« How Nasty is Iran? | Main | Friday Clinton-Blogging » Just Some Links19 Jul 2007 06:18 pm A few interesting things I've read today; consider these things I'm thinking about, not necessarily things I agree with:
Comments (16)
"Mark Schmitt on John Edwards and poverty." Ezra's rebuttal had a higher wisdom quotient than Mark's piece. 
I'm surprised you're not reading and thinking about Digby's piece on your colleague Ambinder's stunningly honest admission about the major media and Edwards. This type of honesty is rarely seen in the media and I would think you would want to encourage such behavior. If you're a Democrat, you might also want to think about these bastards are going to do your candidate in '08.
Another suggested link to add, when up: Olberman's amazing "Special Comment" to lead off broadcast tonight. I dare say no member remotely connected to the MSM has ever made a statement like this about Bush, or frankly any president, since the crazy days of the 19th century. Perhaps I'm exaggerating, but take a look. It's hardcore stuff.
Also, Ambinder's piece truly is stunning. It is like a parody of DC-Insider-journo hackdom. Somerby would be writing a post right now if anyone knew who Ambinder was.
Re Mark Halprin Mr. Halprin must be smoking lefty luckies if he thinks that a couple of cripples like Abbas and Olmert, supported by another cripple, Bush, can come to an agreement and make it stick. Mr. Olmert just got through thoroughly botching a war in Lebanon last summer, Mr. Abbas just got through thoroughly botching a a resistance to a successful coup in the Gaza Strip last month and Mr. Bush is busily botching an occupation of Iraq which is ongoing. Mr. Halprins' oped sounds like something out of Alice in Wonderland.
Agreed about Ambinder's piece, but the most important of these links is the Michael Hirsch article in Newsweek. Most netroots types already connect the Iraq war with the unraveling situation in Afghanistan, but this is the main point to make with independents. It must be reinforced at every opportunity. With this issue, Dems can be anti-terror, against the Iraq war, competent, and able to firmly convince the American people that protection is their top priority. There is no downside, on policy grounds or politically.
Helprin gets it right. A month ago in the Hamas thread I noted: For the first time since Hamas' parliamentary victory, there is movement, and that's good. By defeating Fatah in Gaza, Hamas has, paradoxically, enabled the diplomatic process to restart. http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/06/does_this_help.php#comment-251336
There were a lot of good points in the comments to Schmitt's post but even so, some of those same commenters need to take a chill pill. If you're going to write on a liberal website about a Democratic primary election, then you're almost by definition going to be choosing one candidate over another by focusing on and magnifying minor differences between them. I didn't read Schmitt as "Edwards bashing" at all. He thinks Edwards is weaker than Obama in a particular area. Whether he's wrong or right about that, I'm sure he still thinks Edwards would be good on poverty in an absolute sense.
I think I held my own against Schmitt and CFR. when do I get a column in a prominent liberal magazine?
Mahmoud Abbas, the Fatah leader and Palestinian president, is weak in many ways, but he has decisively isolated the radicals. Hamas loyalists in the West Bank (according to the latest polling, less than 25 percent of the population) face a different demographic than they did in Gaza, and a different economy that can be richly watered if Israel is wise enough to do so. Surrounded and penetrated by the Israeli Army and Palestinian Authority forces, they are not what they once were. I hope I might find some of those "leftie luckies" slc thinks wingnut Halperin is smoking. Abbas has decisively isolated the radicals? Well, that's certainly one way to depict the abject failure of General Dayton's efforts to use guns and butter to strengthen the gangster Dahlan. Halperin is right, Hamas is not what they once were, now that American funds will join the confiscated tax dollars in "flowing" to the coup government in Ramallah. and the Abbas announces new elections to sanctify his coup? sure, that will decisively isolate Hamas. roll another one.
Ha, ha. Also from the earlier thread on Hamas: "Mrs. I. A-J" is just irked that after all the thrashing Hamas inflicted on Fatah in Gaza, things seem to have worked out not unfavorably for Israel and the US. Seeing Abbas acquiesce to new aid from Israel and the US must be especially galling. http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/06/does_this_help.php#comment-251296
if by "irked" Giles means upset that Israel is returning less than 100% of the confiscated tax revenues from Palestinians they are returning to the Palestinian "government" now that the coup against the elected Palestinian government has been overthrown, then yes, I guess I am irked. but praising a thief for returning some of his loot seems to be what Giles is all excited about. good for Giles. I bet he's really really really excited that the coup has also produced a release of a full 250 of the 10,000+ palestinian prisoners Israel is currently incarcerating. no elected members of Parliament were released, nor any Cabinet ministers, but a few token members of the Democratic Front for thre Liberation of Palestine, and a few token members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine were released, to "shore up" Abu Mazen's position. and of course, most "irksome" for the Fatah faithful is the continued imprisonment of Marwan Barghouti. progress!
Progress? Everyone but Hamas seems to think so. And a certain "Mrs." who can't even spell "her" name correctly.
I'll second what Andruw said about Ambinder's piece. I'd give it higher points for honesty (per Steven Donegal) if it wasn't for his "you should just accept shit like this as part of the game" attitude. I certainly won't accept it. None of us elected the bitches of the press to be kingmakers and character assassins, depending on their mood. The one good thing I can see is that Ambinder's post about Edwards will serve for years, all by itself, as a rebuttal to any nonsense from the MSM about how they're responsible and objective, while bloggers aren't. As Digby says, at least we're open about our biases.
In Giles World "everybody" ranges means those who agree with his assertion that Fatah, by being defeated by Hamas in Gaza, actually won. Everyone knows Dahlan won, and the confiscation of the $7 million General Dayton gave him by the PLO Executive Committee is a mere temporary setback. keep up those quality insights, Giles. oh, and by the way, according to Wikipedia "Giles" is actually spelled T-W-I-T-B-E-A-K-S-H-I-L-L, with two L's.
Comments closed August 02, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I was completely shocked at the BS Schmitt was slinging in that post. Yes, John Edwards, a man who officially announced his candidacy from the Lower 9th Ward of New Orleans, is a candidate who insufficiently pays attention to the connection between race and poverty. Furthermore, he should explicitly hammer home the link between race and poverty, because God knows the Republicans don't do it enough in a not-so-subtle racist ploy. Why don't you add this link to your list?
Posted by Clark | July 19, 2007 6:56 PM