GEORGE BUSH AND TONY BLAIR-- UNLOVED HACKS IN EACH OTHER'S COUNTRIES

Today's Washington Post makes a big deal about Bush being ignored in Europe, as though it means people hate him less. They don't; he's hated more than ever. Yes, the ever perceptive Post collaborators are correct: he's a lame duck and 100,000 protesters are not going to be marching in the streets of London next week when he visits. And they admit that "this shouldn't be seen as evidence that Europe has finally reconciled itself to the man. Nor should the absence of large-scale anti-Bush rallies be taken as a sign of approval. All this shows is that Bush-hatred, like the president himself, has become a lame duck." Before 2004, Europeans were sympathetic to us for being saddled with him. After we let him steal the 2004 elections, they started despising us as well. Who could blame them? Bush's policies are bringing down more than America; the entire world is suffering because of his arrogance and ignorance.

But, please take it from someone who lived in Europe for nearly seven years and who still has many friends there: Bush is the most detested man in the world. And most people fervently believe he should be brought to Justice for serious international crimes. (This is different from the U.S. crimes that he should be charged with in our own country-- although there is some overlapping.) The Post claims the British public is just tired of Bush and even tired of hating him. "One of the main sparks fueling it was a deep frustration that Americans couldn't see what many Europeans considered obvious: that Bush is a moron."

This morning I met a guy with an interesting life story. Once I got him talking-- it wasn't easy-- he expressed his disdain for Bush in no uncertain terms. Like myself, he would like to see at least prison in his future, if not a blindfold and last cigarette. He was a career military officer who studied intelligence here in the U.S., as well as in Israel, Africa and Europe. Recently Army recruiters came to his home to ask him if his son-- a student at George Washington University-- would enlist. He told them to speak to the 18 year old themselves. He told them he would consider it if Bush resigned; his father smiled approvingly.

Late in May one of his nephews was graduating from Yale and he went up for the occasion. Two months earlier Yale had announced that former Bush Poodle Tony Blair would be teaching a modern religion course at the prestigious university this fall. His son is a student there.

Blair remains a controversial figure, and, reflecting this sensitivity, Yale had not been planning to announce the post until later this year. It rushed out a press release after being contacted by the Guardian to confirm he was to be given tenure.

In the release, Richard Levin, president of Yale, said: "The appointment of Mr Blair provides a tremendous opportunity for our students and our community. As the world continues to become increasingly inter-dependent, it is essential that we explore how religious values can be channelled toward reconciliation rather than polarisation."

According to my new friend this morning, Blair's first speaking engagement at Yale, didn't go very well. He told me Blair barely got to utter more than a few words when he was boo-ed off the stage and ushered out of the assembly through a backdoor. I must have missed the reports of this because I hadn't heard a thing about it. When I got home I googled it and didn't find much either. The Daily Mail:

Tony Blair was left reeling last night after students disrupted his debut speech at Yale University to protest at his role in taking Britain and America to war in Iraq.

The former Prime Minister, who is normally immensely popular in the US for his support for President George W Bush's 'war on terror,' faced an unexpected protest from anti-war protesters when he arrived to give his lecture at the Ivy League university.

Immensely popular? I guess in right-wing countryclubs and boardrooms...


UPDATE: FRANK RICH HITS ONE OUT OF THE BALLPARK (AGAIN)

In today's NY Times Frank Rich has noticed the key difference between McCain and Obama. (I suggest reading the whole column.)

When Barack Obama achieved his historic victory on Tuesday night, the battle was joined between two Americas. Not John Edwards’s two Americas, divided between rich and poor. Not the Americas split by race, gender, party or ideology. What looms instead is an epic showdown between two wildly different visions of the country, from the ground up.

On one side stands Mr. Obama’s resolutely cheerful embrace of the future. His vision is inseparable from his identity, both as a rookie with a slim Washington résumé and as a black American whose triumph was regarded as improbable by voters of all races only months ago. On the other is John McCain’s promise of a wise warrior’s vigilant conservation of the past. His vision, too, is inseparable from his identity-- as a government lifer who has spent his entire career in service, whether in the Navy or Washington.

At the conclusion of Rich's perceptive analysis of the campaign to date, he urges a trip to Europe and the Middle East for Senator Obama-- Baghdad yes, the McCain-Lindsey Graham-Lieberman market, no. "When the world gets a firsthand look at the new America Mr. Obama offers as an alternative to Mr. McCain’s truculent stay-the-course, the public pandemonium may make J.F.K.’s 'Ich bin ein Berliner' visit to the Berlin Wall look like a warm-up act." Johnny Wendell just described it to me this way: "Every night, hundreds of thousands of people going nuts for Obama like he was Justin Timberlake, as opposed to that bitter old white prune McCain..."