Yet, this seems to scare South Korea.  The leadership fails to recognize the ineptness of the Pyongyang PR machine., South Korea’s advantage is that in the realms that matter, there is no comparison. It has things. Technology. An economy. Electricity. The internet. Food.

Yet South Korea inexplicably is afraid of the world’s crappiest public relations team. Seoul has decided that a North Korean Twitter feed (@uriminzok), which only posts links to the North Korea Facebook page, is a threat to national security. It has been deemed illegal and is blocked.

There is a better way to fight back.  And I have the plan of action.

President Lee Myung Bak must build up his own Facebook page through the following steps:

1. Go to the “uriminzok” Facebook page and try to friend all of his friends. He only has about 250. And they seem lonely.
2. Let Kim Jong Il’s wives, mistress and gaggle of teenage lady friends know that he lists himself as “single.”
3. Take a picture of someone throwing up in a garbage bin. Post it. Tag it “uriminzok.” Do you think Kim Jong Il will be able to untag it?
4. Every night at 7PM post a new status saying “I am using our plentiful electricity supply to counteract the darkness.”
5. Continuously post links to this clip from this World Cup.

Censorship is a sign of weakness.

Let me give you an example. Remember when Sarah Palin did a bunch of television interviews? You know, when she couldn’t name a newspaper she reads? What did her people do? They stopped letting her take interviews. But the Obama team would have been thrilled if she had kept talking. Palin had something to hide. So she self-censored.

In this analogy,Obama is Lee Myung Bak. Kim Jong Il is Sarah Palin. (Hey they both use Facebook as their primary PR tool!) I think Joe Biden is Kim Jong-un. Let’s move on.

There is no better propaganda for South Korea than a North Korean Twitter feed. They put out statement like this, from a recent press release on the proposed unification tax:

Speakers at the conference [opposing the tax] blasted Lee Myung Bak for running the whole gamut of such vituperations as “proposal of three-phase unification” through “peaceful community,” “economic community” and “national community” and “unification tax”.

What is the message there? That imperial bastard is pushing his agenda of a “community” based on peace and economic activity! Die!! They don’t do PR well.

So let the North speak through it’s single internet connection. The South should be confident that the Dear Leader’s rhetoric is Seoul’s best propaganda.

Similarly, a cap and trade bill for curbing climate change–an idea that was always presented as being a Republican strategy for successful economic policy when I studied it in high school–seems likely to get signed sometime soon. Meanwhile, the US is slowly pulling out of Iraq. Healthcare, too seems like it will eventually make it through, if perhaps not as the sweeping reform many would like. All of this is good, if slow, movement in the right direction. In short, I believe that history–and I mean near history–will prove President Obama to be prudent, if somewhat cautious; effective, if not always as visionary as one might hope. He is off to a solid start.

But really, the Nobel Peace Prize? What was that for again? His speech in Cairo? It was an important speech that altered the trajectory of US-Middle East relations. But the Nobel Peace Prize? He has been taking the steps in the correct direction, but he does not have an achievement that reaches the level to warrant this.

Certainly he has not achieved what Al Gore did. Who continues to doubt global warming? George Will and Pat Buchanan, as far as I know. Al Gore shifted the debate entirely and made it possible for sweeping change to take place. One could argue that much of the progress that China is making to reverse its previously disastrous policies have stemmed from Al Gore making clear that countries cannot avoid responsibility by casting blame on others. Even if he simply helped push the country, and the US as well, in the right direction, that is a significant achievement.

Let’s look at another promising, but still young career to get a better understanding of why this award is so odd.

There is a good chance that Lebron James will prove to be the best basketball player in the history of the game. But there is a reason he is not yet in the Hall of Fame. For all of his accomplishments to this point in his career, he has not yet proven to be an all-time great. He got close to winning a championship, but didn’t. His been dealt a bad hand in terms of teammates, but has done well with what he has. At times–and even over the course of the last full season–he he demonstrated himself to be an unstoppable force. But as of yet, he has no championships. He has not yet proven himself to be a tremendous force over long periods of time. He’s done pretty well…so far.

Obama’s presidential record perhaps looks like Lebron’s NBA career: both have proven themselves to be exceptionally capable, and with time, they might leave tremendous legacies. But there is much work left to do. Perhaps it was slightly premature to make the case that President Obama has been a driving player for world peace in just nine months.

There is one lesson that we can learn from all of this:  Old people are dangerous.  Incited youths listen to and heed the words of virtually anyone the age of their grandparents. Young people are not motivated by ethnic hatred, lack of jobs or the perception that they are left out of their country’s economic development. The only thing that can convince rioters to take to the streets and act violently is…Old People. Usually from abroad.

It began with a certain lama last year who single-handedly caused riots from thousands of miles away. Age: 73. Then this year, Rebiya Kadeer, a former Chinese government official living in the US, is accused of masterminding the chaos in Xinjiang. The danger has spread to sexagenarian women! While the Xinjiang riots seemed to have no specific political purpose, but rather just huge masses of angry young people tragically out of control, China was smart enough to see through this ruse, right to its post-menopausal root. Her age? 62. I know, she’s not that old, but apparently she’s crossed the age threshold that tends to turn people into the type of violent anarchists that capture the hearts of youths. And she can do it concisely, in words that to the casual observer would not indicate violence. But according to China Daily, the government claims it has proof!:

In the recorded calls, Kadeer reportedly said: “Something will happen in Urumqi.” She also allegedly called her younger brother in Urumqi, saying, “We know a lot of things have happened.”

Surely a less skillful–dare I say younger–instigator would have needed harsher words to rouse the anger that she was able to draw. But for a 62 year-old, phrases like “something will happen” and “things have happened” can light a fire in an otherwise peaceful young person.

As an American, this concerns me. I’ve done some research, and there appear to be a lot of old people in the world. And many of them live abroad, the second requirement. This could be a major national security threat for America. It would be difficult to identify which one might incite American riots, but as a public service, I’ll give a few guesses.

Roman Polanski is 75. And living in EUROPE! Fled the US due to potential criminal issues. Strikingly similar to China’s two accused masterminds. Maybe Roman knows the right words to cause mayhem in Detroit.

At 68, Pele is another contender. It’s true that he only lived in the US for a few years in the 1970s and 80s, but surely his sway over America’s youth could cause riots in LA, if he were so inclined. Don’t let his good looks and great passing skills fool you. After all, the Dalai Lama also has both of those traits.

Then there’s a dark horse, sleeping in our own government. Senator Robert Byrd is fully 91 years old, making him the ultimate darling of urban mobs. With a snap of his finger he could have the youths of Miami sinking local ships. His apparent infirmity is the perfect front to throw people off the trail, while also appealing to teenagers.

These are serious issues that we as a nation have to confront. We see how nimbly old people can mobilize young, angry people in Tibet and Xinjiang. But most leaders in American focus their energy on creating jobs, providing a health insurance system and creating cap and trade systems that only old people can understand. Folly, I say! How many attacks orchestrated by old people do we have to witness in China before America wakes from its willful slumber?

Quite frankly, President Obama has been silent thus far on the threat of old people in America. Just how naive is our young president? His 71 year-old mother-in-law is living with him in the White House. That’s right, while China does its best to keep old folks from rabble-rousing its population, America has allowed one right into the White House.

Just in case you didn’t get it during the campaign–when he decided to privately finance and blew McCain out of the water–Obama is tough, and hardly naive. A friend who writes a more prominent China blog and doesn’t like him very much recently complained that Obama is just a politician. He’s not the idealistic guy some people think he is. And this was supposed to be criticism.

Hey, he’s not Jimmy Carter!

I was as down on Hillary Clinton in the primary as anyone. I think she ran a bad, cynical campaign, and attacked Obama on points that were not good for the party (or intellectually honest). Given the rough primary and the Bill factor, I think she would have been a disaster as vice president. Hell, I didn’t even vote for her in her 2006 Senate race. But you know what? I think she’ll be very good as secretary of state. I have absolutely no problem with it. She’s smart, and with no prospects of running for president anymore, she doesn’t have to take unnecessarily hawkish positions to overcompensate for the stupid idea that women are soft on foreign policy. Plus she won’t be in charge. Obama will be, and it’s hard to imagine him subjugating his world view to anyway. And Hillary is smart enough to know this. She’s is smart and calculating. And there’s no upside to undermining a President Obama. If there’s one thing we know about Hillary, it’s that she is pragmatic and loyal to a fault.

In fact, I don’t have a big problem with any of his choices so far. Republicans are claiming that are up in arms that his new chief of staff is a tough son of bitch. These are the same people who were concerned that Obama was too much of a wuss.

And it’s not like he’s giving out cabinet positions to John Murtha or Bernie Sanders. He’s giving them out to exceptionally smart, centrist people. So what if some of them are jealous that they aren’t president? Wouldn’t you rather have people ambitious enough to want to be president, rather than a team of schlubs?

When Obama announces that Gates will stay on at Defense, and he will, some on the left will be up in arms. Just as some are about Hillary at State. They are wrong. Gates is smart, and he’s not ideologically blinded by the idea that Iraq War was some geopolitical masterstroke (see Rumsfeld). He wants to fix the problem, and get the hell out. Doesn’t that sound better than any alternative? Especially because he knows the situation better than anyone else.

There is no team of rivals going into the White House in January. There is one president, and there is a team of advisors. Obama is a man who picked Joe Biden, who began his campaign by saying that Obama was “clean” and “articulate.” He doesn’t care much about what you’ve said in the past, just about what you can do for him. His presidency could always end up go down in flames, but it won’t be a result of being too weak or naive. There’s one guy running this ship. And don’t be surprised if someone forgets that along the way and gets the ax.

Quite frankly, the United States is in great peril. We have gaping budget deficits, two wars, a recession and the threat of terrorism. If you think my generation was about to vote for Alan Keyes (or even Colin Powell) just to make him the first Black president, then you missed a pretty good election.

President-elect Obama exudes confidence, which is predicated on attention to detail and planning. During the campaign John McCain criticized Obama for having a chief of staff (Rahm Emanuel) lined up before election day. He named Emmanuel within 24 hours of winning the election, putting him about six weeks ahead of where Bill Clinton was in 1992. This is the same discipline that had Obama ready to pound Hillary Clinton after the Super Tuesday primary yielded no clear winner. He won because he ran a superior campaign and understand the message that would resonate with the American people. In the end, race did not matter.

Obama reaching the presidency is the merely a visible landmark along a path that has already been paved. For people under 35, it is amazing that we have a Black president, not because we have seen the history of black oppression, but rather because we have read about it. Quite simply, the older generations are just realizing how little race means to those born in the 1970s and after. Let’s just say that I always figured it would be a lot less likely to see a half Black, half Thai man dominate the lily-white sport of golf than I did that a bi-racial guy, who finished first in his Harvard Law School class, would make it to the White House.

Over the last few days I have listened to extremely interesting discussions on race and what it means to have to first Black president (Talk of the Nation, On Point, Countdown, Slate and a number of others have all covered in in great detail). Even during John McCain’s extremely elegant and gracious acceptance speech, he made a reference to it (unfortunately called it a moment of pride for “African-Americans,” when he clearly should have said “all Americans”). Yet, you hardly see Barack Obama focused on it, beyond acknowledging it in his acceptance speech. Remember, he’s always been the remarkable Black guy. He started running as someone who had been Senator for two years and took down the Clinton machine. Let’s just say he’s not exactly wanting for self-confidence. The result does not seem to surprise him

And so too, it is hardly a revelation to people from my generation. I have been represented by Black Congressmen for the last 26 years, a Black mayor from ages 10-14, one of my Senators is a woman and the other is a Jew, and my governor is blind and Black (and he replaced a Jew). So what if I’m from Brooklyn. The governor of Louisiana (who has a very good short at being on the 2012 GOP ticket) is the son of Indian immigrants. Louisi-freaking-ana. If Louisianans can elect a 36 year-old whose legal first name is “Piyush,” somehow a half-Black president isn’t that nuts.

This does not mean that there is racial utopia in the US. There have only been three Black US Senators since Reconstruction. Harold Ford Jr. probably lost his 2006 Tennessee Senate race because he is Black.  And there was an extremely racist advertisement that probably did him in during the last two weeks that year. But people my age are more impressed with the first Black president from an historical context than anything else. After all, there was never any question if Obama was going to win the under-40 vote. It was if he could get enough of the over-55 folks. As the current occupant of the White House is fond of saying, this racial component of this election is for to judge. I’m focused on the policies ahead of us (unfortunately Dubya never added that second line).

The election is behind us and Obama won because the country has been mismanaged on every level over the last eight years. People may say that Obama won because he is Black, because there was a financial crisis or as a result of the Palin pick. The truth is that a Democrat was going to win this year as long as the nominee didn’t completely fuck it up.

On Passover Jews go through a list of things God did in Egypt, and after each one they say “dayenu“–it would have been enough. The Democrats needed an issue to run on. They had a recession. Dayenu. The American army is stuck in Iraq, while Bin Laden walks free. Dayenu. There was the mismanagement of Katrina. Dayenu. Surplus to deficit. Crumbling infrastructure. Dependence on foreign oil. An ignorance about the environmental damage being done. Dayenu, dayenu dayenu.

America is lucky that Obama won in that environment resisteding the inclination to run a divisive campaign. He ran negative ads, but they were not the type that would tear the country apart. That’s why many of the people who voted for McCain are not angry about the result–even if they have reservations about how Obama made respond.

President-elect Obama won a clean and decisive victory. His call for change matched the country’s urgent desire. His planning has been superb, and we can only hope that is the model he will follow as president. America elected an extradinarily intelligent man who knows how to be brutally tough when he needs to (just ask Hillary).

He is already focused on the next task: the unenviable job of putting together a huge staff and cabinet without hiring friends who might not be up to the job. He didn’t even lose one day in moving from running to governing. America elected the best person to lead this country.

And I heard this rumor that he’s Black.

It’s a new day in America.

And with no more hype, my predictions from 12,000 miles away.

States that will go to McCain (toss-ups only)

1. West Virginia
2. Georgia
3. Missouri
4. Montana (could be close)
5. The Dakotas
6. Indiana

States that will go to Obama

1. Pennsylvania
2. Virginia
3. Ohio
4. Florida
5. North Carolina
6. New Mexico
7. Nevada
8. Colorado
9. Iowa
10. New Hampshire

Total electoral count: 352-185

State that I really think Obama will win…but totally freaks me out because the numbers are nuts and they elected a wrestler: Minnesota. Don’t be surprised if weird stuff happens there.

Don’t be shocked if: Obama wins Arizona. I’m not even putting it in the afforementioned toss-ups, but I’m just saying.

Bizzaro thing that just might happen: Nebraska uses district by district electoral college delegates. Obama could win one in Omaha.

“Vulnerables” who are going to win easily: Mitch McConnell (KY) and Chambliss (GA)

One Democrat who will fall (and no one will shed a tear): Murtha (PA). He’s been exposed as a real creep.

One race I would never try to predict: Al Franken and Norm Coleman. This is the all-time weirdest race. i have no idea what to make of this. Plus a former Senator is in the race as a third party candidate. He’s the guy whom Jesse Ventura appointed to serve after Paul Wellstone died. Seriously, which is a weirder voting state, Florida or Minnesota?

Senator I will be happy to see go: Elizabeth Dole. Yuck.

Most exciting “down-ticket” devopment: Two new senators named Udall will be elected. They are in different states, and apparently not related. [and will both win in the same year.] What are the odds of that? 

And that’s the wrap-up from the man who gets every prediction right. After all, I told you it would be Obama-Warner vs. McCain-Pawlenty before anyone else did.

{Update}-All of the states went as called, minus Indiana. The Omaha district did go to Obama. Dole lost, McConnell won, and Chambliss was way ahead, although he failed to hit 50 percent, meaning there will be a run-off election. Weird stuff happened in the Franken-Coleman race (it’s down to a 200-vote differential at last count). The one call that was totally off? Murtha. I thought he’s lose because he’s a dumb jerk. He won by 18 points.

From Governor Palin, we should expect no more than the cynical attacks on Senator Obama that equate him with a terrorist. After all, this is the same person who responds to questions about what newspapers she reads by saying “whatever is in front of me,” and clarifies by saying that she reads “all of them.” If you can’t name a national newspaper, probably you don’t see what’s wrong with riling up crowds to call your opponent a “terrorist.”

But John McCain is different. As wrong as he is on so many issues, and as much as he has switched his stands on everything from immigration and torture to the Bush tax cuts over the last eight years, he is genuinely a good man with a sense of right. And he must know that what is going on in his campaign is wrong.

Congressman John Lewis, a civil rights veteran and a man Senator McCain cited as one of his heroes earlier this year, has come out and compared the current campaign to that of segregationist George Wallace in the 1960s. he said:

sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse

John McCain is no George Wallace, but if he’s not careful, history may forget this distinction. And that is tragic. McCain spent the first 66 years of his life standing up for honor and dignity in the face of opposition and small-mindedness. Now, in the midst of a financial crisis and two wars, he has equated his opponent with a 1960s radical because they sat on boards together.

McCain argues that he is merely questioning Obama’s judgment and honesty. This would be fair enough, even though there is strong evidence that contradicts McCain’s assertions about the Ayers connection. (The non-partisan FactCheck.org said this about the rhetoric: “McCain says in an Internet ad that the two “ran a radical ‘education’ foundation” in Chicago. But the supposedly “radical” group was supported by a Republican governor and included on its board prominent local civic leaders, including one former Nixon administration official who has given $1,500 to McCain’s campaign this year.”)

The point, however, is no so much the validity, or lack thereof, of any of the specific claims that McCain makes. More critically, McCain needs to understand that his strategists are telling him to go after the connection because it stirs up a vague sense of anger and hatred. The campaign argues that this isn’t about Obama being a terrorist or some sort of “other,” but rather it’a question of honesty and candor. Surely no one would mistake dishonesty and poor judgment for having personal terrorist links.

Except that many people are missing that point. Those looking for a reason to hate Obama are seizing on this alleged attack on the honesty and judgment of the senator and making the connection that Obama himself is part of some part of a vague terrorist network.

One might be inclined to dismiss the jump from being less-than-candid, to being a participant in a terrorist network, as something that only a nasty crowd in Minnesota could make. Just because people yelled out “terrorist” and a woman called him “an Arab” (as if that would have made him a terrorist), it doesn’t mean that the campaign is asking voters to think that Obama is a terrorist. And it doesn’t mean that many people out there are confusing poor judgment in associating with Ayers with Obama actually being friends with terrorists. Right?

But what McCain is starting to realize, and what his managers have long known, is that people hear the rhetoric of the campaign and take that as a cue to equate Obama, with all of his “otherness,” to a terrorist sympathizer. Don’t believe me? Just listen to his own running mate:

Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country?

Read that again. Obama is not untrustworthy because he made poor decisions. He is someone who is friends with terrorists because he sees America as imperfect. She is saying that the Ayers association was a conscious decision made because of his connection to the 1960s radical left. If Sarah Palin doesn’t understand the distinction in argument then why is John McCain so surprised that so many other people can’t either?

John McCain has long been an honorable man, but he is now in an untenable situation. If he continues down the current path of ignoring the country’s problems and focusing on hate-inspiring attacks, he may be able to convince enough people to vote for him to become the next president. Yet it seems that a man of such character would rather lose an election than lose his honor and legacy by sowing the seeds of hatred.

The NYTimes and CBS conducted a poll a few days ago and released its findings today. It shows a noticeable jump in support for McCain, but similar increases for Obama. Much more interestingly, there seem to be a few trends that buck convential thinking on McCain’s supposed inroads.

First, according to the survery McCain did not move at all among women voters after his VP pick. In contrast, Obama was 9 points stronger among women after the conventions than before. (McCain picked up slightly among men, while Obama lost the same 3 points.)

Second, Obama and McCain both saw modest increases in the youngest demographics (under 44), while the Democrat clobbered McCain in the 45-65 group, and the Republican similarly picked up a lot among the older crowd.

Third, independents trended heavily toward Obama versus the previous poll, an indication that McCain is moving toward securing his base, but perhaps not moving beyond that (or even losing ground there).

The last two points are that Obama continues to win suburbanites, and three out of four people overall thought McCain chose his VP choice to win the election rather than to govern effectively.

If you want to follow all of the silly machinations (and I do), you can go to this page, which has every tiny movement in any country. However, the more important picture is always in the internals. And the internals show that Obama should not be panicking.

Another word I would use, other than “maverick,” is “impulsive.” It’s fine to have ideas that go outside the box, but it is equally important to consider the logic of those ideas, and carefully consider before deciding. Am I saying that he didn’t carefully consider Palin just because he had only met her once before deciding that she would be capable of running the United States? Let’s just say that when I bring in an intern, I usually have two interviews.

This really isn’t about Sarah Palin, who, as John McCain might say, seems like a nice young woman. It is about the man at the top of ticket, the guy willing to take big risks. Conservatives gush about the serious vetting process McCain’s staff took. This is from ultra-conservative Newsmax:

Sarah Palin’s path to the Republican ticket started with her name on a list _ and a team of some 25 people pouring through public records searching for trouble spots without her knowledge. Then came the 70-question survey and a nearly three-hour interview.

Wow! She answered 70 questions and had a nearly three-hour interview. And people googled her public record. Joe Biden underwent years of public scrutiny, including the time he was in the primary. Obama was grilled for 18 months during his Democratic primary battle. And he convinced 20 million voters he was the best choice.

Seriously, McCain spoke to her once, had someone else interview her once and went over public records. And this is the most important hire he will make in public office. If elected he will be choosing the Attorney General, Secretary of State, Head of Homeland Security, thousands of lower-level appointees and possibly a Supreme Court Justic or two. Is one interview and a questionaire the criteria he will use? Remember, she was not a known quantity. This was the governor of a state that doesn’t even border on any others. It’s not like he, or anyone else on the national stage, knew her well.

Maybe she does have the ability to lead the country. I suspect not, but it’s always possible. But I can tell you one thing for sure, John McCain has not done enough research to know himself. And that’s the danger of trusting a “maverick” with the power of the presidency.