Who is the President of the world?

Monday, February 21 is Presidents Day. Ostensibly  it is a day set aside to honor two of the greatest, if not the greatest of the 43 men who have served in that office.The 42nd president as we all  know was William Jefferson Blythe Clinton from Hope, AR. Mr Clinton has been called many things by friend and foe alike. He may now have acquired the ultimate title, “President of the World.”

Thanks to his new bff, Chris Matthews (alias tingles) , that is the title of a special set to air on Presidents Day. Matthews spent time with Clinton on  a veritable  whirlwind week  chock full of all the wonderful things in which he is involved. I will acknowledge that Mr Clinton has done some  very good things since leaving office, partnering with George H W Bush in humanitarian activities, pushed for aid to Haiti, just to name a few. His global initiative has  also been quite active.

This program and its title raises a few questions. The title itself may be the most significant. Come on, fellows. No one merits such a designation. Perhaps the title is meant to catch one;s attention or maybe it is just a blatant example of fawning from a network who has done it before. Remember the tingle that ran up a newsman’s  leg when a certain president spoke; the same president that he was bound to help succeed. Who was that gentleman? Why the same president often spoke of as the One. Have we changed our allegiances?

Have we turned our back on the individual often called the greatest former preside, Jimmy Carter? He too has been a prolific traveler abroad since leaving office in 1981. He has monitored  elections, met with many world leaders and also started the well-known Carter Center in Atlanta.

Now, if were to attempt to compare the two men since they left office, there would be strong similarities. Could the main difference be that along the way Mr Clinton  has become quite wealthy and maybe, just maybe seeks out the spotlight a bit more? Bet he’s a lot more fun to travel with as well.By the way, remember that only two of these three presidents have won the Nobel peace Prize. Could this have anything to do with that, Nah!

Related Articles

• The Tingle Is Back! Chris Matthews Excited To See Obama’s Cute, “Wonderful, Boyish Smile” (mediaite.com)
• Chris Matthews Lets Jimmy Carter Blame Loss to Reagan on Third Party Candidate (newsbusters.org)
• MSNBC’s ‘President of the World’ (michellemalkin.com)

Celebrity Peace Maker

The November 16th issue of  Time magazine has Secretary Of State Hilary Clinton on its cover. The blurbs advertising the article inside speak of the Secretary as a  “global celebrity”  with a teaser link to Joe  Klein’s article asking if she can make peace. Wow, now she is a global celebrity. When did that happen and won’t  Bill be jealous? Besides, I thought  that John Kerry was the new grand poo-bah of Obama’s foreign policy.

I guess that makes her the first celebrity Secretary of State since Henry Kissinger. No one saw fit to use  that  title with Condolezza Rice, although they could have . Surely, not Madeline Albright, ok maybe Colin Powell, not positive. But as I scrolled backwards through the recent occupants of the office, courtesy of my handy World Almanac and  Book  of  Facts , I really did not see  anyone else I might consider  a  global celebrity. Not Lawrence Eagleburger or  Warren Christopher or Edmund Muskie. You get the idea.

Now, perusing the names above and excluding them from celeb status  doesn’t necessarily mean they were not good or very good secretaries. Perhaps some of them just chose not to go the celeb route. So, back to that peace maker thing. Wasn’t Ms Clinton just in Israel recently where she spoke very highly of their progress on the West Bank settlements and  then had to back track later at a gathering of Arab leaders? Yep, that was it.

I am not so sure that Obama is more the architect of his foreign policy in this peace making arena. Nobel Prize, anyone? Madame Secretary went to the Berlin Wall anniversary soiree instead of the President. Not  agood move , him not going and her pinch-hitting. Seems that the heavy lifting on making peace is a  White House prerogative, anyway. And, chew on this. Just this week, a couple of Obama’s old pals, Bill Ayers and  his wife, Bernardine Dohrn roundly trashed Hilary’s 2008 campaign as having racist overtones. Remember these  folks are big time Obama  pals and  it doesn’t look so good for them to trash his Secretary of State. Stay tuned, there will doubtless be more. But, I would not be surprised if she were not the first high profile member of the Cabinet to depart.

Paging Al Michaels

Or,The Three Amigos ride again. Just to show that upsets happen in other venues beside sports, President Barack Obama was named the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, surprising both friend  and foe alike and leaving the President “surprised” and “deeply humbled”. Not sure I buy either of those statements but shall let them go.

He joins  Woodrow Wilson,Theodore Roosevelt and Jimmy Carter as US presidents to have won the honor, with Wilson,  Roosevelt and Obama winning the honor while in office. Those are not the Three Amigos that Steve Martin and friends made famous. These three would be Jimmy Carter, 2002 Nobel winner, Al Gore, 2007 winner and Obama. Carter won for , uh his decades of  tireless work to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts and Al Gore won for  changing the climate, no, uh telling us we have to change the climate or else, I guess. Obama won for what? I think it had something to do with climate change;creating a new climate of co-operation and moving  us toward a non nuclear world(better ask Iran about that one) , I think. Maybe he won because he is the anti George Bush in the minds of the committee. Ironically, all three of the amigos won during  or just after Bush’s term. Maybe they all owe him.

To be far, I shall repeat the comments of 2 former laureates, one in favor the selection and one not so much. First, Desmond Tutu of South Africa , the 1984 winner was pleased. He saw Obama as a younger version of co-winner Nelson Mandela. “It is  a very imaginative and somewhat surprising choice.It is wonderful.”

On the other side, Poland’s Lech Walesa, 1983 winner , said this. “Who, Obama? So fast? To fast- he hasn’t had the time to do anything yet.” His response was described as incredulous.

I tend to lean toward Mr Walesa’s view and not for the reason some might think. The President could very well have accomplishments that would make him a deserving winner of the award, but not yet. For example, what if he brokered a strong peace treaty in the Middle East? Would he get the award again?

But, probably the most chagrined observer of the outcome is probably Bill Clinton, the odd man out as Democrat presidents. Why not me, he has got to wonder.

So, Obama did not get the Olympic bid in Denmark, but from its neighboring country of  Norway  he has won a bigger prize that only he can keep. Do you believe in miracles, Obama sure does. Yes, he can and yes he did(win, that is).

The Wisdom(?) of Jimmy Carter

President of these United States, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Governor of Georgia and Plains,Ga’s favorite son. Who is it? Why, of course, it is James Earl Carter, Jr. I was living in Georgia at the time Mr Carter came  from   nowhere and  became   president. For a long time I thought that he was not a very good president but probably our best former president.

The C-SPAN historians rankings see him a better president than I did; ranking him 22nd in the year 2000 and 25th in 2009. At least his rankings are headed in the right direction. Anyway, back to his post presidency  period.  He left office in 1981 at the relatively young age of 57. Since than he has been quite involved in Habitat,which was founded in Georgia, in election watching, and in the Carter Center. Founded in 1982 by he and his wife, the organization has worked to ease suffering and  advance human rights worldwide. His work there earned Carter the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

So, no problems right? Just a moment. Personally, I have been nagged for some time with the feeling that Mr Carter was more sanctimonious than necessary and tended to speak with an air of superior moral authority.He has been outspoken in recent years about the cause of the Palestinians versus Israel and has not earned friends in Israel for that. His 2006 book, entitled,Palestine:Peace not Apartheid, was not only pro-Arab but “blessed” with a number of factual errors.( For example, Arafat never called for the destruction of Israel. )He published  a new book this year about peace in the Middle East and in at least one interview about that book called his previous one balanced-Ok.

Among other things that Mr Carter has done is to monitor elections around the world. His Carter Center has monitored more than 70 elections in various countries in the last 20 years. Lots of moral high ground here.

I think he honestly believes that he holds the moral high ground, so what must be the reasoning for his latest comments. Yep, calling Joe Wilson’s comment  indicative of racist attitudes that still exist, rooted in racism is the terminology he employed. Wilson’s son, predictably, disagreed. Not so predictably so did the Obama Administration through spokesman Robert Gibbs. Nor did GOP chairman Michael Steele think much of the comment.

So, why did Carter make the comments? To stir up controversy, don’t  think so. I think he genuinely believed what he said,whether or not he was familiar with Joe Wilson. That is the kind of ting that has me wishing he would drive more nails and stay more out of politics.

Gotta get this in. His latest Mideast book has been “endorsed” by none other than Osama Bin Laden. Wonder what his opinion on that might be?