Les premiers pas internationaux de Sarah Palin

En attendant son débat avec Joe Biden, Sarah Palin fait ses premiers pas internationaux en rencontrant le président Karzai à New York.

La candidate républicaine à la vice-présidence des Etats-Unis, Sarah Palin, va rencontrer la semaine prochaine à New York le président afghan Hamid Karzai, selon le porte-parole de la campagne de John McCain, Tucker Bounds.

Le président Karzai sera à New York pour participer à la réunion de l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies.

Agée de 44 ans, Sarah Palin est considérée comme une novice dans le domaine des relations internationales. Elle n'a obtenu son premier passeport qu'en 2007 pour rendre visite aux gardes nationaux d'Alaska, en poste au Koweit et en Allemagne, dont elle est le commandant en chef, en tant que gouverneur de cet Etat.

Par contre, on remarquera , comme d'habitude, le ton condescendant de l'article AFP qui insiste bien sur le fait que Palin n'a obtenu son passeport que récemment.

Pour la Pravda française, un américain qui ne voyage pas ne peut être qu'un abruti !!

Petite question : combien de Français sont allés à l'étranger dans leur vie ? 

Comments

[Sebaneau]

Palin and Obama—What Really is Wisdom?


Victor David Hanson,  Pajamas Media,  September 18th, 2008 



Palin vs. Obama
The race unfortunately has been framed the last two weeks by
Democrats as one of Obama versus Palin. That will stop as Obama
realizes he loses should it continue. Nevertheless, the comparison of
the respective experiences of a McCain and Obama is so much in favor of
the former, that it requires no discussion. So I turn to Palin, given
the charges that she is unfit and clueless. Is Palin Tough?
I have been asked by many  why I have such confidence in a rookie
Alaskan governor, given the rigors of the campaign to follow. (Many
Republican pundits apparently do not.) I think we are starting to see
the answers to that question. The proverbial “they” hacked into her
private email accounts. They swore that her daughter was the real
mother of her Down Syndrome baby. They sent legions of reporters and
lawyers to Alaska to dig up dirt. They wrote columns suggesting that
she was stupid, uneducated, dishonest, a liar, and worse still. All
this was the work of moralists, who, in their more extreme
manifestations, tried to flood a Chicago radio station to disrupt
guests, who doctored photos of McCain to subvert his portrait, who
disgraced the Atlantic brand by trafficking in pregnancy rumors, and who now publish the private email of Palin.
And? She is still smiling and apparently unmoved. Had they done this
to Biden, he would have gone berserk. Wait—they didn’t do this to
Biden, and he seems near berserk in his daily gaffes.
So who is really experienced?
The point is this: I think it is much harder for a mother of three
or four in an out-of-the-way Alaskan town to get elected to city
council and the mayorship, then take on the entire Republican
establishment and get elected governor than it is for a Barack Obama to
emerge from Chicago politics into the Illinois state house and later
Senate. The qualities that allowed a Palin to succeed without the power
spouse, the identity politics, the Ivy-League cachet, the fawning New
York editors and DC insider-press will ensure she does not implode on
the campaign trail—and won’t in office either.
Barack Obama, in contrast, on numerous occasions has complained how
tiring, how hard, how unfair, how racist the campaign has turned out to
be; Palin never. I could not imagine Obama doing his hope and change
thing in the Senate while holding a one-year-old and checking on four
more children at home. And I wager shooting a moose or trying to
navigate a snowmobile in the chill is a little harder than shooting
baskets in one’s down time or offering riffs to the fainting at a
Beverly Hills get together or Presidio Heights fundraiser.
Again my point? That the much deprecated “life experience” is every
bit as important to leadership as is abstract learning. Both complement
each other, but so far I think Palin understands the symbiotic world of
word and the world of deed far more so than does Obama. And again, we
are not talking about McCain, where the contrast only widens–and is far
more important.
Word and Deed, Head and Arm Let me be a bit more specific still and indulge a bit from what I saw
of these two worlds. I spent nine years as an undergraduate and
graduate student– three at UC Santa Cruz, four at Stanford University,
and two in Athens, Greece. In that near decade, I met all sorts of
supposedly brilliant professors, undergraduates, and graduate students
in the humanities—Ivy-League Ph.Ds, whiz-kids with Oxford and Cambridge
degrees, Rhodes Scholars, famous archaeologists, accomplished
classicists and historians, well-know humanities scholars, and Oxbridge
Dons with landmark books on history and philology. In addition, the
last five years I have worked at Stanford again, and often have met
another array of brilliant entrepreneurs, in fields as diverse as
finance, law, medicine, engineering, and computers.
I contrast  all this with growing up my first 18 years in
southwestern Fresno County on a 120-acre tree and vine farm, where for
most of my life I knew only neighbors who worked the soil, and survived
the tough environment of the local schools. And then once again from
age 26 to my mid-forties, I farmed as well as taught, and so I had a
good idea of what the highly educated did during the day, and what the
farmers and small businesspeople did on weekends and late afternoons.
Two conclusions I drew from all of this. While civilization advances
on the shoulders of the educated, it is carried along by the legs of
the muscular classes. And the latter are not there by some magical IQ
test or a natural filtering process that separates the wheat from the
chaff, but rather by either birth, or, as often, by their preference
for action and the physical world.
Second, I have seen no difference in intelligence levels between
those who inhabit the world of the physical and those who cultivate the
life of the mind. That is, the most brilliant Greek philologists seemed
no more impressive in their aptitude than the fellow who could take
apart the transmission of an old Italian Oliver tractor, fix it, and
put it back together—without a manual. And I knew three or four who
could. The inept mechanic seemed no more dull than the showy graduate
student who could not distinguish an articular infinitive from an
accusative of respect.
My seventy-year old Austrian professor who, off the cuff, could
recite the lettering peculiarities of some 100 or so Athenian
inscriptions on stone was brilliant–but no more   intuitive or
impressive than my grandfather who at 86 could scan 100 rows of vines
under irrigation, instantly access how many  acre feet of water were in
the field, how many more needed, and then screw up or down an iron gate
on a 20-foot standpipe and ensure the ditch water reached the end of
each row—and only the end of each row.
You know all this in your hearts
For most of you readers, all this is trite and self-evident. But
apparently not for hundreds in politics, the media, the universities,
Hollywood, and the foundations who seem to think that a fumbling
nervous Obama in interviews, who grasps for a word and utters vacuous
platitudes is “really” contemplative, like his Harvard Law professors;
but when a Sarah Palin seems nervous under scrutiny from a
pseudo-professorial, glasses-on-the-lower-nose Charlie Gibson,  she is
clearly an empty head with an Idaho BA.
A Ronald Reagan knew more about human nature, and thus what drives
the Soviet Union than did all the Ivy-League Soviet specialists that
surrounded Jimmy Carter-much less the Sally Quins and Maureen Dowds of
that age.  We in America, unlike the Europeans,  know this intuitively,
grasp that a Harry Truman figured out the Russian communists far better
than did the Harvard-educated aristocrat FDR.
A Sense of Balance
I am not calling for yokelism, or a proponent of false-populism.
Rather, I wish to remind everyone that there are two fonts of wisdom:
formal education, and the tragic world of physical challenge and
ordeal. Both are necessary to be broadly educated. Familiarity with
Proust or Kant is impressive, but not more impressive than the ability
to wire your house or unclog the labyrinth of pipes beneath it.
In this regard, I think Palin can speak, and reason, and navigate
with bureaucrats and lawyers as well as can Obama; but he surely cannot
understand hunters, and mechanics and carpenters like she can. And a
Putin or a Chavez or a Wall-Street speculator that runs a leverage
brokerage house is more a hunter than a professor or community
organizer. Harvard Law School is not as valuable  a touchstone to human
nature as raising five children in Alaska while going toe-to-toe with
pretty tough, hard-nose Alaskan males.
What is wisdom?
Not necessarily degrees, glibness, poise, or factual recall, but the
ability to understand human nature. And that requires two simple
things: an inductive method of reasoning to look at the world
empirically, and a body of knowledge and experience to draw on for
guidance.
Palin in empirical fashion bucked the Republican establishment and
the old-boy network when she thought it was unreasonable; Obama never
figured out or at least never questioned Tony Rezko or the Chicago
machine, Trinity Church or the Pelosi-Kennedy liberal mantra—unless it
proved advantageous. Palin draws on everything from position papers on
ANWR to how to keep four screaming kids fed and bathed; Obama on
Harvard Law Review and dispensing more public money to more Chicago
interest groups.
That’s a simplification, but also an answer to the old Euripidean question “What is wisdom?”

[Sebaneau]

The Palin Effectby Noemie Emery,  Weekly Standard,  09/29/2008, Volume  014, Issue 03 Her enemies are bellowing like a wounded  moose.  Now that the dust is beginning to  settle from the whirlwind descent of Hurricane Sarah, it may  be time to stand back a little and assess in perspective what  the moose-hunting beauty from Wasilla, Alaska, has wrought.  Things will change between now and November, but she has  already had a sizeable impact, and four major themes do stand  out: 1. Call off the funeral. Three weeks  ago, the wisdom was that the conservative movement was over  and done with. It had burned itself out, taking the Republican  party down with it, and setting the stage for the biggest  explosion of liberal governance since perhaps the New Deal.  Ever since November 2006, when the roof quite deservedly fell  in on the Republican Congress, liberals have declared that the  Reagan Era--first pronounced dead in 1982, then in 1986, then  in 1988, then in 1992, then again in 1998-2000, and of course  dead for good in 2006--was at long last finally going to  receive the burial it deserved. Around the deathbed, fierce battles  broke out, about what was to be done  and who was to do it,  whether the movement should trend left, right, or center,  whether the movement needed to take on new ideas or strip down  instead to some idealized prior condition, circa 1994, circa  1980, or even 1964. Battles broke out over issues domestic and  foreign; solutions were bruited that urged purging, if not  amputation, of competing and varying wings. It was the fault  of the right, or the fault of the center; the fault of the  theocons, the fault of the neocons, or the fault of the  libertarians, who didn't feel people's pain. The Reagan  coalition was there in its elements, but divided, like Gaul,  into three different parts: There was a preacher, Mike  Huckabee; a hawk, John McCain; and an entrepreneur, Mitt  Romney. Each annoyed part of the base, and no one thrilled  that many. Meanwhile, the party brand languished. Everyone  assumed it would take years in the wilderness before it all  came together. Then, as of midday on August 29, all of this  changed. McCain's surprise pick of Sarah Palin  easily surpassed Bill Clinton's 1992 pick of Al Gore as one of  the few transformational choices in modern political history,  one of the few that recast and updated the image of the party,  changed for the better the way that the head of the ticket was  seen by the public, and made the whole ticket more than the  sum of its parts. It rebranded the party and fused it  together, focused a light on the new generation, and was  McCain's make-up nod to the base of his party. He didn't  apologize to the base for his previous heresies, didn't  promise he might not dismay them with some new ones, but he  signaled that he did not see them as enemies, that they were,  in spite of their differences, on the same team.   Palin united the right and center, the  base and the mavericks, proving the key is not conformity, but  a set of large common interests around which different parts,  keeping their differences, still can cohere. In this context,  it seems now that the message of the 2006 midterms was widely  misread. It was not a rejection of the entire conservative  project, but of the scandals and misdeeds with which it was  burdened: Mark Foley/Jack Abramoff; Hurricane Katrina; the  post-invasion mistakes in Iraq. People wanted Change after  2006, and Change was what they got. Bush changed his Iraq  policy and seems now on the verge of attaining a victory. He  changed his response to domestic disasters, and the new spate  of hurricanes has been handled impeccably, with a major assist  from Republican governors. Few Republicans have misbehaved  lately, at least since Larry Craig was caught tapping his feet  at the airport, and the more flagrant scandals have afflicted  the Democrats. In the wake of the Palin pick, the numbers in  the generic polls started to shift: edging away from  Democratic preponderance that prevailed from late 2006 onward,  swinging back to the 50-50 (or 49-49, or 51-49) balance that  existed through most of the past decade. Republicans may not  win, but they will not receive the massive rebuke most  expected, and even a slim loss will send the party ahead,  energized, and with a new set of leaders. The cause, it seems,  was not dead; it was dozing, or maybe hung-over. And now it's  awake. 2. Angry White Women. Palin's pick was  a hand grenade tossed into the old-fashioned feminist  movement's aged and tottering hulk. "Can someone please tell  me what the hell happened?" pled Michelle Cottle of the "New  Republic", as Sarah made landfall. Well, here is one  answer, as George Jonas put it in Canada's National  Post: "The office for which Hillary Clinton strove with  merciless determination for a lifetime, only to see it  snatched away from her in the 11th hour, could fall into the  lap of Sarah Palin, a populist outsider, who hadn't prepared,  or even looked, for the job." The horror. "A slap in the face  to all women," Cottle called it, especially to "any woman who  seriously supported Hillary in this race." Much more was  coming, in much the same tone. "I find it insulting to women,  to the Republican Party, and to the country," said Sally Quinn  in a "Newsweek/Washington Post" blog. In the "Baltimore  Sun", Susan Reimer found Palin's selection "insulting on so  many levels" that she barely could name them. Ruth Marcus,  reading from the same cue cards, sputtered in the "Washington Post": "I found Palin's selection .  .  .  insulting." Google the phrase "Palin's pick is insulting to  women," and you come up with 943,000 entries. Is this a plot  or a stunning coincidence? Or possibly both?   At the same time the Quinns and  Marcuses were declaring themselves affronted beyond all  endurance, and declaring that women were far too independent,  too diverse, and too clever to move as a herd in any  direction; they were also asserting, on behalf of all women,  that all women would surely reject this cynical, ham-fisted  ploy. How stunned they must have been several days later when  polls showed a move to McCain by white women and by  independents. How could this have happened? Well, they might  have found a few clues in the polls, which would have told  them the abortion rights extremism they back is a minority  viewpoint, polling only a few points higher than the pro-life  extremism they dismiss as a fanatical fringe aberration. They  would have shown that women are not more pro-choice than men  are, in fact they are less so, and that in the 2004  presidential election, George W. Bush carried white women by  an 11-point margin. These were hints that not all of the  sisters were lined up behind them, but what are facts when one  is in the grip of delusion and arrogance? As Jonas noted,  "There are two kinds of feminists: those who want to see the  presidency available to women, and those who want the  presidency available to card-carrying, licensed, and  agenda-certified female feminists. .  .  .  McCain's choice made the second kind livid .  .  . so  close to power, with a woman so far removed from every reason  for which to exercise it." So they lied all along when they  said they wanted to help and empower all women. Who  knew? So the old-fashioned feminists have  fallen back on the old theme of false consciousness; that  women who don't agree with them aren't really women at all.  This has been used before--even against Hillary, as when  abortion doyenne Kate Michelman endorsed of all people John  Edwards as being the best woman, or the best man for women, in  the Democratic primary race. We know how that worked out. (On  the other hand, he surely was the prettiest, and, as he seems  to be supporting Rielle Hunter in style, Michelman may have  been right.) Hillary's backers, though, appear to be split,  with some in really high dudgeon at Palin, while others show  muted pleasure in Obama's discomfort. One Hillary fundraiser  even started a website to track sexist slurs. All in all,  gender politics is a delicate subject. As one blogger on the  right observed, "the thought of watching progressives tie  themselves in knots over the next two months trying to square  the inevitable attacks on the 'bimbo' beauty queen with poor,  poor Hillary's sexist treatment by the media is worth it even  if we lose." 3. Hillary's Angle. As fate had it,  the phone finally rang at three in the morning chez  Hillary Clinton, and this time, it was a true crisis: It was  Barack Obama, begging her to save his rear end. Having beaten  her in a long, angry battle, in which she and her friends  thought his behavior and that of his friends had been sexist,  after having broadcast the fact that she wasn't even on his  medium list for vice president, he is now asking her without  the title to take on the role of de facto vice president, i.e,  head attack dog in dispatching the woman who now has stolen  her chance to make history. As Amy Holmes put it on CNN's  website, "In a strange twist of logic, the Obama campaign is  touting the woman they passed over as the woman they need to  beat the woman the other guy picked." That sound you  hear--along with a small snort from Hillary--is the weight of  power in the Democratic scale  sliding back to the side of the  Clintons. After he made a point of stressing how little she  matters, he now seems to need her more than ever. And she, of  course, does not need him. Rather the opposite. If Obama wins,  she gets to see her party in power, if that is her object. The  problem is that the party is no longer hers. Or hers and her  husband's. If Obama wins, the Clintons become history. They  also slip down considerably on the great grid of power: She is  eclipsed by a president who defeated her, a first lady who  hates her, a loquacious vice president with a large, lively  family, and a legion of people who early on threw in their  lots with Obama, and have prior claims upon him and his  loyalty. She becomes in effect a footnote to history,  remembered perhaps for her personal dramas, her historic run  in the primaries no longer remarkable, but overshadowed by  Sarah Palin's run for vice president. Win or lose, Palin  becomes the country's most visible she-politician, culture  phenomenon, as well as the best bet to succeed John McCain at  the head of her party. Hillary is yesterday's news, and has  the rest of her life to brood on the mistakes that caused her  to lose--very narrowly--the great prize she wanted and  pursued, some will tell you, for the past 30  years. This changes, however, if McCain wins.  At once, she becomes the most important Democrat, the  shipwreck survivor, the frontrunner for her party's 2012  nomination; the road not taken; the one that, if followed,  would have led to the outcome for which her party has  struggled so long. For four long years, she will be saying "I  told you so"--to the super-delegates who didn't flock to her  even when she won all those big primaries; to Obama, now back  in the Senate, who didn't name her when he had his big chance. A deflated Messiah, a Wunderkind who couldn't quite hack it,  Obama would join Al Gore and John Kerry in the weary line of  pitiful losers who tried and failed to match Bill Clinton's  success. Bill Clinton himself becomes the Big Dog again, the  one shining light in the overall darkness, the only Democrat  to be elected twice since Franklin D. Roosevelt, the most  successful Democrat since the mid-1960s, when Lyndon Johnson's  luck, along with his party's good fortune, ran out. (Granted,  this is a fairly low bar to get over. But still.) If you were  Hillary Clinton, which prospect would you find more appealing?  Let's guess. For the time being, Hillary Clinton  appears less than eager to help Barack Obama out of the hole  that he has dug. "Clinton advisers," the "New York Times"  reported on September 5, "say that Mrs. Clinton wants to do  everything she can to elect Mr. Obama, so that she cannot be  blamed if he loses--yet she also does not want to be too  closely associated with him if he does." Hillary, who sees  herself as presidential, does not want to lower herself by  getting into a brawl with the other side's second tier  candidate (that's the job of the veep pick, which she was not  offered), but hasn't seemed to be going much after McCain  either, stressing policy differences, and refraining from  personal onslaughts. She seems to be attacking generic  Republicans, on behalf of generic Democrats, who aren't often  identified. As the Associated Press put it, "The most she'd  say about Mrs. Palin is that she and presidential candidate  John McCain 'are not the change that we need.' " Bill  Clinton himself has had kind words for Palin. As the "Boston  Herald"'s Jules Crittenden wrote on his blog, "Obama may  want to do the math on that 'enemy of my enemy is my friend'  thing, and make sure he's figured it  right." Ever since Sarah Palin entered the  campaign, both she and Hillary Clinton have observed a  well-behaved truce. In her first speech, Palin praised Clinton  (and 1984 Democratic VP nominee Geraldine Ferraro, both of  whom crossed swords in the spring with Obama), and Clinton  responded with a gracious and welcoming note of her own. Since  then, neither of these two extremely acute politicians has  uttered a cross personal word. They say they respect each  other, and they may in fact do so: Many conservatives, to  their own stupefaction, ended up admiring Hillary's grit under  pressure. But Palin also hopes to peel off some of Hillary's  voters, and Hillary has no intention of damaging her own  future chances in a cat fight with another popular woman in  the interests of her old foe. Clinton and Palin have key  things in common: Each knows the other is an icon to millions  of women; each sees a political future that goes beyond this  election, and each senses potential in at least some of the  other one's followers. Hillary's feminists and Palin's  pro-life evangelicals are safely locked into their parties,  but there is a much wider swath down the middle that appears  to be open to both. The truth is that Hillary's feminists  were never the key to her primary victories. Her triumphs in  the big states that were so impressive--Ohio and Texas,  Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia--were fueled by  (Andrew) Jacksonian voters, in less elite venues, who found  her the more conservative of the two Democrats; the  least urban, the least elitist, the most likely to be strong  and assertive in foreign affairs. These are not people for  whom Roe v. Wade (either way) is a big voting  issue. They are people for whom toughness is. They perceive,  correctly, that each is a woman you would want to have on your  wagon train if you were crossing the continent, and to them,  each has the same gutsy, tough-woman vibe. It is not  irrelevant that the places where the McCain people expect  Palin to help most are the states in which Clinton managed to  mop the floor with Obama, the states Obama offended with his  "God and guns" ridicule. Clinton and Palin cannot afford to  offend all of each other's constituents, and perhaps they  don't want to. And so, Hillary is missing in action  from the Palin--hating brigade. She and McCain are said to be  friends, and to work well together. In the primaries, she  often compared Obama unfavorably to her friend in the Senate.  Her comment that she and McCain had credentials in the  national security area while Obama had a speech made four  years ago has already appeared in McCain's commercials, and it  is hard to believe when she said it that she could not foresee  this happening. It is also hard to believe that, after she and  Bill vote for McCain in the privacy of the voting booth up in  Chappaqua, they will not be among the first to make phone  calls to Sarah Palin, and then to John  McCain. 4. Bombs Away. McCain picked Palin for  a number of reasons--youth, pizzazz, energy, appeal to the  base and to middle-class women, to the West and to blue-collar  voters  --but it may turn out that the main contribution she  makes to his effort is in goading the Democrats into spasms of  self-defeating and entirely lunatic rage. Somehow, every  element of her life--the dual offense of being a beauty-queen  and hunter; the Down syndrome baby who wasn't aborted; the  teenage daughter about to get married, whose baby also wasn't  aborted; the non-metrosexual husband working the nightshift;  the very fact of five children--touched a nerve on the liberal  template, and sent the whole beast into convulsions, opening  an intriguing and somewhat frightening window onto the  turbulent id of the left. On September 2, the "New York  Times" ran six stories that touched on the teenage  daughter's pregnancy, three of them above the fold on page  one, each of them making Palin's family life look like  Tobacco Road meets Jerry Springer. Carol Fowler,  chairman of the Democratic party in South Carolina, said that  Palin's main qualification "seems to be that she hasn't had an  abortion," which, in some circles is nothing to brag about.  (Fowler's husband Don, former chairman of the Democratic  National Committee, had just faded from the headlines after  suggesting that the disruption of the Republican convention by  Hurricane Gustav reflected the judgment of God.)   The editor in chief of the "New  Republic" said Palin was "pretty like a cosmetics  saleswoman at Macy's," and called her and her ilk "swilly  people." Leftist "comediennes" made up rape scenarios. A  hacker broke into Palin's private email account, spreading  family photos and emails far and wide. Gawker, a website  beloved of the New York-based media, gleefully dialed up one  daughter's voice mail, published the photos, and a long list  of email addresses of Palin's friends and family.Rumors  surfaced that four-month old Trig was really the son of her  now-pregnant daughter. "Vanity Fair" and "New York"  magazine offered "The Authentic Trig Palin Conspiracy Time  Line," with alternative theories of the infant's conception  and parentage. Talk of bodily fluids sloshed through the  blogosphere, as "Who had her baby, and when did she have it?"  became the rallying cry of the left. A blogger for ""the  Atlantic demanded medical records: "The circumstantial  evidence for weirdness around this pregnancy is so great that  legitimate questions arise." But the main questions that arose  concerned these over-the-top accusations, and the mental state  of those making them. At the end of it all, Palin's backers  had become a large guard of impassioned defenders; McCain got  a boost among independents and in state-by-state polling; and  a Ramussen poll showed that 68 percent of the people  considered the press biased and partisan, and 51 percent  thought it was out to skewer Republicans. Democrats, who have  fretted for years about winning more votes in Middle America,  are seeing their plans for "expanding the map" being flushed  down the toilet. Wooing the red states will have to wait for  the next cycle. There were signs too that Palin was  confounding Obama almost as much as she was enraging the left  and the press, assuming there still is a difference between  them. Planning to run as the agent of change against boring  old white guys, he was knocked off his balance by the sudden  emergence of a rival barrier-breaker, and someone as young and  as jazzy as he. As Michael Barone wrote, the fighter pilot  played an old pilot's trick on the rookie, getting "above and  behind the adversary so you can shoot him out of the sky." In  political terms, McCain set it up so "that the opponent's  responses again and again reinforce the points you are trying  to make, and undermine his own." Just so. Obama can't knock  her as a flash in the pan, because that's what he is; he can't  say she just gives good speeches, because that's what he does;  he can't say she doesn't have enough deep experience, as his  is scarcely deeper. In August, he didn't seem to know that  Russia has a seat on the Security Council, and has the power  to veto its measures. If Palin becomes president before 2012,  it would be after a period of intense preparation. If Obama  does, he would be unprepared on Day  One. It's a long way to November, but all  of this Sarah Palin has managed in just three weeks. The past  may be prologue. If so, one may wonder, to  what? Noemie Emery, a WEEKLY  STANDARD contributing editor, is author most recently of  Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political  Families.  

[bria]

Le terme voyagé a deux sens ;-)- Pour eux Palace, resto et coq en pate- Pour nous aventures, emmerdements et casse croutes ^^Ok, je schématise de beaucoups ... lol

[D.J]

Quand on écoute toute les conneries sur les états-unis,on se demande si les Européens ont beaucoup voyager.D.J

[kate]

et alors ! qu'est-ce que ça peut bien faire qu'elle n'est pas beaucoup voyagé ! elle ne pouvait pas tout faire , avoir sa grande famille et les postes à responsabilitées auquels elle a accédé  ! et je l'admire ! il faut savoir ! voyager au frais des contribuables ou OEUVRER pour ses contribuables ! ce n'est pas pour ça qu'elle ne sait pas ce qui se passe dans le monde ! ces merdias et ces trolls,  quelle plaie !