers, Clinton is leaving behind old doctrines and labels. She outlined her new thinking in a recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, where she revealed stark differences between the new administration’s worldview and those of its predecessors: The recurring themes include “partnership” and “engagement” and “common interests.” Clearly, Madeleine Albright’s “indispensable nation” has recognized the indispensability of collaborating with others.

Who those “others” are is the area in which change has been greatest and most rapid. “We will put,” Clinton said, “special emphasis on encouraging major and emerging global powers — China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as Turkey, Indonesia and South Africa — to be full partners in tackling the global agenda.” This is the death knell for the G-8 as the head table of the global community; the administration has an effort underway to determine whether the successor to the G-8 will be the G-20, or perhaps some other grouping. Though the move away from the G-8 began in the waning days of the Bush era, that administration viewed the world through a different lens, a perception that evolved from a traditional great-power view to a pre-Galilean notion that everything revolved around the world’s sole superpower.

Obama and Clinton have both made engaging with emerging powers a priority. Obama visited Russia earlier this year and will host Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his first state dinner in November. Clinton has made trips to China and India, and she would have been with Obama in Russia had she not injured her elbow. Both have visited Africa and the Middle East, reaching out to women and the Islamic world.

To anyone who has been following Clinton throughout her career, the manner in which she has been pursuing her position should come as no surprise. You may recall a book she wrote some time ago, It Takes A Village, in which these kinds of concepts have been discussed. She works in a collegial manner, holding the bigger picture firmly in hand as she goes about her work. It isn’t about her. It is about the world, the country, and the citizens here and abroad. It is about pulling women and children up out of poverty, having people be educated, allowing people to live their lives, and not just fight to survive. That’s her deal, and it has been for a long, long time. And it is that commitment that leads to this:

On many critical agenda items — from a rollback of nuclear weapons to the climate or trade talks — such emerging powers will be essential to achieving U.S. goals. As a result, we’ve seen a new American willingness to play down old differences, whether with Russia on a missile shield or, as Clinton showed on her China trip, with Beijing on human rights.

At the center of Clinton’s brain trust is Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Now head of policy planning at the State Department, Slaughter elaborated on the ideas in Clinton’s speech. “We envision getting not just a new group of states around a table, but also building networks, coalitions and partnerships of states and nonstate actors to tackle specific problems,” she told me.

“To do that,” Slaughter continued, “our diplomats are going to need to have skills that are closer to community organizing than traditional reporting and analysis. New connecting technologies will be vital tools in this kind of diplomacy.”

A new team has been brought in to make these changes real. Clinton recruited Alec Ross, one of the leaders of Obama’s technology policy team, to the seventh floor of the State Department as her senior adviser for innovation. His mission is to harness new information tools to advance U.S. interests — a task made easier as the Internet and mobile networks have played starring roles in recent incidents, from Iran to the Uighur uprising in western China to Moldova. Whether through a telecommunications program in Congo to protect women from violence or text messaging to raise money for Pakistani refugees in the Swat Valley, technology has been deployed to reach new audiences.

Of course, you need more than new ideas to revitalize the State Department; you need resources, too. The secretary has brought in former Bill Clinton-era budget chief Jack Lew to help her claw back money for statecraft that many in Foggy Bottom feel has been sucked off toward the Pentagon. She has also created special positions to back new priorities, such as Melanne Verveer as ambassador at large for women’s issues, Elizabeth Bagley to handle public-private outreach worldwide and Todd Stern as the chief negotiator on climate.

Even just a few months in, it’s clear that these appointments are far from window dressing. Lew, Slaughter and the acting head of the U.S. Agency for International Development are leading an effort to rethink foreign aid with the new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, an initiative modeled on the Pentagon’s strategic assessments and designed to review State’s priorities. Stern has conducted high-level discussions on climate change around the world, notably with China. Clinton made women’s issues a centerpiece of her recent 11-day trip to Africa, where she stressed that “the social, political and economic marginalization of women across Africa has left a void in this continent that undermines progress and prosperity.”

Unlike other politicians, I don’t think Clinton appoints people to be “window dressing,” but to get the job done. That is further evidenced with the following appointment:

Clinton has also signaled the importance of private-sector experience by naming former Goldman Sachs International vice chairman Robert Hormats, a respected veteran of four administrations, to handle economic issues at the State Department, as well as Judith McHale, former chief executive of Discovery Communications, to run public diplomacy. In the same vein, she has opened up Cuba to American telecommunications companies and reached out to India’s private sector on energy cooperation — showing that this administration will seek to advance national interests by tapping the self-interests of the business community. As with any new administration, there have been inevitable problems. The old campaign teams — Clinton’s and Obama’s — still eye each other warily, but this feeling is gradually fading. And by most accounts, the administration’s national security team has come together successfully, with Clinton developing strong relationships with national security adviser Jones and Defense Secretary Gates. Her policy deputy, Jim Steinberg, has renewed an old collaboration with deputy national security adviser Tom Donilon; the two of them, working with Obama campaign foreign policy advisers Denis McDonough and Mark Lippert, have formed what one State Department seventh-floor dweller called “a powerful quartet at the heart of real interagency policymaking.” Henry Kissinger may have overstated matters when he said this is the best White House-State relationship in recent memory, but it’s not bad, while the State-Pentagon relationship is in its best shape in decades.

Huh. Well, I’ll be. Who could have seen THAT coming? Oh, I know – the 18 million people who voted for her!

But Clinton is not looking back to what was. Rather, she is looking ahead to see how best she can fulfill her work, As such, again, she looks at the big picture, and how best to accomplish what needs doing, including:

At the heart of things, though, is the relationship between Clinton and Obama. For all the administration’s talk of international partnerships, that may be the most critical partnership of all.

So far, according to multiple high-level officials at State and the White House, the two seem aligned in their views. In addition, they are gradually defining complementary roles. Obama has assumed the role of principal spokesperson on foreign policy, as international audiences welcome his new and improved American brand. Clinton thus far has echoed his points but has also delivered tougher ones. Whether on a missile shield against Iran or North Korean saber-rattling, the continued imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma or rape and corruption in Congo, the secretary of state has spoken bluntly on the world stage — even if it triggered snide comments from North Korea.

It is still early, and a president’s foreign policy legacy is often defined less by big principles than by how one reacts to the unexpected, whether missiles in Cuba or terrorism in New York. Promising ideas fail because of limited attention or reluctant bureaucracies, and some rhetoric eventually rings hollow, as the self-congratulatory “smart power” already does to me.

Nevertheless, there is evidence that, seven months into the job, Obama’s unlikely secretary of state is supporting and augmenting his agenda effectively. Not as Obama’s “other wife,” not as Bill Clinton’s wife, not even as a celebrity or as a former presidential candidate — but in a new role of her own making. (drothkopf@carnegieendowment.org

David Rothkopf is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the author of “Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making” and “Running the World: The Inside Story of the NSC and the Architects of American Power.” He will be online to chat with readers Monday at 11 a.m. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.)

Indeed – she is embracing a “role of her own making.” It is hard not to consider what could have been had she been President instead of Secretary of State. Don’t get me wrong – as I have said a number of times, I am glad that Clinton is in such a crucial role for our country. Clearly, we need her. But the same intelligence; the ability, and vision, to hold the big picture in her grasp while determining the best course to achieve those goals, while finding the people who can affect those goals; the nation-building, yes, the community-building; are all the ingredients necessary for a good presidency. And I am pretty sure that a President Hillary Clinton would not have made any “wee-wee” remarks about the press corp, either. It’s a matter of decorum, the ability to hold things, events, people, in tension. It’s a matter of vision, and the ability to effect change in a real, meaningful way. That’s our Hillary. Thank heavens she is finally starting to get the recognition she so richly deserves.

Secretary Clinton can’t be seen to differ from the president without sabotaging her own power.
…
Left behind on major presidential trips, overruled in choosing her own staff—Hillary Clinton is the invisible woman at State. But Obama’s brilliant foreign-policy spouse may not stay silent forever.

It’s time for Barack Obama to let Hillary Clinton take off her burqa.

Consider the president’s Moscow trip a week ago. In a cozy scene at Vladimir Putin’s dacha, the boys enjoyed traditional Russian tea and breakfast on a terrace. Sitting on Putin’s right was the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov. Where was Lavrov’s counterpart? She was back home, left there with a broken elbow to receive a visit from the ousted Honduran president, José Manuel Zelaya.

Ms. Brown paints this as a deliberate slight by Obama, or a way to put his own ever-present and over exposed visage out front while keeping Hillary’s far more knowledgeable one out of the limelight. That may be so, but Brown leaves no room for the fact that Secretary Clinton may not have been able to travel last week due to her injury. No matter. Let’s try to harp on the fact that Hillary is diminished anyway. Other articles have been cropping up intimating the same and wondering “how long Hillary is going to put up with this.”

The far more important point Brown neglects to mention is that Obama’s solo trip was not considered a success. He made his amateurish pronouncements on the Cold War and received a long lecture by Putin and did not really get what he came for. President Obama’s actions will not be considered too clever in the long run if he reaps repercussions for having left the only adult in the room at home.

Ms. Brown continues…

Same thing last month, when the president stopped off to see King Abdullah en route to his oratorical home run in Cairo: no Hillary. Nor was there any sign of Middle East envoy George Mitchell or anyone else from the State Department on the Saudi leg of the trip, even though its main mission was to recruit Abdullah into a peace-making partnership with Israel. The king told Obama no, by the way, so it’s fair to ask whether the president could have used a bit more Foggy Bottom prep work. Jim Hoagland noted in Sunday’s Washington Post that the White House’s leak of Obama’s decision to send an ambassador to Syria took Clinton’s State Department by surprise and trumped State’s efforts to squeeze another concession or two out of Damascus first.

As. Mr. Hoagland rightly points out in his piece White House Fault Lines, this may be another strike against the Obama Administration, clearly making a mistake by trying to trump their own very loyal team at State – for no apparent reason.

Ms. Brown seems to delight in pointing out President Clinton’s being “curtailed” by Obama as a concession to his wife’s position. Yet I am sure Brown has a point in noting how Obama, together with Emanuel and Axelrod, need to stick their nose in appointments that should be left up to her:

Hillary, with her usual iron discipline about the big picture of power, is behaving like a stalwart team player. Before she took the job, she was assured she could pick her own trusted team. Yet she was overruled in appointing her own choice for deputy secretary, Richard Holbrooke. Instead, she was made to take an Obama guy, James Steinberg, who had originally been slated to become national-security adviser. (Hillary took care of Holbrooke, one of diplomacy’s biggest stars, by giving him the most explosive portfolio—Pakistan and Afghanistan.) She lost the ability to dole out major ambassadorships, too. A lot of these prizes are going to reward Obama fundraisers instead of knowledgeable appointees like Harvard’s Joseph Nye, whom she wanted to send to Japan.

Ms. Brown complains that Hillary was not given credit for getting Obama to put more troops in Afghanistan, inferring VP Biden is given credit for this. Well, this runs contrary to Ben Smith’s article in Politico, Clinton Gains Respect Out Of Spotlight, as quoted by CBS News, that Hillary trumped Biden on Afghanistan so perhaps Ms. Brown is overstating. Smith’s article is quick to point out that SoS Clinton’s popularity now stands at 71%, higher than the President’s. While pundits the likes of George Stephanopoulos intimated her portfolio and role is decreased because of envoys Holbrooke and Mitchell, Hillary always campaigned on hiring just such heavy hitting personnel to concentrate more diplomatic power in the middle east. Some choice quotes in this regard from the Politico article:

The envoys will be the primary metric through which you will judge her legacy…And even skeptical observers said Clinton appears to have won sufficient control over the envoys after a precarious start.

Rep. Mark Kirk, a Republican who serves on the House subcommittee that oversees the State Department and describes himself as a Clinton “fan” for her role in pushing for sending more troops to Afghanistan…

“Between her consideration and her final confirmation she had lost some authority and power as all of these envoys were appointed,” he said. “Once she did get confirmed, though, what we have seen is a steady increase in her authority and control as we have seen envoys seeming to now work with her.”

Leaders in the region, he said, view her as “pre-eminent.” …Clinton is also afforded a level of day-to-day deference that underscores her stature. …The deputy secretary of state, Jim Steinberg, described Clinton’s role with the envoys as “the closer.” ….”The envoys tee it up for her,” he said in an interview. “It’s an extremely powerful way to use someone with her stature.”

Hillary Clinton has also been credited on many fronts as having, in short order, put diplomacy back under the charge of the State Department, rather than the military. Smith states her style as SoS echoes her arrival in the Senate in 2001 — putting her head down, figuring out the job and working hard rather than looking for the spotlight. Tina Brown likewise points out how, historically, this suits Clinton’s work ethic even as she seemingly objects to it elsewhere:

The former first lady and New York senator is no stranger to the big game of politics. Obama’s presidency is tightly White House driven and she is not the only player on a tight leash. … But I doubt she cares about losing the spotlight at this time in her life when she’s not running for something. Unlike Bill, she hates glad-handing and does TV only because she has to. Policy is her meat and drink. On her State Department plane, Hillary is always eager to throw off her well-groomed public look and sit up front with no makeup, wearing sweats and her bookworm glasses, as she crunches her way through a big fat file of foreign-policy memos. She is as formidably well-informed in this job as she was at the Rose law firm in Arkansas, doing all the legal backup work for the guys on a big deal. Or when she played the canny sounding board and strategist for Gov. Bill Clinton in his run for president.

That’s the trouble. You could say that Obama is lucky to have such a great foreign-policy wife. Those who voted for Hillary wonder how long she’ll be content with an office wifehood of the Saudi variety.

To call Hillary a Saudi wife? That’s quite a leap. And if Hillary were out front and center, I’m sure Ms. Brown would complain about how “ego driven” and “power hungry” she is. Hillary certainly heard enough of that nonsense last year. Once again, I am sure the maddening tightrope a female politician or diplomat has to walk is far more precarious than that of any man in the same position.

I can’t make up my mind reading this article as to Ms. Brown’s end game. To degrade Hillary? To throw down the gauntlet and encourage her to speak out? To slap at President Obama pointing out how foolish he is not to make better use of Secretary Clinton’s considerable abilities?

It is interesting to note that a month ago, not three days before Hillary broke her arm, Ms. Brown penned another article entitled What Hillary Can Teach Sarah Palin. Brown stated that Hillary was an example of “what real female power looks like,” that she is a “dedicated policy wonk who worked on behalf of oppressed women in unpronounceable places long before it was fashionable.”

She then engages in some revisionist history of her own when she stated that Hillary was “humbled at the polls” by Barack Obama. Oh really? So the fact that she won more votes than any candidate in primary history – male or female – 300,000 more than him – that’s humbling? Being outspent three to one, stabbed in the back by your own party, trashed in the media daily, winning more votes and still not getting the nomination, well I have another word for that – and it has nothing to do with being humbled. Knee-capped, maybe.

Ms. Brown lectures Palin to

Take a leaf out of Hillary’s book. (Or from Condi Rice, for that matter. Clinton’s predecessor in the job likewise knows how to disappear herself for a bit while she recoups and rebrands.) Bide your time, don’t waste it.

Her words of wisdom here are “it’s the substance that sustains, not the exposure.” No kidding. Hillary is all substance, that’s for sure. But in her new article – Brown demands more exposure for Hillary. Tina needs to make up her mind. Is she going to believe that Hillary is “biding her time” and knows what she is doing or not?

While I do not particularly care for Ms. Brown’s tone, I’d love to see Hillary front and center myself. Selfishly I would feel safer knowing for certain she was in charge of the foreign policy portfolio at State rather than the rest of the Administration that keeps swapping seats in the clown car. But as Brown notes, when one is starting a job, it pays to build a firm foundation before making a lot of noise.

Let’s see if we start hearing more noise from Hillary.

There is little doubt that Germany carries the most weight within the European Union. Germany suffered massive inflation after the Weimar Republic and the fear of hyperinflation is deeply embedded in their culture. Given my experience and interest, I watch developments there fairly closely.

While China Agrees $10 Billion Trade Deal With Germany, Europe may seem to be a relatively small trade agreement on its face, I actually believe there are much greater implications, both real and symbolic, of this trade deal. What are they?

First off, the bulk of these trade agreements are in the auto, electronics, and tech industries. While U.S. companies may not be the world leaders in electronics, I do think we have some automotive and technology companies that may like a piece of this business especially at this time.

The more important signal of this trade agreement is on the political front. While Secretary of State Clinton has embraced China, the messages from President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner have been decidedly mixed. Don’t think for a second that the administration does not see and feel this agreement. I would bet that we see even further overtures made by both China and Russia towards Europe in an attempt to shift the balance of power.

Lastly, in reviewing this agreement please note that the Germans are exporting products and the Chinese are importing!! Secretary Geithner called on the Chinese to increase consumption and imports, but we did not get the trade!

Just a subtle message under the surface as the Prisoner’s Dilemma between the U.S. and China plays out.

Although this trade agreement got no coverage here in the United States, do you think if there were a multi-billion dollar trade agreement between the U.S. and China it may have been front page news?

LD

And now, CLASS: Please compare, and contrast, these two examples of television journalism:

Yes, well. Actually, there was some news in there.

And, Rachel, I’d flat-out kill for Hillary’s coat BUT it is NOT your lead, Rachel. So not your lead! (North Korea, for example

Hillary, you rock. Rachel? You not so much.

And why oh god why Rachel do you over-enunciate and over-emote every single word that comes out of your mouth in a very much too-high-pitched way?

Breathe, Rachel.

Take it from an old former French horn player: Use your diaphragm.

You’re supposed to be engaging, not grating!

Oh, that second example? That’s from the new PBS world news program that I’m very fond of, WorldFocus. Besides the above video, there’s this “blog” report:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Tokyo on Monday night on her first trip as the nation’s chief diplomat.

“I have come to Asia as my first trip as secretary of state to convey that America’s relationships across the Pacific are indispensable to addressing the challenges and seizing the opportunities of the twenty-first century,” Clinton said to a crowd in Tokyo.

Sheila A. Smith, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, joins Martin Savidge to discuss how Clinton will approach North Korea, Japan and how the Japanese view China’s growing economic and military power.

Read what a Worldfocus contributing blogger had to say about Clinton’s stop in Japan and what her visit means for internal Japanese politics: Clinton plans for a rare meeting with Japan’s opposition.

Check out MORE at WorldFocus.

P.S. Last night’s program included a quite disturbing if fascinating examination of the fascination with and admiration for Joseph Stalin that today’s Russians have: “Stalin Makes a Comeback With Russia’s Youth.”

In 1991, on the eve of the collapse of the Soviet Union, I went to visit my grandmother in Florida (all those stereotypes you hear about retirees and the early bird special…they’re true).  She was born in Ukraine and immigrated with her family to the United States when she was a teenager, shortly before the breakout of World War I.  Though she spent most of her life living here, she continued to follow the political events in what became the USSR. 

One night during my visit she expressed concern that the fall of communism would not spell sunshine, lollypops, and moonbeams for the Russian people.  In fact, she saw civil wars, and an unchecked black market mafia tearing the old empire apart.  She wasn’t too far off.  Something else she said to me that night stuck with me.  The world was expecting the old Soviet Union to embrace democracy and hold hands with the West.  She knew that was not going to happen.  She went on saying that the Russian people had never known anything resembling democracy in their history.  They would always turn to, and feel safer with, a strong centralized government.  That’s what they had under the Czars, and under communism.  Why should post-communist Russia be any different?  She also correctly predicted that any democratic Russia would be short lived, and that eventually power would be consolidated back into the hands of the old communist apparatchiks who would move to reconstitute the old empire.  Was I surprised by the rise of former KGB (FSB…same difference) head Vladimir Putin?  Not really.

 So let’s fast forward to the summer of 2008.  Russia invades Georgia.  I don’t believe this was a dispute about borders, territory, protecting Russian nationals, or any other presumed reason.  Putin has been telegraphing messages for months.  The first is that Russia is intent on rebuilding its empire, not only within its immediate sphere of influence, but in the Middle East as well. 

We already know that the Russians are assisting the Iranians with the construction of Chernobyl South (if there wasn’t an acute risk of Iranian uranium ending up in a suitcase in downtown Tel Aviv, or packed into a long range missile, I wonder if the Israelis would be content to wait on the new plant to go China Syndrome and turn Iran to a sheet of glass).  It is also no secret that Israel has established good relations with Georgia, selling them weapons to the tune of $300 million dollars last year.  Mother Russia was not at all pleased.  Israeli defense experts believe that Russia has sold surface to air defense systems to both Syria and Iran, specifically the SA-3 Goa, a low altitude system that might be used to say…defend against an attack like Operation Ofra where the Israeli Air Force leveled the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq, much to the private cheering of Iraq’s neighbors.  Rosoboronexport, the firm holding a monopoly on Russian arms exports, claims that it made no such sales. And yet Bashar Assad went to Russia to secure an arms deal in August.  How many sides of one’s face can someone speak out of at the same time?  Maybe we should consult the President-Select on that one.

 I’m recalling those golden Cold War days of yesteryear when the Soviets and the United States fought their proxy war via Israel and the Arabs.  Happy days are here again…oy gevalt.

 But what I think was really behind the aggression against Georgia was a shakedown for the Russian military in the event they move against the real prize: Crimea, principle home of the Black Sea Fleet, the majority of which Russia retains.  Controlling Crimea would, in my opinion, translate into Russian proxy control of Ukraine.  There is already a Russian military presence there, and the Russian government has stirred up a great deal of controversy by distributing Russian passports to residents.  Could this be laying the groundwork for an invasion based on the pretext of defending Russian nationals?  One need only look at Georgia for the answer to that question.  And clearly the Ukranian leadership is concerned, as it restricted the movement of Russian ships to and from the Black Sea Fleet’s home port of Sevastopol, after Russia used Black Sea Fleet ships during the Georgia invasion.  Russia retains a 20 year lease on the Sevastopol port.

 Would Putin be willing to make this move with John McCain in the White House?  I think he would be a lot less likely, than say with a foreign relations novice in the Oval Office.  Soon to be Secretary of State Clinton, do America a favor and fully debrief the man who would be king on the situation.  Last time I checked he thought he could convene the United Nations Security Council and get them to condemn Russian aggression (you might also want to remind him that Russia is a permanent member of the UNSC and has veto power over any and all resolutions).  And maybe put face time with the Russian leadership near the top of your agenda.  But considering your wonkish grasp of the world scene I would imagine you’ve got that covered.

 Hold on to your butts folks.  This could get ugly.  I wonder if Big Joe Biden is girding his loins yet.  At least someone with the capacity to see the big picture, and the spine not to back down, will be in the big chair at Foggy Bottom.  Can you imagine John “Lurch” Kerry asking Vlad to pass the Camembert? 

1)The computer systems of both the Obama and McCain campaigns were victims of a sophisticated cyberattack by an unknown “foreign entity,” prompting a federal investigation, NEWSWEEK reports today.

At the Obama headquarters in midsummer, technology experts detected what they initially thought was a computer virus—a case of “phishing,” a form of hacking often employed to steal passwords or credit-card numbers. But by the next day, both the FBI and the Secret Service came to the campaign with an ominous warning: “You have a problem way bigger than what you understand,” an agent told Obama’s team. “You have been compromised, and a serious amount of files have been loaded off your system.” The following day, Obama campaign chief David Plouffe heard from White House chief of staff Josh Bolten, to the same effect: “You have a real problem … and you have to deal with it.”
—————
Officials at the FBI and the White House told the Obama campaign that they believed a foreign entity or organization sought to gather information on the evolution of both camps’ policy positions—information that might be useful in negotiations with a future administration. The Feds assured the Obama team that it had not been hacked by its political opponents. (Obama technical experts later speculated that the hackers were Russian or Chinese.) A security firm retained by the Obama campaign took steps to secure its computer system and end the intrusion. White House and FBI officials had no comment earlier this week.

Read the rest ->

Nothing like being a victim to alert a person to the danger. I wonder if any technology-related policies will benefit from Obama’s victimization.

2)Meanwhile, in Russia, things are heating up. Foxnews has a piece about Russian President Medvedev “sending a signal” to the US.

Russia will deploy missiles near NATO member Poland in response to U.S. missile defense plans, President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday in his first state of the nation speech.

Medvedev also singled out the United States for criticism, casting Russia’s war with Georgia in August and the global financial turmoil as consequences of aggressive, selfish U.S. policies.

————————-

Speaking just hours after Obama was declared the victor in the U.S. presidential election, Medvedev said he hoped the incoming administration will take steps to improve badly damaged U.S. ties with Russia. He suggested it is up to the U.S. — not the Kremlin — to seek to improve relations.

“I stress that we have no problem with the American people, no inborn anti-Americanism. And we hope that our partners, the U.S. administration, will make a choice in favor of full-fledged relations with Russia,” Medvedev said.

Well, here we go. A Russian demand for a new American President to kiss some butt. Hmmmmm.

3)In the most thoughtful piece I’ve seen on the racial aspect of a President Obama, Shelby Steele talks a bit about what Obama implicitly promised and what he may not be able to deliver. From LAT.

[Obama's] talent was to project an idealized vision of a post-racial America — and then to have that vision define political decency. Thus, a failure to support Obama politically implied a failure of decency.

Obama’s special charisma — since his famous 2004 convention speech — always came much more from the racial idealism he embodied than from his political ideas. In fact, this was his only true political originality. On the level of public policy, he was quite unremarkable. His economics were the redistributive axioms of old-fashioned Keynesianism; his social thought was recycled Great Society. But all this policy boilerplate was freshened up — given an air of “change” — by the dreamy post-racial and post-ideological kitsch he dressed it in.

This worked politically for Obama because it tapped into a deep longing in American life — the longing on the part of whites to escape the stigma of racism. In running for the presidency — and presenting himself to a majority white nation — Obama knew intuitively that he was dealing with a stigmatized people. He knew whites were stigmatized as being prejudiced, and that they hated this situation and literally longed for ways to disprove the stigma.
——————–

Of course, it is true that white America has made great progress in curbing racism over the last 40 years.
——————–
It is exactly because America has made such dramatic racial progress that whites today chafe so under the racist stigma. So I don’t think whites really want change from Obama as much as they want documentation of change that has already occurred. They want him in the White House first of all as evidence, certification and recognition.

But there is an inherent contradiction in all this. When whites — especially today’s younger generation — proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer’s ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.

On the nose. Particularly that last part. Although many people would not feel the same, I can say that this election has pretty much cured me of any need to seek “racial innocence.” While many blacks have often said they felt constrained not to make whites feel “threatened” by their presence, I think whites could respond that they often felt constrained to project “I’m not racist” at every opportunity.

However, I’m not doing it anymore. I’ll be polite to people, not wishing to give offense and just hoping to get along – same as ever. But I’m not going to worry if someone perceives me as a racist because I looked at them too long or noticed what was in their grocery cart or any of a thousand things you do when you interact others. I’m done with that.

But what about how Obama will transform our culture? What does Steele say?

There is nothing to suggest that Obama will lead America into true post-racialism. His campaign style revealed a tweaker of the status quo, not a revolutionary. Culturally and racially, he is likely to leave America pretty much where he found her.
——————
Presidents follow the culture; they don’t lead it. I hope for a competent president.

Yeah. I completely agree. All I ever wanted was competence.

4)The Orlando-Sentinel had an interesting and yet ridiculous piece today. Obama won because of black athletes. Seriously.

If you’re searching for tangible reasons why it became possible for Barack Obama to make his historic run at the presidency of the United States, then look no further than the golf course, basketball court or football field.

Obama may have emerged from the partisan political arena, but it was the nonpartisan athletic arena that opened white America’s eyes and minds to the amazing potential and personalities of black America.

OK, you can make a case for any barrier-breaker, no doubt about that. But to suggest that black athletes who excel in the ruthless meritocracy that is sports today somehow are the forerunners of a man elected despite a lack of experience is not a very good argument, IMO. Seeing Michael Jordan play basketball or Lynn Swan play football is to see a truly expert individual. Simply put, you don’t play if you don’t have the chops.

But to suggest a presidential campaign reflects meritocracy is absurd. It reflects many things, but not necessarily merit. These athletes will be out on their butts as soon as they can’t perform. Anyone honestly think THAT will happen to BO? Has it yet?

5)Who should get Obama’s Senate seat? An AA of course. I’m seriously doubting any white people need apply, but let’s look at the contenders. From Newser is a Time piece on who could fill that seat.

As confidence grew in recent weeks that Barack Obama would be the next President of the United States, a battle intensified among various Illinois politicos to fill his Senate seat. Although a number of local leaders have publicly expressed interest in the position, the decision on who will complete the roughly two years remaining in Obama’s Senate term ultimately rests with Illinois’ governor, Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat and former congressman. . .
—————

Identity politics may play a major part in Blagojevich’s decision. Observers believe the governor may feel compelled to appease two of his core constituencies — women, and blacks, particularly from his native Chicago area — that could prove crucial to his prospects should he seek reelection in 2010. He may feel extra pressure to replace the Senate’s only black member with another African-American. One of the names most frequently mentioned here is Jesse Jackson Jr., a veteran Congressman who represents parts of Chicago’s South Side, and a national co-chair of Obama’s presidential campaign.

In an interview Monday, Jackson told TIME: “I’d be honored and humbled to succeed Sen. Obama in the U.S. Senate. I’m confident the governor will make a decision in the best interest of the state, and country.” But Blagojevich could also opt for a sort of placeholder figure to complete Obama’s term and allow Democrats to find a long-term candidate for 2010. Among the prominent black politicians the governor would turn to in that scenario, are Illinois’ secretary of state, Jesse White, or Emil Jones Jr., the recently retired president of Illinois’ senate, and one of Blagojevich’s few General Assembly allies.

The author mentions some other contenders, but I think Jackson is the most likely choice and he’s clearly indicated he wants it. And as national co-chair of Obama’s campaign, I’m betting it’s his. As for the idea that a woman might get the seat? Only if Obama tells Jesse Jr. to pipe down.

A better question is this: what might Blagojevich need more than the goodwill of the President?

6)Newser also has a story from the AP about Iraq.

Iraqi officials said Wednesday they don’t expect Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops hastily from Iraq because he told them last summer that he wouldn’t make a decision without consulting them and U.S. commanders on the ground.

With violence down and the economy No. 1 on American voters’ minds, the Iraqis said they believe the new president will take his time before fulfilling his promise to end the war in Iraq, which costs U.S. taxpayers $12 billion a month at a time of financial crisis back home.
——————

“Obama has to deal with Iraq’s issues in a positive way and have a sense of responsibility to correct the situation in Iraq, as well the situation inside America,” said Salim Abdullah, spokesman of the largest Sunni bloc in parliament.

“We are not concerned that he will take a unilateral decision to remove troops quickly from Iraq since he needs to discuss this issue with the Iraqi government first,” Abdullah said.
——————–

This year, U.S. and Iraqi negotiators hammered out an agreement that would remove U.S. soldiers from Iraq’s cities by June 30, with the last American troops leaving the country by 2012. The accord still must be approved by parliament by year’s end when the U.N. mandate expires.

The draft agreement has drawn strong opposition inside Iraq, but government officials are hopeful that parliament can approve the pact in time for the deadline.

That would largely satisfy both Obama’s pledge _ and the Iraqi goal _ of an orderly end to the U.S. mission.

Don’t forget that part. Despite an agreement in place, Obama will take credit for any forward movement in Iraq. Having said that, I don’t think Bush deserves any credit at all. But perhaps some of his people might. They won’t get any.

7) Lastly, I looked in vain for MSM or even sorta MSM discussions of this election in terms of misogyny or in terms of women’s issues. Crickets. Except for a wonderful post here on NQ by Bud White, there is very little out there. We should push BO on this issue at every opportunity and carefully monitor his administration. While everyone talked about race being the “unspoken issue” of the campaign, it got thoroughly aired. What was never spoken of was hate against women.

So far, only bloggers are addressing the issue, but here’s another one:

Grail Guardian is pointed:

There will never be a female President of the United States. There. I said it. Ladies, go home and grab your burkas and start cooking dinner for your man and popping out babies. You will never have equal pay for equal work, you will never be considered competent or capable at anything you ever do, and you stand no chance of ever getting anywhere unless it’s to a soccer or hockey game to cheer your (male) children on. Of course the laws will be wide open to allow you to abort female children so you don’t have to sully the landscape with them at all anymore.

How do I know? Because before even half the nation’s votes were tallied tonight, not only were all the major networks calling the race for Barack Obama, but the pundits are already discussing how Sarah Palin was John McCain’s downfall. Pundits attempting to defend her popularity with statistics were shot down on Fox News. That’s it – it’s over. You will not see another female Presidential candidate taken seriously in this country in our lifetimes. We’ll be lucky if we continue to see women continue to hold seats in the Senate and House after tonight. Female Governors? Forget about it. Palin won’t be re-elected there, because in spite of the fact that Alaska loved her (90% approval rating) just 4 months ago, she has been trashed and is now persona non grata in her own state courtesy of the Chosen One.

Time to saddle up. We need to demand BO own this issue since he’s knowingly benefitted from misogyny. At the very least, he should be required to choose some women for his administration. But we already know what his people said to just that request before: “you can’t have that.”

Lynette Long talked with a BO staffer and heard just that.

Think the Congressional Black Caucus might be willing to push for women? BO MIGHT listen to them.

On August 19, Julie Foudy, only one of the most awesome women of all time – and a HIGHLY successful soccer player who also fought HARD against the Republicans attempts to dismiss Title IX, had an intense “human interest” story. It was about a young Afghan woman named Mehmoba Ahdyar. She is a runner, and the only woman on the Afghanistan Olympics team (she is a runner). What was particularly intense were the reports of what she has to go through to train, particularly the threats and the taunts.

Take a look at the video (I have to say, it was informative to me to hear what they think of Karzai).

But then there was a twist a month before the Olympics. She disappeared. No one had a clue where she was. They had to pull in another athlete, Robina Muqimyar, also a track runner, to replace her. Muqimyar had retired from running, so this came as quite a surprise to her. She came in last.

But what became of Andyar? Well, the video below reveals it all. There is a bit of duplication between the two, but not much, so bear with it:

So now we know. She defected. Why? Because to be a young woman in Afghanistan now, one with dreams and hopes that other young women around the world are encouraged to pursue, means threats against her, and her family. It means the police showing up at the door. It means her family being taken to jail because she is accused of being a “prostitute.”

What a mess. What a mess to which we have contributed, and which we have neglected. If only our Congress had some kind of oversight committee for Afghanistan and NATO to help it push forward, and to help push back the Taliban, to…What? What did you say? That Congress DOES have that kind of committee? Well, what the hell has it done lately? Nothing? NOTHING?? Why not? Why would a committee that had oversight over a country in which we are at WAR not done anything? Because the chairman has been busy running for president?? You have got to be kidding me!! Not ONE meeting? Huh.

Now, I gotta tell you, that if HILLARY had been chair of that committee, they would have met a gazillion times by now. She would know who BOTH of these women athletes were, and would have helped them get the training they needed, the PROTECTION they needed. She would have gotten more of our soldiers there to do the job they were sent to do. And she would have gotten some schools built. Oh, you know she would have.

And so, here is one last video for you. It is Hillary Clinton talking about her trip to Iraq and Afghanistan (side note – pay attention to where she said she went when she was over there. Oh, you’ll know – trust me!). And just imagine that THIS person is the one who becomes president, not the one who cannot be bothered to chair one single damn committee meeting on European and NATO Affairs, to provide absolutely NO oversight to a country in which we have our TROOPS.

Here’s Hillary Clinton, the one who will actually HELP women like Andyar and Muqimyar, and who was prescient about Afghanistan:

And once again, SuperDs, I remind you – there is still time. Just because Obama was selected the Presumptuous Nominee does not mean you have to go along with it. Stand up for democracy, stand up for what is right, stand UP for the person who can actually WIN the White House, and who is dedicated to the country’s citizens. You know that is Hillary Clinton, not Mr. “That’s above my pay grade and I will ask my wife and grandmother what I should do when I am faced with a difficult decision” Obama. This is no time to worry about pride. This is the time to worry about the COUNTRY. We have serious problems – Iraq; Pakistan, even more now since Musharraf stepped down; Georgia and Russia…This is the time for serious leadership, and that is NOT Obama. It IS Hillary Clinton. She is the one the people want to take care of these situations, and bring our country forward. SHE is the One for whom we have been waiting. Do your jobs – vote your CONSCIENCE, not your bank balance. Stand up. Stand UP.

I just thought maybe you might want to take another vacation. Russian troops took some prisoners today and commandeered some USA Humvees in the process.

As you know, Barky, Putin’s poodle, Medvedev, signed an agreement to pull out of Georgia, but goodness, he doesn’t seem to be leaving that country that has fewer residents than the size of the Russian army. He keeps telling us he will leave soon but he just doesn’t keep his promise, I just know he’s dying to talk to you so everybody can kiss and make up.

So Barky, I suggest maybe Jamaica this time.

Then you could call a press conference, make a nice statement about how we need a UN Resolution that Putin can veto. Maybe you might want to give him a call from the sailboat and tell him it’s not nice to be trying to put together the Soviet Union again, but places like Georgia just don’t want to go. You remember the Soviet Union don’t you Barky? Oh that’s right, you were using diapers when they were at their worst, but I just KNOW you read a page about it in your tenth grade the history book, so you’re good to go.

So give him a call. I know he will take your call right away Barky and then pull right out of Georgia just for The One. Right after he finishes falling on the floor holding his stomach and laughing.

What was this you said again Barky–about disarming America? There’s just no end to your brilliance, man! Why don’t you just tell us you are going to hand us right over to your jihad buddies in the Middle East on Day One!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs[/youtube]

It was a near perfect laboratory test — the sort that real life rarely provides until it’s too late — for how the two nominees for president would respond to an international emergency. (It also tested the current president — more on that in a moment.) Sen. Obama flunked. His first response was to urge restraint upon “both sides” — that is upon the rapist and the rape victim.

Of Note: For those with questions about this complex issue, the New York Times is taking questions and providing answers. It is also notable that some of the British press has an entirely different view: “This is a tale of US expansion not Russian aggression,” the UK’s The Guardian. On the other end of the spectrum is Charles Krauthammer. His column in today’s Washington Post: “How to Stop Putin” (posted at RealClearPolitics.com).

Here is the latest statement from John McCain (we didn’t get yesterday’s up, so I am posting that below):

“We Are All Georgians” | by John McCain
The Wall Street Journal | August 14, 2008

For anyone who thought that stark international aggression was a thing of the past, the last week must have come as a startling wake-up call. After clashes in the Georgian region of South Ossetia, Russia invaded its neighbor, launching attacks that threaten its very existence. Some Americans may wonder why events in this part of the world are any concern of ours. After all, Georgia is a small, remote and obscure place. But history is often made in remote, obscure places.

As Russian tanks and troops moved through the Roki Tunnel and across the internationally recognized border into Georgia, the Russian government stated that it was acting only to protect Ossetians. Yet regime change in Georgia appears to be the true Russian objective.

Two years ago, I traveled to South Ossetia. As soon as we arrived at its self-proclaimed capital — now occupied by Russian troops — I saw an enormous billboard that read, “Vladimir Putin, Our President.” This was on sovereign Georgian territory.

Russian claims of humanitarian motives were further belied by a bombing campaign that encompassed the whole of Georgia, destroying military bases, apartment buildings and other infrastructure, and leaving innocent civilians wounded and killed. As the Russian Black Sea Fleet began concentrating off of the Georgian coast and Russian troops advanced on one city after another, there could be no doubt about the nature of their aggression.

Despite a French-brokered cease-fire — which worryingly does not refer to Georgia’s territorial integrity — Russian attacks have continued. There are credible reports of civilian killings and even ethnic cleansing as Russian troops move deeper into Georgian territory.

Moscow’s foreign minister revealed at least part of his government’s aim when he stated that “Mr. Saakashvili” — the democratically elected president of Georgia — “can no longer be our partner. It would be better if he went.” Russia thereby demonstrated why its neighbors so ardently seek NATO membership.

In the wake of this crisis, there are the stirrings of a new trans-Atlantic consensus about the way we should approach Russia and its neighbors. The leaders of Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Ukraine and Latvia flew to Tbilisi to demonstrate their support for Georgia, and to condemn Russian aggression. The French president traveled to Moscow in an attempt to end the fighting. The British foreign minister hinted of a G-8 without Russia, and the British opposition leader explicitly called for Russia to be suspended from the grouping.

The world has learned at great cost the price of allowing aggression against free nations to go unchecked. A cease-fire that holds is a vital first step, but only one. With our allies, we now must stand in united purpose to persuade the Russian government to end violence permanently and withdraw its troops from Georgia. International monitors must gain immediate access to war-torn areas in order to avert an even greater humanitarian disaster, and we should ensure that emergency aid lifted by air and sea is delivered.

We should work toward the establishment of an independent, international peacekeeping force in the separatist regions, and stand ready to help our Georgian partners put their country back together. This will entail reviewing anew our relations with both Georgia and Russia. As the NATO secretary general has said, Georgia remains in line for alliance membership, and I hope NATO will move ahead with a membership track for both Georgia and Ukraine.

At the same time, we must make clear to Russia’s leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world. The U.S. has cancelled a planned joint military exercise with Russia, an important step in this direction.

The Georgian people have suffered before, and they suffer today. We must help them through this tragedy, and they should know that the thoughts, prayers and support of the American people are with them. This small democracy, far away from our shores, is an inspiration to all those who cherish our deepest ideals. As I told President Saakashvili on the day the cease-fire was declared, today we are all Georgians. We mustn’t forget it.

Read The Op-Ed.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008:

John McCain
Media Availability
Birmingham, MI
August 13, 2008

John McCain: “The situation in Georgia remains perilous. I am pleased by President Bush’s statement this morning, and I support the various steps he outlined including the dispatch of Secretary Rice to Georgia and Europe, the delivery of humanitarian supplies to Georgia by sea and air, and U.S. insistence on Russian compliance with the terms of the ceasefire, which includes the withdrawal of all of its military forces from Georgia. The President’s statement of support for Georgia at this time is of critical importance, not only to the Georgian people but to all countries that are closely monitoring Russian activities and actions.

“I welcome President Sarkozy’s mediation and that of the European Union. I am concerned that the ceasefire agreement omitted any reference to Georgia’s territorial integrity. And, it’s clear that Russia is continuing military operations against Georgian targets despite the agreement, including in areas far from South Ossetia. I am deeply disturbed by reports of looting, burning villages, and killings of civilians that are in areas under Russian control. Anyone committing human rights abuses or acts in violation of the laws of war should be held accountable.

“At a time of high energy prices and instability in global markets, it’s important to understand that events in Georgia — part of a strategic energy corridor — affects individual lives far beyond the Caucasus. Because of the fighting, the Baku-Supsa oil pipeline has been shut down at a time when the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is also closed. Those pipelines are critical for transporting oil from sources in the Caspian to points west.

“The United States has canceled a planned joint military operation with Russia, but we will now need to review the full range of our relations. With our NATO allies, we must address the future of the alliance’s relationship with Russia and with our G7 partners. We should discuss whether it makes sense for Russia to continue its participation in the G8. We’ll also need to review Russia’s aspiration for membership in the World Trade Organization.

“In addition, I urge discussions about an international peacekeeping operation, including canvassing nations for possible contributions to such a force. NATO should also begin anew, the discussions about a membership track for both Georgia and Ukraine. After the events of the past six days, no one should wonder why countries on Russia’s periphery so ardently seek the security guarantees that alliance membership represents.

“The situation in Georgia remains fluid and dangerous. As soon as possible, my colleagues Senator Lieberman and Senator Graham will be traveling to Georgia. They’re both members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I hope that other members of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate and they will go together and receive an assessment of the situation and what we need to do in the future to avoid further escalation and also to protect the independence and freedom of the people of this brave democratic ally, the country of Georgia. Thank you.”

Watch John McCain’s Remarks

On Monday, we published “Updates on Georgia Crisis + John McCain’s Latest Detailed Statement [Update].”

On Sunday, we published “WHAT THEY’RE SAYING: John McCain “Prescient” On Russia And Putin.” On Saturday, Larry Johnson wrote “Obama’s Impending Pearl Harbor” — a must-read — and we have also published LisaB’s report, ““From Milk Toast Internationalist to Brave McCain-Like Warrior. . . In under 24 hours.,” “,” Saturday’s “John McCain’s Second Statement on the Crisis in Georgia,” and Friday’s original report, “McCain on Crisis in Georgia [Updates].”

OF NOTE: While this blog does not, and has no plans to, endorse John McCain for president, we continue to be impressed with his in-depth knowledge of the crisis in Georgia, and how very important it is to distinguish his statements from the single, vague statement by Barack Obama that any ignorant public relations person could have cobbled together!

Let’s see if I got this right, Obama is calling for:

1) United Nations Security Council Resolution condemning Russia. Problem: Russia is a Permanent Member of the United Nations with Security Council and thus has veto power over any resolution. Sure you can have a debate at the Security Council, actually there already have been, but it isn’t going to go anywhere. Obama does not seem to understand how international politics is played. While Obama talks, Russian tanks have severed Georgia in two. Gori has fallen and Russia seems to have set its sights on the capital, Tbilisi.

2) Replacing Russian peace-keeping troops in South Ossetia with a multi-national force. Problem: Russia is a Permanent Member of the United Nations with Security Council and thus has veto power over any UN peace-keeping force. And does Senator Obama really think that Russia is going to allow a United Nations peace-keeping force made up of foreign troops, albiet under UN command, on its southern flank? Proposing non-starters is a waste of time. Try being realistic.

3) Condemning Russian actions in the court of world public opinion. Problem: Does Russia care what the world thinks at this point? Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin met with US President Bush in Beijing the day the crisis erupted. President Bush issued stern warnings to both sides. Putin then flew off to North Ossetia to direct the Russian campaign. French President Nicolas Sarkozy is off to Moscow tomorrow. The Russians have already stated that the French peace proposals are DOA (dead on arrival).

4) Sending an objective and neutral International Mediator to the region. Problem: There’s nothing to mediate at this point. I wrote earlier that Russia will accept a cease-fire when Russia achieved its war aims. I was mistaken to believe those war aims were limited to ousting Georgian forces from South Ossetia but it is now increasingly clear that Russia aims to take control of Georgia. Georgia is an imperfect democracy but it is a democracy. It won’t be one much longer. A puppet government is on its way and I expect right now that President Mikhail Saakashvili will form a government in exile. What is there to mediate? And between whom? Russia will redraw the borders in the Caucusus because it can. We are powerless. I wrote earlier that we lost this round, let’s not lose the next. The next one is the Ukraine and Moldova.

Obama’s assertion that Russia has escalated this war beyond South Ossetia, while factual, misses the whole point. This war is not about South Ossetia. South Ossetia may have been the casus belli but this splendid little war for Russia is a message to the United States, to Europe and to NATO that Russia is a player. Call it a greeting card from a resurgent Russia.

The West made many mistakes. We pushed for Kosovar independence and recognized a state that has no business being a state. When Brazil and India note that they would only recognize Kosovo when Serbia did, that was the right path to take. Furthermore, the Bush Administration pushed for missile defence systems in the Czech Republic and Poland to protect Europe from an Iranian attack. I am not sure how putting such a shield in Poland protects Europe from Iran. No matter the intent, the Russians clearly felt that these were directed at them. With the prospects of Georgia and the Ukraine becoming NATO members, Russia was clearly unhappy at that. Georgia is paying the price of Western mistakes plus its own miscalculations. Much is yet unclear how this war was orchestrated but it does seem that Russia goaded Georgia into an armed intrusion into South Ossetia. It was a trap. The West now faces tough choices.

Obama’s calls seem more of his kumbaya oh lord kumbaya rhetoric that simply shows how out of touch the very junior Senator from Illinois is. The joke is that when Obama found out that Georgia had been attacked, he asked if Atlanta was okay. The corollary is that when McCain found out, he promised to send to General Sherman.

Georgia is lost. Let’s not lose the Ukraine. Putin has run circles around Bush, can you imagine Obama? At least with McCain, he has been sounding the alarm for a decade. Experience does count. So does realism and Obama on Georgia shows a fatal flaw. He is divorced from reality.

From my blog, By The Fault.

I am deeply disturbed by the latest Russian actions regarding Georgia, and Russia’s broader policies towards its neighbors.

Several weeks ago I called on NATO to extend a Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Georgia and Ukraine at the Bucharest Summit. I emphasized that this move would be a litmus test for the success of President Bush’s leadership of the trans-Atlantic community. My support for MAP was based on the need to send a positive signal to Tbilisi and Kyiv to encourage them to stay on track with their positive reforms as well as to send a signal of our concern to Moscow about the future security of these countries.

I deeply regret President Bush’s inability to convince our NATO allies to take this action. This is the first time in memory a U.S. President has traveled to a NATO summit and failed to achieve his publicly proclaimed goals.

Now the Russian government has taken advantage of the lack of unity coming out of the Bucharest Summit to further ratchet up the pressure on young democracies on its borders. Moscow’s actions this week to strengthen ties with the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia undermine the territorial integrity of the state of Georgia and are clearly designed to destabilize the government of President Mikheil Saakashvili.

Georgia is a small democratic state in a turbulent region. It must not be allowed to be undermined. Two weeks ago President Bush sat with President Putin in Sochi just a few kilometers away from the Georgian border. He prided himself on his close working relationship with Vladimir Putin. President Bush should call on the Russian leadership to immediately rescind these steps.

I also call on President Bush to immediately send a senior representative to Tbilisi to show our support for the government of Georgia. The United States should raise this matter in the United Nations Security Council, in a special 26+1 session of NATO’s North Atlantic Council (NAC), and in the NATO-Russia Council. Russia needs to hear a unified message from the United States and our European partners about our shared commitment to Georgia’s security and territorial integrity.

These are not the only Russian moves that I have found troubling. Senior Russian officials have engaged in a pressure campaign to prevent Ukraine from seeking deeper ties with NATO. President Putin even raised the prospect of retargeting nuclear missiles against Ukraine.

I am not advocating, nor do I envisage, a return to a new Cold War with Russia, which I believe ought to remain in the G-8, where the United States and its allies can together address our growing list of concerns with Moscow. But the current Administration’ s mishandling of Russian relations has contributed to Moscow’s belief that it can do as it pleases. America and its allies can and must do better.

Since Hillary is no longer ‘in the race,’ not wishing to upstage Senator Obama, I believe, she did not issue any further statement over the weekend, although clearly she has a deep understanding of this crisis and our role here. As reported previously, Senator McCain was also touted as a having a 3 A.M. moment on this issue.

In stark contrast, here was the ‘Statement from Senator Obama, on the Grave Situation in Georgia’ on his way to his Hawaiian vacation on August 8th:

“I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis.”

I will point out that upon checking Senator Obama’s website just now, he has issued two subsequent statements after the one above, one that came on August 9th and one on the 11th — each of which, respectively, was longer and more detailed than the last and perhaps, more reflective of copying Senator McCain’s homework on the subject.

Hey, take a mulligan, Senator Obama – keep floating those statements till one clicks with the appropriate gravitas.

As you can see, Hillary required no such tutoring, but exhibited a very clear, detailed grasp of the crisis, well before it reached the boiling point, when she urged President Bush to act.

Here is the opening phrase of yesterday’s missive from Senator Obama:

The situation in Georgia continues to deteriorate because of the escalation of Russia’s use of military force. I have spoken to President Saakashvili, and conveyed my deep regret over the loss of life, and the suffering of the people of Georgia.

Why Obama would be calling President Saakashvili, I have no idea. Who is he? He is not yet the official Democratic nominee, never mind that he is not the President. A mere technicality, I suppose.

Between Senators Clinton and Obama, it is eminently clear who has a far stronger grasp of foreign policy issues and certainly on the economy, she is hands and feet above a man who does not even understand what a capital gains tax is – nor could he explain it when he was questioned by Charles Gibson during the ABC debate before the Pennsylvania primary.

Who is the DNC planning on coronating, er, nominating, again?

The San Francisco Chronicle’s top story, that Clinton Supporters are pushing to get her name into nomination, reports how diligently the Obama camp is working to block such a thing from happening:

“It’s a simple thing to do, and it’s the biggest sign of party unity,” said Laura Spanjian, a San Francisco-based Clinton delegate, who also supports the move.”

Clay Dougherty, another San Francisco delegate for Clinton, says that “if the situation were reversed, the Obama people would feel the same.”

Let’s imagine if the situation were reversed. Since Obama has asked that the FL and MI delegates be seated in full now, the magic number has reverted to the correct 2210. He does not possess that number. If Hillary did not have enough pledged delegates to seal the nomination — or super delegates for that matter, imagine if Hillary tried to prevent a roll call that would honor Barack’s historic candidacy. There would be hell to pay. And she would be paying it daily. Such behavior on her part would not be tolerated.

“For the first time in a generation, it’s been a close election … and this was such a unique situation,” he said, in which both the first major African American presidential candidate competed with the first major female presidential candidate. “We need to honor both candidates,” he said.

And many Democrats suggest that the move to accommodate her supporters may be politically smart…

[Texas Delegate Garry] Mauro insisted that since it was such a closely contested election, he is mystified as to why the Obama campaign is resisting and even balking at a roll call vote, according to some reports.

“Are these folks so new to politics, are they so arrogant that they think he’s different from every other nominee we’ve ever had?” he asks.

I guess I don’t need to answer Garry’s question.

Serrano Sewell even stated, in an attempt to assuage any worry on the part of the Obama camp, there is no connection between Hillary’s delegates and PUMA:

“We’re not trying to drag Obama down,” he said. “We’re Democrats. We’re precinct captains. We’re fundraisers. We’re the kind of Democrats Obama will need to win in November.”

Similar to Senator Obama’s lack of detailed understanding of foreign policy, so, too, his arrogance and political shortsightedness is clearly in evidence in preventing a roll call vote for Senator Clinton. Or shall I say, his fear is showing.

Again, this is not indicative of good leadership, of putting the country or the Party’s interests before his own.

A true leader would not wish to treat 18,000,000 voters and 1918 delegates disrespectfully. If, as Michelle Obama says, he is going to ‘heal our broken souls,’ how does he intend to do that by throwing millions under the bus in another show of pettiness, bullying and arrogance?

Regarding the current acts of Russian aggression, a true leader, as he claims to be, looking to demonstrate his readiness for the toughest job in the world, might stop to do his homework before realizing that the first “essay” he handed in was rather flimsy.

I know I am not wrong in wanting the truly qualified candidate to be our nominee. The one who needs no tutoring. Certainly, Hillary Clinton would know better than to do what Senator Obama did yesterday: indicate he would be announcing his pick for Vice President via text message. Some traditions do need to be adhered to. The world is watching.

Senator Obama’s action do not indicate respect – either for his V.P. choice, or for us.

That is not healing.

That does not indicate political knowledge, maturity or gravitas.

Lastly, that is certainly not good leadership.

I do want to mention that over 1,500 people have already died in this war between Georgia and Russia, a war not even a day old. Fifteen hundred people. Words fail, but my heart goes out to all those who are losing people in this conflict, and all conflicts being waged around the world right now, whether it is our people, or the people of Georgia, or Russia, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or…Sadly, the list is too long.

And once again, as if there was any doubt, this is exactly why we need to have s leader, a strong leader, a compassionate leader, a decisive leader. And that person is, without a doubt in my mind, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

• “U.S. scrambled jets as Russian bomber neared carrier“: “A Russian bomber flew at low altitude over a U.S. carrier battle group that was conducting exercises in international waters near Japan last weekend, the first time that such a low pass has taken place since the Cold War ended, U.S. military officials said Tuesday. . …”
• Iraqi government Web site hacked: “The web site of the Iraqi government was defaced by hackers upset that there is a new Iraqi flag. Leila Fadel has excerpts here. …”
• “Pakistani nuclear scientists ‘abducted’“: “Two nuclear scientists have been abducted near Pakistan’s north-western border with Afghanistan, police have said, in the latest embarrassment for the government of President Pervez Musharraf.. …”

• “Anti-war, pro-Marine confrontation begins early in Berkeley“: “A pre-dawn confrontation broke out this morning in Berkeley between peace activists and pro military groups, more than 12 hours before the City Council considers to rescind its statement telling the US Marines they’re unwelcome. …” (Whatever on earth is Code Pink thinking?)
• “Farrow, Spielberg Assail China on Darfur“: ” Film director Steven Spielberg and actress Mia Farrow joined activists worldwide Tuesday in using the Olympics as a backdrop to address human rights concerns, urging Beijing to exert political leverage on Sudan’s government. …”
• “Doctors Outraged at Blue Cross Request“: “The California Medical Association opposes a plan by insurer Blue Cross urging doctors to report patients’ pre-existing health conditions.. …” (What the hell?!?)

What else is going on?