I am dazed by a number of commenters. Do we want a Democrat to win? If so, why are Obama and Edwards not going after Guiliani or Romney? They are taking the easy road and trying to knock out Clinton. Boy, that is really going to get them ready for 2008. Politics is the art of the possible. For those who sound principled the best thing you can do is go out and take part. There are just too many arm chair critics for who Hillary and Bill are easy targets. We know Bill's faults. He did not get us into Iraq? He floored the Republicans. Remember Gingrich and Livingstone? But because some want Obama or Edwards to win they are following a Republican tactic: go after a Clinton, either one, it's easy. It is also cheap.

Posted at November 19, 2007 8:15 AM in response to Going on the Offense

The protest Democrats (those strong on principled positions and short on political smarts) wonder whether Hillary is using Bill. Why shouldn't she? What is wrong with a candidate using every advantage since that is what gets a voter's vote. I started out an Obama supporter. But, truth be told, I am not sure America is ready for a Black President. We can huff and puff all we want, but that is a real issue for white men, especially in the South. It is tough enough to get a woman elected. And a White one at that.

Edwards has simply not raised the monies needed to get there. So, as someone who wants a Democrat in the White House I will go out and work for the winner of the primary. If it is Hillary so be it.

I need to make sure that Bernie's friend does not get in.

Posted at November 19, 2007 5:18 AM in response to Going on the Offense

CNN (John Roberts) announced the result but tried to undermine Gore's accomplishment by referring to a judge for found seven mistakes in his book. I have not read the verdict, but the CNN bureau Chief from London made it clear that no one was going to rain on Gore's parade and that he shared the prize with a UN committee. Then John was off on a trot about the 2008 election.

Gore lost the 2000 election unfair and unsquare: it was stolen from him. But at this stage it is really surprising to find people wanting him to enter the Presidential primary. The man is way above the rough and tumble of our rather low quality campaigning. Those who support him have to ask why they as opportunistic and those they criticise.

Gore is in a great position. His influence if used judiciously can only grow. I hope he does not take bad advice and try to parlay this for the Presidency of the US. He is too late for the race. He has a greater battle ahead of him.

Posted at October 11, 2007 11:53 PM in response to Gore Nobel Discussion

I am pissed off about this great self flagellation among American intellectuals. What is with this we are deep thinkers. You muffed Iraq; you have little to no idea about Arab politics yet you talk about American politics as being profound. You are seen as conquerors, not liberators. You are seen as economic imperialists, not a benign force. You redeem yourselves because the ordinary American (whom you don't seem to appreciate) opens his/her heart and wallet when a tsunami or earthquake hits the so called 3rd World. I see a lot of common sense in America the ordinary. I see a lot of wind and high blown rhetoric among the so called intellectuals.

Posted at October 9, 2007 7:56 AM in response to A Footnote on Kanan Makiya, George Packer, and Learning from Errors

Very helpful debate/discussion. Rogerwg is illuminating. Let me suggest another part of the play. Chalabi, aided by Ajami and supplied with emotional ammo from Makiya played Perle and Wolfowitz. Seen from Cairo the Iraqis played the Neocons and melded their aims with those of the Neocons whose main purpose was Israeli's security. The Neocons objectives were set in 1998. Look at the way Chalabi survives in Baghdad while all around him leaders come and go. How come he is in charge of oil?

Chalabi diddled the US Treasury, conned the Neocons and used Adjami and Makiya. This was a Arab play, written and choreographed by Arabs. Maybe we should look at important things happening outside Washington and New York.

Posted at October 7, 2007 8:56 PM in response to The Passion of Kanan Makiya

I am somewhat bemused by the attention to gays in Iran. In the US gay issues have been used by the Republicans to promote hatred. The same sex marriage issue is divisive. Why are Americans appalled at what is happening to gays in Iran when their own record is so lousy. You really make a spectacle of your selves when you accuse others of things that happen in your own country. Just because you are a democracy does not mean that you are right about everything. Given Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo etc etc why do feel that you can lecture Iran about anything. Anyway, if you look at Iran closely you will see that Ahmadinejad in not the one who hold real power.And Iran has never invaded another country under any guise whatsoever.

Posted at September 26, 2007 5:18 AM in response to Two Presidents Make Fools of Themselves at Columbia

I was embarrassed to see a university president treat a guest in such a way. I am sure you are right. No Israeli would treat an invited guest in this way. We are not impressed with President A but in the Middle East I bet that his stock went up. He was insulted. He stayed. He spoke. He quoted from the Koran, He invited Columbia's students to visit Iran and go to which ever university they wanted. He put in a plug for the Palestinians. We such amateurs at propaganda. We such gave this man a boost. We look like idiots. Karen Hughes: go to Bollinger and talk to him.

Posted at September 25, 2007 9:15 AM in response to Two Presidents Make Fools of Themselves at Columbia

Say what you want: Harry Reid and Nancy pelosi have proved to be ineffective leaders. No personality, no charisma, just empty words. I have given up on this sad lot. You will recall in the last Congress that when the Democrats announced their plan to filibuster judicial appointments the Republicans threatened to change the rules to get back to a simple majority. The Democrats have refined the art of caving in, empty threats, bombast and cowardice. They don't have a united caucus. Too many DINOs and LieberIran (who had left the party but got chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee which is a pretty ineffective oversight committee). This is a sorry lot. My money will goes to MoveOn. I don't care about polarised debates. We are already there.

Posted at September 21, 2007 12:13 PM in response to Why Are Senate Dems Afraid of a Real Filibuster But Not Afraid to Condemn Move-On

Lots of venting and parsing, sourcing and snarking. I recall the kiss (Mrs Arafat) and the hyper ventilation. New York politicians have to take note of the Jewish constituency. What is so earth shattering about this? Is the lobby doing anything different from the evangelicals, business, labour? Israel need US support and gets it. The pity is that the Palestinians haven't yet managed to work the US effectievly to rally support. Too busy fighting among themselves.

Posted at September 14, 2007 9:39 PM in response to Clinton vs. Clinton on Israel

Given the intellectual and moral resources commanded by Jews - both in Israel and elsewhere I have been puzzled by the inability of any serious debate on Israel-Palestine issues to get past name calling, self-justification and accusations of both anti- semitism and being pro-Palestine Arabs. Somehow even the best minds in the US are given to going into opposing camps (camps?). As for the politicians: just go to the annual AIPAC convention and watch them kowtowing to some of those who make the most unreasonable demands of US politicians. All of them check in their spine at the door. No exceptions. Go to AIPAC and the line to tow is set out for you. So don't expect any serious changes in US policy towards Israel. Yet, for Israelis to live a relatively peaceful life a settlement with the Palestians a peace accord is a must. Maybe some prefer the turmoil.

Posted at September 7, 2007 10:06 AM in response to Walt-Mearsheimer's Best Seller: Why the Hysteria?