EARLY EVENING POST:  JULY 18,  2008

Posted at 6:47 p.m. ET

GENIUS!

The most important dilemma of our time has apparently been solved. Diplomats and philosophers have labored over a single question:  Where should Barack Obama give his speech in Berlin next week? 

As Charles Krauthammer notes just below, he'd wanted to give it at the Brandenburg Gate, where chaps like Kennedy and Reagan have spoken - you know, elected presidents with a track record.  Well, said wiser heads, that may be a bit...pushy.

So, the solution:  Mr. Obama, according to Bloomberg.com, will speak at Berlin's Victory column:

An appearance at the Victory Column, capped by its trademark gilded angel, will still give the Illinois senator the Brandenburg Gate as a backdrop in the distance. A political squabble erupted after Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed apprehension about the gate being used for electioneering.

I think they call that cheating, but in Barack's New Collegiate Dictionary it's probably called creative enhancement.

Oh, what's the Victory Column?  Get this:

While the Brandenburg Gate has come to symbolize Germany's division and reunification, the Victory Column celebrates Prussia's victories over Denmark, Austria and France in the late 19th century.

WHAT? 

So Obama, who will go to France next week as well, will speak at a site commemorating Germany's victory over...France?

This is an example of his foreign-policy skills?

And Denmark?  What did Denmark do to deserve this?  Oh, I know.  They published those "insensitive" cartoons about Islam.

Is there anyone in the McCain campaign sufficiently awake to point out the extent of this diplomatic blunder?  Is there anyone willing to say that it's all about Barack, and no one and nothing else?

Why couldn't he just have spoken in an auditorium? 

Now, question:  How many of the adoring TV anchors who will travel with Obama will question him on his diplomatic clowning?  Don't hold your breath.

July 18, 2008.      Permalink          

SECOND AFTERNOON POST:  JULY 18,  2008

Posted at 4:54 p.m. ET

EGO WE CAN'T BELIEVE IN

Ed Lasky, at the great American Thinker site, alerts us to Charles Krauthammer's superb piece on the Obama traveling road show.  Krauthammer says what many are only thinking, and may be reluctant to say now that we've been informed by the liberal establishment that some candidates are beyond criticism:

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate.

He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast -- a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins -- would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials.

What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final "tear down this wall" liquidation. When President Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.

Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe..?

That states it perfectly.  Maybe the McCain people are silent about this because they think it's better that the voters discover Obama's super-ego on their own.  But the voters won't get many Krauthammer columns in today's fawning media, and have to be nudged along.  I have no doubt that what we'll get from too many "journalists" next week will be a report on Obama's "triumphant" tour.

More Krauthammer:

Does Obama not see the incongruity? It's as if a German pol took a campaign trip to America and demanded the Statue of Liberty as a venue for a campaign speech. (The Germans have now gently nudged Obama into looking at other venues.)

Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself.

There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

And...

In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history -- "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" -- when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow." As economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone.

And...

For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?

We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when "our planet began to heal." As I recall -- I'm no expert on this -- Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.

One question:  Will Obama practice that kind of rhetoric in Europe, especially Germany?  What would the reaction be?  Europe, after all, has had plenty of experience with leaders whose rhetoric exceeds their grasp.  And Europe has also seen the cost of national leaders, no matter their speechifyin' abilities, whose politics reflect weakness and vacillation, rather than strength.

Suggestion for Senator Obama:  Visit at least one American military cemetery while you're in Europe.  Use the occasion to make a brief comment on the sacrifice of those buried there, and the fact that it was the weakness of the democracies that led to that sacrifice.  You can issue a prayer for peace, but understand that real peace most often comes through strength, not through talk of unconditional negotiations with thugs, or the strumming of guitars left over from the 1960s.

July 18, 2008.        Permalink          

AFTERNOON POST:  JULY 18,  2008

Posted at 3:35 p.m. ET

TRACKERS

Both trackers are out today, and both show Obama with a one-point lead.  While each poll result posted is a snapshot in time, it does appear - stress appear - that Obama's position has declined in the last three weeks.  However, please note that no poll shows McCain ahead.

It will be fascinating, next week, to see how Obama's magical mystery tour of Europe and the Mideast plays back home.  One gaffe, or ill-spirited remark, can create a backlash, which may be why Mr. Obama is leaving Michelle behind.  Inevitably, some European reporter would have tried to goad her into making another remark critical of the United States. 

July 18, 2008.      Permalink           

FRIDAY:  JULY 18,  2008

Posted at 7:16 a.m. ET

THE OBAMA TOUR

"Just like the Beatles, Mr Obama is a prodigiously talented revolutionary, the tribune of a rising generation, whose evident talent is only slightly compromised by an unsettling precocity."

I normally don't put quotes up front, but that one particularly grabbed me.  It's from today's report by Gerard Baker of The Times of London, one of the more astute British observers of the United States.  He writes:

You have to go back to the Beatles' first US tour to find a transatlantic trip freighted with the sort of pregnant excitement that attends the one Barack Obama is about to make next week.

The faces of the crowds expected in Berlin when he arrives on Thursday will be portraits of the same devotional ecstasy that greeted the Liverpool quartet on their way from JFK to Manhattan that February day in 1964. In London next weekend Gordon Brown will play Ed Sullivan to the Fab One, hoping to borrow, just for a day, a little of the superstar charisma to bolster his own ratings.

That says it.  Actually, Baker is rather more positive toward Obama than one would have hoped, but he brings with him his usual skepticism nonetheless:

The Beatles were invested with such mystical significance that they were the repeated object of conspiracy theories and so is Mr Obama. (I'm told, that if you play his victory speech last month backwards you will hear the first half dozen chapters of the Koran. Go on. Check it out.)

I think I will.  I'll report back.

He will be sure, for starters, not to offer direct public criticism of President Bush. The unprecedented foreign campaign swing is already generating enough criticism in the US that to breach the longstanding protocol that you don't attack your country while you're overseas will be especially carefully adhered to.

And he will go further. He will remind Europeans that they have obligations as noisy supporters of multilateralism as well as rights.

You know, that part may get him some applause here in the U.S., which, let us remind all, is the country that actually votes in this election.

Indeed, Baker notes that, especially considering Obama's recent rhetoric, there probably won't be radical changes in American policy.

So what's all the excitement about? Is it just European ignorance about the realities of American politics and the challenges the world faces? Is it the ultimate victory of image over substance: grown human beings swooning like teenage Beatles fans for a fresh, attractive new face?

Perhaps. But there's something a bit deeper, a bit more meaningful about the enthusiasm that will be on display next week. Part of it is doubtless that Europeans simply think they recognise one of their own - the closest thing America can produce to a social democrat.

And finally...

The rise of Senator Obama is a reminder of what the rest of the world still admires - sometimes very grudgingly - about America: a constant capacity to renew itself.

And when you think about it, if, as seems quite likely, America under the next president is going to proceed in a direction that is not markedly different from what it has done in the past few years, is it really such a bad thing if the world actually quite likes the man leading it?

Well, all right, but I suspect that Mr. Baker, down deep, admires McCain.  And, despite European sentiment, which doesn't count for much in American elections, many of us see danger in Obama, the same danger we eventually saw in Jimmy Carter, which is one major reason why we can't support him.  Sorry, Europe.

July 18, 2008.      Permalink          

THE PELOSI PANDER

Doing her thing for the San Francisco crowd that she represents, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stands firm against the 21st century, and even the 20th.  Such a spine, such a spine.  Do we all salute now?

The story:

WASHINGTON: Upon entering Congress in 1987, Representative Nancy Pelosi quickly became part of the solid California front against oil drilling along much of the nation's coast...

...Now, with gas prices soaring, those drilling restrictions are facing their most severe test in years as calls intensify to more aggressively pursue domestic oil. Yet despite increasing pressure from President George W. Bush, a full-bore assault by congressional Republicans and some anxiety among her own rank-and-file Democrats, Pelosi is not budging.

"The president of the United States, with gas at $4 a gallon because of his failed energy policies, is now trying to say that is because I couldn't drill offshore," Pelosi said in an interview. "That is not the cause, and I am not going to let him get away with it."

Her voice carries considerable weight since, as speaker, Pelosi is in a position to prevent a vote on expanded drilling from reaching the floor.

Great, just great.  Another Congressional multimillionaire instructing us all on how to live our lives.  How very gracious.  How kind to the next generation.

But Representative John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader who is escorting a delegation to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge this weekend, said the Democratic approach was woefully insufficient. He said Pelosi, in insisting on preserving the drilling ban, was putting Democrats in the cross hairs of voters furious about gas prices.

"I think Speaker Pelosi is walking her Blue Dogs and other vulnerable Democrats off a cliff and they know it," said Boehner, referring to the coalition of Democrats representing more conservative districts.

He accused the speaker of using procedural maneuvers to thwart votes on expanded drilling, a position he said would prevail if the moment arrived. "Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are standing in the way of what the American people want," Boehner said.

It's nice to know that some Republicans are actually hearing the American people.

Oh, by the way, Blue Dogs are moderate and conservative Democrats.  And now they have a hot issue that may make them speak truth to the leftist Democratic power.

Pelosi has shown a willingness on issues like terror surveillance and spending on the Iraq war to look past her personal views and allow legislation she opposes to move through the House. But on the drilling ban, it is clear she sees her position as the one that should carry the day. She said national policy has to move beyond the long dispute over the drilling ban.

"This is part of the fight we are in," she said. "We have to get to a place where one day my grandchildren will say, 'Do you believe our grandparents had to go with their car and fill up?' It will be like going with a barrel on our head to a well to get water. That will be the equivalent."

That is completely nutty.  That is real elitism.  Madam Speaker, many Americans need their modern, safety-improved cars to get to work or see their families.  Don't ridicule, please. 

Well, wait.  I take that back.  Yes, ridicule.  Ridicule a great deal.  Tell us we're just like people in the Third World who walk with water barrels on our heads.  Say it loud and clear, Madam Speaker, so even the media can't deny your words.  Maybe those words will put John McCain in the White House.

July 18, 2008.      Permalink          

MORE FROM THE BETTER PEOPLE

Dearies, there's something new to ease your pain.  Well, if you can write the checks.  But, is that ever a problem?  Really now.

It seems there's a new trend.  I want you to know all about it.  Tell your friends, especially at the club, or at the salon.

SLOGGING through endless nights with a newborn baby has long been a parenting rite of passage. But for some dual-income parents, the arrival of the night nanny is making those 2 a.m. interruptions a thing of the past.

Demand for overnight nannies — also known as newborn specialists — has been growing, especially in the last five years and largely in major metropolitan areas, said Wendy Sachs, the co-president of the International Nanny Association and the founder of the Philadelphia Nanny Network.

You know, I kind of liked those "interruptions" when my kids were young.  But that's heresy in some parts.

The trend reflects changing attitudes about child care. Parents no longer see outside child care “as bad for kids or neglectful on their part — child care is seen as a necessity, not a luxury,” said Christine Carter, a sociologist who directs the Greater Good Science Center, an interdisciplinary research center at the University of California, Berkeley. “If it is good during the day, why wouldn’t it also be helpful at night?”

Well, ma'am, maybe because most working families can't afford it.  Or maybe they want some privacy.  Or maybe they want their kids to know they're there.  You know what "there" is all about, don't you?

Anie Roche of Los Altos, Calif., hired a night nanny through Craigslist last November after she had her second child. Both Ms. Roche and her husband have high-pressure jobs: he is an executive at a semiconductor company in Silicon Valley and she is a partner at a law firm in Palo Alto.

Their nanny works from 10 p.m. until 6 a.m. six nights a week. “She swaddles the baby and sings to him and that’s the whole point for us — she has a lot more energy and patience at that point in the day than my husband or I do,” Ms. Roche said. “We are wiped out.”

Look, I'm not unsympathetic.  All praise to those who work hard.  But does the word "values" have any place here?

As might be expected, help doesn’t come cheap. A week’s worth of night-nanny services can cost well over a thousand dollars, with nannies earning about $15 to $40 an hour, depending on their experience, the number of babies and the babies’ health.

Just what every American family can afford.  And we thought five-dollar gas was steep.

The nannies have their say, too:

WHAT can make the job tough isn’t the baby but the parents, said Jessica Muzio, 30, a night nanny with Nocturnal Nannies. Ms. Muzio has a degree in psychology and once worked with autistic children. She is pursuing a nursing degree during the day.

“Babies are babies and I’m at the point now where I can almost always soothe them,” she said. “What makes the job good or bad is the rest of the family.” Parents are usually asked to keep track of their baby’s daytime routine in order to help the nanny troubleshoot at night, but many parents don’t.

After all, what are the priorities?

Well, I guess it's fine for some.  But this story troubles me.  Yes, of course, some parents need help.  But there is something cold here, a hint of what our times have become.  Family values anyone?

July 18, 2008.      Permalink