Blog will be even less active whilst I try my hand at slaying the wily whitetail over a long weekend.  Got new camera phone so hopefully will have something to show when I get back.

Regarding previous post on foreign affairs JB comments "My only question is, what does popularity have to do with helping make a positive difference in the world? I don't think President Clinton was concerned with popularity."

There's more to comment on there than time allows so I'll try not to waste words.  Basically, it seems to me, for the Clinton's of the world, being popular is the sum and substance of "making a positive difference in the world", so if it means appeasing rogue dictators, terrorists, or as in the Arafat example, both, just do whatever makes you look best.  To them all politics is local so all policies, foreign or domestic, are based strictly on how it plays to their favored constituencies at the time.  It is called political expediency and even his greatest admirers praise Clinton for his mastery thereof, while we detractors castigate him for the same thing.

If selling out Israel meant alienating that minority so be it, catering to the larger pro Palestinian constituency ruled the day and doing the right thing had damn little to do with it.  We all remember there was no negative press for the effort, and predictably enough, there was no negative blowback on Willy when it all blew up, because he tried.  I can think of no better example to bolster my theory that when it comes to liberals and problem solving, looking like they are trying to accomplish something always trumps actual accomplishment.

I'll leave it JB, if he so chooses, to explain how placating Arafat made a positive difference in the world.  By the way, speaking of explanations, how do you square your claim of having completed the assignment, which was to name a Clinton foreign policy success, by submitting his biggest failure as your answer?  Even I'll give him credit for effort but to call it a success renders the term meaningless, actually makes it an antonym.  That's not a difference of opinion, it's what happened. 

And honestly, can you seriously believe Clinton pursued that course with no regard for popularity?  My God man, the Clintons poll tested where to take a frigging vacation!  To think that effort wasn't poll tested to death prior to the summit is to succumb to a pretty severe case of naiveté`.  The very best that can be said is that it sure gives Clinton the benefit of the doubt - - something this President hasn't enjoyed since the Supreme Court prevented the theft of the 2000 election.  

By the way dear readers, this not a family fight, anyone can join.