74% - FINAL FOUR DAYS

We are at 74% of goal in our subscription drive, which ends Friday.  Unless you subscribe, you're only getting a fraction of Urgent Agenda.

FOURTH SUBSCRIPTION DRIVE

Subscriptions are the lifeblood of Urgent Agenda.  Without them, we cannot function.  With them, we're in the fight.

By subscribing you keep Urgent Agenda going.  You also receive The Angel's Corner, our twice-a-week e-mail publication dealing with all kinds of things - politics, show business, even tech stuff.  The Angel's Corner, published Wednesday night, featured:

1.  PRESSURE ON THE PRESIDENT
2.  SARAH, SARAH
3.  SMART PHONES
4.  THE FORUM

A new Angel's Corner was just published early Saturday morning.  The subjects?

1.  ALFRED HITCHCOCK EXPLAINS THE WORLD
2.  A HITCH LESSON IN IRAN

At The Angel's Corner we also give the very coveted Pompous Fool award, bestowed on those who meet the highest standards of mediocrity.  And at the Angel's Corner forum you can publish your thoughts on anything.

Subscribe for a year, or six months, or donate what you wish.  At the request of readers, we're also launching a family plan.  For little more than a year's subscription, you can have a second sent to someone else - like a kid at school whom you want to save from sinful ideas.

So please subscribe in the column on the right.  Should you ever want to drop your subscription, the unused portion will be refunded with only a few insults and comments about your ancestors.

By the way, you don't need a PayPal account.  When you click on one of our subscription buttons, look toward the bottom of the first screen.  There's a choice for standard credit-card subscriptions. 

You're needed.  I think we are too.

TUESDAY,  JUNE 16,  2009

CALIFORNIA TREATED LIKE AN AMERICAN ALLY - AT 9:27 P.M. ET:  From The Detroit News:

Washington -- The Obama administration has turned back pleas for emergency aid from one of the biggest remaining threats to the economy -- the state of California.

Top state officials have gone hat in hand to the administration on several occasions, armed with dire warnings of a fast-approaching "fiscal meltdown" caused by a budget shortfall. Alarm has grown inside the White House in recent weeks as California's fiscal condition has worsened, leading to high-level administration meetings. But federal officials are concerned that a bailout of California would set off a cascade of demands from other states.

COMMENT:  I just don't understand these Californians. All they have to do is develop an illegal nuclear-weapons program, or launch some missiles into the Pacific, and help would be on the way.

You know, this is what happens when you elect a bodybuilder as governor.  No respect for the benefits of technology.

June 16, 2009   Permalink 

PERFECTLY FINE WORDS - AT 6:48 P.M. ET:  President Obama, with the president of South Korea at his side, has issued some perfectly fine words about the conflict with North Korea:

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama said Tuesday that a nuclear-armed North Korea poses a "grave threat" to the world and vowed to end a cycle of allowing Pyongyang to create a crisis and then be rewarded with incentives to back down.

"This is a pattern they've come to expect," Obama said. "We are going to break that pattern."

With South Korean President Lee Myung-bak at his side in the White House Rose Garden, Obama said they agreed that a new U.N. resolution seeking to halt North Korea's development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles must be fully enforced. The U.N. did not authorize military force to enforce the measures.

Lee said he and Obama agreed that "under no circumstance are we going to allow North Korea to possess nuclear weapons.

COMMENT:  That's a perfectly fine statement, but this president often makes perfectly fine statements, then never backs them up.  Will we actually enforce that UN resolution, or just have "discussions" with our allies?  Will we go back to the UN for "clarifications"?  The whole world is watching, including the Iranian government.

June 16, 2009   Permalink

THIS CAN'T BE SERIOUS.  IT REALLY CAN'T.  NO, IT CAN'T - AT 6:13 P.M. ET:  Congress does foolish things.  I can't believe it would go this far:

Oakland Rep. Barbara Lee wants Congress to officially recognize veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas "for her pioneering career as a woman in journalism."

The Democrat has introduced a three-page resolution that would bestow the House of Representatives' recognition on Thomas and honor her "unflagging and honest coverage of every president of the United States since John F. Kennedy."

Lee said she authored the resolution to provide "a small token of gratitude to her for her many years of service."

"Helen has been a trailblazer for women in the field of journalism and has served as a model of true journalistic integrity throughout her career," Lee said. "Having served as a correspondent for nearly six decades and covered every president since John F. Kennedy, her love for the written word and for politics is an inspiration to us all."

COMMENT:  All right, we must make allowance for the fact that the resolution was written by Barbara Lee, the most left-leaning member of Congress, the only member who voted against military action following the 9-11 attacks.  We must also make allowance for the fact that she represents Oakland, a place not usually associated with the word "sanity."

But still.

Helen Thomas is the wicked witch of both the East and West.  Add North and South.  You can insert those in-between directions if you like.  She's a whack job of the first magnitude, who has consistently abused her position in the White House press corps to advance her way-out-left political opinions.

House resolution?  Let's hope they have enough sense to bury it.  Maybe, instead, they can give Helen a trip to her favorite dictatorship.

June 16, 2009   Permalink

THE OBAMA FOREIGN POLICY RIPPED - AT 9:03 A.M. ET:  Bret Stephens, of The Wall Street Journal, has written one of the best, and one of the toughest, critiques of the crumbling Obama foreign policy.  Republican spokesmen, please note.  Stephens contrasts the treatment of the Israeli prime minister, an ally, with the treatment of the Iranian president, an enemy.

Question: Toward which of these two leaders does President Obama intend to play the heavy?

Not, apparently, with the Iranian. On Saturday, spokesman Robert Gibbs said the White House "was impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians." On Sunday, Joe Biden allowed that there "was some real doubt" about the election, but said the U.S. would continue its outreach to Iran anyway. It was only after 48 hours that the president finally echoed his spokesmen.

And...

Now a presidency that's supposed to be all about hope is suddenly in cynical realpolitik mode -- the only "hope" it means to keep alive being a "grand bargain" over Iran's nuclear program. This never had much chance of success, but at least until Friday's sham poll it wasn't flatly at odds with the interests of ordinary Iranians. Not anymore.

Here's a recent comment from one Iranian demonstrator posted on the Web site of the National Iranian American Council. "WE NEED HELP, WE NEED SUPPORT," this demonstrator wrote. "Time is not on our side. . . . The most essential need of young Iranians is to be recognized by US government. They need them not to accept the results and do not talk to government as an official, approved one."

Finally...

Rarely in U.S. history has a foreign policy course been as thoroughly repudiated by events as his (Obama's) approach to Iran in his first months in office. Even Jimmy Carter drew roughly appropriate conclusions about the Iranian regime after the hostages were taken in 1979.

Maybe this president will now draw roughly appropriate conclusions, too. Or maybe he'll just turn his gaze from his nonstarting overture to Tehran to the Holy Land, whose pastures look ever-so slightly greener thanks to Mr. Netanyahu's attempt at reasonableness and conciliation. Israelis shouldn't count on Mr. Obama responding in kind.

COMMENT:  But when will the in-the-tank Obama press finally realize what is happening?  There are some encouraging signs in some news organizations, like AP, but there are too few.  Too many journalists have their careers invested in Bush-hatred and Obama-love.  It's hard to leave the chosen one.

June 16, 2009   Permalink

GOP SCORES ON NATIONAL SECURITY - AT 7:48 A.M. ET:  The Republicans are down, but some are fighting back, and a new Gallup survey, reported here last night, shows conservatives to be the largest ideological block.  National security is a natural GOP advantage, as reported by The Politico's "The Huddle" column:

GOP NATIONAL SECURITY GROOVE: The party out of power is still doing well on national security issues, as Steve Dennis reports in today’s Roll Call: “Congressional Republicans are at their weakest point politically in decades, but they still appear to be keeping Democrats on the defensive when it comes to national security.

“The GOP attacks, particularly on the closing of the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, prison and the treatment of suspected terrorists there, have tied Democrats in parliamentary knots and repeatedly put President Barack Obama on the spot. While Democrats don’t believe the GOP is making major political headway, Republicans are relishing the fight. “The president made some major missteps, including announcing he would be closing Gitmo without fully understanding it,” House Intelligence ranking member Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) said.”

COMMENT:  Republicans can score major gains, based on the issues, in next year's congressional races.  The president's coattails may not be that long, and large chunks of the population disagree with him on the issues.  The attack on Dem policies must be sustained, but must be accompanied by Republican alternatives. Criticism alone doesn't do it. 

The Republican contract with America, containing real proposals, helped win the 1994 midterms for the GOP.  It can be done again.

June 16, 2009   Permalink

PLOT AGAINST CARTER? - AT 7:28 A.M. ET:  From Fox News:

Hamas has discovered two roadside bombs planted near a crossing between Israel and Gaza on a path Former President Jimmy Carter's convoy took to meet with the group's leaders, a Palestinian source tells FOX News.

According to the source, the aim of the bombs was to hit Carter's vehicle as he exited Gaza. There is some suspicion that Hamas extremists identified with Al Qaeda may be behind the attempt.

The former president says he's trying to persuade Hamas leaders to accept the international community's conditions for ending its boycott of the Islamic militant group.

COMMENT:  Hard to know what to believe here.  Why would Al Qaeda want to kill Jimmah Carter, one of the world's leading flacks for the Arab cause?  Well, of course they might want to do it and blame it on Israel, and CNN would take that seriously.  You can just see Christiane Amanpour, fake British accent and all, reporting from the blast scene.

We'll wait and see on this.  It will be interesting to see how different news organizations play the story.

June 16, 2009   Permalink

IRAN ON THE EDGE - AT 7:19 A.M. ET:  The tensions in Iran are smoldering.  AFP reports on the latest maneuver by the ruling crowd:

TEHRAN (AFP) — Iran's election watchdog said on Tuesday it was ready for a recount in the hotly disputed presidential vote as the nation braced for further protests after seven people were killed in street battles.

The stage was set for possible further confrontations as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's camp and supporters of defeated rival Mir Hossein Mousavi both called for rallies in the biggest outpouring of public anger since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

In an apparent bid to quell the unrest, the Guardians Council election watchdog said it was prepared for a recount if irregularities were found in Friday's election, which gave Ahmadinejad a landslide win over Mousavi.

Seven people were killed in fighting in Tehran on Monday after a mass rally which saw Mousavi appear in public for the first time since polling day, and demonstrations have also spread to other major cities across the country.

COMMENT:  The recount will be a farce.  It will only be held if  "irregularities" are found in the election.  We know what the result will be.

The Obama administration's response to the Iran turbulence - very typically Carteresque - is to do nothing much and to continue plans for an "outreach" to the Iranian regime.  Must be awfully encouraging to the people in the streets.

Obama came to office saying he wanted Americans to feel proud of their country again.  Well, most of us never lost our pride.  But we can quickly lose our pride in this country's foreign policy with Mr. Obama guiding, or torpedoing, the ship of state.

June 16, 2009   Permalink

CAUTION ON NORTH KOREA - AT 6:50 A.M. ET:   David Sanger, of The New York Times - a fine reporter - outlines the administration's first physical response to the new UN sanctions on North Korea, voted last week by the Security Council:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will order the Navy to hail and request permission to inspect North Korean ships at sea suspected of carrying arms or nuclear technology, but will not board them by force, senior administration officials said Monday.

The new effort to intercept North Korean ships, and track them to their next port, where Washington will press for the inspections they refused at sea, is part of what the officials described as “vigorous enforcement” of the United Nations Security Council resolution approved Friday.

The planned American action stops just short of the forced inspections that North Korea has said that it would regard as an act of war. Still, the administration’s plans, if fully executed, would amount to the most confrontational approach taken by the United States in dealing with North Korea in years, and carries a risk of escalating tensions at a time when North Korea has been carrying out missile and nuclear tests.

COMMENT:  This is a half-decent first step, but the decision not to board by force gives the North Koreans a huge advantage:  Why should they cooperate if they know their ships will not be boarded?  All they have to say is that they'll resist boarding "by force," and, presumably, we'll back off.  What is our fallback position?  Why, we'll "press" for inspections in port.

I can't imagine the North Koreans being very impressed with this.  I certainly can't imagine anything here that will change that country's policies.  Again, we go nowhere with tough-sounding words.

The late Gen. Lauris Norstad, one-time commander of NATO, said that toughness is not a policy.  He was right.  You have to decide what to be tough about.  The Obama decision on North Korea is, by that standard, disappointing.

June 16, 2009   Permalink 

MONDAY,  JUNE 15,  2009

HOW MANY WEEKS DID THIS TAKE? - AT 9:51 P.M. ET:  David Letterman, involved in a controversy over a joke he'd told at the expense of Sarah Palin's younger daughter, has surrendered and apologized:

David Letterman directly apologized to Gov. Sarah Palin and her daughters on his program Monday night, saying he took responsibility for a joke that had offended Ms. Palin, her family and her supporters.

Mr. Letterman opened the desk portion of his show with the apology, in which he said he wanted to say he was sorry to “the two daughters involved, Bristol and Willow, and also to the governor and her family and everybody else who was outraged by the joke.” Two weeks ago on his “Late Show” program on CBS, he had joked about Governor Palin’s attending a Yankee game with her daughter.

The joke, in which Mr. Letterman seemingly confused Willow, who is 14 and attended a Yankee game with Governor Palin that week, with Bristol, who is 18 and an unwed mother, had to do with the Yankee slugger Alex Rodriguez impregnating Ms. Palin’s daughter.

COMMENT:  Does this mean there's hope for our negotiations with Iran? 

Look, Letterman finally did the right thing, but it took much too long, reflecting the remarkable double standard in the media.  If that joke had been told about a liberal's daughter, the roof would have come in, and Letterman would have been explaining himself to a firing squad led by Anita Hill.  Remember her?

June 15, 2009   Permalink

OBAMA ON IRAN - AT 8:56 P.M. ET:  President Obama has now commented on the situation in Iran.  This is what he said, reported by Jake Tapper at ABC:

...it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we’ve seen on the television over the last few days and what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was."

COMMENT:  Well, it wasn't exactly "Give me liberty or give me death," but, given the rhetorical mush of this administration, we could have done worse, although not much worse. 

The president went on to say that the election mess in Iran won't interfere with his attempt to engage that country in what he called "diplomacy without illusions," a phrase that I suspect had its origin in President Kennedy's reference to himself as an "idealist without illusions."  The difference is that Obama has illusions, and they can kill us.

June 15, 2009   Permalink

AND NOW FOR THE GOOD NEWS - AT 8:25 P.M. ET:  Things aren't all bleak for our side.  A new Gallup poll confirms that Americans aren't jumping off the leftist deep end just yet.  In fact, it turns out that the left really isn't all that popular.

Conservatives, according to Gallup's research, are the largest single political belief group.  Some 40% of Americans describe themselves as conservatives, while only 21% call themselves liberals.  Some 35% label themselves moderates.  So the conservative/moderate bloc accounts for 75% of the country.

So how does that explain the election of Barack Obama, possibly the most liberal man ever made president?  Well, it doesn't.  But personal appeal and popularity count for a great deal in our system.  And Obama was able to convince millions of Americans that he really is a kind of active centrist.  He is not, but people believed it. 

The essential moderation in America is proved by the general unpopularity of Obama's policies, as contrasted with Mr. Obama's personal appeal.  And Obama is dragged down by a congressional party that sometimes makes the Mafia look elegant. 

So take heart.  The graveyards in Chicago can't provide that many votes.

June 15, 2009   Permalink

THE IRAN DILEMMA - AT 6:46 P.M. ET:  Anyone hoping for a firm American response to the Democratic uprising underway in Iran received a disappointment this afternoon when the White House said that the United States would deal with the Iran we have, not the Iran we'd hoped for.  That's standard diplomatic prune juice for "Nothing has changed."  Our "engagement" with the regime will continue.  Hey, what's a stolen election and some rioting in the streets?  If Chicago can do it, so can Tehran!

Michael J. Totten, who's done such wonderful online reporting from Iraq, weighs in with a thoughtful analysis of our dilemma, published at Contentions:

Right now the regime may be sticking its proverbial finger in the wind to sense what a foreign reaction to a more ferocious domestic response might look like. It’s somewhat surprising that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps hasn’t already gunned down a substantial number of people. Surely its commanders have at least considered massacring dissidents as in Tienanmen Square. If they feel they might get away with it because no one outside Iran is willing to stop them – which is exactly what happened in Burma last year – silence from the White House might actually increase the likelihood of something monstrous happening.

COMMENT:  The Obamans are trapped by their own words.  They spent a good chunk of the last two years, lounging in their pseudo-sophisticated university parlors, laughing at George W. Bush for trying to promote democracy.  Now, when democracy can use a boost, they are essentially silent.  They will promote this as "realism."

June 15, 2009   Permalink

POLITICS AS USUAL - AT 10:01 A.M. ET:  You'd think, with all their yapping about health-care reform, that the administration's soldiers would have thought out all the details by now, or even all the generalities.  Apparently, the truth is that it's improvise-as-you go, as Fox News reports:

The Obama administration is willing to consider reforms that could help protect doctors from lawsuits in a bid to win support for a comprehensive health care overhaul from doctors and Senate Republicans.

President Obama and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told lawmakers in a private meeting they would accept some malpractice liability reform if it means progress on health care reform, senior White House officials told FOX News.

What do they mean by "accept some malpractice liability reform"?  That should be a central theme of any health plan.  There are, of course, legitimate malpractice suits, but a troubling number are distorted, based on exaggerated claims, or even on junk science.  The effect is to discourage physicians, drive malpractice insurance through the roof, which raises medical costs dramatically, and force doctors to abandon certain specialties or areas of the country.  There are, for example, whole counties with no obstetricians.

One lawyer who specialized in medical malpractice suits is a certain John Edwards, late of presidential campaigns.

Any health plan must be attractive to physicians.  One of the great problems of some of the nationalized health systems of other countries is that they discourage people from entering medicine, producing immediate doctor shortages.  This in turn leads to those now-famous waiting lists, and a breakdown of the system.

One top Obama adviser told FOX News the White House understands Democrats may object to malpractice reforms, but that a health care deal requires movement on all sides and if doctor and GOP buy-in can be achieved this way, Obama will not hesitate to pursue it.

Great way to plan something that deals with life-and-death issues.  Just Washington politics.  Who needs talk about cutting-edge drugs or advanced surgery?  Such bores.

June 15, 2009   Permalink

THE RETURN OF SARAH - AT 9:06 A.M. ET:  We've noted several times our doubts about Sarah Palin.  When she was chosen as vice-presidential nominee by Sen. John McCain last fall (seems like years ago, doesn't it), it seemed that a star was born.  Her speech to the Republican National Convention was a gem.  And she clearly had an appeal to the male contingent.

But Sarah quickly ran into the media buzz saw, and she was unprepared for what followed.  Biased journalists like Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric did their thing.  But one thing in politics worse than biased journalists is not being ready for them.  It's part of the tool kit.  And Sarah wasn't.

Now she's back, and we watch, as she continues to turn voters on or off.  The Anchorage Daily News has a well-reported, neutral and careful story about the return of Sarah:

Gov. Sarah Palin returned to the national stage in a big way this past week, rocketing back into the national consciousness with her David Letterman feud, slams on the Obama administration and drama with national Republican leaders.

While Palin won't say if she is running for national office, there is no shortage of people offering advice and declaring her to be an inspiration or making her a punch line. Her trip to the Lower 48 over the past week has the country again fascinated.

And fascination brings press.  And press, hopefully a good press, brings the money and the excitement.

"She is who people are talking about," said Matthew Dowd, a former top strategist for George W. Bush and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. "That trip demonstrated that whatever people's feelings about her, she is a point of conversation. So depending upon her, she has the potential to emerge as a leader of the Republican Party."

"Potential."  One of the most dangerous words in politics.  Many a concession speech has been given by politicians with "potential."  The question in Sarah Palin's case is whether her potential can be translated into acceptance across a wide enough part of the political spectrum to get her elected.

You really have to think of her on a debating stage opposite President Barack Obama to realize the climb she has before her.  And the only position, realistically, that she can hold between now and 2012 is governor of Alaska, which didn't exactly bowl over the country last fall.

But as in the presidential campaign, Palin continues to be very polarizing. On the national level, many seem to either love her or deeply dislike her. Her supporters will hear a Palin speech or interview and declare her brilliantly in touch with regular Americans and their values. Critics dismiss her as not being presidential material -- and worse.

And, finally...

Greg Mueller, a national Republican consultant, said Palin has a huge grass-roots network and will have no problem raising money.

He said Palin is a "softer version of Margaret Thatcher." She can unite the social, limited-government and foreign policy conservatives, he said, and could be just what the voters are looking for after they are disillusioned with the Obama years.

"The more she is attacked by the Washington establishment and elite media and people like David Letterman, the more people are going to come out and support her," he said.

He suggested Palin follow a Ronald Reagan model, leaving Alaska when appropriate, giving speeches in smaller towns and talking to local press.

"Katie Couric doesn't have a lot of fans in Des Moines, Iowa, and Manchester, New Hampshire," Mueller said. "Sarah Palin does."

We'll see.  Endlessly fascinating.

June 15, 2009   Permalink

THE REAL REALISTS - AT 8:01 A.M. ET:  It must be tough when your campaign was based on the slogan, "Yes we can," and increasingly it appears that "no you can't."  President Obama made foreign policy look easy when he stared into the faces of starry-eyed kids during his election rounds.  Why, a little talking here, a little outreach there, a bit 'o foreign aid around that tree.  Hey, yes we can!

As The Politico reports, other people around the world actually have their own ideas:

The notion of an “Obama effect” sweeping the Middle East appeared to collide with the realities of the Islamic Republic of Iran Saturday, as the country’s confrontational, anti-American president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, celebrated a landslide victory in Friday’s election amid wide doubts about the honesty of the official vote count.

What Obama effect?  There isn't any, anywhere in the world, it seems. The notion of an Obama effect is based on the false image of "world opinion," some monolithic bloc that can be swayed by an American president.  As my great teacher, Hans Morgenthau, used to tell us, there's no such thing as world opinion.  There are only individual national opinions, and they are based, not on an attractive figure in Washington, but on the perceived national interests of the countries involved. 

Iran will do what believes is in its interest.  Right now, that means developing nuclear weapons.  Any "negotiations" will be limited by Iran's bottom line.  And Iran, clearly, is not the only problem:

Analysts across the political spectrum – including staunch supporters of Obama’s pledge to engage Iran in respectful negotiations – said that a second Ahmadinejad term seems to dash hopes of a warmer relationship with Tehran and complicate President Obama’s hopes of reaching a deal to stop Iran’s nuclear program by his own deadline of the end of this year. It comes as another target of Obama’s hopes for new engagement, North Korea, is defiantly threatening to test a nuclear weapon, in a dramatic weekend for two countries President George W. Bush placed in an “Axis of Evil.”

Gee, you don't feel that Bush was...right, do you?  Do you think a few people are thinking that in Washington, Manhattan, and Cambridge, Massachusetts?  Oh, don't ask, don't tell.

Illusions die hard.

June 15, 2009   Permalink


BRING IN AL GORE'S LAWYERS - AT 7:43 A.M. ET:

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran's supreme leader ordered Monday an investigation into allegations of election fraud, marking a stunning turnaround by the country's most powerful figure and offering hope to opposition forces who have waged street clashes to protest the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

COMMENT:  On what basis is this a "stunning turnaround"?  What "hope" is offered to the opposition forces?  Investigations are held all the time in dictatorships, with the results decided in advance.

We've seen an eruption of violence in Iran in response to Friday's "election."  The strength and courage of the opposition is one major story here.  The other is the Obama administration's remarkable indifference to the democratic yearnings of millions of Iranians.  Are they afraid that uttering the words, "We support you," will disappoint the realists?  Sound too much like Bush?  Be "unsophisticated," possibly the worst label the Obamans fear?

Indeed, the administration seemed to be at pains to suggest that the election, and its violent aftermath, would have no real effect on Obama's desire to "reach out" to Iran.  When policies don't change in the face of persistent facts, those are no longer policies.  They're ideologies.  That is what we must fear about this administration, that it is stuck on ideology, and pursuing it with the zeal of a teenager who's had no experience in life.

Act II is coming.

June 15, 2009   Permalink 

LITERARY NEWS - 7:31 A.M. ET:

NEW YORK (AP) - Another Obama relative has a book deal.
A memoir by George Obama, the president's half brother and a resident of Huruma, Kenya, will be published by Simon & Schuster in January 2010. George Obama, 27, shares the same father with his famous, older half sibling, although George and Barack Obama—20 years apart in age—did not grow up together and did not meet as children.

George is the youngest of the senior Obama's seven children and was born six months before his father died.

COMMENT:  Suggestions for an opening sentence that would make this the biggest bestseller in political history:  "My brother was born in Kenya."

No, no, no.  I didn't mean that.  But, potentially, this book can be an important event.  No presidential personal history is shrouded in as much mystery as is Barack Obama's.  There are whole gaps.  His years at Columbia University, for example, are clouded out, and I don't recall any interviews with anyone who remembers him there.  (Readers, correct me if I'm wrong.)

Maybe George knows something, maybe not.  I'm guessing one thing, though - that he will be visited by someone sent discreetly by the president, and certain suggestions will be made.

Simon & Schuster executives are caught in a bit of a bind here:  The New York publishing industry is overwhelmingly pro-Obama, yet only a tell-all, with some less-than-flattering portraits of the president, would really sell.  Many party invitations to S&S executives hang in the balance. 

June 15, 2009   Permalink