It may also be somewhat reassured by statements from the US that its policy on China and Taiwan has not changed. But behind the scenes it's safe to say China is working hard to "educate" the Trump team on not repeating such diplomatic faux pas.
Trump didn't know what he was doing?
ADDED: Trump is in a position to leverage other people's belief that he doesn't know what he is doing. Those not burdened by feelings of inferiority and incompetence can resist showing off how much they know and even lure those who think they're smart into giving away more than they would if they believed their antagonist had superior knowledge and skill.
One used to hear of clever lawyers who got their adversaries to perceive them as just an old country lawyer.
As is typically the case with Trump, it’s hard to tell whether this blithe overturning of protocol is intentional or simply a result of not knowing, or caring, better.
There are various reasons Trump might be intentionally poking China. Trump spoke harshly about China throughout his presidential campaign, accusing Beijing of currency manipulation, land-grabbing, and taking advantage of the United States. He also showed a willingness, if not an eagerness, to slaughter nearly every sacred cow of American foreign policy.
Some Trump confidants have suggested existing policy on Taiwan should become one of them. John Bolton, who served as Bush’s ambassador to the UN, has been advising Trump, and Bolton has been a very public advocate of the U.S. cozying up to Taiwan in order to show strength against China....
IN THE COMMENTS: MayBee said:
Remember when Obama made the Dalai Lama go in the back door, past the trash bags? To not anger the Chinese?
Obama's foreign policy is to cower. We are weak, but he talks about how essential we are. I don't know if Trump is going to be a disaster or a delight, but I can't hear criticisms of him right now because I'm too busy looking at the fecklessness of our current president.
Bill Clinton, the famous Big Dog of American politics, seemed to be on a tight leash on Monday as he delivered a low-key and, at times, disjointed speech at a rally for Hillary Clinton during his first solo swing in New Hampshire. Mr. Clinton, who was criticized for overshadowing Mrs. Clinton in 2008....
If Mr. Clinton had a theme, it was portraying Mrs. Clinton (and himself) as high-minded advocates of “inclusive” policies — an adjective that he repeated several times — rather than exclusionary proposals like Mr. Trump’s call for temporarily banning Muslims for entering the United States....
Describing the ideas and work ethic of immigrants as potential “meal tickets” for the American economy, Mr. Clinton told some wandering anecdotes about Muslims and others who had stood up for Christians and defended their families....
"Meal tickets"? Wouldn't that mean immigrants should work so we natives can get free food? I want to see the text.
Several voters said after the speech that they were struck by Mr. Clinton’s relatively muted style... “He was low-key in a down-to-earth way, which I think is the right thing to do, because the limelight should be on Hillary,” said Gail DuFresne, 59, a nurse from Rindge, N.H.
From the second link:
Mr. Clinton appeared a little rusty, rambling at times during his first campaign rally at Nashua Community College.... He talked about his own presidency and the work of his foundation, which he mentioned a few times, and about Mrs. Clinton’s ideas and the need to elect a president to fit the times. (His discursive reflection on the personal problems of President Franklin Pierce, a New Hampshire native, was largely met with silence from the Nashua audience.)...
Ah, the Franklin Pierce business (that I wrote about in my earlier post) was New Hampshire related. That makes it less bizarre.
Advisers to Mr. Clinton said he was focused on making the best case possible for why Mrs. Clinton should be president, rather than delivering stemwinders or playing attack dog. Political allies of Mr. Clinton added that he did not feel the need to attack, in part because he did not see Mrs. Clinton’s opponents as serious threats to her at this point.
So he did what he was supposed to do... or the NYT understands what the campaign intends for him to have done — which is to be out there but inconspicuous — and affirms that's what he did.
I never found a transcript, but here's full-length video:
The Daily Mail made a photo-filled story about the people who stood behind Bill Clinton for the whole speech:
A half-dozen females hand-picked to stand behind the former president grimaces, scowled and fought off yawns as he spoke in New Hampshire.
I feel sorry for these ladies! Who knows how to stand and look on camera for 28 minutes? What would you do with your face if you were under that kind of high-def continual scrutiny? The Daily Mail interviewed a 14-year-old girl and cruelly informed her that she looked "apathetic" on TV. The poor girl said "Oh, no!" and then "I was ecstatic!" The DailyMail "delicately" brought up Bill's sex problem. In front of a 14-year-old! That seems kind of wrong, but at the same time, it seems right to question the use of a girl as a backdrop when she can't understand how she is being used.
"Oh, I'm aware," she said. "Yeah. He's a womanizer. I think that that's his social life... And his work should be separate from that."
But does she know that he used a young female in the workplace to have a social sex life in the workplace? Does she understand the concept of sexual harassment in the workplace, how those who care about the equality of women in the workplace have struggled to enlighten people about this concept, and how Hillary Clinton — along with Bill Clinton — participated in a great disenlightenment?
ADDED: I'm seeing an unintentional pun: "the Subdued Spouse" — the sub-dude spouse. When the husband is the subordinate one, he's sub-dude.
IN THE COMMENTS: MayBee said:
Women should start carrying mattresses to Bill Clinton rallies.
That's not quite fair. I don't remember any mattress cushioning Monica Lewinsky.
Sorry to link a second time to the same article, but I find George Lucas and the NYT article fawning over him just so hilarious. This I-am-the-99% quote comes in the context of talking about Lucas's girlfriend of 5 years, Mellody Hobson. Lucas is 67. The article declines to tell us how old she is, but a quick Google shows she's 42. Lucas has made a movie about black people and Hobson is black "and a friend of the Obamas’ and Oprah Winfrey’s." Lucas is calling himself a 99 percenter in the context of contrasting himself to her:
“And she’s an East Coast, Princeton grad, Wall Street fund manager, knows all the big players, works in the big world. You would never think that we would get together, have anything in common. But when we did, we realized we had everything in common. It was the most unlikely coupling.”
He doesn't know "big players" and work in the "big world"?! What delusion!
What delusion? It's the delusion of a ’60s lefty who imagines himself at one with some idea he has of the underclass.
IN THE COMMENTS: MayBee said:
It's interesting that his girlfriend is a buddy with all the Obama people. At the time of the AF1 panic-inducing flyover of Manhattan, it was redtails accompanying the plane. That has never been explained. A lot of people speculated it was related to this film.
Thanks for reminding us of that! Here's a NY Post article from April 27, 2009:
A jumbo jet being chased by a F-16 fighter jets buzzed Lower Manhattan this morning, panicking New Yorkers, many of whom were forced to evacuate their office buildings.
President Obama was in Washington at the time, but the low-flying 747 circling the Statue of Liberty was one of the planes used as Air Force One, sources said...
Here's my post reacting to the official story, which was that the flight was for the purpose of taking an inexplicably crappy photograph.
AND: Remember that 2009 Halloween party at the White House that we just found out about: "George Lucas sent the original Chewbacca to mingle with invited guests."
The NYT has no way of knowing which articles are most emailed.
Jason (the commenter) thinks John doesn't get it:
If they have an "email this article" link they do. I see many publications keeping track of stories this way.
That was John's point:
No, that button keeps track of how many people use that button. I email articles on a regular basis and never use that button. I don't understand why anyone would use it. The NYT has no way of knowing when I send a NYT URL to someone.
MayBee snarks:
I hope Althouse updates her post to include this vital information.
John stands his ground:
Yes, the NYT gives a false picture of what it knows about how popular its pieces are. The NYT perceives its internal emailing system as the be-all-and-end-all of popularity. But they're only detecting the behavior of the tiny group of people who are more comfortable with the NYT's convoluted messaging system than with the more straightforward practice of sending a URL. There are all sorts of ways this could be demographically skewed; it probably leaves out more young (maybe liberal) readers. I actually think that's important. Maybe not as important as the very serious matter of what Brooks was talking about in his comments about his thigh, so I don't know if it's worthy of an update in the post, but I think it's worth pointing out in the comments section.
Well, I think its worthiness exceeds post updating and warrants a new post!
I suddenly realize that I have no interest in what the dorks who use the "email" button think somebody they know should read. I'm also not surprised anymore that the Brooks column did so well. Indeed, I'd been wondering for a long time why Brooks columns are always ranking so high on that list. Now, I understand that Brooks and "email" button-pushers are on the same wavelength — and it is not a cool place to be.
That clip makes me think how my own life would seem so much more meaningful and important were I to have a narrator and some choral music in the background.
"Shortly before 6 a.m., we saw Pogo heading straight for the downtown buildings some 7 miles away.
"Dr. Aingly explained that even if he caught Pogo and returned him to his family, he would immediately head right back for the buildings.
"But Why?"
Encounters At the End of Minnesota
A Werner Herzog Film
MayBee said:
The penguin goes every summer to live alone among the grizzly bears.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
Posts
