On Saturday, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was busy making claims for the Palestinians in Egypt. On Sunday, he was rebuffed:

“Egypt has made it clear that it does not want to be responsible for providing the Gaza Strip with fuel and electricity,” a senior Hamas official in Gaza City told The Jerusalem Post. “They have informed us that the Gaza Strip must remain Israel’s problem.”

The talk about economic separation from Israel is said to have enraged Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who expressed fear that such a move would increase pressure on him to assume responsibility for the Gaza Strip.

The idea, which has been welcomed by Israel, was first floated by Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh over the weekend.

In remarks published by the Hamas-affiliated Falasteen newspaper, Haniyeh said that “Gaza must maintain stronger economic links with Egypt as a way of economic disconnection from Israel.” He said Hamas was seeking to disconnect the Strip’s economy from Israel and receive food, fuel and electricity from Egypt.

“We said during our election campaign in 2006 that we are seeking to move toward an economic disengagement from the Israeli occupation,” Haniyeh said. “Egypt has a greater ability to meet the needs of Gaza.”

One would think that at least Egypt would show an interest in meeting the needs of Gaza. But one would be wrong.

That is among the tragedies of the Palestinians: after they fled (or were forced to flee) their land, their fellow Arabs shunned them, marginalized them, and kicked them to the curb—and used them as a cudgel with which to beat the Israelis.

Unable to solve its problems with Fatah and Israel, Hamas has now enlarged its entire problem—this time ensnaring Egypt in its trap.

It’s come down to a choice, and I’ve chosen the bitch in the house. We bitches always take care of business and we always get things done.

It’s a fact, dear heart.
Also: Mr. Head-in-the-Progressive-Party-Line Clouds needs to spend a little more time in the real world. He’s got to, you know, stop talking sweet nothings and do something.

She’s a Hillary hater:

“Could you see yourself working to support Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination?

Answer: “I would have to think about that. I would have to think about policies, her approach, her tone. . .”

Well, perhaps her husband is the morally superior “real deal” and Michelle is just your typical nasty political in-fighter.

Whereas Hillary has gone on another crying jag—and just in time for a little last-minute press from those voters just tuning in now …

The Brits are apparently in a bugging frenzy:

SCOTLAND YARD’S antiterrorist squad secretly bugged a high-profile Labour Muslim MP during private meetings with one of his constituents.

Sadiq Khan, now a government whip, was recorded by an electronic listening device hidden in a table during visits to the constituent in prison.

The bugging of MPs is a breach of a government edict that has barred law agencies from eavesdropping on politicians since the bugging scandal of Harold Wilson’s government.

What’s a little law when you’re trying to crack down on “anti-Islamic activity”?

As the celebrity commodification of Barack Obama continues apace, Matthew Yglesias, for one, is made increasingly uncomfortable.

He objects, mutedly, to the shameless self-promotion of celebrities who want a piece of Obama’s action:

I think it’s nice that a certain number of rich celebrities like progressive causes in the United States and certainly I encourage them to both use their richness to provide direct financial support to such causes … But to what extent do they really need to be putting themselves forward as the public face of a political candidacy?

Yglesias doesn’t say it outright, but he seems worried that the”celebrification of progressive politics” diminishes the importance of politics (and, by extension, the policies that politicians are supposed to deliver for us citizens).

Perhaps he’s right—particularly when it comes to this candidate, who  claims that he’s the “real deal,” someone who didn’t “cash in” but chose instead to work as a community organizer. The Oprah, Hollywood, and Camelot  imprimatur, and now the Mac vote, seem to take something away from the “authenticity” of such a candidate, no? These are conflicting image messages, aren’t they?

Yglesias’s commenters, however, see no problem with the different kinds of pitches for Obama:

This is just basic brand building. Target a demographic and associate your brand with people/places/things that the targeted group admires. It’s a bit naive to expect campaigns not to engage in this kind of thing when it’s to their advantage.

Posted by Chris | February 4, 2008 8:42 AM

I’m with Yglesias.

An embrace of the culture of cool is not a good sign for the Obama campaign if it is serious about putting its candidate in the White House.  I think the Obama campaign has fallen in love with “free media”—and itself—to its detriment.

David Tyree’s astounding acrobatic 32-yard reception on third down prolonged the Giants’ game-winning drive.

 

On a field strewn with confetti, a newspaper front proclaimed the Giants as the Super Bowl champions.

Hillary enjoyed this victory, too:

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton became a super fan of the New York Giants Sunday, reveling in their upset of the New England Patriots — and even seeing an omen for her own political future.

“Super Bowl, Super Tuesday, we’ve got one down, let’s get the other,” said Clinton. …

When New York scored the go-ahead touchdown with 35 seconds remaining, Clinton leaped up and high-fived some young people standing near.

“That was unbelievable,” she said. “Oh my gosh.”

Filing out of the room after the game, Clinton gushed to reporters.

“I’m so excited, I’m thrilled,” said Clinton. “It was a fabulous game.”

Awwwww.

By the way, the canyons of New York are alive with the sound of insanely happy fans. They look like this:

Fans celebrate the New York Giants’ Super Bowl win on Sunday. (Jan Jekielek/The Epoch Times)