As I sit and read the announcements from today’s first discussions from Annapolis, all I can see is another dismal failure for peace and another year long “negotiation” process that like Oslo, Camp David, the ‘road map’ all lead to the same place. That place, as so clearly denoted by the late Tanya Rinehart, is nowhere.

Today the leaders – Omert and Abbas – “have agreed to re-start negotiations to reach a comprehensive peace deal by the end of 2008.” Bush it was noted in the article “did not stay for the rest of the conference, leaving Annapolis as soon as the speeches were over.” He too is obviously quite happy with the status quo in Israel’s favour.

In the past, the Israelis have quite willingly agreed to negotiations, going even further at times as with the Gaza “withdrawal” as another smokescreen to continue with their settlement policy of both expanding existing settlements, allowing more illegal outposts, declaring more and more of Palestinian lands as military areas, and continuing with their house demolitions, roadblocks and detention of the Palestinian people. Nothing has changed, still going nowhere.

New Report from The Century Foundation Explores Problems Facing Military and Overseas Voters and Offers Ideas for Assuring Their Rights

New York City — U.S. Troops in Iraq and other places around the world are center stage in this year’s presidential elections. But when it comes to casting votes for the candidates, American soldiers and other U.S. citizens living abroad often face daunting obstacles. A new report from The Century Foundation sheds light on this problem, which has received surprisingly little public attention. It also warns that with a frontloaded primary system and a large number of caucuses, U.S. military personnel and other citizens living abroad could find it more difficult than ever to have their votes count.

In “Bringing Voting Rights to Military and Overseas Voters,” report author Tova Wang, Democracy Fellow at The Century Foundation, explains how difficult it is for military and overseas voters to vote, examines the problems encountered in making sure that their votes are counted, and suggests reforms for both easing the procedural problems and improving turnout among this often neglected group of voters. 

When Democrats worry about Hillary Clinton's electability, they focus on her reenergizing a depressed Republican base while demoralizing core Democratic activists, particularly those outraged about the war, and consequently losing the election. But there's a further danger if Hillary's nominated--that she will win but then split the Democratic Party.

We forget that this happened with her husband Bill, because compared to Bush, he's looking awfully good. Much of Hillary's support may be nostalgia for when America's president seemed to engage reality instead of disdaining it.  But remember that over the course of Clinton's presidency, the Democrats lost 6 Senate seats, 46 Congressional seats, and 9 governorships. This political bleeding began when Monica Lewinsky was still an Oregon college senior. Given Hillary's protracted support of the Iraq war, her embrace of neoconservative rhetoric on Iran, and her coziness with powerful corporate interests, she could create a similar backlash once in office, dividing and depressing the Democratic base and reversing the party's newfound momentum.

I recently interviewed, for 60 minutes each, two individuals who have walked the walk. Eve Tetaz at age 76 has gone to jail for protesting the occupation of Iraq. Aidan Delgado laid down his weapon in Iraq and declared himself a conscientious objector. Hear their stories:

See now.