Advantages of a lengthy, bitter campaign—for the Democrats

The New Neo Posted on by

You’ve probably all read about the disadvantages of the lengthy unresolved Democratic campaign. Less time to unify. Lingering bitterness. Lots of fun video clips the Republicans can use against the eventual nominee in the general election.

But there are advantages as well. Two were mentioned by Lindsay Graham in a post-SuperTuesdayTwo Fox News interview I glanced at today: energized fundraising, and honing their campaigning skills. Lack of the latter (which presumabably will fall to John McCain) is something like what happens when a team clinches the division title too early, or a tennis player has too easy a path to the finals, and gets to face an opponent who’s been forced by stiffer competition to be on top of his/her game.

Still another advantage I can think of for the Democrats this year is connected to some flaws in the primary process itself. Continue reading →

Backlash in Iraq

The New Neo Posted on by

This NY Times article describes how the youth of Iraq are strongly turning away from religion and its jihadi excesses in Iraq as a result of the violence perpetrated on the population there.

This is good news—and, as Abe Greenwald of Commentary blogs points out, it’s also good news that the Times is reporting on this particular good news.

Greenwald writes that the phenomenon in Iraq indicates that the notion that war there might lead to changed hearts and minds was not a pipe dream, but is becoming a reality. And although I agree that this is true, I’m not so sure the connection to American efforts there is clear. especially if you read the Times piece carefully. Author Tavernise has managed to compose an article of over 2000 words on the subject without crediting the Americans—or mentioning the surge.

There is no question that the article’s main premise is correct: there is a unique and intense backlash by the population of Iraq, including the young people, against the violence and rigidity of the jihadis there. But this did not happen in a vacuum. The postwar post-Sadaam chaos and the occupation both created the opportunity for these jihadis to temporarily flourish, and provided the means for the Iraqis to cooperate with the Americans to crush them.

Where’s the change?

The New Neo Posted on by

“Where’s the beef?” was not only a famous ad slogan of the early 80’s, it figured in the Democratic campaign for President in 1984:

[Gary] Hart had moved his candidacy from dark horse to the lead over [Walter] Mondale based on his repeated use of the phrase “new ideas”. When Hart once again used the slogan in the debate, Mondale leaned forward and said, “When I hear your new ideas, I’m reminded of that ad, ‘Where’s the beef?'” The line got a great response from the audience.

Some people are wondering what will happen if Obama gets elected and fails to deliver the sun, moon, and stars, as expected. Will his followers feel betrayed and ask some modern-day equivalent of “where’s the beef?” Will they turn on him if he fails to somehow change the world?

I have decided the answer is “no.” And that is because, in the eyes of his supporters, he will already have delivered change, merely by the act of becoming President. His election is itself the change they seek. It would proves to them that this nation has become truly multicultural and has managed to transcend its history of racism, a task that’s been going on almost since the nation began. In Obama’s candidacy, race has a strange double role: he is a viable candidate both in spite of and because of his race.

Having an epiphany about Obama

The New Neo Posted on by

Somehow I’d missed the following extraordinary statement (HT: Obama Messiah) made by Obama in a speech he gave at Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH, shortly before the primary in that state:

My job this morning is to be so persuasive…that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack.

I can only assume—I can only hope—(and would it be inappropriate to say I can only pray?) that this sentence was delivered in a tone of gentle mockery, showing that he’s able to poke fun at himself, his hype, and those who seem to think he just might be the Second Coming.

Trouble is, I can’t find anyone describing him as speaking in that sort of tone. Continue reading →

“60 Minutes”—of gossip

The New Neo Posted on by

John Hindraker makes a good case for thinking the great minds behind CBS’s “60 Minutes” might be suffering a tad from RDS (Rove Derangement Syndrome, Republican Derangement Syndrome, take your pick) for treating Jill Simpson as a credible source. The holes in her story are so huge there’s really no story left, but “60 Minutes” doesn’t seem to care.

On the other hand, at least they named their source. If you’re going to publish unsubstantiated gossip, that’s probably a good thing.

A cult is born: they believe in him

The New Neo Posted on by

I found this video through a link at Pajamas Media, where it was dubbed “the creepiest Obama tribute video ever.”

If that’s hyperbole and there’s a creepier one, I hope I never see it. This one is bad enough. It borders on the truly frightening: the rhythmic chant, the glow in the eyes, the platitudes, the utter absence of anything that could be described as thought. Continue reading →

Obama: hope is not enough (nor is talk)

The New Neo Posted on by

Now that he seems poised to become the Democratic Presidential nominee, Obama is taking a bit of heat from McCain, his likely opponent, especially about Obama’s touchy-feely (that is, predominantly talky) foreign policy.

It’s a different sort of heat than Clinton can give out, because the audience is different. Hillary can’t criticize Obama’s extreme liberal positions, nor his antiwar stance, all that effectively, for the simple reason that in order to have a chance at her party’s nomination she needs to appeal to the huge number of Democrats who agree with those very positions.

Obama seems to believe in talk. Lots of it. Hope and talk. Hoping to talk. Talking about hoping to talk: Continue reading →

Falling in love with your therapist—on TV

The New Neo Posted on by

I don’t get HBO, but I watched the first few episodes of the new HBO series “In Treatment” while staying with friends for a few days. It features a psychologist and his sessions with patients, one for each weekday night, and a session with his supervisor on Friday. I was hooked enough that I figure I need to rent the DVD when it comes out.

Now comes a NY Times article telling us that a plethora of viewers seem to have fallen in love with Gabriel Byrne, the actor who plays the psychotherapist Dr. Paul Weston.

Or is it the fictional psychotherapist Dr. Weston they love? Continue reading →

Things don’t look good for Karsenty, French justice—or truth

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: I’ve received a recent communication that indicates the court proceedings yesterday in Paris may not have gone as negatively as my initial impressions from the information on the subject I had read and/or listened to far. If so, I would be very happy to hear it, and will be updating as soon as I get any further clarification. So until further notice, please take the following post, written earlier today, with a large grain of salt.

In addition, the three interviews at the PJ link, which contained the information about yesterday’s trial on which I based this entire post, are no longer there. I don’t know whether this has any significance or not, but, as I said, I’ll make any corrections as soon as I get new information. I’d be only too happy to learn that things are brighter than I had originally thought.]

Philippe Karsenty’s appeal in the defamation case against him launched by media giant France2 continued in Paris yesterday, Continue reading →

Obama and McCain on the knotty problem of Iran

The New Neo Posted on by

Allison Kaplan Summer translates an Obama interview with the Israeli news source Ynet that is due to appear on Friday. Asked how he would deal with the threat of Iran and whether he would support military action if diplomacy fails, this was Obama’s answer:

I don’t believe that diplomacy alone will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. I believe that we will require our national strength in order to achieve this important goal. The biggest threat to Israel today comes from Iran, where there is a radical government that is continuing its efforts to develop nuclear weapons and continues to support terror across the region. President Ahmedinejad continues to deny the Holocaust and call for Israel destruction, and it is impossible to relate to his threats to destroy Israel as mere rhetoric. My mission when I am president will be to eliminate that threat. The time has come to talk directly to the Iranians in order to arrive at an end to their support for terror and an end to the creation of nuclear weapons. I believe that we need to offer Iran improved relations with the international community. If they do not respond to that, we must continue to intensify the sanctions.

Granted, the topic of Iran is a conundrum for most politicians. No one has what I would consider a good solution—and that’s mainly because there is none. Here Obama tries to give a balanced answer, and allay fears that he is dangerously naive about Iran and far too reliant on “mere talk” in dealing with the country. His first sentence makes that clear.

But what does he actually say after that? Continue reading →