pageok
pageok
pageok
An Odd Definition of "Partisan":

Let me get this straight: if the only prominent American politician to attend a rally against Iran is Hillary Clinton, the rally is a neutral, nonpartisan event. If Hillary Clinton AND Sarah Palin attend, then the rally becomes a partisan political event, and Clinton couldn't possibly agree to appear. Very, very strange.

UPDATE: A reader comments: What's the difference between [Malcolm] Hoenlein [who invited Palin, and then disinvited her under pressure from Democratic activists] and Ahmadinejad?

Ahmadinejad isn't intimidated by the Democrats.

taney71:
Can someone explain why attending was bad for Hillary?
9.19.2008 5:30pm
Tatil:
Come on now, at this hysterical media environment there would loads of commentary about how Hillary is throwing veiled support behind Republicans in the hope of winning the presidency four years from now. That's probably why she did not want to attend and without her only a Republican big wig would be attending, so it would really look like a partisan event. If somehow there were a few more big names attending from both parties, this "delicate" situation would not come up. Of course, you are smart enough to figure this out, but I guess making snarky comments is more fun...
9.19.2008 5:30pm
Sigh:
That you cannot see the difference says more about you than Hillary.

There is a difference between politicians who are not running for anything attending an event and politicians who are currently in the middle of the most-watched election in decades attending an event.

There are also a number of other non-trivial differences between Hillary attending this, and Palin doing so. Can you really not identify any?
9.19.2008 5:32pm
Dixie Yid (mail) (www):
I had the exact same reaction! Because people of both political parties are attending an event, that makes it partisan?! Rediculous.

And Tatil, David wasn't talking about whether or not Hillary should have gone to the event. He was talking about ger gall in calling an event to which both Rebpublicans and Democrats are invited to "Partisan."

-Dixie Yid
9.19.2008 5:35pm
Mike& (mail):
There is a difference between politicians who are not running for anything attending an event and politicians who are currently in the middle of the most-watched election in decades attending an event.

So unless someone is running for office, he or she cannot be partisan? Um.... Okay.
9.19.2008 5:36pm
Agree with Sigh:
David - Can you really not see the substantive difference between a U.S. Senator attending a rally in her state organized by long-time supporters and the same rally being attended by the governor from nearly the most distant state who has no history at all with the organizers? Or is this merely outrage for outrage's sake? Staring to sound a little Coulter-like, perhaps...
9.19.2008 5:36pm
Sigh:
Mike&writes "So unless someone is running for office, he or she cannot be partisan? Um.... Okay."

It is always interesting to see how one's own argument looks through a very partisan lens. Thank you.
9.19.2008 5:41pm
neurodoc:
Come on now, at this hysterical media environment there would loads of commentary about how Hillary is throwing veiled support behind Republicans in the hope of winning the presidency four years from now...Of course, you are smart enough to figure this out, but I guess making snarky comments is more fun...
Thank you for crediting us with being smart. Many of us, though, do not believe it is for the reason you speculate (i.e., to avoid any appearance that she was "throwing veiled support behind Republicans in the hope of winning the presidency four years from now"). Rather, we believe it is to avoid sharing the limelight with Palin, whether in the presence of other politicos of either party or not. (Did an invitation go out to Schumer and Patterson, as well as members of the NY Congressional delegation too? Why would Hillary ever have been the only politician invited to appear?)
9.19.2008 5:43pm
Old33 (mail):
Can someone explain why attending was bad for Hillary?

Because the media would have turned the rally into a Hillary Clinton vs. Sarah Palin moment. Which would not only detract from the event, but would detract from the Obama campaign's message.
9.19.2008 5:45pm
PersonFromPorlock:
Sigh: The Clintons (either one) are always running.
9.19.2008 5:47pm
PLR:
Oh dear. I would love to comment, but my patience ran out a day or so ago on topics that include any word spelled p-a-l-i-n.

But since I'm here, I cannot help being impressed by just much care (and time) DB has been taking to polish his topic about Tzipi Livni's victory in the primary. Unless I missed it, but I don't think so...
9.19.2008 5:47pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
Methinks the point was to raise a fuss to deny Palin a prominent forum to speak to issues of special concern to Jewish voter, and it seems to have succeeded, as Palin has now been disinvited.
9.19.2008 5:47pm
neurodoc:
...the substantive difference between a U.S. Senator attending a rally in her state organized by long-time supporters and the same rally being attended by the governor from nearly the most distant state who has no history at all with the organizers?
Oh, it's because Hillary is the junior senator from NY, it's being held in NY, and some of Hillary's supporters are among the organizers of this rally, whereas Palin is a "governor from nearly the most distant state who has history at will with the organizers." Gee, I had thought the rally was not nearly that parochial a matter, but rather one aimed at an issue of grave international concern, that is Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
9.19.2008 5:49pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
PLR, for my normal billing rate of $450 an hour, I'd be glad to "polish" a post on whatever topic suits your fancy.
9.19.2008 5:49pm
Brett:
There is a difference between politicians who are not running for anything attending an event and politicians who are currently in the middle of the most-watched election in decades attending an event.


Yes, there is. But those differences do not magically make the event "partisan" or "political". Which was David's point.

Beg, borrow, or steal a clue, please.
9.19.2008 5:52pm
pwedza (mail):
Right Bernstein..

Its all a BIG conspiracy..

Non-Jewish Americans are completely unconcerned about Iran.
9.19.2008 5:54pm
neurodoc:
Which would not only detract from the event, but would detract from the Obama campaign's message.
The more attention that would be drawn to the event by just about any means, the better. Not about detracting from the event. And how do you imagine it would "detract from the Obama campaign's message," whatever that might be, since Obama is against Iran getting nuclear weapons, isn't he? It's about detracting from Hillary qua Hillary, who believes it was her destiny to be the Dems nominee and the first woman POTUS.
9.19.2008 5:56pm
great unknown (mail):
Last year, candidate Clinton attended. This year, Biden was invited and declined. The rumors one hears in New York claim that Hillary was willing to attend, but was asked not to by Obama, who needs to hold on to his strong lead among Muslims. Of course, that's just a rumor.

Actually, Obama should have attended: he would have had an opportunity to speak with Ahmadinejad with no preconditions, as per his declared desire.

Agree with Sigh: this rally was supposed to represent a national concensus. It's an unfortunate reality, however, that the UN is in New York. This does not make the issue proprietary for the local politicians.

Prediction: this decision will cost the rally a significant number of attendees, and attract nobody.

What's the difference between Hoenlein and Ahmadinejad?
Ahmadinejad isn't intimidated by the Democrats.
9.19.2008 5:56pm
pwedza (mail):
Bernie, you make a lot of dough..

Maybe you can finance a war with Iran.

Most of America is wondering if they will have any money in the bank next week. Maybe we should save the McPalin-style, rabid tough talk until we know whether we can finance yet another conflict.
9.19.2008 5:58pm
neurodoc:
What's the difference between Hoenlein and Ahmadinejad? Ahmadinejad isn't intimidated by the Democrats.
Would amend that slightly to, "isn't intimidated by the Democrats and the J Street crowd."
9.19.2008 5:59pm
davidbernstein (mail):
Pwedza, the event is sponsored by various Jewish organizations, the vast majority of the attendees will be Jewish, and it's been widely reported that Jewish Democratic activists pressured the organizaers to disinvite Palin. If that sounds like a "conspiracy" to you, so be it, but more likely you are commenting without knowing what you are talking about.
9.19.2008 6:04pm
Kazinski:
Hillary may have had a tiny scintilla of a point because she isn't running for anything this year, but wasn't Biden supposed to attend also? If Hillary said "I won't attend a rally against Iran if Obama, McCain, Biden or Palin attend", well then at least she would be consistent.

We'll have to check the attendance list to make sure their aren't any Congressional, state assembly or senate candidates either. Or if they're all democratic will that make it non-partisan?
9.19.2008 6:11pm
MQuinn:
Prof Bernstein said:

Methinks the point was to raise a fuss to deny Palin a prominent forum to speak to issues of special concern to Jewish voter, and it seems to have succeeded, as Palin has now been disinvited.

The first thing that went through my head when I read this -- Occam's Razor! Your statement assumes that campaign politics are involved in this event, that the Dems (or at least Clinton) decided to make a political play by excluding Palin, and the the political play was designed primarily to prevent Palin from speaking at a prominent forum on issues of importance to Jewish voters. It seems to me that the simpler and more likely explanation is that this event is designed to address important international issues, and that the concurrent presence of Clinton and Palin would transform the event into a political spectacle.

Prof Bernstein also said:

for my normal billing rate of $450 an hour, I'd be glad to "polish" a post on whatever topic suits your fancy

Well played! :)
9.19.2008 6:13pm
PLR:
Prof Bernstein also said: for my normal billing rate of $450 an hour, I'd be glad to "polish" a post on whatever topic suits your fancy
Well played! :)

Must agree. Curse those east coast billing rates!
9.19.2008 6:21pm
Sigh:
Brett writes, "Yes, there is. But those differences do not magically make the event 'partisan' or 'political'. Which was David's point."

Magically? No. But it does make the event more partisan. Or, at a minimum, it is a reasonable argument. It is not "very, very strange."
9.19.2008 6:47pm
ejo:
the organizations must not be that interested in the actual focus of the protest, Iran and its present genocidal cheerleader. wouldn't attracting a buzz be a good thing-now, we know that Democratic politics is more important than shining a light on the psychopath.
9.19.2008 6:52pm
Deoxy (mail):
Sigh, etc.

You can make all the points you like about whether Hillary had good reasons not to attend (and she may well have), but using "non-partisan" to MEAN "partisan" is still a load of crap (to put it politely), and that's what has been done here.

Hillary complained that having someone of the other party there would make the event "partisan". Maybe she meant Palin specifically (hard to know), but in any case, she could have certainly complained about many things (that it would be "polarizing", or take the focus off of the issue and back to politics, or whatever), but she didn't.

Her actual complaint, "I thought this would be nonpartisan" (in reference to Palin) is the same thing as saying that having Palin there makes it a partisan event.

Having only members of one party there makes it partisan. Having members from both parties there makes it "nonpartisan" (even if there is some ranking between them). The original post is spot on.
9.19.2008 6:59pm
TruePath (mail) (www):
If Hillary attended it would have still been about the event and she would have just attracted attention. If Palin attended it would have become a McCain-Palin campaign rally.

I mean there is every difference in the world between the crowds, attention and motivations of a former candidate and a current one.
9.19.2008 7:05pm
TruePath (mail) (www):
Also the obvious reason that Hillary doesn't want to appear on the same stage with Palin is that it would be picked up in the media and spun as the female candidates appearing together on the same stage and it might be seen as giving legitimacy to Palin as taking up some kind of feminist torch from Hillary.
9.19.2008 7:09pm
JB:
it would be picked up in the media and spun as the female candidates appearing together on the same stage

This is the same media that's been directly attacking Palin?

I'm having a hard time keeping the direction the media is supposed to be biased in straight.
9.19.2008 7:30pm
Sagar:
What do the Jewish readers think of the event sponsors' behavior - does it help their cause or hurt it?
9.19.2008 7:43pm
m. croche (mail):
I'm not sure what folks expect La Palin to say on the subject. Iran doesn't border Alaska, after all.
9.19.2008 7:49pm
That's Stupid! (mail):
Will anyone pay any attention to this demonstration now? They could have stood pat and had every camera on the east coast watching. Now they may be lucky to get reaction interviews from McCain's campaign, and some pandering from talking heads for Obama.

Iran apparently has shadowboxing both Democrats and critics down pat. No wonder that, among arabs, persians are considered slippery.
9.19.2008 7:49pm
Sigh:
Deoxy wrote, "Her actual complaint, "I thought this would be nonpartisan" (in reference to Palin) is the same thing as saying that having Palin there makes it a partisan event.

Having only members of one party there makes it partisan. Having members from both parties there makes it "nonpartisan" (even if there is some ranking between them). The original post is spot on."

This is too conclusory. I and others have provided reasons for why adding Palin makes it more partisan. In DB's post, and in yours, you make no argument--you provide no reasons.
9.19.2008 7:52pm
neurodoc:
MQuinn: "Occam's Razor! Your statement assumes that campaign politics are involved in this event...It seems to me that the simpler and more likely explanation is that this event is designed to address important international issues, and that the concurrent presence of Clinton and Palin would transform the event into a political spectacle."

That's far too dull to be Occam's razor. Of course the event was not organized to serve partisan ends, rather to address important international issues, namely Iran's threat to go nuclear. But it would not detract in the least if the event got more attention because both Hillary and Sarah were there. The story that Hillary isn't going to show up because she doesn't want to "transform the event into a political spectacle" is laughable. When, if ever, does Hillary show up someplace and it isn't political in nature? Maybe to her daughter's college graduation, at her own college reunion, or a rare few occasions like those, but otherwise it is pretty much 24/7 political. Ironically enough, if she doesn't show up this time, that will be political!
9.19.2008 7:54pm
neurodoc:
TruePath: "Also the obvious reason that Hillary doesn't want to appear on the same stage with Palin is that it would be picked up in the media and spun as the female candidates appearing together on the same stage and it might be seen as giving legitimacy to Palin as taking up some kind of feminist torch from Hillary."Right, that is the obvious reason. And it makes disingenuous the expressed concern about it becoming a "partisan political event."

Was it a "partisan political event" when Obama and McCain appeared together on 9/11? That was candidate and candidate, whereas this would be candidate and non-candidate, a consequential difference? It somehow matters that Palin is the GOP's VP candidate and Clinton tried for, but did not get the Dem's nomination for president, making her only a sitting senator at this time?
9.19.2008 8:01pm
one of many:

Was it a "partisan political event" when Obama and McCain appeared together on 9/11? That was candidate and candidate, whereas this would be candidate and non-candidate, a consequential difference? It somehow matters that Palin is the GOP's VP candidate and Clinton tried for, but did not get the Dem's nomination for president, making her only a sitting senator at this time?

No it wasn't however a partisan political event, it was a bipartisan presidentia lcampaign event. you are confusing two different concepts. Partisan is not about the US election but about the parties themselves. Clinton could have legitimately complained that Palin would have turned the event into a campaign event, but that's different than a partisan one. If we extend this inequality theory any action Bush either opposes or approves is a partisan action since he is president and no one else is, so if 30 democrat and 28 republican senators join in an action it is not non-partisan (bi-partisan?), but partisan in opposition to the policy held by the president. It's partisan if one party is represented, it is bi-partisan or non-partisan if both major parties are represented. And yes, bipartisan is not the same as non-partisan although in the US system many bi-partisan things are also non-partisan.
9.19.2008 8:29pm
one of many:
Oh and I am sure it was just a poor word choice on Clinton's part and what she really intended to say was that including a VP canidate would make the event a campaign event, detracting from it's real focus.
9.19.2008 8:32pm
KWC (mail):
David:

Since you don't get it, I'll explain. While "partisan" is perhaps not the most appropriate word, it's clear that Hillary was saying that she wasn't willing to participate in the event because it would be a political campaign event, not a true event.

Also, frankly, it's insulting to have Hillary put as an "equal" guest at an event with Sarah Palin. It just cheapens the whole thing.
9.19.2008 8:37pm
davidbernstein (mail):
Hillary is a second-term Senator and failed presidential candidate, Palin is the most popular governor in America and may be V.P. in a few months. If anyone is cheapened, it's Palin for suggesting she's the equivalent of Clinton, not the other way around! I'm sure Clinton doesn't feel that way, but objectively, Palin at this point is a more successful politician than she.
9.19.2008 8:54pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Having only members of one party there makes it partisan. Having members from both parties there makes it "nonpartisan" (even if there is some ranking between them). The original post is spot on.
Deoxy, while I agree with everything else you write, you hit on a pet peeve of mine with this statement. Having members from "both" parties makes it bipartisan, not non-partisan.
9.19.2008 8:57pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
This is too conclusory. I and others have provided reasons for why adding Palin makes it more partisan. In DB's post, and in yours, you make no argument--you provide no reasons.
No, you haven't. What you've done is show that you don't know what the word "partisan" means.

What you seem to mean is that it would make it more of a domestic political event. But that's not at all synonymous with "partisan."
9.19.2008 9:00pm
ChrisIowa (mail):

Having members from both parties there makes it "nonpartisan" (even if there is some ranking between them).


Only if everyone behaves themselves.
9.19.2008 9:07pm
MQuinn:

Prof Bernstein: Methinks the point was to raise a fuss to deny Palin a prominent forum to speak to issues of special concern to Jewish voter, and it seems to have succeeded, as Palin has now been disinvited.

MQuinn: Occam's Razor! Your statement assumes that campaign politics are involved in this event...It seems to me that the simpler and more likely explanation is that this event is designed to address important international issues, and that the concurrent presence of Clinton and Palin would transform the event into a political spectacle."

neurodoc: Of course the event was not organized to serve partisan ends, rather to address important international issues, namely Iran's threat to go nuclear. But it would not detract in the least if the event got more attention because both Hillary and Sarah were there. The story that Hillary isn't going to show up because she doesn't want to "transform the event into a political spectacle" is laughable. When, if ever, does Hillary show up someplace and it isn't political in nature?

neurodoc, you made my point for me. Occam's Razor holds that the position with the fewest assumptions is usually the right position. My post was in response to Bernstein's suggestion that Palin's withdrawal resulted from a political ploy to block Palin from addressing issues of importance to Jewish voters. You began your attack by acknowledging the foundation of my argument -- the event is not partisan in nature. This fact is what forced Bernstein to make several assumptions in order to reach his ultimate conclusion. My theory is simpler, in part, b/c it is consistent with your concession. Thus, I have made far fewer assumptions in my theory, and thus Occam's Razor would prefer my argument.

Your critique of Clinton also misses the mark. First, you fail to grasp that, if malicious politics is at work here, the culprit it probably the Obama campaign or the Dem party in general, not Clinton. Given this fact, your suggestion that Clinton would never miss a chance to score political points is irrelevant b/c Clinton's motives are not the issue. Also, even if you are right that Clinton's motives are the issue, you have simply stated the bare, unsubstantiated suggestion that Clinton attends such events for political ambition as opposed to a concern over Iran.

Moreover, you assert that Clinton wouldn't show up somewhere unless it is "political in nature." Well, that may be, but "political in nature" isn't the issue, because no one is suggesting that Clinton initially backed out due to the politicization of the event. Instead, the issue is partisanship and the state of being a political spectacle.
9.19.2008 9:13pm
MQuinn:
Deoxy said:

Having members from both parties there makes it "nonpartisan"

No, actually it makes the event bipartisan, not nonpartisan. In fact, your whole post stems from your misunderstanding of the distinction b/t "bipartisan" and "nonpartisan." See below analysis...

Prof Bernstein said (sarcastically):

Let me get this straight: if the only prominent American politician to attend a rally against Iran is Hillary Clinton, the rally is a neutral, nonpartisan event. If Hillary Clinton AND Sarah Palin attend, then the rally becomes a partisan political event

To be partisan is to adhere firmly to a party. Yes, Clinton adheres firmly to the Dem party, but her presence at the event does not make the event itself partisan. In fact, the event will be nonpartisan if she attends (& Palin does not) b/c the event itself will not adhere to any certain party. However, if Palin attends, then the event will involve two parties, which is the definition of bipartisan. Thus, Clinton's statement was accurate.
9.19.2008 9:40pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

So unless someone is running for office, he or she cannot be partisan?

Too many meanings for partisan to parse this properly. Palin's appearance would swamp the nonpartisan nature of the rally. Hillary didn't want to appear on the same platform as Palin. Palin's running for Vice President. Palin's appearance at the rally would turn it suddenly into a campaign event. Palin would speak and work the crowd. Obama would be criticized. In contrast, Hillary is not running for anything, and could make a nonpartisan speech.
9.19.2008 10:08pm
neurodoc:
Suppose this had been a rally in New York to call for the UN to do more in Darfur. How many think Hillary would have pulled out if the GOP candidate for VP announced she would be coming to that event? I don't think she would have.

It strikes me as funny in a way that Hillary declined to show up if Palin was going to be there. Not a strong, confident move on her part. Is Hillary's afraid that Palin will undermine her as the political hope of women?

What isn't funny about it all is that the J Streeters pressured the event organizers to disinvite Palin. Are they one and the same with the National Jewish Democratic Coalition, an unabashedly partisan group in the same way that the Republican Jewish Coalition is one of opposite polarity?
9.19.2008 10:19pm
Jack Okie (mail):
I don't know why I keep dropping by here - morbid fascination, I guess. Did it occur to you "Palin attending makes it partisan" folks that having prominent members of both parties attend the rally would show Ahmadinejad we are united in defense of Israel? But why worry about an existential threat to Israel when we can parse, split hairs and otherwise have a jolly old time rooting around in the minutiae.

Thank God I resisted the impulse long ago that I might want to be a lawyer.
9.19.2008 10:32pm
John Burgess (mail) (www):
Someone was afraid of catching cooties. That all there was too it. Single slice by Occam's Razor.
9.19.2008 10:37pm
LM (mail):
Hillary did one joint appearance with Palin and she didn't come off looking very good.
9.19.2008 10:43pm
Norman Bates (mail):
Democrats are drawn to attack Palin at every opportunity like night-flying insects are drawn to auto headlights: The fatal attractions end similarly. The insects are pulped and every spiteful anti-Palin hissy fit draws a few hundred more undecided voters into the McCain/Palin camp.
9.19.2008 10:44pm
Derrick Dominitz (mail) (www):
Palin does seem to be a rubber wall right now. She's there. You can't ignore her. She's in your way. But no matter how you go at her, it bounces off and makes her look good. I think the only way out right now is spot-on satire . . . And the coming debates. But until the debates, we have to get at her personality cult. For example . . .

I discovered this one this afternoon at work and started putting in names. I really do think that Sarah Palin might have used it to come up with Track, Trig, Willow, etc. Or maybe she watched too many Val Kilmer movies, beat too many seals to death, and drilled too much oil.

It's really simple. You enter a name, and out pops a translation . . . it's as if you were born to Sarah Palin herself.

George Bush = Open Aircraft Palin

John McCain = Steam Fangs Palin

Barack Obama = Tarp Lazer Palin

Talkingpointsmemo = Pump Bust Palin

You get the picture. http://www.politsk.com
9.20.2008 12:10am
Floridan:
DB: ". . .to deny Palin a prominent forum to speak to issues . . ."

Why doesn't she go on Meet the Press? -- that's pretty prominent and they'll probably give her the whole hour.
9.20.2008 12:23am
LN (mail):
When will the press begin to allow Palin to address them directly? It's getting to be ridiculous.
9.20.2008 12:44am
Smokey:
TruePath:
"If Hillary attended it would have still been about the event and she would have just attracted attention. If Palin attended it would have become a McCain-Palin campaign rally."
Huh?? Hillary = Above It All; Palin = "rally"?

Get your talking points straight.
9.20.2008 12:50am
Justin (mail):
"When will the pressMcCain begin to allow Palin to address them directly? It's getting to be ridiculous."

Fixed your post.

DB,

I don't get it. I know the Commenter is being puerile, immature, and making a "point" that nobody who has a double digit IQ actually think is true, but to single the person out for ridicule in the .....wait, are you actually endorsing that comment???????????
9.20.2008 3:46am
Russ (mail):
That we can't even send a united message that a nuclear Iran is a bad thing is troubling.

Is it going to take them setting off a nuke in Tel Aviv before we can say they're the bad guys and not worry about TV appearances?
9.20.2008 4:09am
bikeguy (mail):
Watching the lengths liberal commenters will go to to deny the obvious is amusing. And instructive. Unfortunately, you cannot polish a ...
9.20.2008 9:18am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Russ. A nuke in Tel Aviv won't change many minds.
Earlier this year, Kevin Drum asked himself publicly--or published his thinking, more accurately--why he didn't reproach Iran for things like hanging gays. He answered himself that, although the Teheran represents all he loathes, to say so would make George Bush look good. So he will keep his mouth shut.
Drum is widely considered moderately liberal, not a nutcase.
A nuke in Tel Aviv would make Iran look bad and thus George Bush look good so a nuke in Tel Aviv cannot be allowed to be important.

And, as Rush Limbaugh said, everybody knows Palin's the hottest ticket in town. Doesn't matter who you are; if you attend the same event, you will--pun coming up--pale in comparison.
9.20.2008 10:36am
L.Jay (mail):
Fools are caught up in trite political games while supposedly prominent presidents of Major Jewish Organizations allow themselves to be used to the detriment of Israel's potential survival. It has been said some "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" Were they talking about prominent American Jews so caught up in domestic politics they deny, even disrespect, one of the potentially most influential friends Israel could hope to have? As a Jewish American I extend my sincere apologies to Governor Palin for the poor manners of some of our "leaders".
9.20.2008 11:50am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Newer reports indicate congressional dems threatened the groups' tax-exempt status as a lever to get them to disinvite Palin.
Presuming for the moment that's true, how many think it's a good way to operate?
Now, if it were Biden being disinvited by repub pressure, how many would think it a good way to operate?
Thought so.
9.20.2008 1:14pm
Moneyrunner43 (www):
Jack Okie (mail):

I don't know why I keep dropping by here - morbid fascination, I guess. Did it occur to you "Palin attending makes it partisan" folks that having prominent members of both parties attend the rally would show Ahmadinejad we are united in defense of Israel? But why worry about an existential threat to Israel when we can parse, split hairs and otherwise have a jolly old time rooting around in the minutiae.

Thank God I resisted the impulse long ago that I might want to be a lawyer.

Jack, great comment. I drop by here and the term "morbid fascination" strikes me as appropriate. Mind if I borrow it? Thanks.

When I was in High School, ages ago, the career tests I took said I should be a lawyer. Thank God I could not afford law school.
9.20.2008 2:48pm
Moneyrunner43 (www):
Richard Aubrey,

Newer reports indicate congressional dems threatened the groups' tax-exempt status as a lever to get them to disinvite Palin.


Exactly so. Democrats threaten to kneecap Jewish nonprofits
9.20.2008 2:51pm
MikeS (mail):
Is Clinton currently running for office?
9.20.2008 2:56pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):
Biden was invited too. Was either invitation conditional on both accepting? Doubtful. Then, Palin should not have been disinvited. That is very rude.

If I invite A and B and only B accepts, do I dis-invite B? If so, does not that say that A is more important to me?

Does anyone think that if Biden accepted and Palin declined, Biden would have been dis-invited?
9.20.2008 3:21pm
wfjag:

UPDATE: A reader comments: What's the difference between [Malcolm] Hoenlein [who invited Palin, and then disinvited her under pressure from Democratic activists] and Ahmadinejad?

Ahmadinejad isn't intimidated by the Democrats.

But will Ahmadinejad endorse re-establishing a ROTC progrsm at Columbia?

(No stranger a comment than "There ain't no gays in Iran." You always have to wonder what pronoucements he'll make. It's always interesting watching a power-mad publicity hound who is close to having nukes and a missile capable of reaching orbit.)
9.20.2008 4:17pm
Federal Dog:
"Because the media would have turned the rally into a Hillary Clinton vs. Sarah Palin moment."


More importantly, Sarah would have been the center of attention, which is why Hillary freaked out and suddenly refused to participate.
9.20.2008 5:25pm
AndrewK (mail):
I was mystified by her rationale as well.
9.20.2008 6:29pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Well, Hillary's rationale didn't need to mystify anybody. She simply couldn't get an instant's attention if Palin was there. Smart move to duck.
More interesting is the thuggish behavior of the congressional dems--and the continuing propensity of Jews to vote for them.
9.20.2008 7:46pm
Milhouse (www):
I had been planning to attend this rally, back when it was just Hillary. Not that I was going for her, but for the cause. Then Palin got invited, and I was thrilled; now I could support the cause and have something to look forward to. But now that the organisers have slapped Palin in the face by withdrawing their invitation, and voluntarily forgone the publicity that she would have attracted (even without Hillary) and the extra numbers that she would have drawn, they've shown how little they care about the success of the event; so why should I care more than they do? If they can do without the people and publicity that Palin would have brought, they can do without me too. I'm not going to bother going.
9.21.2008 12:45am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Milhouse.
Don't take it as a slap in the face from the organizers. They had no choice.
9.21.2008 10:35am
neurodoc:
The coda to this thread is to be found at:

http://www.jstreet.org/
9.21.2008 1:39pm
Smokey:
MikeS:
Is Clinton currently running for office?
Yes, as always.
9.21.2008 9:44pm
elim:
obviously, the groups have decided that Iran isn't really such a threat, after all. why else would they want to attract less rather then more attention to the rally-I read the coda cited. perhaps they could just start a jewish singles group instead of faking concern over Iran.
9.21.2008 10:36pm