The Financial Times endorsed Barack Obama. For what it's worth.

Apparently he's trying to put the Onion out of business.

Funny.

So Kristoll thinks McCain should get to carry out more Kristoll-inspired wars, huh? Who would have thought of it.

Thanks, anon (first post) for the heads up about the Financial Times endorsement. For those interested, here it is:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/19c88b7c-0f00-11dd-9646-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

if the click doesn't work
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/19c88b7c-0f00-11dd-9646-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

So why is NYT complaining that the pentagon hires propagandists?

You are speaking truth to power. Amen!

Next year in Tehran.

But does the Pope wear a US flag lapel pin? I mean... did he dodge bullets in Vatican City? Er, is he an elitist. Uhmm...

Bill Kristol would be the FIRST I would hang in the revoltion. He is insufferable.

Slow news day in PA. The lapel pin controversy must have died down.

Well either the fact you should vote for McCain follows logically from what he laid out in the premises or it doesn't. If it follows logically, then we're done. In the other case, it follows illogically.

Now give me a hamburger.

With arugula and olive oil. Hold the mayo.

Bill (the non-comedic Billy) Kristol's column should be stored in an "Oye-ga-Vault." He needs to get a grip on his Matzos-balls.

"her greater experience hasn’t given her anything interesting or distinctive to say" - Kristol on Clinton. Alas, none of his NYTimes opeds have given us anything interesting or distinctive to read.

And the NYT was in the red for the last quarter, not surprising since the evidence from the Kristol hiring was that they do not know what they are doing.

"Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”
-— Josef Goebbels

This just proves that Kristol is objectively pro-Pharaoh.

Michael Bloom wins the thread.

Are you sure you want to get into a pissing match on who writes the most banal posts?

There should be a poll to determine who has been Kristol's dumbest employer: Quayle or NYT?

A couple of centuries from now when the New Zealander walks through the ruins of Washington, those left to judge will say that it was the legacy appointments that caused our downfall.
If it wasn't for Irving, Bill would be running a timeshare boiler room--badly.

I, for one, am happy Kristol is writing for the times, because no matter how bad things seem to me, no matter how far away my goals may seem, I always know I have a shot at getting a column at the New York Times, because if he can do it, anyfuckingbody can do it.

He's the hackiest hack that ever hacked.

Seems to me that McCain's comments are mostly aimed at fanning the flames of a holy war. Yes, I think he won Kristol's vote.

Apparently he's trying to put the Onion out of business.

Or maybe he's just a seder masochist.

Or maybe he's just a seder masochist.

Can only endlessly contemplate the mysteries of creation as when sperm met egg and gave us Kristol; but greater mystery still he is Harvard grad (3yrs) as was Gonzales. Harvard the greater mystery? How to frame the question to fathom the inscrutable: Why are so many people from Harvard with supposedly high IQs absolute cretins? Not to mention Yale. But as Greenwald covers in latest book top tier Repukean babies are swaddled in Repukean nurseries from cradle to grave as in sinecure at Weekly Standard propaganda rag. Speak of which note pants wetting cowardice of NYT re military analysts and NYT frozen in fear re use of "propaganda."

I would say something clever, but I can't think of anything clever to say.

Bill Kristol is surely very original in the selection of his topics. He mostly writes about stuff that nobody else would have thought of.

Kristol Blue Persuasion, anyone?

The McCain family recipe for Napa Cabbage Slaw is a good enough reason to vote for John.

Mellors,

Why are so many people from Harvard with supposedly high IQs absolute cretins?

This question was probably rhetorical but I'll answer it anyway.

At Harvard you've got the "legacies" who are already cretins and gain entrance to Harvard regardless of their merit, and then you've got the others. The others self-select for cretinism because they seek admission in order to ingratiate themselves with the "legacies." Cretins seeking cretins. In many ways this type of inbreeding has the same problems as genetic inbreeding. But America is such a great country we don't really need a meritocracy, do we? We'll do just fine being led by the ne'er do well children of the rich, no?

Interesting choice of words at the end of Kristol's column.

Vote for John McCain because his message shows him to be the "Zionist" candidate.

What, exactly, does that mean? That Obama and Hillary don't believe that Israel should exist? Obviously not.

What it does mean, as Kristol makes clear by his reference to Lexington and Concord(!), is that McCain is the candidate most ready to understand that what the Middle East really needs is more military action by the United States.

I'll second Tripp.
Mrs. T worked for a while in the registrar's office at an Ivy League university, and met plenty of cretins. And they weren't sitting at desks working in the office, either.

Drat.

s/b: "What it does mean, as Kristol makes clear by his reference to Lexington and Concord(!), is that McCain is the candidate who understands that what the Middle East really needs is more military action by the United States."

Good Lord! Have they totally run out of things to write about?

Kristol's latest hackery is as funny as the item from the LA Times Blog in which it's seriously proposed that Obama gave Hillery the finger.

What next? Obama sings praises of our insect overlords?

Allan Lappin, you are too kind.

Can only endlessly contemplate the mysteries of creation as when sperm met egg and gave us Kristol; but greater mystery still he is Harvard grad (3yrs) as was Gonzales. Harvard the greater mystery? How to frame the question to fathom the inscrutable: Why are so many people from Harvard with supposedly high IQs absolute cretins?

To my great shame, we also have the war criminal John Yoo ('89) to our discredit.

Somebody needs to show this column to the next debate host so they have some material to work with.

"Senator Obama, the intern who wrote your Passover message did not mention sacrfice. Does he love America as much as you do?"

The nice thing in Kristol's column is how concisely it wraps up the conservative ideology. Its idea of values is not about finding solidarity with the oppressed or inculating such lessons into one's children. It's about recognizing the unalterable division of the world into pure good and evil.

Alas, the Jews were slow to learn such lessons, which is why the Lord had to make the separation from Egypt such a slow process, including so many repeated pleas to the Pharaoh, and why they then still had to wander for 40 years. Worse, when they finally got a kingdom, Saul and David didn't nuke Egypt, and you see how things went downhill from there.

As for me, I welcome our new insect overlords.

The American Jewish population is 1.7%.

1.7%.

Why is it, then, that to a casual observer of "the U.S scene", they appear to be a majority - or at the very least - to have parity with the general population of non-Jewish Americans?

But McCain doesn't know if it was the Egyptians, the Assyrians or the Babylonians who were enslaving the Jews.

Apparently he's trying to put the Onion out of business.

Except the Onion has a lot more credibility.

This column takes the cake, even for Kristol.

Did Lieberman also describe Passover to McCain, like when he said Purim was the "Jewish Halloween?" It would certainly explain the odd McCain statement that began "And if the Angel of Death sees his shadow..."

Careful what you say about Kristol, or Leon Wieseltier will denounce you in print as an avatar of Julius Streicher.

R. Porrofatto--
You make Passover sound like the Jewish Groundhog Day.

dotcommuter, there are two main reasons. First, it comes out of the election college dynamics, and how the population in certain key states can magnify the impact significantly. For example, there's about the same relative percentage of Cubans, but we've had a 50 year boycott against Cuba. However pointless, the boycott is still vital to a very active set of voters. Every presidential candidate must kowtow on the Cuba question, or risk losing Florida forever. With issues concerning Israel, the same magnifying effect is true, and they have an extremely effective lobby.

In addition, you are incorrect to focus on the percentage of Jews in the US as an explanation for any Israel-based policy. Zionist issues are important to a very large percentage of Americans, especially the part of the population that believes that Israel is where Armageddon will be fought. That's some 20-30% of the US, and much higher in certain states.

There's literally no advantage for a politician to be against Israel in any national election. Some experienced politicians like George H.W. Bush (41) were able to push back Israel on certain specific issues like the settlers, but the broad issue of support is not challengeable. It's a sure loser.