It is fascinating, although not at all surprising, that the candidates for president almost never discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It’s not like it is some minor foreign policy issue. Ask Americans to name two or three of the most pressing foreign policy issues and they are bound to mention the Arab-Israeli conflict. How could they not? After Iraq, there is no other that is so extensively covered by the media nor is there another one of interest to as many voters.

Nonetheless, the candidates’ silence on the issue is rather profound. Other than mouthing the usual pieties about standing with Israel, candidates approach the issue with the proverbial ten foot pole.

The reasons for this reticence are obvious. Although most voters, and certainly most voters who care about Israel, favor active diplomacy to end the conflict, the loudest voices on this issue tend to be fervent supporters of the status quo. They are single-issue voters and single-issue donors and, accordingly, they have disproportionate influence despite their decided minority status. (That is the way it works in the current system. Those who vote and make contributions based on a full range of issues do not have anywhere near the clout of those who tell a candidate that their support is tied to the candidate’s stand on one issue and one issue only).

Read more »

It's a dreary Friday in Washington, even drearier because I no longer have Paul Krugman's column to brighten my weekend. I guess brighten is the wrong word. Krugman never made me especially happy. But he did stimulate me and helped me understand the terrible fix America has been in for the last eight years. For a non-economics type like me, Paul Krugman explained it all.

No more.

Today I read his column about John McCain and the health care issue and I started to get the old feeling back. Maybe he would just write about McCain and how ridiculous his "plan" is. Maybe he wouldn't trash Barack Obama.

Maybe I'll be able to finish his column.

No such luck.

Read more »