English Politics USA

International Relations at the Time of Obama

If Barack Obama wins tomorrow, politicians the world over will want to be pictured next to such a globally-popular celebrity politician. President Obama will have a few months of honeymoon with the World, during which he will be able to ask anything, and everything will be done for him and for the USA. If he’s half as smart as needed, Obama will bring untold advantages to America.

If it’s instead John McCain the one to win, he’ll find a world in shock and disbelief, even more desperate than usual and ready for a few months of outright condenscendence against the USA. Plenty of work and talk will be needed before President McCain will be able to put together some international agreement that will be of any advantage for America.

And the funny thing is, if Obama or McCain will win tomorrow, the international relations of the USA will not change in substance from President Bush’s, apart some minute detail.

America English Humor Politics USA

Obama Ahead…In Google Too!

In Google too, Barack Obama appears ahead of John McCain, most of the time…

For example: searching “obama 666” one gets 1,380,000 pages. “mccain 666” returns only 848,000 results.

Or “McCain eats babies” = 1,460. “Obama eats babies” = 3,050. One wonder how much exercise is needed to avoid getting fat after having eaten all those little children.

The only search where McCain is just a bit in front: “McCain is a nazi” = 5,610. “Obama is a nazi“=5,130.

No page had ever mentioned “McCain and Obama are nazis” as a single sentence until I wrote this very blog 😉

Cattolicesimo Italiano Politica USA

L’Incredibile Potere della Chiesa Cattolica

Mancano poco piu’ di due settimane alle Elezioni Presidenziali americane. I due candidati hanno appena finito una serie di dibattiti televisivi. Volano parole dure, ogni tanto. Alcuni important stati sono a tutt’oggi impossibili da assegnare, visto che nei sondaggi lo scarto e’ minimo.

Eppure: chi poteva mai riuscire a ottenere la presenza di McCain e Obama per diverse ore, insieme allo stesso evento caritatevole (e di alta societa’), forzandoli a prendere in giro se stessi con delle performance al limite fra il comico, e lo stupido?

Il Cardinale Edward Egan, Arcivescovo di New York: ecco, chi poteva, e ha potuto. E chi, senno’?


Catholicism English Politics USA USA 2008

The Incredible Power of the Roman Catholic Church

A little more than two weeks before a U.S. Presidential election. The two candidates have just finished their series of televized debates. Nasty words are flying around. Some important States are definitely too close to call.

And yet: who could manage to get McCain and Obama and their undivided attention for several hours, together at the same charity/society event, forcing them to make fun if not fools of themselves?

Why, RC Cardinal Edward Egan, of course!

America Elezioni2008 Italiano Politica USA

Democrazia e Partito Democratico Negli USA

Consiglio caldamente la lettura dell’articolo di Mino Vianello “L’Handicap di Obama” su Notizie Radicali di oggi, nel quale non si parla del colore della pelle del Candidato, ma viene invece fatta una disanima del rapporto fra egualitarismo e concetto della democrazia negli USA, e il sentimento anti-intellettuale diffuso fra gli americani stessi.

Sara’ un bene o un male, questo anti-intellettualismo “fatto di empirismo e di senso pratico“? Personalmente, il dover arrivare comunque a una sintesi fra empirismo e intellettualismo mi sembra un punto ovvio oltre che logico. Non penso sia comunque quella, la domanda da farsi.

C’e’ da chiedersi invece se gli unici a non esserne completamente consapevoli siano gli intellettuali stessi, massicciamente Democratici e che invece di provare a comprendere l’elettorato, vivono ancora nel sogno di Camelot, la Presidenza cioe’ di John F Kennedy.

Un solo l’appunto a Vianello: l’aver dimenticato di nominare il movimento dei Know-Nothings nel XIX secolo (“Non So Niente”) che poche settimane fa il neo Premio Nobel dell’Economia Paul Krugman richiamo’ sul New York Times citando “l’insistenza che ci siano semplici risposte a ogni problema, basate sulla forza bruta e sulla gratificazione istantanea, e che ci sia qualcosa di effeminato e debole in chiunque suggerisca altrimenti“.

America English Politics USA USA 2008

“Intellectual” Liberal Americans: Insane, or Just Morons?

Continuing my earlier blog on the biggest issue facing Democrats in the USA: their gigantic superiority complex.

There is a scene in Alan Sandler’s “Mr. Deeds” when three high-society New York types (Kurt the Opera singer, William, and George the New Yorker writer) are shown as bordering on the inhuman, as too full of themselves.

That’s what these words by Expat Yank reminded me of:

Unless they go through “rehab,” as yours truly did — meaning, in short, until they grasp the realization that to be a “non-international” American who attends church regularly does not automatically mark one out as a bigoted nitwit — liberals cannot help themselves. Upon what they believe to be the high-horse is where they are most comfortable. They simply cannot imagine that they are NOT absolutely more sharp-minded and heavyweight than their opponents.

The major reason for that self-delusion? Since the mid-1960s, Democrats have actually come to believe — honestly — their own puffed up view of themselves as the default party of “great thoughts“ […]

the Democratic party has changed: it is no longer the party of FDR and Truman. For the last 45 years it has become instead the party of JFK idolatry and imagined “Camelot.” Reared on an endless diet of “Jack and Jackie in Paris” […] and so much more, many to most Democrats sincerely now appear to believe that to be a Republican is . . . to be a moron. […]

when dealing with what might be considered opposing conservative opinions, liberals are often quick to lose perspective, react emotionally and all too often embrace outright intellectual snobbery.

And as to that latter mostly with so little justification, since few Democrats are themselves actually anywhere approaching nearly as smart as they perceive themselves to be […] a liberal (meaning a Democrat), when confronted with your opposition, might try that for a moment, but if you hold your ground and respond in kind he will tend far too often to descend to the famous argument-tipping “huff,” roll up his eyes and proclaim you obviously just another unworldly simpleton who needs to retake 1st Grade.

Expat Yank is a “disgruntled Democrat turned Republican“. I have a feeling, he knows what he’s talking about.

Trouble is, I do not see Kurt, William and George understanding a single word of the above.

When will all this insanity end?

America English Ethics Politics Skepticism USA USA 2008

Debunking Sarah Palin’s “Device in the Right Ear” Claim

There’s quite a few websites claiming people have spotted some kind of device in Sarah Palin’s right ear, during the VP debate on Thursday night. A “willyloman” post “What Does Gov. Palin Have in Her Right Ear?” signed “Scott Creighton” seems to be among the most popular ones.

You can also check out the “Palin Appears To Be Wearing an Earpiece During The Debate” thread in the Abovetopsecret forum.

Myself, I cannot see evidence of anything in Palin’s right ear, during the debate.

But that is not as important as the answer to the following question: what evidence would I need to change my opinion? Well, I would need to spot that device clearly in at least one picture. So far, all I have been able to see is perfectly explainable with Palin’s hair, glasses and shape of the ear.

And so my question to Creighton and all the others is: what evidence would you need, to change your opinion?


Creighton writes:

What was that running down into Sarah Palin’s right ear during the debate? […] This photo was never intended to stand alone as evidence, that is why I include the link to the CNN video itself… That is still below. From that video, and many others now, you can see something that looks like it is attached to the arm of her glasses on the right side. You can see it move with her head, and her glasses throughout the video. I have taken another shot of the straight on view of this object, but please, look at the photos, then watch the CNN video so you can see it isn’t just some fluke; it stays there and is attached to her glasses. […]

Even without zooming, you can clearly see something attached to her glasses and running into her right ear. At first I thought this might be a hearing aid of some sort, so I looked up other pictures of her to see if I could find one of her wearing a hearing aid. I couldn’t. […]

Let’s start with the consideration that the “hearing aid” claim sounds very disingenuous. If Palin really had been hard of hearing, we would have known that weeks ago for sure. Mr Creighton should have definitely tried to look more sincere, if only to help support his case for a “device in the right ear”.

Anyway…the only way to be sure is to check if the “device” can be seen in any picture.

Now, a paranoid mind will find lots of food for their thoughts, as there really aren’t too many photos of Sarah Palin clearly showing her right ear during the debate itself (there is the one with her youngest son, but it was taken after the end of the debate and the aforementioned paranoid mind will surely claim Palin’s removed the “device” just in time). Also, I am not going to argue with anybody believing that the “device” was invisible or very well hidden: that’s akin to claiming a giant white, invisible rabbit was jumping up and down in front of the camera for the whole debate (iow: it cannot be taken seriously).

In any case, the onus is on those claiming the “device” existed at all. So I have scoured around on YouTube, the Getty Images website and the web looking for any “right ear” shot. Results below.

Palin 01
Palin 01
Palin 02
Palin 02
Palin 03
Palin 03
Palin 04
Palin 04
Palin 05
Palin 05
Palin 06
Palin 06
Palin 07
Palin 07
Palin 08
Palin 08
Palin 09
Palin 09
Palin 10
Palin 10

Images are enlarged areas from sources described in each picture. Copyrights remain with the authors of course.

First of all, look at “Palin 05”: that one has been taken at the end of the debate, when Palin was holding her baby son, if I am not mistaken. I included it because it reveals Palin’s ear details in full, with all the “ridges” and “valleys”. Note in particular the rather peculiar “ridge” right underneath the “temple” (“sidepiece”) of her glasses.

Peculiarity in this case is not important. Every one of us has a “special” shape of the ear and I understand it’s the one thing people really have trouble with when disguising.

I believe that “ridge” is what people like Creighton are misinterpreting as a “device”.

UPDATE: a similar conclusion has been reported by “SkepticOverlord” in the Abovetopsecret forum.

UPDATE: an “enhanced image” showing no device can be seen at Plaidlemur. Just to avoid the usual conspiratorial comments, I actually chose not to enhance the pictures posted above.

In fact, I wonder if anybody could please tell me where in every other picture posted above, there is a “device” that is on top, or separate, or in any case definitely not the “ridge” mentioned above.

You may also want to note how in images Palin 08, 09 and 10, taken directly from the live TV pictures, Sarah Palin is showing her right ear to the cameras in ways that would be extremely dangerous were she wearing a “device” of any sort in her right ear.


The above is more than enough to convince myself there was nothing at all in Palin’s right ear, during the debate. At this stage, the discussion can move forward only in two circumstances: either somebody comes out with a very clear picture of the “device”, or believers tell me what more evidence they need, to change their opinion.

UPDATE: blogger Ginandtacos reasons it would have been almost impossible for Palin to be able to talk the way she did, without breaking in apparently incoherent ways.

UPDATE: the claim appears to have moved to “Palin was reading her notes“. I don’t think that deserves any further analysis.

America English Politics USA USA 2008

In VP Debate, It’s Biden The One Risking The Most

Is there any hope that one day the “liberal” American “people of culture” will wake up and realize that they live… in America?

How can it be that a long list of very fine intellectuals collectively and invariably fail to understand a simple fact: that it is precisely what they despise in Sarah Palin, that makes her popular among many of their fellow citizens.

Take for example the “news” that the Governor of Alaska has spent more nights at home than in the Palace in Juneau, after having been elected. Those who “leaked” this important (or not) piece of information may have tried to demonstrate that Palin cannot be a good VicePresident, since she does not accept the full responsibilities of public office.

But I am sure that many non-liberal Americans (and not only they) have interpreted the same “news” as evidence that the Palin is a “normal person” for whom family takes precedence, above everything else: and that’s what anybody would do, apart from those driven by mission or inordinate ambition.

It does not matter if Sarah Palin performs poorly once, or a hundred thousand times, in interviews that, incredibly, appear too convoluted in her presence. What non-liberals are going to convince themselves of, is that the Press, Academia, and Great Journalism are made up of Republican-hating strange people called “liberals”: whilst Palin is simply an “average person”, perfectly able to lose words and trains of thought in front of aggressive, controversy-seeking interviewers.

Has Palin got the characteristics that would make her a good Vice President and perhaps even a good President? Who knows?. The great satirical strip Doonesbury recently had an episode around the fact that every American is told that he or she may become President, one day. So what’s so strange if “Sarah Palin, average American” becomes Vice President?

And lest we forget: after four years of Dan “Potatoe” Quayle as VP for Bush father, I do not know who could perform worse. And Bush father did win the 1988 elections with Quayle in tow,

It is therefore absolutely foolish to go on with the mantra that Palin is “a bit slow, a bit ignorant, a bit young”: the more the Media will talk of that, the more votes she’s ensured to get.
Is that too hard a concept for contemporary liberal America? When will a leading “liberal mind” begin to think that if someone will vote for Sarah Palin, there may be good reasons for that, well beyond the usual “it’s the idiots that do it”?

Spare a prayer for John Biden then. He’s the one going into Thursday’s VP debate in the worst conditions.
Since everybody expects him to win big time, all Biden may be able to do is meet expectations. That will hardly look impressive: whilst every point conceded to Palin will be seen as a disaster (and a defeat).

From Sarah Palin, on the other hand, nobody expects anything. She can declare herself the winner even if the only thing she manages to state correctly is the time of the day.
If Palin will be able to hold her own against Biden for most of the debate, it will be for her a triumph beyond all hope. That’s after all the same tactics, of appearing “slow witted”, successfully employed by George W Bush to become Governor of Texas, and the President of the United States, persuading opponents to feel infinitely superior to him.

The Democratic VP candidate has everything to lose, at Washington University in St. Louis on Thursday. The Republican VP candidate, she has everything to gain: another gift, perhaps, by the Great “liberal” Minds that I do not think understand their country at all.

Is it a coincidence that in the last 100 years, in the White House there have been 10 Republicans and only 7 Democrats? And during the last forty years, 5 Republicans and only 2 Democrats?

(more on the idiocies of “liberal” America at Mr Cheeseburger 9000’s blog)

America Elezioni2008 Italiano Politica USA

Sarah Palin: Perche’ E’ Biden A Rischiare Al Dibattito Di Giovedi’

C’e’ qualche speranza che un giorno la cultura “liberal” americana si svegli e capisca di essere…in America?

Possibile che tutti questi intellettuali sopraffini, buon ultimo anche Fareed Zakaria, non riescano a comprendere come siano proprio le qualita’ che loro disprezzano, a rendere Sarah Palin eleggibile per tantissimi dei loro concittadini?

Prendiamo ad esempio la “notizia” che il Governatore dell’Alaska avrebbe trascorso piu’ o meno meta’ delle notti da quando eletta, a casa invece che nel Palazzo a Juneau. Chi ha sparso in giro questa “chicca” voleva evidentemente dimostrare che la Palin non puo’ fare da VicePresidente, perche’ non accetta tutte le responsabilita’ dell’incarico pubblico.

Sono invece sicuro che gli Americani non-liberal (e non solo loro) abbiano interpretato il tutto come prova che la Vice di John McCain sia una “persona normale” che vuole proprio tanto bene al marito e ai figli, e li antepone a tutto: come fanno un po’ tutti, a parte coloro trasportati da una missione o da una smodata ambizione.

Da questo punto di vista, quand’anche Sarah Palin facesse brutta figura cento o mille volte in interviste che in sua presenza appaiono incredibilmente cervellotiche, al massimo i non-liberal si convinceranno (come se ce ne fosse bisogno) che la Stampa, l’Accademia, il Grande Giornalismo e’ composto da persone “liberal”, che odiano i Repubblicani e che sono fondamentalmente “strane” e “diverse”: mentre appunto la Palin non fa che quello che farebbe la “persona media”, capacissima di impappinarsi di fronte a un’intervistatrice polemica, aggressiva e pronta ad approfittare di tutto.

Sono, quelle della Palin, delle caratteristiche che farebbero di lei una buona VicePresidente e forse anche Presidente? Chissa’. Come recentemente scritto nella grande striscia satirica Doonesbury, non viene forse detto a ogni Americano che un giorno potra’ diventare Presidente? E quindi cosa c’e’ di strano se “un’Americana” un po’ qualunque diventa VicePresidente?

A parte il fatto poi, che dopo quattro anni di Dan “Potatoe” Quayle come Vice di Bush padre, non so proprio chi potrebbe essere peggio. E Bush padre vinse le elezioni del 1988 con Quayle al seguito,

Insomma continuare a ripetere che la Palin e’ un po’ tonta, un po’ oca, un po’ gallina non riuscira’ che a garantirle ulteriori voti. E’ cosi’ difficile arrivarci? Perche’ tutte quelle menti “liberal” non cominciano a riflettere che se qualcuno votera’ per Sarah Palin, ci sara’ pure un buon motivo al di la’ del solito “sono tutti degli idioti”?

E poi: non va forse John Biden al dibattito di giovedi’ nelle condizioni peggiori? Visto che tutti si aspettano che lui vinca alla grande, al massimo potra’ essere capace di rispettare le attese, cosa che non impressionera’ nessuno: mentre ogni punto a suo sfavore sara’ visto come un disastro (e una sconfitta).

La Palin invece, da cui nessuno si aspetta niente, potra’ dichiararsi vincitrice anche se riuscira’ a dire correttamente solo che ore sono all’orologio. Addirittura, se riuscisse a tenere testa a Biden per quasi tutto il dibattito, sara’ per lei un trionfo oltre ogni speranza.

E’ un po’ la tattica da “lento di comprendonio” che George W Bush ha sfruttato per diventare Governatore del Texas, e Presidente degli USA, convincendo gli avversari a sentirsi a lui infinitamente superiori.

Il candidato VP democratico ha tutto da perdere, alla Washington University a St Louis. La candidata VP repubblicana, tutto da guadagnare: un altro regalo, probabilmente, della Grandi Menti “liberal” che del loro Paese non capiscono a parer mio proprio un bel niente.

Sara’ un caso che negli ultimi 100 anni, ci siano stati 10 Presidenti Repubblicani, e solo 7 Democratici? E negli ultimi quaranta anni, 5 Repubblicani e solo 2 Democratici?

America English Politics USA USA 2008

With Columnists Like These, Palin’s Campaign’s Bound To Be A Winner

Letter to the International Herald Tribune:

Dear Editors

Are you planning to keep subjecting your readers to substantial daily doses of Democratic anti-Palin smugness until the Presidential Elections on Nov 4? One wonders.
Just a few examples. Your celebrity columnist Maureen Dowd has dedicated her last six contributions to one and only one topic (Sarah Palin of course). Garrison Keillor of Prairie Home Companion fame has joined in by pretending to be a liberal roaming around Alaska (“Moose on the loose in Palin Country“, IHT, Sep 18).
Even anti-Obamite David Brooks has opined at length about the Governor of Alaska’s preparedness for High Office (“Experience Matters“, IHT, Sep 16).
Apparently, the situation for Gov. Palin does not look pretty. Your columnists have described her as a female version of George W Bush for her “inexperience”, “brashness” and “excessive decisiveness”; as a populist, gun-crazied shooter potentially even of a mother and baby moose; as the gay-hating infantile, seductive former mayor of a town smaller than the local Wal-Mart, with intimidation as her preferred political tool; as an anti-intellectual contemporary “My Fair Lady” character hell-bent on getting rid of her enemies.
The list could continue for a long long time.
Now, am I the only one to think that all the above amounts to (a) free publicity for Palin; and (b) a very good platform to convince “Middle America” to vote for Palin, if only because she’s obviously such a hate figure in the Establishment?
In 2008 there are many things pointing towards a success for Barack Obama. However, the Democrats may still lose the Presidential election, for the trivial reason that one will find it very hard to get votes from people one so obviously disdains and look upon condescendingly.
maurizio morabito
America English Ethics Politics USA USA 2008

Will Grandma Sarah Palin Change Some American Conservatism?

Palin’s status as upcoming grandmother is definitely her business but…is it too much to hope the “experience” will make mainstream American Conservatism less fixated on reproductive matters?

Does the world really need to think and think again about abortion and gay rights?

ps Palin’s decision to keep her baby after learning of his Down syndrome is commendable. All more so because it was her decision. How different it would have all been, had there been no choice

Clima Italiano Metereologia Politica USA

Il Lato Buffo di Gustav

C’e’ anche un lato un po’ buffo di Gustav, l’uragano adesso su Cuba. Alcune settimane fa un predicatore americano aveva pregato in un video su youtube perche’ piovessero piogge torrenziali su Obama e sulla Convention democratica. E invece niente.

Anzi, Gustav adesso sta mettendo in difficolta’ la Convention Repubblicana, sia perche’ quattro Governatori hanno detto che devono stare a casa loro, sia perche’ forse non e’ il caso di festeggiare mentre arriva il Mostro, sia perche’ alcuni delegati potranno avere cose piu’ urgenti in mente, sia perche’ non e’ detto che le rimanenze di Gustav non arrivino proprio a St Paul, Minnesota.

Come dire…stai attento quando preghi, perche’ potresti essere “quasi” soddisfatto. O per chi vuole: Dio ha un grande senso dell’umorismo.

America Italiano MNN Politica Umorismo USA

Incredibile Risposta di Obama a McCain

NOTA AGGIUNTA L’8 SETTEMBRE: La copertina di Vogue con il Gov. Palin qui sotto, e’ un falso

Denver, 31 Agosto (MNN) – Il mondo della politica americana e’ stato nuovamente scosso da una incredibile sorpresa, dopo l’annuncio che la 44enne Sarah Palin, Governatore dell’Alaska, sara’ il candidato alla Vice Presidenza per il Partito Repubblicano e John McCain.

Il candidato Democratico, Barack Obama, ha infatti deciso di introdurre due nuovi incarichi, quelli di Vice Vice Presidenti, per i quali ha scelto due noti personaggi: Betty Boop e Pisellino.

Sarah Palin Betty Boop

Purtroppo non c’e’ che da aspettarsi nuove polemiche, soprattutto dopo che Obama ha dichiarato che “Betty Boop starebbe sicuramente MEGLIO sulla copertina di Vogue” e “Pisellino ha molta MENO esperienza, su qualunque argomento“.

Fonti male informate suggeriscono che in settimana McCain pensa di rilanciare ulteriormente la posta in gioco, rivelando di aver partecipato al secondo episodio di Jurassic Park interpretando il personaggio di “Kelly Curtis Malcolm“…

Italiano Politica USA

Obama: Come Sbarazzarsi del “Veleno Billary”

Che cosa dovrebbe mai fare Barack Obama adesso che sembra che Hillary Clinton non voglia apertamente riconoscere la propria sconfitta se non dopo che le sia stata offerta la candidatura alla Vice-Presidenza (VP) USA, fino al punto di organizzare urla di “No-bama” in una sua apparizione pubblica?

Come può Obama togliere dalla scena la rivale, e con lei quella rana dalla bocca larga, suo marito Bill Clinton, scomodo, prone alle gaffe, odiato dalla stampa, deciso a distruggere la propria reputazione, circondato da tante donne e sempre piu’ pieno di rabbia? Una coppia cosi’ vicina da essere definita Billary (Bill+Hillary)…

Questo perche’ se Obama accettasse la signora Rodham come suo candidato VP, egli sembrerebbe debole, incapace di stare in piedi sulle proprie gambe, troppo pronto al compromesso con qualcuno che, dopo tutto, non e’ riuscito ad eliminare dalla competizione.

Se invece, tutte le fusa fatte dalla Clinton riguardo la sua disponibilitĂ  a provare a diventare VP saranno ignorate o respinte, Obama sembrera’ debole, naufrago fra i suoi istruiti supporters senza neanche un Latino-Americano o un Bianco povero in vista.

(Si dice che fino al 27% dei Democratici non vogliano votare a favore di Obama… si dice anche che la la madre degli idioti e’ sempre incinta)

Tutto questa campagna elettorale di Hillary e Bill Clinton li ha quindi trasformati in una “pillola avvelenata”, la migliore notizia per il candidato repubblicano McCain dopo che Rudy Giuliani si e’ dato la zappa sui piedi.

Cosi’ come stanno le cose adesso, Hillary Clinton è indispensabile, e il Partito democratico non sembra potersi muovere se non dove scelto da lei.

Ma nel suo piu’ recente momento di gloria, ci sono anche tutte le ragioni perche’ Hillary diventi irrilevante.


E’ buona pratica in materia di gestione delle risorse umane, l’individuare quelle risorse di cui uno “non può fare a meno”… al fine di sbarazzarsi di loro.

Chiunque sia capace di diventare “indispensabile” è infatti un “centro di potere” senza controllo, un fastidio per tutti coloro che gli stanno intorno, una minaccia per la coesione del gruppo e un rischio incontrollabile nel caso la persona decida di passare ad un diverso posto di lavoro o scompaia per qualsiasi motivo (ad esempio, se viene fuori un altro scandalo sessuale che coinvolgono il Signor Bill C).

E non si deve trascurare la possibilitĂ  di una sfida alla leadership, da un momento all’altro.

(Sono certo che Hillary Clinton sta sognando che i delegati del Partito la preghino a Denver il prossimo agosto, di diventare il Candidato Presidenziale per acclamazione. Ma non c’e’ proprio nessuno che riesca a trovare una foto di Obama con una prostituta, un’amante (o un amante), mazzette di denaro sporco, o cocaina sul naso? In preghiera in una moschea? A cena con il Presidente Iraniano Ahmadinejad? tsk tsk!)

Ecco dunque perchÊ, se qualcuno è indispensabile, deve essere subito messo alla porte, invece di lasciare la situazione appesa a un filo, con il rischio di una colossale, ingestibile crisi in un clima di reciproca diffidenza e di leadership debole,

(Come sbarazzarsi di qualcuno che per definizione “non si può” eliminare? Ma l’indispensabilita’ non e’ quasi mai tale: la societĂ  americana non crollera’ se Hillary Clinton diventa domani una monaca di clausura. Se uno è “indispensabili”, licenziarlo sarĂ  doloroso, ma un esercizio di gruppo, che ispirerĂ  il massimo sforzo da parte di tutto il resto della squadra)


Obama può liberarsi da Billary scegliendo una di queste tre opzioni: (a) andando giu’ duro, nominando immediatamente qualcun altro come candidato VP; (b) andando tranquillo, non facendo niente, nella speranza che di Hillary non si occupi piu’ nessuno; (c) andando morbido, lasciando apertamente aperte tutte le possibilitĂ , giusto in caso, senza una reale intenzione di scegliere Hillary per la Vice-Presidenza.

La scelta è una questione di strategia politica a lungo termine. Si può sostenere che (a) è un segno di debolezza, ma prima si cava il dente, prima passerĂ  il dolore (e piĂš tempo ci sarĂ  per la campagna contro McCain). L’opzione (b) necessita di molto sangue freddo e molti amici fra i giornalisti. L’opzione (c) è una scommessa, e solo i candidati piĂš forti e piĂš determinati dovrebbero pensarci.

Le opzioni b, c presumono che i Clinton faranno venire la nausea a tutti, con Bill troppo latrante, e Hillary troppo lamentosa.

(Io sceglierei l’opzione b ma solo dopo aver preparato una campagna stampa cosi’ massiccia da seppellire letteralmente ogni articolo su Hillary Clinton)


Ovviamente, quanto detto presume che Obama sia in grado di dimostrare sufficiente tenacitĂ  (e cinismo) da essere il suo stesso antidoto contro il “Veleno Billary”. Lo stesso fatto che questa domanda sia ancora posta, può essere un sintomo della stessa incapacitĂ  di trovare quel colpo da KO politico che potrebbe avere risolto tutto molto tempo fa.

Barack Obama può ancora scegliere Hillary Clinton come candidato VP. Ma se questo dovesse accadere, nessuno dovrebbe prendersi in giro parlando di una “Presidenza Obama”: alla Casa Bianca, quello con i pantaloni non sarebbe l’attuale Senatore dell’Illinois.

English Politics USA USA 2008

Getting Rid of Poison Billary

What is Barack Obama supposed to do now that there is little sign that Hillary Clinton will openly “concede” without being offered the Vice-Presidency, to the point of organizing “No-bama” chants at a very public appearance?

How can he get rid of the lady, and of her big-mouthed, inconvenient, gaffe-prone, press-hated, reputation-tearing, ladies’ favorite anger-bag of a husband?

For were Obama to accept Ms Rodham as his VP candidate, he would appear weak, unable to stand on his own, way too ready to compromise with somebody that after all he has been unable to shrug off. If instead, all the purring from the Clinton campaign about her readiness to have a shot as VP were ignored or rebuffed, then Obama would appear weak, cast adrift among college-educated Americans with not a single Latino or poor White in sight.

(Perhaps up to 27% of Democrats do not want to vote for Obama…isnt’ there a saying about the mother of the idiots being always pregnant?)

All this campaigning by Hillary and Bill Clinton has then turned the couple into a “poison pill”, the best thing that happened to McCain since Giuliani started excelling at foot-shooting practice. As things stand now, Hillary Clinton is indispensible, and the Democratic Party cannot go anywhere she doesn’t like it to go.

But in her latest moment of glory, there are also all the reasons to make her irrelevant.


It is good practice in people management to identify the resources that one “cannot do without”…in order to get rid of them.

Anybody able to maneuver themselves into an “indispensable” position is in fact too loose a center of power, a practical nuisance for everybody around, a threat for the cohesion of the group and an inordinate risk were the person to move to a different job or disappear from view for any reason (eg due yet another sex scandal involving Mr C).

And one should not disregard the possibility of a leadership challenge at every single minute that passes

(I am sure Hillary Clinton is dreaming of the Party delegates begging her in Denver this coming August,to become the Presidential Candidate by acclamation. Can’t anybody find a picture of Obama with a prostitute, a lover, a wad of dirty cash, cocaine on his nose? Shaking hands with OJ Simpson? Praying at a mosque? Having dinner with Iran’s Ahmadinejad? Anything would do…)

That’s why if anybody is indispensable, they must be dispensed with asap, instead of letting things hang by a thread, with a possible major unmanageable crisis looming every day in an atmosphere of mutual distrust and weak leadership,

(How to get rid of somebody that one cannot ged rid of? By definition, it may look impossible. But that’s really never the case: US society would not collapse were Hillary Clinton to become a hermit tomorrow. If one is “indispensable”, dispensing of them will be painful, but a group exercise, that will inspire the best effort of the rest of the team)


Obama can free himself from Billary by choosing one of three options: (a) going hard, immediately nominating somebody else as VP candidate; (b) going safe, doing nothing in the hope few will care about an also-ran with no hope to be anybody; (c) going soft, openly leaving all possibilities open, just in case, with no actual intention of choosing Hillary for the Vice-Presidency.

The choice is a matter of long-term political strategy. It can be argued that (a) is a sign of weakness, but the sooner the tooth is pulled out, the sooner the pain will go (and the more time there will be for campaigning against McCain). Option (b) needs plenty of nerve and plenty of friends in the media. Option (c) is an absolute gamble, and only the strongest and most determined candidate should think about it.

Options b and c assume that the Clintons will make a nuisance of themselves, with Bill growling too much, and Hillary squeaking too often, so that among the general nausea only their staunchest supporters will remain loyal. And so on and so forth.

(Personally I would choose option b but only after preparing a massive media campaign, in order to bury any Clinton news item by sheer force of numbers)


Obviously, the above presumes Obama can show enough toughness (and callousness) so as to be his own antidote against Poison Billary. That’s something still open to question, a fact that in itself may be a symptom of the same inability to find that single final political punch that could have stopped all this Democrat squabbling long time ago.

Barack Obama can still choose Hillary Clinton as VP Candidate. But if that happens, nobody should kid themselves by talking of an “Obama Presidency”.

At the White House, the one with the trousers wouldn’t be the current junior Senator from Illinois.

English Politics USA USA 2008

USA 2008: Four-to-One Reasons to Vote McCain

Four reasons to vote McCain on Nov 4, 2008

(1) Obama has said McCain is not as bad as George W Bush

(2) Hillary Clinton has said McCain is ready to be Commander-in-Chief

(3) Considerable numbers of Obama supporters say that will vote for McCain rather than for hated Hillary Clinton

(4) Considerable numbers of Hillary Clinton supporters say that will vote for McCain rather than for hated Obama

One reason not to vote McCain on Nov 4, 2008

(1) Considerable numbers of Republican supporters are as warm as liquid helium about “their” Candidate

At the rate things are going, a Gus Polinski Tribute Band will have to be recruited to provide some excitement on Election Day…