Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘george-bush’

Clinton-Bush Love Fest at $150K a Pop

Monday, June 1st, 2009

Bill Clinton and George Bush Jr. spoke in Canada yesterday, each earning more than $150K for the gig. Frankly, I can’t imagine anyone possessing enough wisdom to be worth paying such a sum to them for dispensing it. But I guess enough people are star struck that they (or their employer) is prepared to pay a max of $2,500 a pop.

But this interchange between Clinton and Bozo Bush really put the entire proceeding in perspective.  Who needs to hear a friggin’ presidential love fest between these two:

When Mr. Clinton said one of his biggest regrets was the lack of United States action during the mass killings in Rwanda, saying “I have no defense,” Mr. Bush responded, “I think you’re being a little tough on yourself.”

This is the guy responsible for making a mess out of Hurricane Katrina, Iraq, the war on Al Qaeda (including the failure to capture Osama bin Laden), the U.S. Constitution (Abu Graibh, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, waterboarding, military tribunals, NSA warrantess wiretaps), the economic meltdown, among others, and he has the balls to tell Clinton not to fret about Rwanda, and that the killing of 800,000 human beings wasn’t something he should lose any sleep over??

The unmitigated chutzpah!

Bush Had Gog and Magog, Bibi Has Amalek

Monday, May 25th, 2009

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu considers the lifting of the Iranian nuclear threat his life’s mission. Before coming to power, he had mentioned that such an operation might cost thousands of lives, but the price was justified in view of the threat’s severity.

–Aluf Benn, Haaretz

“My job is first and foremost to ensure the future of the state of Israel … the leadership’s job is to eliminate the danger. Who will eliminate it? It is us or no one.”

–Bibi Netanyahu quoted in Haaretz

Recently, Jacques Chirac confirmed that George Bush, in telephone calls leading up the Iraq war, attempted to persuade France to join the coalition of the willing by invoking the Biblical war of Gog and Magog.  While Americans generally knew their president had a evangelical zeal in both his religious beliefs and political stances, even this revelation takes our breath away.  So saith George, the Lord’s avenger:

“This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins”…

Bush had reportedly said to the Palestinian foreign minister that he was on “a mission from God” in launching the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and was receiving commands from the Lord.

We didn’t know just how far gone this man was in his religious fanaticism.

The closest political leader to Bush on today’s political stage is Bibi Netanyahu, as the above Haaretz passages make clear.  In addition, there are Bibi’s references to Iran being Amalek, implying Israel’s duty to smite the mullahs a terrible blow lest they first strike Israel in an nuclear attack.

There is always a question, when considering the words of Israeli politicians, of sincerity and conviction.  Unlike politicians of other western democracies, Israel’s tend to bend and sway with the political winds.  What a politician says on any given day could be annulled or modified on the next day–or even the next hour.  So how much Bibi believes in what he is saying about Iran and how much is political posturing is an open question.

But Aluf Benn credits Bibi with firmly held beliefs as does Jeffrey Goldberg (not that Goldberg is my arbiter of truth by any means).  So we must at least credit some conviction to Bibi.  In doing so, we have to concede that the fervor with which he leads Israel to war against Iran is frightening in the extreme.

We have the example of George Bush to guide us.  He too believed he was on a mission from the Lord to tidy up the Middle East.  What good did such religious fanaticism do him?  What good will similar zeal do Netanyahu?  Aren’t we more likely to end up after an Israeli attack on Iran with the same mess to clean up as the one Bush left in Iraq?

And haven’t we learned any lessons about those who allow religion to drive political decisions?  Think West Bank settlers, the Taliban, the Terry Schiavo debacle, etc.  This ends up giving a bad name to religion AND politics.  I’d much rather enjoy my religion and my politics in separate courses, rather than on the same plate.

So Long George, It Hasn’t Been Good to Know Ye

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

We all need a good laugh right about now, don’t we?  Well then, do yourself the favor of reading some of the best political satire in American journalism.  Here’s Gail Collins’ take on George Bush’s series of fond farewell performances and his farewell address to the American people tonight (who cares?).  Enjoy this:

“Sometimes you misunderestimated me,” Bush told the Washington press corps [at his final press conference]. This is not the first time our president has worried about misunderestimation, so it’s fair to regard this not as a slip of the tongue, but as something the president of the United States thinks is a word. The rhetoric is the one part of the administration we’re surely going to miss. We are about to enter a world in which our commander in chief speaks in full sentences, and I do not know what we’re going to do to divert ourselves on slow days.

And this:

History does suggest that Bush performs best in venues like this one, in which he has a long lead time and virtually no actual role in preparing the words he is about to say. But still, what could he possibly tell the country that would change anybody’s opinion about the last eight years?

“My fellow Americans, before I leave you next week I want you to know that …

A) “Although things have gone very wrong, I take comfort in the realization that Dick Cheney was actually in control from the get-go. Honest, I never even knew half the people in the cabinet.”

B) “Laura and I have come to realize that all things considered, retirement to a mansion in Texas is just totally inappropriate. And so we take our leave to begin a new life as missionaries at a small rescue station in the Gobi desert …”

C) “Surprise! This has all actually been a bad dream. It’s really still November of 2000 and tomorrow Al Gore is going to be elected president.”

Otherwise, the best possible approach for a farewell address might be for Bush to follow his father’s lead and just not give one.

Why is N.Y. Times Reporting Now Bush Stopped Israeli Attack on Iran?

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

David Sanger published a major piece on how the U.S. related to Israel in its dealings with Iran’s nuclear program.  Though the reporter heralds it as a major piece of investigative journalism that spanned 15 months of reporting, much of the information has already been reported elsewhere (though perhaps not as well-sourced).  Sanger’s major “revelation” is that Pres. Bush refused to give Israel authorization to use U.S. weapons and controlled air space that it would need to attack Iran.  This was reported months ago in Haaretz (and by me as well).  Here’s a report about it in the NY Daily News.

Some details the Times reports were not as widely known but could probably be assumed, i.e. that the U.S. was engaging in a covert program to disrupt Iran’s nuclear activity.

Though elements of this passage are also known, they do connect the dots nicely in ways they haven’t quite been connected till now:

Last June, the Israelis conducted an exercise over the Mediterranean Sea that appeared to be a dry run for an attack on the enrichment plant at Natanz. When the exercise was analyzed at the Pentagon, officials concluded that the distances flown almost exactly equaled the distance between Israel and the Iranian nuclear site.

“This really spooked a lot of people,” one White House official said. White House officials discussed the possibility that the Israelis would fly over Iraq without American permission. In that case, would the American military be ordered to shoot them down? If the United States did not interfere to stop an Israeli attack, would the Bush administration be accused of being complicit in it?

Admiral Mullen, traveling to Israel in early July on a previously scheduled trip, questioned Israeli officials about their intentions. His Israeli counterpart, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, argued that an aerial attack could set Iran’s program back by two or three years, according to officials familiar with the exchange. The American estimates at the time were far more conservative.

But the big question as far as I’m concerned is why publish this now?  In one sense, the publication is timed to a book Sanger has written which will come out on Tuesday.  But in another sense, the article seems designed to take pressure off the Bush Administration regarding its effort to end the Gaza crisis.  If Bush can be made to look like a good guy for stopping Israel from bombing Iran, then maybe Americans will give him a break for letting Israel carry out a relatively harmless war on its own border with Gaza.  I don’t think anyone should be letting George Bush and Condi Rice off the hook.  Their conduct during this war has been disgraceful but totally in keeping with past lassitude.

Though Sanger does mention that Robert Gates warned Bush that a U.S. attack might create a regional war with disastrous consequences for U.S. standing and policy in the Muslim world, he does not bring any such analysis to bear in discussing the Israeli plans.  He merely states what Israel hoped to do.  It’d seem to me that if the U.S. was afraid of starting a war if it bombed Iran that Israel doing so would guarantee the possibility.  That should be worth a word or two I’d think.  But according to the article, the major concern raised by U.S. officials regarding an Israeli attack was that the U.S. might have to shoot down Israeli planes if they violated Iraqi air space.

Gaza: ‘The Horror’

Sunday, December 28th, 2008

He cried in a whisper at some image, at some vision—he cried out twice, a cry that was no more than a breath—”The horror! The horror!”

–Joseph Conrad, The Heart of Darkness

One of the dead at Gaza Buriej refugee camp (Yasser Saymeh/AFP-Getty)

One of the dead at Gaza Buriej refugee camp (Yasser Saymeh/AFP-Getty)

Nothing better sums up my own emotions concerning the devastating blow that Israel has inflicted on Gaza in the past 24 hours, than Kurtz’ final words on his death bed as he contemplates the utter disaster that he and his fellow colonialists have inflicted on the Congo.

It is the seventh night of Hanukah, and Sol Salbe tells me that the military operation’s name, Solid Lead (or “Cast Lead”), derives from Chaim Nachman Bialik’s children’s poem, For Hanukah:

Teacher bought a big top for me,
Solid lead, the finest known.
In whose honor, for whose glory?
For Hanukkah alone.

It is just like modern Israel and Zionism to appropriate Jewish history, holiday and tradition to justify its own agenda.  Quite macabre also to think that the IDF has defiled a delightful children’s poem by Bialik in order to convey the power of its onslaught against Hamas (“solid lead”).

Gaza dead removed from site of Israeli strike (Mahmud Hams AFP-Getty)

Gaza dead removed from site of Israeli strike (Mahmud Hams AFP-Getty)

According to Al Jazeera, 271 Gazans are dead (along with one Israeli), nearly 1,000 wounded.  Sol Salbe tells me this is the worst loss of life in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict going back to 1967.  Devastation is everywhere:

…There was a shocking quality to Saturday’s attacks, which began in broad daylight as police cadets were graduating, women were shopping at the outdoor market, and children were emerging from school.

The center of Gaza City was a scene of chaotic horror, with rubble everywhere, sirens wailing, and women shrieking as dozens of mutilated bodies were laid out on the pavement and in the lobby of Shifa Hospital so that family members could identify them. The dead included civilians, including several construction workers and at least two children in school uniforms.

By afternoon, shops were shuttered, funerals began and mourning tents were visible on nearly every major street of this densely populated city.

Phil Weiss quotes an eyewitness report from Safe Joudeh:

…People are going through the dead terrified of recognizing a family member among them. The streets are strewn with their bodies, their arms, legs, feet, some with shoes and some without. The city is in a state of alarm, panic and confusion…hospitals and morgues are backed up and some of the dead are still lying in the streets with their families gathered around them, kissing their faces, holding on to them. Outside the destroyed buildings old men are kneeling on the floor weeping. Their slim hopes of finding their sons still alive vanished after taking one look at what had become of their office buildings.

And even after the dead are identified, doctors are having a hard time gathering the right body parts in order to hand them over to their families. The hospital hallways look like a slaughterhouse. It’s truly worse than any horror movie you could ever imagine. The floor is filled with blood, the injured are propped up against the walls or laid down on the floor side by side with the dead. Doctors are working frantically…

It is an Israeli Shock and Awe (and you remember how that turned out).  Ehud Barak has prepared a veritable 12 course feast of blood, gore, and mayhem for Gaza.  It is Barak’s ultimate political play for the coming elections.  If he wins, then he helps Labor maintain its ever-fainter role in Israeli national politics.  If he fails, then he and Labor sink together.

The Israeli government had seemed to be preparing Israelis for a tactical short-term operation meant to punish Hamas for recent rocket barrages against southern Israel.  But Operation Solid Lead seems anything but that.  It may fall short of the full-scale invasion and reoccupation of Gaza which some had feared, but it won’t fall short by much:

Ehud Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Sky News on Saturday that he would not rule out widening the offensive in the Gaza Strip to include a ground invasion.

“There is a time for calm and a time for fighting, and now the time has come to fight,” he said.

Asked whether Israel would follow up the air strikes with a ground offensive, Barak said, “If boots on the ground will be needed, they will be there.”

“Our intention is to totally change the rules of the game,” he said.

How many times have we heard this delusional thinking before?  Lebanon 1982, Lebanon 2006, countless Gaza operations, and on and on.  And how many times has the IDF changed the rules of the game?  Not once.  It has never eradicated opposition whether in Gaza or Lebanon, and it never will by military means.  In fact, as George Bush discovered in Iraq, instead of eliminating a terrorist threat, by taking the fight to the “enemy” (whether Iraqi or Gazan) you actually create enemies you never had before.

Keep in mind that until today, no Israeli had been killed in the most recent round of rocket attacks going back for the past few weeks.

We see how effective the IAF operation has been so far in its stated aim of ending the missile barrages against Israeli targets: Hamas has ratcheted up its capabilities by striking Ashdod and Ashkelon with longer range missiles than it has used before.  Scores of rockets are raining down on Israeli towns and cities.  We can probably expect more, and perhaps much more, of this to come.  If Israeli troops move into the Strip we can expect not only larger Palestinian casualty counts, but IDF casualties as well.

Khaled Meshal has called from Damascus for a third Intifada.  Even if you attribute this to a grandstanding gesture of a militant desperate to retrieve some sense of honor from the brutal slaughter, you cannot fully discount the rhetoric.  A third Intifada is entirely possible especially if Israel intends to occupy Gaza or continue this operation for any length of time.

I was struck by this statement of bold defiance by Ismail Haniyeh because the images he conveyed of Palestinian leaders suffering death for their people reminded me of an account of Jewish suffering called Eyleh Ezkerah (also known as the Martyrology) and recited on Yom Kippur.  The prayer recounts the martyrdom of such holy rabbinic figures as Rabbi Akiba in similar terms to these:

“We say in all confidence that even if we are hung on the gallows or they make our blood flow in the streets or they tear our bodies apart, we will bow only before God and we will not abandon Palestine…”

Ehud Barak and his fellow Israeli ministers never seem to learn that no matter how many tons of bombs they drop on this tiny scrap of land, they cannot cow Hamas into submission.  The dispute will only end when the issues are negotiated and resolved.  It will never end at the butt of the rifle.  Has it been any different with our own?  Have we been willing to be cowed by the Greeks, Romans, European Crusaders, Spanish Inquisitors, Czars, Nazis, British or any Arab state through our own history?  Then why should we expect things will be different with the Palestinians?

When Joe Biden said during the recent campaign that a foreign leader might seek to “test” Obama in the early days of his presidency, he seemed to be referring to Vladimir Putin.  Who would have thought that it would be the two Ehuds, Barak and Olmert and that they would test Obama EVEN BEFORE assuming the presidency.  Steve Clemons has spoken acutely on this subject:

Part of what is going on today with Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s unleashing of massive Israeli airpower against Hamas [and]…Hamas’s decision to end its “lull”…with Israel, also has a lot to do with testing the U.S. and seeing what the outlines of Obama’s policy will be.

Barack Obama cannot afford to allow his presidency and its foreign policy course to be hijacked by either side in this increasingly blurry dispute. Israel’s actions today just created thousands of aggrieved and vengeful relatives committed to delivering some blowback against Israel.

Hamas, at the same time, overplayed its hand at a fragile time…Its resumption of violence before the Israeli elections and during a time of transition in US politics triggered a devastating response from Israel that significantly undermined its own interests as a potentially responsible steward of a Palestinian state.

The violence we are watching is just yet another installment in the blur of tit-for-tat violence from both sides of this chronic foreign affairs ulcer.

The US — and the incoming Obama administration — must move an agenda forward in Israel-Palestine negotiations that works at levels higher than the perpetrators of this violence.  It’s…time to stop allowing any actors in this drama to hijack the foreign policy machinery of governments trying to push forward a Palestinian state.

America has to get out of the role of “managing” this conflict — and must solve it

So far, Obama has maintain a studied silence while the Bush Administration has unsurprisingly placed the onus on Hamas for the violence.  This virtual rehash of the statements made against Hezbollah during the 2006 Lebanon war is the best that that nitwit could come up with:

…The Bush administration issued blistering criticism of Hamas, saying the group had provoked Israel’s airstrikes on Gaza by firing rockets into southern Israel.

Gordon D. Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said that Hamas…was responsible for the outbreak of violence and called its rocket attacks ”completely unacceptable. These people are nothing but thugs,” he said. “Israel is going to defend its people against terrorists like Hamas.”

In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice…said: “The United States strongly condemns the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and holds Hamas responsible for breaking the cease-fire and for the renewal of violence in Gaza. The cease-fire should be restored immediately. The United States calls on all concerned to address the urgent humanitarian needs of the innocent people of Gaza.”

Of course the ceasefire should be restored immediately. This was Israel’s position till it began bombing Gaza back to the Stone Age. Israel would love to have calm in the south restored while continuing the Gaza siege. In this, Condi is doing nothing but carrying Israel’s water. And calling for attention to the humanitarian needs of Gaza precludes you from paying attention to the political issues at the heart of the humanitarian crisis. In other words, Bushites are calling for band-aids in the middle of a raging epidemic.

Obama will have to take a stance.  This will not do:

Brooke Anderson, a spokeswoman for Mr. Obama, said that while Mr. Obama was monitoring global events, “There is one president at a time.”

He cannot leave this mess to the outgoing Bushites who have made such a mess of it over the past eight years.  Obama’s position must be more flexible, creative and vigorous than Bush’s.  He simply cannot side with Israel and provide nothing for the Palestinians.  I hope he and his advisors realize this.

J Street has made a magnificent statement that attests to its willingness to tackle the truly tough issues in this conflict.  I only wish other American Jewish organizations could be as boldly proactive:

…Real friends of Israel recognize that escalating the conflict will prove counterproductive, igniting further anger in the region and damaging long-term prospects for peace and stability.

Respecting Israel’s right to defend itself, we urge leaders there to recognize that there is no military solution to what is fundamentally a political conflict between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.

Today’s IDF strikes will deepen the cycle of violence in the region. Retaliation is inevitable, though we don’t know how far the violence will spread or how many more Israelis and Palestinians will die and suffer in the days and weeks to come.

We call for immediate, strong diplomatic intervention by the United States…

We urge the incoming Obama administration to lead an early and serious effort to achieve a comprehensive diplomatic resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts.

This is a fundamental American interest as we too stand to suffer as the situation spirals, rage in the region is directed at the United States, and our regional allies are further undermined. Our goals must be a Middle East that moves beyond bloody conflicts, an Israel that is secure and accepted in the region, and an America secured by reducing extremism and enhancing stability. None of these goals are achieved by further escalation.

Even in the heat of battle, as friends and supporters of Israel, we need to remember that only diplomacy and negotiations can end the rockets and terror and bring Israel long-term security and peace.

J Street plans a petition campaign which they will announce tomorrow.

As bloggers blog about Gaza, if they send me their links I’ll include them each day in my own posts so readers can sample a broader discussion of these issues.  What I want to avoid at all costs is the mirage that some in the media saw during the last Lebanon war when several reporters wrote wonderingly about the supposed lack of opposition among liberal bloggers to Israel invasion.  Let American Jewry, Israel and the U.S. media know that there IS Jewish opposition to the Gaza massacre.

Bush’s Green Zone Press Conference: Ready, Aim, Duck!

Monday, December 15th, 2008

I wonder if the Iraqi journalist who threw not one, but both shoes at George Bush had been practising. After all both shoes would’ve hit Bush if he hadn’t ducked. From 12 feet away, that’s a pretty good shot. Bush’s ducking reflex was pretty quick too. If I didn’t know better I’d say he was like one of those old vaudeville performers who knew when the rotten eggs were coming in his performance.

The N.Y. Times reports that his comments in Arabic were rather piquant:

“This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog!” He then threw a shoe at Mr. Bush, who ducked and narrowly avoided it.

As stunned security agents and guards, officials and journalists watched, Mr. Zaidi then threw his other shoe, shouting in Arabic, “This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!”

I wonder if we can have a mini-competition in the comment thread about what you would’ve thrown at Bush if you’d had the chance.  I’ll start with a few suggestions:

1. the book
2. cream pie
3. the baby AND the bath water (sorry for mixing my metaphors)
4. rotten eggs
5. rotten tomatoes

Your suggestions please.

Ever the joker, Bush claimed that the surge was ““one of the greatest successes in the history of the United States military.” Bigger than the Battle of the Bulge or Midway? Bigger than Gettysburg? Bigger than D-Day? Imagine what serious military historians are saying about this. Either Bush has no idea of U.S. military history or he’s a jackass or a two-bit self-serving hack politician. Take your pick.

The N.Y. Times indicates that the Iraqi journalist was roughed up pretty badly after the fact and is still in custody.

Bush’s Wall Street Speech, Channeling Herbert Hoover

Saturday, November 15th, 2008

In the wake of Barack Obama’s election victory, pundits noted that the economic situation was so dire the nearest comparison they could think of in terms of presdiential transition was FDR during the Depression or possibly Abraham Lincoln in the runup to the Civil War.

It seems that George Bush, in his Wall Street speech yesterday, was doing his best not only to guarantee his utter political irrelevance; but his very best Herbert Hoover imitation as well.  Remember, the latter was the well-meaning, genial fellow who simply hadn’t a clue how to handle the worst financial collapse in American history.  He basically did little or nothing and hoped it would simply pass as previous financial panics had.

Here’s what the latter-day Hoover had to say to a Wall Street that has lost its bearings and its moorings:

In a defiant declaration in his waning days as president, Mr. Bush traveled to Wall Street — ground zero for a financial crisis that has spread around the globe — to…deliver an apparent warning to the world’s leaders, and the incoming Obama administration, not to draw the wrong lessons.

Mr. Bush suggested those making arguments for ambitious new forms of regulation…were sorely mistaken.

“The crisis was not a failure of the free-market system, and the answer is not to try to reinvent that system. Free-market capitalism is far more than an economic theory. It is the engine of social mobility, the highway to the American dream.

We must recognize that government intervention is not a cure-all,” Mr. Bush said, adding, “History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, but too much.”

This from a guy who’s just cooked up the largest single government intervention in the U.S. financial system in the country’s history. I never expected George Bush to have much of a sense or irony, but it really helps to have one when you read this speech.  Where is Jonathan Swift when you need him?

Remember Reagan Democrats? Now, There’s Obama Republicans

Monday, October 20th, 2008

Every day brings news of Republicans endorsing Barack Obama. The most recent being Colin Powell and Christopher Buckley, son of the founder of the modern conservative movement. Before that there were former Congressmember Jim Leach, Douglas Kmiec, Bruce Bartlett, Lincoln Chafee and Rita Hauser. All of them were senior members of the Party who served in various previous presidential administrations or Congress.  If these Republicans are willing to publicly renounce their party’s candidate you can imagine how many other party leaders are unwilling to do so but privately will desert McCain to vote for Obama.

There has even been this extraordinary encomium from David Brooks of all people:

…It is easy to sketch out a scenario in which he could be a great president. He would be untroubled by self-destructive demons or indiscipline. With that cool manner, he would see reality unfiltered. He could gather — already has gathered — some of the smartest minds in public policy, and, untroubled by intellectual insecurity, he could give them free rein. Though he is young, it is easy to imagine him at the cabinet table, leading a subtle discussion of some long-term problem.

When a leading Republican columnist is able to write so enthusiastically about a liberal Democratic presidential candidate you know it’s not just that the Republican candidate has failed to put his point across, but that the Democrat has stolen some serious Republican thunder.

Just looking at the election map tells you that Obama is either competitive or winning states he has no right to win: Missouri, North Carolina, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, Virginia, Maine, New Hampshire, Florida, Nevada, North Dakota.  The Real Clear Politics map has him already winning or leaning in states that would give him 286 electoral votes.  Another 97 votes are in toss-up states.  If Obama gets half of these votes it will be an absolute rout.

So the question becomes: are Republicans only renouncing their candidate and the last eight disastrous years, or has Obama really connected with moderate Republicans and independents in the same way that Ronald Reagan did with hawkish Democrats during his years in office?   In addition, have events merely spiraled out of control for the Republicans and in favor of the Democrats with the economic crisis or is Obama’s political platform and strategy genuinely appealing to some Republicans?  The answer is I think a little of both.

When I have written here before urging Obama to govern from the center, readers have objected saying that it is necessary to utterly eradicate all vestiges of previous harmful Republican policies.  And to do so requires a wholesale  housecleaning.  I’m not so sure.  Certainly, the damage must be undone and there will be enough of a Democratic majority in both Houses to do so.  But if Democrats govern as Bush-Cheney-DeLay did using scorched earth policies, then we will only be setting ourselves up for the same fall the Republicans took in 2006 and again this year.

A lasting governing majority for Democrats requires co-opting the Republican moderates and drawing in independents.  The key to Bill Clinton’s success was in doing precisely this.  If we learned any lesson from the 2000 election and its aftermath it is that a “my way or the highway” approach to governing doesn’t work in the long or even medium run.