“‘It’s like kind of providential yesterday what happened to me,‘ Palin said. ‘I am reading on my Starbucks mocha cup the quote of the day. You’ll never believe what the quote was! It was Madeleine Albright, former secretary of state and U.N. ambassador, and Madeleine has as her quote of the day for Starbucks - now she said it, I didn’t say it - ‘There is a place in hell reserved for women who don’t support other women.’ OK now, thank you so much for receiving that well, I didn’t know how that was gonna go over. And now California, let’s see what a comment like I just made, let’s see what it will be turned into . . . newspaper.’” — http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/truthsquadding.html

Whenever I reference Sarah Palin I feel like I’m back in high school writing for the school newspaper, and capturing the immortal words of the grammar-impaired football hero.

When a quotation starts with “It’s like kind of,” you know the person isn’t channeling William Shakespeare. Palin employs these folksy colloquialisms to appeal to Joe-Sixpack and hockey moms.

The next word in the Palin citation is “providential“; Palin rarely makes a speech without pandering to her evangelical base. “Providential is evangelical-speak for “God’s will“.

Palin goes on to say, “I was reading on my Starbucks mocha cup quote of the day“; Palin may not read the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal but you betcha she reads Starbucks cups. Reading a Washington Post editorial is too taxing for Palin, but she is able to digest a quote at a time.

Palin quotes from Madeleine Albright, and she identifies her as the former secretary of state and U.N. ambassador. I’m betting that Palin learned the identity of Albright from a member of her staff

It’s one lousy quote, but Palin manages to mess it up, she substituted “support” for “help“. They may be synonyms, but it is a distinction with a difference. The word “support” conveys the meaning of political support. As a newspaper columnist who is often misquoted, I feel there’s a special place in hell for yahoos who misquote public figures.

Palin is playing the gender card like a virtuoso, she’s implying that women should blindly support her because of her gender. I would hope that men and women would realize that Palin is an empty skirt who is utterly unqualified to be vice-president.

My Palin mention ends with this warning: And now California, let’s see what a comment like I just made, let’s see what it will be turned into. Well Palin, gosh darn it all to heaven, do you like what this liberal hell-bound columnist did with your comment?

I have a headache from deconstructing Palin’s brief quotation; I hope I will never have to parse a long Palin reference.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Who’s More Realistic: McCain or Obama?

On the campaign trail, the debate over foreign policy has been muted of late. That might be because more important topics such as lipstick and hockey moms have taken center stage. But the contrasts between the presidential candidates also seem to have softened. Their differences over Iraq policy have shrunk as the place has stabilized somewhat and the Iraqi government looks for a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal. Both candidates oppose Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Russia’s incursion into Georgia. Both support a vigorous fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Yet there’s clearly a fundamental difference between the two that might best be captured by asking a simple question: What kind of world do we live in? Neither candidate has been asked this, and I doubt either would answer as frankly as I am suggesting, but here’s my guess — drawn from their writings and speeches — about what each might say.

We live in a very dangerous world, John McCain would respond. In his eyes, Islamic extremism is the transcendent challenge of the age. Jihadist warriors — funded and supported by states that adhere to their views — pose the central threat to the United States. In the rise of China, Russia and India, McCain sees turbulence. Russia and China, being autocracies, represent a special danger. Moscow’s attack on Georgia was, for McCain, the “first serious crisis since the end of the Cold War.” The role for America, in such an environment, is to aggressively use its power — hard power — to defeat the enemy and spread freedom.

Barack Obama’s sense of the world is more optimistic. The dangers are real but not so all-encompassing. Obama speaks less of Islamic extremism in general and more of al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups specifically. He points out that compared with the Cold War — when thousands of Soviet nuclear missiles were pointed at American cities — we face lesser threats today. He argues that most people in the Islamic world want development and a better life, not jihad. America’s promise remains alive even in these
countries.

America’s role, for Obama, is to restore its military strength, fight al-Qaeda and its ilk, and deter rogue regimes such as Iran. But it is also to stay calm, because in overreacting to dangers, we often cause new problems and crises. To lump together all Islamist groups is to exaggerate and misunderstand the threat. The Iraq war, for Obama, is a prime example of an alarmist overreaction, one that led the United States to an unprovoked and hugely costly invasion and occupation. If America can keep its cool and provide the help that countries really seek — in development and democracy-building — we will gain in both security and legitimacy.

There is some truth to both visions, but in my view the reality is much closer to Obama’s — more so than most U.S. politicians seem willing to admit. We live in remarkably peaceful times. A University of Maryland study shows that deaths from wars of all kinds have been dropping dramatically for 20 years and are lower now than at any point in the past half century. A study from Simon Fraser University finds that casualties from terrorism have been steadily declining since Sept. 11, 2001. It is increasingly clear — look at their voting from Indonesia to Iraq to Pakistan — that very few Muslims anywhere support Islamic fundamentalists. More countries than ever before now embrace capitalism and democracy.

It’s also worth noting that since World War II, the United States has tended to make its strategic missteps by exaggerating dangers. During the 1950s, conservatives argued that Dwight Eisenhower was guilty of appeasement because he was willing to contain rather than roll back communism. The paranoia about communism helped fuel McCarthyism at home and support for dubious regimes abroad. John Kennedy chose to outflank Richard Nixon on the right by arguing that there was a dangerous missile gap between the Soviets and the United States (when in fact the United States had almost 20,000 missiles and the Soviets had fewer than 2,000). The 1970s brought a frenzied argument that the Soviet Union was surpassing the United States militarily and was about to “Finlandize” Europe. The reality, of course, was that when neoconservatives were arguing that the U.S.S.R. was about to conquer the world, it was on the verge of collapse.

Since the end of the Cold War, similar alarms have been sounded several times. In the 1990s, the Cox Commission argued that China was building a military to rival ours, citing numbers that soon proved to be bogus. Then there was Saddam Hussein, who was described as a powerful and imminent threat to the United States. In fact, the greatest problem we have faced in Iraq is its weakness, its utter dysfunction as a state and a nation.

Rhetoric about transcendent threats and mortal dangers grips the American imagination. But it also twists U.S. foreign policy in ways that can prove to be extremely costly to the country and the world.

[Enlarge] About The Author: Farid Zakaria is Newsweek’s International editor and PostGlobal co-moderator. Fareed Zakaria was named editor of Newsweek International in October 2000, overseeing all Newsweek’s editions abroad. The magazine reaches an audience of 24 million worldwide. He also writes a regular column for Newsweek, which also appears in Newsweek International and fortnightly in the Washington Post. Starting this year, Fareed has been hosting a new foreign affairs show on CNN Worldwide — Fareed Zakaria GPS, an hour-long program that takes a comprehensive look at foreign affairs and the policies shaping our world. Every week they bring you an in-depth interview with a world leader, as well as a panel of international analysts who examine the major global developments of the week. As always, Fareed’s emphasis is on new ideas and innovative approaches to solving the world’s toughest problems. Fareed Zakaria GPS airs each Sunday, at 1pm, on CNN.

Popularity: 7% [?]