What? No it isn't. There are photographer credits, you can just go find the photo on Getty Images, along with other photos of the same child, with an injured man on the same gurney.

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/injured-palestinians-including-children-are-brought-to-gaza-news-photo/2175360329

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/injured-palestinians-including-children-are-brought-to-gaza-news-photo/2175365113

They can maybe singlehandedly win some House races. $14M is a lot of money there. You'll notice however that Ilhan Omar is still in Congress despite their opposition and Bernie Sanders, who's much more influential, has nothing at all to worry about. They accomplish a lot more by targeting a couple of already weakened reps and others getting scared than they ever could if they actually had to directly confront them. Their money isn't endless and is kind of an irrelevant amount when talking about the scale of a presidential race.

Not Democratic voters. What would please Republican psychopaths is irrelevant to the political positions of a Democratic candidate.

I'm not nearly as confident about that as you are. Hillary had the money advantage. Elections are won in swing states, by voter turnout, and while money can encourage or discourage voting, it does so by highlighting (or lying about) policy. You're not coming out ahead if you just save them the effort of lying by sticking with a policy that turns away voters (or more realistically, is already being further enhancement by political spending).

You can talk about money equals votes all you want, but right now there's very direct evidence that her position is losing votes. No speculation on the power of ad campaigns or which wedge might be effective. There's an issue that's already losing votes and already being targeted by conservative money. And this whole premise of "do nothing, they'll come home" is based on everyone being able to recognize she's better for Palestinians except the Zionists. Because if they're not the lone idiots in this whole game, they already have reason to want her to lose. And the only reason they wouldn't already be putting all those resources against her is if THEY don't believe their money can win the election for Trump.

And even past all that, arguing "Democrats gotta do what the lobbyists want even if the party doesn't agree" is a position that itself is going to lose even more votes. It's feckless neoliberalism and "don't bother, the system is beyond the voters" all tied together with a nice little bow, presented as if that was supposed to motivate voters to knuckle-down and engage with a system you're claiming doesn't care about them and is incapable of acting in their interest. Because there's still going to be a weapons lobby and a Zionist lobby post election, and under this philosophy she's going to be beholden to them indefinitely because there's always going to be a next election for her or the party.

You don't need to please every skeptic, but most just want to remove the thing that makes them uncomfortable with the candidate they otherwise want to support and ambiguity with an acknowledgement about the role and power of the president and that an Israeli government might need confrontation does that.

That she's not president right now is the benefit. She can say whatever she wants and skeptical people have no way of testing her sincerity. The problem with your examples are that they're entirely content free wishes for a better world. Those statements don't imply she might do something to try to enact this ideal world where the heartbreaking thing doesn't happen or that she would even consider doing anything to incentivize Netanyahu to make a deal.

The key to my proposed ambiguity is that there is an explicit acknowledgement that Netanyahu's far right government might be not only an obstacle to peace, but an obstacle that she might confront. Current statements are just the same things Biden is already saying.

The most fundamentally disappointing aspect of Harris is that she's had all the room in the world for ambiguity and platitudes to sweep the problem under the rug. She doesn't need to even promise anything, just indicate she's concerned about the motivations of the far right Israeli government and will look at all options to promote a just and peaceful Middle East. Expressing the vague potential to confront a far-right Israeli government isn't going to lose her any Democratic votes, at least not in places as important as Michigan where not doing it is a potentially campaign defining choice.

It's like the centrist establishment has some inherent desire to force that "you have to vote for us" choice on disgruntled Democratic factions even though they could just solve the disagreement. If they start acknowledging the left side of the party as being worth listening to, even if doing so is trivially easy, then it sets a bad precedent.

He's tried (almost) nothing and he's all out of ideas. He's most definitely not even tested the limits of his influence over Israel. He just doesn't want that influence to involve anything more serious than "c'mon bucko!".

Correction: Melania Trump's ghostwriter defends abortion rights in upcoming memoir.

Does anyone think Melania has been up late at night in Trump Tower working on her memoir? Or read every sentence that was written for her? Whatever her private views on abortion are, she's probably learning about this passage along with the rest of us.

Stuff like "climate change" or "equity" are such common and broadly used terms they're going to be all over the place. They're boiler plate buzzwords.

It's weird they even think of "climate change" as political at this point. Climate change as a political conflict rather than a simple description of reality seems long out of date.

What part of their actions could possibly have broken the plexiglass? It's soup. A lack of intent isn't what made this not an "almost ruin", it's that there is no likely outcome where the painting is damaged. You're acting like they took a risk and luckily nothing bad happened, but it was just never in the cards to begin with.

Whether he was in Hong Kong or Nebraska the exact day Tiananmen happened is irrelevant to the part that makes him look good (going to teach in China in the immediate aftermath of Tiananmen).

Hey, don't give them too much credit here. They assigned two writers to write a story about something Minnesota Public Radio covered. Except MPR just talked about the exaggeration for a couple sentences, because it wasn't a particularly important fact in a larger segment about Walz and China. You need big journalism to figure out a way to expand second-hand reporting to a full length article.

You said "there should be some punishment for almost running a work of art". There was no "almost ruin" involved. You don't say your couch was almost ruined when some bird poop hit the window next to it. The couch was never in danger.

I don't know if "coincidental" would be the right term. They were presumably both in response to the same act so there's a good reason they happened at around the same time even if there wasn't coordination.

They didn't almost ruin it though. It's not like they tried to destroy it and we're lucky the defenses held. They explicitly chose a painting and an act that would not result in damage.

His "lie" wasn't even that he was there during Tianamen, it was about where he was when he decided to go to China. Hong Kong was British at the time and no version of his story claims he was in mainland China during Tiananmen.

It's such an irrelevant fact check though. He didn't lie about the actual thing that made the story (going into China shortly after Tiananmen), but they got him on where he was when he decided to go? It's disappointing that his story isn't pristinely accurate, but it's not actually an important detail of it. It's like fact-checking Kerry's military service and focusing on which town he was living in when he signed up.

This just looks like NYT trying to find equivalent numbers of falsehoods so they can prove they're not biased.