"Talking with the Enemy" and "Divided They Stand"

"Talking With the Enemy" is the title of an editorial in the May 23^rd NY Times about President Bush's recent speech to the Israeli Knesset, and the fact that he knew at the time of the recently revealed ongoing talks between Israel and Syria, mediated by Turkey. Here are the last two paragraphs.

"Mr. Bush's approach is increasingly undermining American interests and causing Washington to be sidelined. To wit: an Arab-brokered political settlement on Lebanon reached Wednesday strengthened Hezbollah by giving it a veto over cabinet decisions.
Like Mr. Obama (and many others), we strongly encourage diplomacy, including contacts with adversaries. If Mr. Bush cannot use his remaining months in office to do the same, he can at least get out of the way."

Here is my reaction to the editorial.

At this stage, trying to parse what President Bush says is pointless, for he is truly beyond the pale. Ever the petulant child, he now begs the Saudis for more oil. (Daddy, please raise my allowance.)
When George W. Bush was elected president, it was more like a monarch ascending the throne (remember his joke about dictatorships?), and now he has become virtually a figurehead, which most monarchs are these days. But don't expect him to start reading from other people's scripts, as Queen Elizabeth and others must do.
Bush has sullied the office of president in ways that make Richard Nixon's pre-resignation madness and Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct seem almost comic by comparison.
To paraphrase Joseph Welch when he questioned Senator Joseph McCarthy, "At long last sir, have you no sense of the gravity of your office?" The answer is "No". Delivered with a smirk.

"Divided They Stand" is the title of a column by last-ditch Hillary supporter Paul Krugman in the May 26^th NY Times. He starts out with

"It is, in a way, almost appropriate that the final days of the struggle for the Democratic nomination have been marked by yet another fake Clinton scandal - the latest in a long line that goes all the way back to Whitewater.

This one, in case you missed it, involved an interview Hillary Clinton gave the editorial board of South Dakota's Argus Leader, in which she tried to make a case for her continuing campaign by pointing out that nomination fights have often gone on into the summer. As one of her illustrations, she mentioned that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June."

Later, Krugman states that

"Obama and his supporters ... should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain."

Here is my reaction to the column.

As for criticizing what Hillary said, According to the Bloomberg News,

"One of her leading supporters, Representative Charles Rangel of New York, assailed her for that comment, calling it `the dumbest thing you could have possibly said.' Clinton acknowledged it was a poor choice of words. "

I think Rangel had something stronger in mind than "a poor choice of words", so what advice does Krugman have for him? I should add that a lot of the Kennedy's, except RFK Jr., were also upset.
With his latest column, Paul Krugman has clearly gone "through the looking glass" to Billaryland. For the sake of the economy, I hope we can get him back.

All this reminds me of a dark joke I used to tell my students. (I am a retired math professor.) One of their favorite refrains was "If x, y, or z happens, do we have to take the exam?" So, whenever I had an exam scheduled to occur after I returned from a trip, I would say "Don't worry, if my plane crashes you don't have to take the test."

As for the nominating process: Don't worry Hillary, if something happens to Obama after you drop out, they will still be able to name you as his replacement.