Steve Clemons observes that "the fact that the leading Democrat contenders had nothing to say about the Annapolis Summit raises legitimate questions about whether they have the commitment and wherewithal to tackle the complexity of America's defining challenge in this era." I think that's true. At the same time, the political calculus that led the leading candidates to completely ignore the summit is pretty straightforward. And I wouldn't really want to have a nominee (or, for that matter, a president) who couldn't do basic politics. In other words, you actually want a certain level of craveness from your political leaders. But you don't want too much. You want the person who'll take risks at the right time not the one who never takes risks or the one who shoots from the hip all the time.
« Who To Blame | Main | Food for Thought »
Risky Business
30 Dec 2007 02:22 pm
Comments (22)
I think you mean "the leading Democrat [sic] contenders."
I think you mean the Annapolis photo-op.
Annapolis means "I am police" in arabic... how appropriate.
I'm unclear on what Clemons and MY would have a Dem candidate say about Annapolis, but here's my shot at it:
"Now that the line about the road to Mid-East peace goes through Baghdad has been shown to be false, I applaud the Bush Administration's efforts to engage the world in a search for peace in this difficult and vital area. I only wish they had done so 7 years ago."
Dude,
Annapolis was (as others have said here) a photo-op joke that almost collapsed of its own dead weight before it even happened, with the participants openly telling the press that they didn't know what the agenda was and that it was DOA in any event. What were the Dems supposed to say? Beyond calling a spade a spade and labelling it a joke, saying anything more about it would have lent way too much dignity to a farcical charade. Annapolis happened because the administration realized that it can't be seen (too openly) by the states in the region as not giving a shit about Middle East peace. By smiling at the cameras for five minutes and then walking away (wtf? can you imagine Clinton doing that?), Bush can still not give a shit about Middle East peace while solemnly pretending otherwise. Bottom line: I think the Dems didn't make a mistake by ignoring Annapolis because it was a transparent fraud well worth ignoring.
The fact that you seem to feel otherwise makes me wonder whether you're becoming one of the Very Serious People of the Village. Fight the Dark Side, man!
ok - I give up. Was there a point made in this post? Read it five times and it could be the most opinion/content-free missive yet. Really - if you have nothing to say and just want to watch football, that's fine - you don't need to post ....
Annapolis means "I am police" in arabic...
There may be some sort of slang I've never heard of but I don't think that's true.
Steve Clemons is an ass-kissing, preening, self-important, name-dropping blowhard. The picture of himself he selected for his website says it all.
Nah, there is no p sound in Arabic, Annapolis in Arabic would sound like "I *nonsense*".
I don't get it. It's craven not to have a considered opinion on how to turn a pile of malfeasant, propagandistic, photoopping bullshit into a lasting peace in the Middle East? Did anyone outside of DC consider this anything but a sick joke or a tired pantomime?
I understand that Clemons is a Very Serious Wannabee, and so has to consider Peace Conferences to be Serious Business, but what's your excuse, Matt?
Matt is subject to recurrent fits of Seriousness. Most likely he'll recover.
America's defining challenge in this era (is the Middle East)
Bullshit. The defining challenges are climate change and peak oil. Everything else pales in comparison. If oil wasn't so vital to every facet of the American way of life, we would care about the Middle East the same way we do Africa, which is to perfunctorily.
When fairly mainstream people like the investment guys from Motley Fool are writing that peak oil may mean the end of civilization as we know it, I think it's time for people to reprioritize what is and what is not important.
http://www.fool.com/investing/international/2007/05/15/a-manhattan-project-for-energy-part-1.aspx
I could continue to work my way through a laundry list of items that I believe are contributing to our dangerous energy circumstances and even to the potential demise of our civilization. For instance, I could talk about the Detroit automakers' inability to respond effectively to our plight, to the ineffectiveness of new technologies in reversing the decline in U.S. energy production, or to the need for the energy industry to range progressively more widely (and more deeply) just to maintain current production.
Hey Ed,
Good point about the p sound, but you missed the joke, I was pretending that police is the same word in both languages. Obviously, it's not, with "shorta" being the word for police in arabic.
And ana means "I" in arabic. And arabs don't have to be verbs...
ed: Thanks for the tip, that is a pretty funny photo. Serious Person Explains All!
"I think you mean 'the leading Democrat [sic] contenders.'"
Clemons was called on this by a commenter and apparently edited the post without mentioning the edit, save in comments.
Yes, Arr-squared, I did fix the line about Democratic contenders after a reader caught the error. I noted it in comments.
For those who find my picture on the site one of serious wannabe grandiosity....I sort of agree and am going to be changing it. I'm actually not that much of a wannabe -- but appearances. . .well.
Josh Marshall's designer designed my site...and picked a photo they found on the web and modified it. I know nothing about web stuff -- but do know that the site needs a facelift.
On name-dropping...guilty as charged. On preening, my significant other and others wish I did more. I tend to dress and style pretty grungily except when compelled by circumstances otherwise.
On being a blowhard, of course I am...
Thanks for reading. best,
Steve Clemons, The Washington Note
By smiling at the cameras for five minutes and then walking away (wtf? can you imagine Clinton doing that?), Bush can still not give a shit about Middle East peace while solemnly pretending otherwise.
In fact, Bill Clinton did much the same as that, but over a few days, at a place called Camp David. One of the continuities between Clinton and Bush is a real unwillingness to put any restraint on Israeli colonisation or chauvinist ambitions, while covering themselves in self-congratulation about the 'risks' they were taking for peace. Clinton took no risks that weren't AIPAC-approved.
In other words, you actually want a certain level of craveness from your political leaders. But you don't want too much. You want the person who'll take risks at the right time not the one who never takes risks or the one who shoots from the hip all the time.
Sure. BTW, Jimmy Carter also "cravenly" sought the Jewish vote with pandering on Israel, then enraged all the Israel lobby types when he was safely in DC. It can be done, and in fact its the only way to get a peace deal.
But for real progress, we need an environment where criticism of Israel, particularly on its most bigoted policies such as efforts to keep settlements in and around East Jerusalem, can be made even at election time. Even if the Dem candidates, given the current balance of political forces, are wise to keep their mouths shut today, we want a better political and journalistic environment where they don't need to be so craven.
Kudos to Steve Clemons for admitting to all his sins.
"Matt is subject to recurrent fits of Seriousness. Most likely he'll recover."
Yeah, but the problem is they are recurrent.
On Iran, one day he'll be proclaiming that military action is a bad idea, the next he'll be hinting that Iran is some serious "proliferation" issue that we should be do "something" about, like Russia not "rewarding" them by delivering the frickin' nuclear fuel they're frickin' contracted to deliver.
As an aside, I, too, have to give Clemons some credit for admitting to being a VSP wannabe - even though he claimed not to be that much of a wannabe. But the fact that he admitted to being a blowhard means he admits to being a wannabe in fact. You can't be a VSP without being a blowhard.
Re otto
As usual, we hear from Israel bashing schmuck Mr. otto whose idea of a peaceful Israel/Palestinian settlement is for the State of Israel to agree to go out of business. After all, to the putzes like Mr. otto, the Palestinians bear no responsibility for their predicament. Their homicide bombers and quassems are of no moment to Mr. otto as their targets are not people to him. There is only one answer to the Palestinian reign of terrorists attacks, application of Hama Rules against the Gaza Strip. When total victory by the IDF is achieved, then there may possibly be a chance for a peaceful settlement.
Hey, SLC - BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Right - exterminate the Gaza strip and get peace!
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Go ahead - best result from that would be somebody steals an Israeli nuke and makes Tel Aviv glow in the dark for the next fifty years.
Not to mention that the IDF hasn't had a "total victory" in decades - and won't, since they're a bunch of concentration camp guards now, not soldiers.
Christ, what a moron.
Comments closed January 13, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Yup.
Posted by Petey | December 30, 2007 2:30 PM