The ultimate aphrodisiac…
…is power, quoth Henry Kissinger.
An example of the truth of that principle is this photo of Henry K. and Sarah P. hugging (or is it kissing? Is Henry Kissinger kissing her?) last Tuesday:
Mighty suspicious, I think:
Compared to her 20-minute meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and 30-minute meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Palin spent an hour and a half with Kissinger—much longer than scheduled.
You know may be US Wall Street start to look in different resources and angle to get out safely from this crises.
Let’s Sarah Palin blessed by Kenyan witch-hunter (start at 7 min of this Video). So she did it and she comes out of the blue to lead US. May be that will fix Wall Street crises
Wonder if Dr. Death teaches her some his skills and experiences in Latin America and S. E. Asia so she will be well prepared for the IRAN or N. Korea two left from GWB’s Axis of Evil?
Sleek W is yelling :”Wrong man! Wrong man!”
When people take the moniker “Truth” unto themselves without irony, I always think of Honest John’s Used Cars and the like.
I think Sarah is whispering something in Henry Kissinger’s ear and I definitely don’t mean “sweet nothings”.
Creepy. Kissinger, I mean. Sarah has nice legs. Not that that has anything to do with…anything.
Rex Harrison and Audrey Hepburn? link
Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn? link
Breakfast at Tiffany’s? link
Bogart and Hepburn? link
Hepburn and Gregory Peck? link
My Fair Lady
Charade
Breakfast at Tiffany’s
Sabrina
Roman Holiday
The Kissinger and Palin photo, taken on a Manhattan sidewalk, is evocative of Palin as Cinderella. Will women (and men) who love the Cinderella story be drawn to Palin?
Maybe this is better: evocative of Palin as an American Hollywood Cinderella.
Kissinger is moron…
Well at least, that’s what Sarah Palin thinks..
Sarah Palin, renowned foreign policy authority, derides neophyte Henry Kissinger as “beyond naive.” Via Ilan Goldenberg:
Couric: You met yesterday with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is for direct diplomacy with both Iran and Syria. Do you believe the U.S. should negotiate with leaders like President Assad and Ahmadinejad?
Palin: I think, with Ahmadinejad, personally, he is not one to negotiate with. You can’t just sit down with him with no preconditions being met. Barack Obama is so off-base in his proclamation that he would meet with some of these leaders around our world who would seek to destroy America and that, and without preconditions being met. That’s beyond naé¯ve. And it’s beyond bad judgment.
Couric: Are you saying Henry Kissinger …
Palin: It’s dangerous.
Couric: … is naé¯ve for supporting that?
Palin: I’ve never heard Henry Kissinger say, “Yeah, I’ll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.” Diplomacy is about doing a lot of background work first and shoring up allies and positions and figuring out what sanctions perhaps could be implemented if things weren’t gonna go right. That’s part of diplomacy. [emphasis added]
Actually, Kissinger has explicitly stated that we should meet with Iran’s leaders “without conditions.” Four other Secretaries of State, including James Baker and Colin Powell, recently came out strongly in favor of direct negotiations as well.
This admittedly very experienced and ideologically diverse group fails to grasp the nuances of diplomacy the way Sarah Palin does, however. But then, they’ve never seen Putin’s head rearing into their airspace now have they?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=
Kathleen Parker, conservative columnist on the National Review:
“Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.
No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.”
Meanwhile, talk show host Ed Schultz reports:
“Capitol Hill sources are telling me that senior McCain people are more than concerned about Palin. The campaign has held a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as ‘disastrous.’ One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, ‘What are we going to do?’ The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is ‘clueless.’ ”
I actually really hate to see this — McCain seems like an intelligent, decent fellow, honorable and someone who wouldn’t be the worst president we’ve ever had (hard to top the last one for that honor, in my view). But he seems to have really made a big mistake in this instance.
I would definitely say that Sarah Palin can pull off diplomacy, real diplomacy, Neo. Not the Leftist diplomacy where they release terrorists for goodies.
My first thought re the worries about Palin is that people are caught up in high expectations of knowledge and are ignoring fundamental ability. Her history shows she has what it takes. Like anyone else who hasn’t spent her life in Washington, she will need a learning curve of more than a few weeks. That our hostile media-driven culture ignores this is unfortunate — bad not only for her, but for the country. I mean, look at the sorts of people who float to the top in the environment this market-driven madness creates.
As for the picture, it’s sweet. Kissinger is no doubt a charmer and was happy to spend every possible minute with this engaging young woman, politics and public opinion be damned.
Sashal,
Kissinger called for direct diplomacy, which Sec. Rice has been calling for for 9 months, and which did take place this summer, though Iran doubled crossed Sec. Rice and sent extreme low level functionaries to the meeting.
Obama called for direct, Presidential level diplomacy. Kissinger is not calling for that. Katie Couric appears not to understand the difference. Gov. Palin appears to understand the difference, and to be against Presidential level diplomacy without preconditions, as Sen. Clinton and Sen. Edwards are, as almost everyone in D.C. is except Obama and the media.
Mitsu,
America is designed so that civilians run the military. America is designed so that civilians run the government. Do we believe in that design or not?
Readiness for office is a question of principles and judgement. When issues arise, POTUS listens to advice and then decides. I have confidence in Governor Palin’s principles and judgment.
It’s nice that Sen. McCain knows a lot about Russia – yet, when issues arise, a President McCain will still listen to advice and then decide, just like every POTUS who holds office.
Principles and judgement. Who has superior principles and judgement? That is the issue.
Foreign policy experience is a nice factor, but it is only part of a mix of factors. The following had little or no foreign policy experience when they became President: FDR, JFK, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, GWB.
Madeline Albright has lots of foreign policy experience. How do you like the governing principles Ms. Albright believes in? What is your opinion of her judgment? My opinion of her is low in both areas – just as my opinion of Sen. Obama’s principles and judgment is low. I thought Ms. Albright was a dangerously weak and semi-deluded Sec. of State. I think Sen. Obama obscures his true principles, and hides instances (Chicago Annenberg Challenge) where he has been called on to display judgment.
Mitsu #2:
Ed Schultz is a liar. There’s no more effective way to describe him.
I think, lost in the shuffle, is the notion of exactly what the vice president does; they attend funerals of state and preside over the Senate, casting a tie breaking vote if needed. That’s it. Only 5 VPs have ever been elevated to President. McCain may be old, but I remember the same arguements about age bantered about Reagan. I think we remember that he outlived the Presidency. McCain’s mother is 96 after all.
As for the folks saying that Palin seems clueless, it seems odd considering what the other side has been like. Statements about the 57 states and FDR’s television appearance in 1929 have been completely ignored by the media. If Palin had said anything that stupid, do you have any doubts as to the screams we would be hearing? I’m not buying it.
To concentrate on the bottom of the ticket is ridiculous. Is Obama running for Vice President?
McCain might be old. But only president to die in office is FDR. And his Vice President was just as clueless the day it happened. But he turned out to be quite an above average president.
And for the rest of those he died in office – fell to assassins. Age is no insurance against that.
gcotharn is clueless, or lying?
Yeah, kadet, way to address something specific. I may be both clueless and lying, but at least I have the guts to directly address what commenters have said. I’m willing to put my logic out there where any weakness can be exposed. I’m putting myself at risk. I’m actually grateful if someone exposes my weak logic – I will gratefully adapt my logic when it is shown to be weak. What are you risking with your weak bs?
kadet says:
“gcotharn is clueless, or lying?”
Just one god-damned minute kid!
I have read many posts from gcotharn, and they have been uniformly intelligent and reasonable. When he has disputed a poster, it has never been with venom or snarkiness. In other words, the reply of a gentleman; something I seriously doubt you can comprehend.
So I will say what he is too much of a gentleman to say: You are not fit to wipe his boots you pathetic twerp.
Indeed, I would not be so concerned about Palin if McCain were guaranteed to not die in office. But that is a distinct possibility. And, much as I would prefer Obama in office, if McCain wins I’d reluctantly conclude it would not be that terrible a fate for the nation. But a Palin presidency? Oh. My. God.
In response to a Couric suggestion that the $700 billion bailout would be better sent directly to shore up distressed mortgages (a la HOLC), Palin said:
“That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, we’re ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh — it’s got to be all about job creation too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade, we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, um, scary thing, but 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We’ve got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.”
WTF?
Air kiss.
And I say this as a hobbyist fashion designer: Sarah needs to stop wearing those boxy jackets with the collars turned up. I understand how she has to avoid dresses and stick to suits (let alone anything “sexy”), but somebody *please* get her a tailor!
Mitsu,
Palin lost the thread in that answer, for sure. But, do you really want to have a contest of random incoherent nonresponses? We’ll be here for 100 years. Barack’s incoherence will dominate the century.
Oh please, gcotharn, you have got to be totally blinded by partisan bias not to see that Palin is way out of her depth. It is not just one incoherent response (and, seriously, I challenge you to come up with anything Obama or pretty much any other major politician has said that could match the rambling bizarrity of that one example above), it’s a whole series of responses in the interviews she’s given so far that activate, as Kathleen Parker (a conservative!) put it, nearly anyone’s cringe reflex. I feel sorry for both McCain and Palin, frankly.
McCain could have chosen any number of qualified women — Kay Bailey Hutchinson, for example. But instead he went with Palin? I think it is an example of McCain’s impulsiveness, and it’s unfortunate.
Mitsu is backing a candidate for President who thinks his uncle liberated the NAZI Auchwitz camp and he thinks Palin is out of her league?
Talk about blindness.
Mitsu,
How about this:
Yes I will meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, Nicaragua, and N.Korea without preconditions during my first year of office. Oh, but of course we’ll have preparations.
Tripe. Complete and total. Why you continue to defend Barack’s incoherent tap dancing from 3 sides of this issue is beyond me. Barack turned a debate gaffe into a foreign policy point, tap dancing all the way, making contradictory claims from several sides of the issue – including in last night’s debate. When Barack’s contradictory tripe is painstakingly laid out in the open for you to see: you react as if you are blind to it, carry on with your own tap dancing, and swerve the subject when you feel pinned down.
Look for what is true. I have no special insight into truth, but I make effort to search it out. Above, I said Palin lost the thread in the Couric interview answer. Would it kill you to admit Barack is still furiously spinning a debate gaffe when he could’ve simply admitted error months ago? Would you melt if you admitted this is the case?
Maybe Barack cannot admit error. Maybe he has to guard against looking naive. But you don’t have to defend Barack’s obvious subterfuge.
I’ve addressed Barack’s comments on that subject at length in Neo’s post about that, and I won’t repeat my remarks here, but I will simply say that it’s quite obvious that you and most people criticizing Obama about this don’t understand the technical meaning of the term “preconditions” in diplomatic circles. It’s an understandable mistake, but it’s simply a mistake on your part, not “incoherence” on the part of Obama.
The problem of Palin’s incoherence is hardly one of disagreement over policy — it’s that her response is simply incoherent, period. I mean, give me a break — healthcare reform? And go back and watch the rest of the Couric interview (or the Gibson interview, for that matter). It would be funny if it weren’t so scary.
I refuse to watch MSM Propaganda. CBS did the same sort of hack editing job that ABC did.
I’m not going to watch deliberately flawed news products.
The news have propagated lie after lie after lie about this woman.
I’m done with it.
how anyone with a brain can give CBS any credibility is a mystery.
Mitsu: This is probably my last response on the subject, but you continue to misunderstand my points. The issue was Obama’s initial statement about his willingness to meet as President with those leaders without preconditions, not his later tap-dancing and parsing.
Also, for those who say who cares what Kissinger thinks: I don’t, especially. What I care about is that if Obama is going to use what Kissinger thinks as some sort of endorsement for Obama’s own position and not McCain’s, I care whether Obama is correct or just spinning Kissinger.
Kissinger says Obama is just spinning Kissinger, and my post about the Woody Allen film was merely an attempt at offering an amusing perspective on how wonderful it would have been (since Kissinger agreed with McCain, it turns out) for McCain to have been able to pull Kissinger out of the audience, much as Allen did with McLuhan in the film. Period.
Palin’s response to that question was incoherent. Happens to everyone.
I’ve watched the edited Gibson interview, and read the complete transcript. I’ve watched the edited Couric interview. You and I disagree about Palin’s performances in those interviews.
Further, you discount Palin’s actual record of accomplishment in life and in government. Since Barack has little professional accomplishment, you therefore overvalue Barack’s verbal style. You ignore that Barack is verbally delivering vapid nothings into the ether. You ignore that Barack surrounds both sides of issues in deliberate attempts at obfuscation. You ignore Barack’s record of failure as both a Community Organizer and as Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. You ignore Barack’s cotton candy three years of nonaccomplishment in the Senate.
I would much prefer a President Palin to a President Obama. We must agree to disagree about these two.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ve read your comments about technical meaning and diplomatic terms. I’ve also read commenters who painstakingly provided evidence of where Barack’s own words are contradictory, and of where Barack’s own words contradict your contentions. One of us is ignoring evidence. We must agree to disagree as to which of us it is.
how anyone with a brain can give CBS any credibility is a mystery.
You did it (if my guess right) twice before with other US brains!!
Those “anyone with a brain “Voted twice for liars to be in WH.
The news have propagated lie after lie after lie about this woman.
She lied to? She said she visited Iraq when she did not.
She said Iraq war was God Plan! She lied; she did it after five years when some officials in US administration admitted they lied about the war and its objectives.
Hi Neo,
I replied to you in the other topic, but I did think your post was funny and well-written. However, I really think, as I said in the other post, that Kissinger was just trying to be nice to McCain in his response. You might not that he also said there were many disagreements he had with McCain (which he didn’t mention) — chief among them, presumably, is the fact that Kissinger explicitly said he does not believe in setting preconditions for high-level talks with the Iranians, starting at the secretary of state level. That is a view which is contrary to the Bush Administration policy (until recently), but it is a view congruent with Obama’s position (which has been misinterpreted, in my view, including his original statement which you quoted).
None of this is to say that I didn’t think your post was funny. It was funny, if only, I think, misplaced. Kissinger was trying to do his old friend a favor, but really, he was the one spinning, not Obama, in my view.
gcotharn: As I’ve said numerous times, the word “preconditions” has a technical meaning in diplomatic circles. There is nothing whatsoever contradictory about the quote you posted above, from the original debate, and the subsequent explanations Obama and others have given about what that quote means. I understood precisely what Obama meant right from the start — and I was quite surprised to read some of the strange misinterpretations floating around in conservative circles, which persist up until this day. Obviously we’re going to have to agree to disagree about this one.