Tuesday Buffet: Obama, Khomeini, and the Chavez-McDonald's War

A Footnote to the Election Talk: The Sublime....

I neglected to say in Monday's Buffet that, in contrast to some of the media witterings over the Colin Powell endorsement, Juan Cole's detailed reading is almost as effective as the former Secretary of State's simultaneous promotion of the Democrats and demolition of McCain-Palin.  A reader, noting the Cole column, helpfully adds that Powell's endorsement is just as valuable in offsetting Obama's supposed weaknesses, namely, his lack of foreign policy experience, as it is in pushing Obama's positives to uncommitted voters.

And The Ridiculous: Barack Obama- The Next Ayatollah Khomeini A reader  points us to Baron Boddissey's Islam-bashing website Gates of Vienna. There you can find this masterpiece, "Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer":

I must confess I was not impressed by Sen. Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was It is surreal to see the level of hysteria in his admirers. This phenomenon is unprecedented in American politics. Women scream and swoon during his speeches. They yell and shout to Obama, "I love you." Never did George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt. Martin Luther King Jr. or Ronald Reagan arouse so much raw emotion. Despite their achievements, none of them was raised to the rank of Messiah. The Illinois senator has no history of service to the country. He has done nothing outstanding except giving promises of change and hyping his audience with hope. It's only his words, not his achievements that is causing this much uproar.

When cheering for someone turns into adulation, something is wrong. Excessive adulation is indicative of a personality cult....During 1979, when the Iranians were tired of the dictatorial regime of the late Shah, they embraced Khomeini, not because they wanted Islam, but because he promised them change. The word in the street was, "anything is better than the Shah." They found their error when it was too late.... Listening to Obama... it harkens back to when I was younger and I used to watch Khomeini, how he would excite the crowd and they'd come to their feet and scream and yell.

And the Surreal: "I Can See Russia in My Name" "Publius" notes Monday's story in The Times of London, "I Can Live with Defeat, Says McCain", and comments, "In the guise of America's "who cares who came second", to talk about defeat tells me his internal polling is really bad news." Sprinkling a bit of salt on the wound, he takes on McCain's declaration that "Mr Obama was seeking to buy the election with his massive fundraising and spending" with the rejoinder, "The chutzpah of 'Obama's buying the election' when McCain did not avail himself of McCain-Feingold, the law [on campaign finance reform that] he championed, is just too much."   However, it is Publius's afterthought that concerns me, either for his well-being or that of America under GOP leadership: "If the name of McCain's VP is spelled S. Palin, try removing the P and inserting a T."  

Saying the Unsayable? The US and Iran Flynt Leverett, who handled Middle Eastern affairs for the National Security Council, and Hillary Mann Leverett, a National Security Council staffer who was involved in the "unofficial" dialogue with Iran over Afghanistan between 2001 and 2003, propose a US-Iranian "Grand Bargain". Contending  that "as a result of a dysfunctional Iran policy, among other foreign policy blunders, the American position in the region is currently under greater strain than at any point since the end of the Cold War", they argue:

It is clearly time for a fundamental change of course in the U.S. approach to the Islamic Republic. By fundamental change, we do not mean incremental, step-by-step engagement with Tehran, or simply trying to manage the Iranian challenge in the region more adroitly than the Bush administration has done. Rather, we mean the pursuit of thoroughgoing strategic rapprochement between the two nations.

Update: Hugo Chavez v. Ronald McDonald A reader from Alabama offers this nostalgic reflection on the Venezuelan Government's temporary shutdown of McDonald's outlets:

In 1989 there was a general strike in Venezuela. Really eerie to have the entire city absolutely silent on a weekday- the only traffic were occasional security vehicles. I played city editor from home because we were allowed only a certain number of workers- two reporters and photographers or something like that- until after daytime working hours.

McDonald's and, I believe, certain banks were just about the only ones to remain open in defiance of the strike. The banks I understood because of bankers' political beliefs, but McDonald's wasn't making any friends. Remember, though, that McDonald's at least then was a relatively pricey meal there.

Goon squads ... er, labor committees made sure people stayed closed and ended up at one of the McD's in Caracas. A garbage can ended up going through the plate glass and, by the end of the day, there was a tank and soldiers in the parking lot protecting the restaurant. Very weird.

McD's in Caracas, unlike Burger King or Tropi Burger, was different than your normal fast-food experience. It always was spotless, the food fast and fresh. And the wholesome kids who worked there -- it was like stepping into a television ad! You expected them to break out into song. Clearly, pay must have been decent and upwardly mobile student-types were their main counter help (janitorial, of course, was another story). They were probably all the Venezuelan equivalent of the College Republican Club and the Future Business Leaders of America.

Anyway, McDonald's always was crowded. Before and after the strike.