Was so stuck in my book browsing last week-plus that I wasn't able to write about anything else. Obama clinched the Democratic presidential nomination. Clinton dithered menacingly for a few days, then made what most people seem to regard as a graceful concession and endorsement speech. (McCain, however, vowed to continue Clinton's struggle.) All three showed up to kiss the feet of AIPAC -- they were so supplicant that it'll be real hard to deny the Israel lobby's power. Not a big surprise, but Obama gave us a real quick taste of buyer's remorse -- he's since backpedalled a bit on points like the indivisibility of Jerusalem as the Jewish State's capital, a point that many Israelis no longer insist on, and that only became US policy under Bush. It's easy to hand wave some of the things politicians have to say to play the game, but eventually they have to act in the real world. It is very important, for the long-term interests of Americans as well as for those more directly involved, that the US work to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a way that provides all sides with full and equal rights, and that will not happen if AIPAC has anything to do with it. Obama previously talked about wanting to change the mindset that got us into war. He still has a ways to go within his own mind.

Helena Cobban: Obama and Israel. Straightforward reporting on Obama's AIPAC speech, from an Obama supporter who knows better but hopes for the best.

WarInContext: Obama Pays Homage to AIPAC. Extracts from three articles, starting with Al Jazeera's report (quotes PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat saying, "This is the worst thing to happen to us since 1967 . . . he has given ammunition to extremists across the region"). Paul Woodward comments: "Yesterday was the day the 'change' bubble burst. Obama's performance at AIPAC shows that his grasp of Middle East politics has yet to rise to the level of George Bush's!" That's a low blow given that there's never been any proof that Bush's various statements in support of a Palestinian state will ever amount to anything. The last article in the group was about McCain's AIPAC speech, which left a lot of leeway for lesser evilism.

WarInContext: "Undivided" Means Open Access. Further qualifications on Obama's AIPAC speech.

Fred Kaplan: Is Barack Obama Too Naive to Be President? Obama's gotten a lot of flack over saying he's willing to talk with Iran, both from Clinton and from McCain, and that's the source of this "too naive" charge. Kaplan defends Obama, partly because he sees it as the only way the US can recover prestige and influence wasted away under Bush.

David Warsh: Voices in the Air. On Obama's economics advisers, like Austan Goolsbee, treading lightly on whether Obama will actually take their advice. Examines one key Goolsbee paper, arguing against even the most technically limited form of the Laffer Curve (the rationale behind Reagan's "supply side" tax cuts; Bush's tax cuts were too dishonest to support a rationale, not that anyone still believed Laffer). Recommends a 1994 book as framing most of this year's key political-economic issues: Victor Fuchs, ed: Individual and Social Responsibility: Child Care, Education, Medical Care and Long Term Care. (Looks like the book is out of print.)

John Cassidy: Economics: Which Way for Obama? A book review of Richard H Thaler/Cass R Sunstein: Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (2008, Yale University Press), associated with Obama by virtue of various Chicago connections, including adviser Austan Goolsbee. Thaler and Sunstein argue for what they call "libertarian paternalism" -- policies that manipulate people in favored directions while leaving the impression that they're making free choices. For a politician, that offers the best of several worlds, but it wouldn't take much corruption to steer the process awry. One thing Obama does get out of this approach is that it frees him from most of the other orthodoxies with all their problems.

It's getting harder for me to retain my ignorance of Obama's policy agenda. Still, one thing that contributes to this is his own studied ambiguities. Presumably, he does this not just because the campaign season is a minefield -- often an irrational, downright stupid one. It may also be because he suspects that he'll need more than answers once he wins: he'll need options. There's no evidence that he knows that about Israel/Palestine, but it does seem to be his general modus operandi. He sells hope, asking us to trust his instincts and his inclusive sense of community. It's not much to go on, but when is it ever?