Nobody really wants to talk about foreign poicy, or about Obama’s friends. Those two subjects are pretty much off-limits, for various reasons. Nobody wants to talk about foreign policy for the same reason that the evening news no longer reports about Iraq: because it’s good for Bush, and, they think, good for McCain. They do report on Afghanistan from time to time, but so far as I know, aside from the blogger imbeds like Michael Yon and Bill Roggio and his team, no journalist is on the battlefield, and with money ever tighter, the big media aren’t inclined to shell out for local stringers. Not to mention the various unhappy experiences of news agencies who paid “stringers” only to find out they were enemy disinformation agents — a subject that deserves several doctoral dissertations, by the way (h/t: Jim Angleton).
As for Obama’s friends, I share Andy’s alarm. I have nothing against hanging out with Marxist radicals. Some of my best friends are still Marxist radicals. I learn from them, even though I don’t agree with them very often. But what’s alarming about Obama is that he seems to have predominantly radical friends. No doubt he has some conservative friends, too. Maybe he’s even steered some money their way. But I haven’t heard of any. Have you?
And that pattern of behavior seems to me, as it does to Andy, to be a harbinger of the ideological nature of an Obama presidency. Presidents like to surround themselves with pals, with people they trust, with people who share their world view. There is always — always — a political/ideological litmus test for presidential appointees. One of the catastrophes of the Bush Administration has been the miserable performance of White House Personnel, and the resultant high density of Texas Ol’ Boys at high levels of government. I fear that one of the catastrophes of an Obama Administration would be a high density of intellectual radicals, and not just on domestic policy, not just an increase in self-destructive political correctness in the schools and the media (the stifling of dissent in talk radio, etc. etc.), but also in foreign policy, where, as Andy tells us, Obama is a fan of dangerous characters like Odinga.
Finally, on another subject, Michael Barone doesn’t have to convince me that the polls are generally accurate. Hell, with today’s polls, any result will find a pollster who predicted it. Then, we’ll look back and say, “look at how accurate Zogby (or Gallup, or AP, or al-Reuters, or Rasmussen, or…) was!”
But that will be history, and historians can always “explain” any result. What we want from pollsters is scientific prediction. And we’ve got too much of it. Better to spend our time thinking about the terrifying world we’re living in, is what I say.
I mean, what Andy said.