Krugman's "Who's Nader Now?"

Paul Krugman's Friday New York Times column asks the above question. Although I'm not sure I agree with everything written there (I'm uncomfortable with deciding who will be the Democratic candidate so far from the nomination point - it excludes voices we should perhaps hear from first), I concur wholeheartedly on the issue of Leiberman.

Leiberman did his utmost to out-conservative, out-war, and out-GOP most of the neocon GOP in the past few years in his lapdog treatment of the Bush White House - so much so that there has been tremendous joking that Leiberman will be Bush's VeeP choice if they can Mr. Cheney.

While it was refreshing to see Mr. Gore name any non-Christian as his VP running mate in 2000, Leiberman seemed like an unusual choice even then. Under the best circumstances, Leiberman's about as exciting as a bowl of fat-free, spice free chicken soup and his petulance after Mr. Gore chose to support Dean in the 2004 race didn't seem particularly presidential (unless you use Mr. Bush as a role model - petulance is his forte).

More importantly, Leiberman's behavior since 9-11 (to me) means he does not deserve any serious consideration as a Democratic candidate. Leiberman as the Dem choice in 2004 would also serve to undermine the continuing crisis in the Middle East, given what I feel I've seen of his blindly pro-Israel comments in the past.

Is that true of any Jew who might run for president? I don't think so. I think one can strongly support the right of Israel to exist and flourish while also recognizing that men like Netanyahu and Sharon are as much enemies to peace as many in Israel feel Yassir Arafat is. I would even argue they are greater enemies because Arafat has been so marginalized by a joint effort of BushCo and Sharon.

There simply has to be a way to bring about a situation in the Middle East that doesn't demand the dismantlement of Israel or the obliteration of the Palestinians. I don't know if Dean has the answer to that conundrum, yet I feel confident that Bush certainly does not, and Lieberman does not. I feel more strongly that Dean, Clark ... or even Kerry... might approach the situation better than has been done in the past 3 years when Sharon is at the White House more often than Mr. Bush is while we've all but cut the Palestinians out of the dialog into their own future. I don't think it's any coincidence that the worst violence seen there has been since both Mr. Bush and Mr. Sharon took office.

The Middle East is an incredibly important issue for so many reasons - mostly all centered in the fact that much of the Muslim world sees the treatment of Palestinians as a cause celebre - and perhaps rightly so - and those that want an excuse to wreak havoc use America's alliance with Israel at every turn. America must approach the situation there wisely, with a recognition of both sides of the issues at hand. While everyone debates and dances, people die there almost every day either directly or indirectly as a result of policies America has helped to craft.

If there was no other reason for a change in the occupant of the White House, I would say this one issue warrants it. And we need to choose very wisely.