Three polls out in Pennsylvania show a Clinton lead ranging from six to fourteen points. (A noteworthy fact: the poll with the smallest lead includes several days of surveying before Snob-gate broke.) Clinton is also showing a bump in Indiana. This is a far cry from last week , when Clinton’s lead in Pennsylvania seemed to be evaporating under Barack Obama’s withering TV-ad assault and the fallout from her own repressed Bosnia memories.
Pundits can question whether Obama’s momentum had already slowed before he insulted the state. But a loss, especially a double-digit loss, has to be attributed in part to his blunder. Then, just as Texas and Ohio were Clinton’s trials-by-fire, Indiana and North Carolina will become Obama’s–tests of whether he has permanently damaged his chances or merely given John McCain a juicy target for the general election.
Re the “Oath”: The two other Presidents were Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur. Perhaps we will see poetic justice at play here: three duds, three misspoken oaths.
$$$$ As my colleague David Sanger documents in his superb new book, “The Inheritance”: “We pursued a path that has left us less admired by our allies, less feared by our enemies, and less capable of convincing the rest of the world that our economic and political model is worthy of emulation.” $$$$
Really? We want our allies to admire us? Why? What’s that got to do with anything? Wouldn’t mutual self-interest be more relevant? The path that left us less feared by our enemies? What path is that? Who are our enemies? How do we determine if someone is an enemy? Do we want them to fear us? What is this guy talking about? Less capable of blah, blah, blah? The economic model that has produced the richest country and population in world history isn’t worthy of emulation? Then why does the rest of the world move here? No wonder Nick Kristoff is the perfect example of a college journalism sophomore as Peter Pan. He’s never had to grow up. And if he keeps reading junk like “The Inheritance”, he never will.
Pawlenty sounds like a presidential candidate, but so did Romney. The thing both are missing is a common touch, charisma, and something exciting about them. However if neither Palin or Jindal run in 2012 they will be the frontrunners to be the sacrificial lambs to Obama (since Palin and Jindal would only run if Obama’s 1st term is a disaster).
Nope.
Bush pretty much neglected the “peace process” till the end, and gave in to Israel on every importatn issue except attacking Iran.
Israel promised to remove the unsanctioned settlements (the “hilltop youth” maniacs), and did almost nothing. Settlements in the WB continued to expand and apartheid roads continue to snake through the territories. This affected Hamas because it showed the contempt of Israel for even those Palestinians who chose to negotiate, as well as international opinon.
Israel withdrew its overexposed settlements from Gaza, but continued to control ingress, egress, and trade. When Hamas won the elections and formed a coalition, Israel boycotted the PA and the choking of Gaza began.
Hamas, once nurtured by Israel, may be thuggish and fanatical. Israel’s conduct is cynical and criminal, covered over with a veneer of moralistic propaganda.
Even if the answer to JR’s questions were “yes,” they are no answer to Kristof’s suggestions. Elementary humanity as well as the international law of occupation (which it still is) require no less. No two-state solution is possible (assuming for a moment that such an outcome is now either desirable or possible) if settlements continue to expand, in violation of repeated promises.
#4
Charges of antisemitism are forthcoming from the usual suspects. However, Thanks for your opinion. I just read a piece by Shmuel Rosner about those d—-d American Jews that voted for Obama. I’m wondering who is more antisemitic:the Jews who supported Obama,or the Contentionsistas against those Jews that supported Obama.
Check out the John Rosenthal piece at New Majority. He talks about EU parliamentary support for Guantanamo. This is a must read considering Obama’s first acts as president.
One way to make a tough choice is to make the demonstrably wrong but politically correct choice.
Hamas formed a coalition? I seem to recall them throwing Fatah members off of roof tops. It is certainly one method. Otherwise the usual inversion of cause and effect, such as Hamas fires rockets/mortars into Israel, kidnaps Israeli soldiers, smuggles in weapons, sends bombers into Isreal, Israel responds by controlling the entry points and with a blockade of fuel aand equipment, ergo the attacks were caused by the blockade. And lifting the blockade really ticked Hamas off because they followed that up with unilaterally abrogating the cease fire they never bothered to honor.
And settlements weren’t insurmountable obstacles to peace in Sinai and the withdrawl from Gaza. But one party not actually wanting peace definitely is.
And history is inconvenient. Clinton was ultra-engaged in the “peace process” and what followed was murder and mayhem.
Groups like Hamas are not rational. They do not developed based on a tidy progression of events. They are not seeking appeaseable goals. Rather the tendency to see a group like Hamas as rationally deriving from events is a construct of people with a worldview that doesn’t adeqautely account for irrationality. Hamas did not arise due to grievances. It will not evaporate when the alleged grievances are gone.
Civilization has to quit giving a pass to the general Muslim population. They don’t seem to have a problem cutting the hands off thieves, killing sisters who date without permission, stoning adulterers, issuing fatwas against Salman Rushdie and Danish cartoonists, and stabbing Dutch filmmakers. Muslim society seems to be a place where psychopathic killers can not only survive but prosper. It’d be like the Crips and Bloods running the U.S. Let’s face facts. Spending a few more centuries trying to cajole the substantial homicidal maniac wing of Islam into good behavior is a fool’s errand. Diplomacy and dialog aren’t going to get it. Really, the situation must be reversed 180 degrees. The Muslims must be placed in a situation where they are suing for peace, where they are the ones that must make concessions in order for their society to survive. That probably upsets the utopians but waiting for them to talk the Muslims into playing nice will be longer than we can afford.
Thanks, Ian. The tendency is to ignore Grumpy’s substitution of fantasy for fact.
Grumps says: “Hamas, once nurtured by Israel, may be thuggish and fanatical.” Are you that corroded by self-hate that you can’t even muster the sense to label the obvious. “May be thuggish and fanatical”? How about “surely is” or even “is” if you have a problem with a modifier. Were it anyone else, this criticism could be considered tendentious, but I have no doubt you chose that language carefully and with malice aforethought, as they say. Jeez.
Gail Collins may have her doubts about Mr. Geithner, but the New York Times endorsed him for Treasury Secretary in an editorial today.
Imagine a two-bit tax cheat telling us to pay our taxes!
I am a sinner with much to answer for, but I don’t hate myself for expelling people from their homes, for half-starving them, for prohibiting them from fishing, bombing them, killing their children, or boasting à la Tom Friedman about how educational it all is.
I didn’t do any of those things. The Israeli government did, consciously and as a matter of policy, to prevent a negotiated solution and to win an election, with the Commentary crowd rationalizing and/or cheering them on.
A lot of these issues are complicated. People are free to have differences of opinion and God knows they do about Israel. But there is a difference between reasonable disagreement and sneering, name calling and the self-parodying oversimplification of complex issues. The Gaza conflict sent people off the deep end.