What the Israelis will accept is that the Palestinians should be driven out of all the lands that the Israelis have occupied AND the other lands that they, the Israelis have decided are theirs...

...let them (the Palestinians) wander the world for the next 2000-odd years...

...when they come back in about 2000 years or so, then the righteous Israelis may consider giving them some candy for being such good children, maybe they will even part with a meal or two, before they, the Palestinians are sent out to wander the world for another 2000 years...

(Somehow, I for one don't see the Palestinians as being willing to accept this particular brand of Israeli justice).

According to the Israeli and EVERY** US administration's way of thinking the Israeli government is entirely within its rights in externing Norman Finkelstein: what on earth does this 'free debate' have to do with occupied land?

"Free debate is just gas but lands belonging to others that we've managed to occupy is better far than gold!"

**every: Here is something that Republicans and Democrats entirely agree on! Israel and its interests are sacred for now and forever.

--GSC

--Then which are the groups of voters he absolutely must have in the bag in order to win the election?

-- Which are the groups Obama's campaign need not even consider, for varius reasons...(e.g. neo-cons; red-neck whites;...)

-- Which are the groups the Obama campaign should spend its maximum energies on? (Wavering whites? The youth vote?....)

-- Should Obama even try to get Hillary as his VEEP? (Or should that be someone else?) What are the benefits each way?

-- Specifically what are the things that Obama supporters should do to: a) convince people to vote the Obama ticket? b) get the vote actually out in November? c) ensure the Repugnant-Rovian dirty tricks will not sway potential Obama voters?

There are probably hundreds of such questions to be asked and reasonably answered in order to arrive at a reasonable result in November. Are those questions being properly answered?

(Are they even being properly asked?

To my mind - as an outsider - No, No, No, No, No, No, NO!!! [and so on])

Remember how, pre-November 2004, Kerry supporters often felt they had it in the bag... but then it turned out they did NOT.

Remember the situation then: GW Bush a proven, shameless liar to US citizens; a proven liar to the US Congress; a total disaster as a leader; as a leader, he had brought the US to its nadir as a world power, to its lowest pass in international opinion; he was in fact a War Criminal - US citizens were being led by a War Criminal (and they still are being led by a War Criminal)!!

GW Bush and his criminal Gang should have been totally wiped out -- by a HUGE margin! BUT still he managed to win!! (Whether GW Bush won 2004 'honestly' or not is scarcely the issue: he should have been totally wiped out, once and for all. But yet the results were that Kerry-Edwards decided not to challenge - which meant that GW Bush had, in effect, won. No gainsaying that).

So, now is the time for US Democratic voters to make sure the same sorry tale of 2004 is not repeated.

For some useful tools that can help you ask yourselves and each other the right questions, help you put the answers you get into effective action plans to accomplish the worthwhile Mission by which you perhaps could have a leader you could be proud of in the world, contact me, gs (underscore) chandy (at) yahoo (dot) com. No fees for this worthy cause.

I've not seen any episodes at all of the "Sex and the City" tv serials. I do NOT plan to see the movie. I am a male, so that's yet one more reason for me not to say anything at all about the series OR the movie. However, for whatever little or nothing they are worth, the following thoughts did rise on reading (with very keen interest) the apparently excellent review of the movie by Ms Zacharek and the comments on the review by a whole lot of ladies and a few gents:

When I was in college (many, many, many years ago, probably before the protagonists in the tv series were born!), I was something of a quite minor athletic star. (In the India of those days, this was by no means as much of a laudable distinction as it is nowadays). One student, Frank by first name, was often hanging around any athletes he could find who'd accept his presence: he loved our lustre, or something. One day, in the showers, he caught sight of the penis of one of THE big athletic stars of the college, and he was amazed. [I should probably explain here that middle-class Indians are in this day and age relatively prudish and modest, compared to US citizens, about their parts - and even in showers we generally manage to keep our privates private, so to speak. (Khajuraho and Kamasutra were long, long ago].

Anyway, to return to Frank and his sighting of the star athlete's penis: according to Frank, that penis was truly TINY! However, in our collective opinion, the star athlete was, quite normally endowed. On being challenged by the rest of us, Frank revealed himself, and he was really, truly HUGE! Even non-erect, Frank was absolutely awe-inspiring. (I never ever did see Frank in full erectile glory). Anyway, as a result, Frank soon became quite famous throughout college for his stupendous endowment. In due course, he was bestowed the probably appropriate nickname, "God's Gift To Womankind!"

In due course, we variously passed through college, and many, many years later, when I was working in another town (in advertising), I met Frank once again. On exchanging reminiscences and current information about each other, I discovered that Frank had turned religious, was now attending a Christian seminary, studying to be a padre or priest or something of that nature. In my real amazement at this news, I exclaimed: God's Gift to Womankind, now lost forever to womankind, alas!"

Frank was not happy at all about my remembering his mark of collegiate distinction. He kind of grinned, rather grimly, I think. After that, he more or less dropped me... evidently I was not the right sort of acquaintance for someone aspiring to a Godly life as he was.

So why did I bring up this somewhat off-colour story? As I haven't seen either tv serial or movie of "Sex and the City""Sex and the City", in the field of 'dick-lit' (assuming there exists such a genre at all) ? Anyway, I offer it herewith, gratis, to anyone taking up such a project.

-- GSC