Lost in translation
Rondi Adamson says what I was thinking about the Obama trip, just in case it wasn’t already clear:
I’m not so sure Obama supporters ought to get so ga-ga over the fact that he attracted such a huge, chanting crowd in Berlin. Germans have a history of turning out in zombatroid droves for really creepy people. Their taste isn’t always admirable.
There’s also the fact that Obama talked about the airlift and the fall of the Berlin Wall without really acknowledging how we’d gotten to those points. Had the Third Reich not been crushed militarily, there would have been no divided Berlin to scuffle over. Had Reagan not ramped up the arms race, the Soviet bloc would still have fallen, it’s generally agreed, but not nearly as quickly as it did. Obama’s not wrong that “partnership” is important, but his speech (especially the soundbites) gives no indication that he has a clear sense of when it’s better to extend olive branches or to brandish spears.
OMG.(I’m planning to respond to your other Obama comments b4 the seven-day limit). Anyway, I finally had a brief respite between class assignments to listen to Obama’s Berlin speech. Like I said, OMG. I am an Obama supporter, but I don’t understand why he gave that speech. It would be a great speech after he is elected into office, but not now. I am puzzled. I think it was very good that he went on his international trip to listen and learn from others. But, I don’t understand the reasoning/motivation behind giving that speech.
Well, I think the motivation was to prove his cosmopolitanism to (1) Americans who associate orientation toward Europe with sophistication and (2) Europeans who associate orientation toward Europe with sophistication. If he believes as he said in that speech, I really have to wonder yet again why he doesn’t just work for the U.N., which is the body that’s supposed to be putting the highest priority on pursuing the collective interests of the responsible members of the [slight gag] global community.