Sundayreview: by Piers J. Sellers

Cancer and Climate Change - The New York Times
1 of 4
http://ezproxy.lcsc.edu:2274/2016/01/17/opinion/sunday/cancer-and-clim...
http://nyti.ms/1P6F1YA
SundayReview
By PIERS J. SELLERS
OPINION
JAN. 16, 2016
IM a climate scientist who has just been told I have Stage 4 pancreatic cancer.
This diagnosis puts me in an interesting position. Ive spent much of my
professional life thinking about the science of climate change, which is best viewed
through a multidecadal lens. At some level I was sure that, even at my present age of
60, I would live to see the most critical part of the problem, and its possible
solutions, play out in my lifetime. Now that my personal horizon has been steeply
foreshortened, I was forced to decide how to spend my remaining time. Was
continuing to think about climate change worth the bother?
After handling the immediate business associated with the medical news
informing family, friends, work; tidying up some finances; putting out stacks of
unread New York Times Book Reviews to recycle; and throwing a large Limited
Edition holiday party, complete with butlers, I had some time to sit at my kitchen
table and draw up the bucket list.
Very quickly, I found out that I had no desire to jostle with wealthy tourists on
Mount Everest, or fight for some yardage on a beautiful and exclusive beach, or all
those other things one toys with on a boring January afternoon. Instead, I concluded
that all I really wanted to do was spend more time with the people I know and love,
and get back to my office as quickly as possible.
I work for NASA, managing a large group of expert scientists doing research on
the whole Earth system (I should mention that the views in this article are my own,
not NASAs). This involves studies of climate and weather using space-based
18/1/2016 9:57 AM
2 of 4
observations and powerful computer models. These models describe how the planet
works, and what can happen as we pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The
work is complex, exacting, highly relevant and fascinating.
Last year was the warmest year on record, by far. I think that future generations
will look back on 2015 as an important but not decisive year in the struggle to align
politics and policy with science. This is an incredibly hard thing to do. On the science
side, there has been a steady accumulation of evidence over the last 15 years that
climate change is real and that its trajectory could lead us to a very uncomfortable, if
not dangerous, place. On the policy side, the just-concluded climate conference in
Paris set a goal of holding the increase in the global average temperature to 2 degrees
Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels.
While many have mocked this accord as being toothless and unenforceable, it is
noteworthy that the policy makers settled on a number that is based on the best
science available and is within the predictive capability of our computer models.
Its doubtful that well hold the line at 2 degrees Celsius, but we need to give it
our best shot. With scenarios that exceed that target, we are talking about enormous
changes in global precipitation and temperature patterns, huge impacts on water
and food security, and significant sea level rise. As the predicted temperature rises,
model uncertainty grows, increasing the likelihood of unforeseen, disastrous events.
All this as the worlds population is expected to crest at around 9.5 billion by
2050 from the current seven billion. Pope Francis and a think tank of retired
military officers have drawn roughly the same conclusion from computer model
predictions: The worst impacts will be felt by the worlds poorest, who are already
under immense stress and have meager resources to help them adapt to the changes.
They will see themselves as innocent victims of the developed worlds excesses.
Looking back, the causes of the 1789 French Revolution are not a mystery to
historians; looking forward, the pressure cooker for increased radicalism, of all
flavors, and conflict could get hotter along with the global temperature.
Last year may also be seen in hindsight as the year of the Death of Denial.
Globally speaking, most policy makers now trust the scientific evidence and
predictions, even as they grapple with ways to respond to the problem. And most
18/1/2016 9:57 AM
3 of 4
Americans 70 percent, according to a recent Monmouth University poll believe

that the climate is changing. So perhaps now we can move on to the really hard part
of this whole business.
The initial heavy lifting will have to be done by policy makers. I feel for them.
Its hard to take a tough stand on an important but long-term issue in the face of so
many near-term problems, amid worries that reducing emissions will weaken our
global economic position and fears that other countries may cheat on their emissions
targets.
Where science can help is to keep track of changes in the Earth system this is
a research and monitoring job, led by NASA and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and their counterparts elsewhere in the world and
use our increasingly powerful computer models to explore possible futures
associated with proposed policies. The models will help us decide which approaches
are practicable, trading off near-term impacts to the economy against longer-term
impacts to the climate.
Ultimately, though, it will be up to the engineers and industrialists of the world
to save us. They must come up with the new technologies and the means of
implementing them. The technical and organizational challenges of solving the
problems of clean energy generation, storage and distribution are enormous, and
they must be solved within a few decades with minimum disruption to the global
economy. This will likely entail a major switch to nuclear, solar and other renewable
power, with an electrification of our transport system to the maximum extent
possible. These engineers and industrialists are fully up to the job, given the right
incentives and investments. You have only to look at what they achieved during
World War II: American technology and production catapulted over what would
have taken decades to do under ordinary conditions and presented us with a world in
1945 that was completely different from the late 1930s.
What should the rest of us do? Two things come to mind. First, we should brace
for change. It is inevitable. It will appear in changes to the climate and to the way we
generate and use energy. Second, we should be prepared to absorb these with
appropriate sang-froid. Some will be difficult to deal with, like rising seas, but many
18/1/2016 9:57 AM
others could be positive. New technologies have a way of bettering our lives in ways
we cannot anticipate. There is no convincing, demonstrated reason to believe that
our evolving future will be worse than our present, assuming careful management of
the challenges and risks. History is replete with examples of us humans getting out
of tight spots. The winners tended to be realistic, pragmatic and flexible; the losers
were often in denial of the threat.
As for me, Ive no complaints. Im very grateful for the experiences Ive had on
this planet. As an astronaut I spacewalked 220 miles above the Earth. Floating
alongside the International Space Station, I watched hurricanes cartwheel across
oceans, the Amazon snake its way to the sea through a brilliant green carpet of
forest, and gigantic nighttime thunderstorms flash and flare for hundreds of miles
along the Equator. From this Gods-eye-view, I saw how fragile and infinitely
precious the Earth is. Im hopeful for its future.
And so, Im going to work tomorrow.
Piers J. Sellers is the deputy director of Sciences and Exploration at the NASA Goddard
Space Flight Center and acting director of its Earth Sciences Division. As an astronaut,
he visited the International Space Station three times and walked in space six times.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for
the Opinion Today newsletter.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on January 17, 2016, on page SR6 of the New York edition with
the headline: Cancer and Climate Change.
2016 The New York Times Company
4 of 4
18/1/2016 9:57 AM
A Safer World, Thanks to the Iran Deal - The New York Times
1 of 3
http://ezproxy.lcsc.edu:2274/2016/01/18/opinion/a-safer-world-thanks-to...
http://nyti.ms/1nce3Tn
The Opinion Pages
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
EDITORIAL
JAN. 17, 2016
This is a moment many thought would never come: Iran has delivered on its
commitment under a 2015 agreement with the United States and other major
powers to curb or eliminate the most dangerous elements of its nuclear program.
The world is now safer for this.
The International Atomic Energy Agency verified on Saturday that Iran has
shipped over 8.5 tons of enriched uranium to Russia so Iran cant use that in
bomb-making, disabled more than 12,000 centrifuges and poured concrete into the
core of a reactor at Arak designed to produce plutonium.
On Sunday, President Obama hailed these steps as having cut off every single
path Iran could have used to build a bomb and noted that engagement with Iran has
created a window to try to resolve important issues. Most important of all, he said,
Weve achieved this historic progress through diplomacy, without resorting to
another war in the Middle East.
Still, there are daunting challenges ahead, including ensuring the deal is strictly
adhered to, an obligation for the United States, Russia, China and Europe. Cheating
should be much harder, given that Iran will be subjected to continuous and intrusive
monitoring by the I.A.E.A. of its nuclear enrichment facilities, centrifuge production
and uranium mines. And even if the Iranians were to attempt to produce enough
nuclear fuel for a bomb, it will now take them more than a year to do so. Before the
agreement, that breakout time was two to three months.
The deal is a testament to patient diplomacy and President Obamas visionary
18/1/2016 9:58 AM
2 of 3
determination to pursue a negotiated solution to the nuclear threat, despite

relentless attempts by his political opponents to sabotage the initiative. After more
than 30 years of hostility between the two countries, President Hassan Rouhani of
Iran and his foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, who took office in 2013,
pursued the nuclear deal and its implementation with a pragmatic and constructive
attitude.
This is also a moment to celebrate the release of the Washington Post journalist
Jason Rezaian and three other Americans of Iranian descent who were detained by
Iran, in some cases for years. Mr. Rezaian and the others should never have been
held in the first place. Their freedom came in exchange for seven Iranians arrested
by the United States on charges of violating sanctions on Iran. Separately, another
American who was recently detained was also freed. Resolving disputes often
requires compromise, and these developments make it more likely, although far
from certain, that the United States and Iran could cooperate in the future.
The value of increased American-Iranian engagement was obvious last week
when Iran quickly released 10 American sailors after their two patrol boats
mistakenly drifted into Iranian waters in the Persian Gulf. Irans hard-line military
boarded the ships and released photos of the sailors in custody, a possible violation
of the Geneva Conventions. Ordinarily, this would cause a crisis and American
hard-liners tried to make it so by denouncing Mr. Obama and denouncing Iran. But
after a series of phone calls between Secretary of State John Kerry and Mr. Zarif,
Irans supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, backed Mr. Rouhani and Mr. Zarif,
who moved quickly to defuse the incident. Both sides knew a prolonged standoff
could put the nuclear deal at risk.
Of course, neither compliance with the nuclear agreement nor the release of the
Americans means that Iran should not be subject to criticism or new sanctions for
violation of other United Nations resolutions or American laws. Once the detained
Americans left Iran, Mr. Obama moved quickly to impose new, limited sanctions on
11 Iranian companies and individuals for their involvement in two recent ballistic
missile tests.
Irans critics are incensed that in return for complying with the nuclear deal, the
18/1/2016 9:58 AM
country will get access to $100 billion of its money that has been frozen in overseas
banks and that lifting sanctions will enable it to integrate into the international
economy. The critics fear Iran will use the money to destabilize the region further,
but Mr. Rouhanis greater imperative is to spend the funds on the many social and
economic needs of Iranians. His promises to improve their lives will be tested during
next months parliamentary elections.
Leaders dont give up their nuclear weapons for nothing. A bargain with Iran
was necessary. It might even serve as an example for dealing with North Korea,
which may have enough fuel for 16 weapons and is producing many more.
A version of this editorial appears in print on January 18, 2016, on page A20 of the National edition with
the headline: A Safer World, Thanks to the Iran Pact .
3 of 3
18/1/2016 9:58 AM
Donald Trumps Existential Pickle - The New York Times
1 of 4
http://ezproxy.lcsc.edu:2274/2016/01/17/opinion/sunday/donald-trumps-...
http://nyti.ms/1RWDpzN
SundayReview
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Frank Bruni JAN. 16, 2016
IF your very candidacy and identity rest on your supposed talent for victory, can you
survive a defeat?
Can you continue to call yourself a winner if youve been a loser and if loser
is your favorite way of closing the book on someone, your final word, the workhorse
in your brimming lexicon of slurs, exiting your mouth so reflexively that its
essentially your exhalation, your carbon dioxide: loser, loser, loser.
Donald Trump has a problem that the other candidates for the Republican
nomination dont. Hes put an obstacle in his path that they havent. He doesnt
merely assert dominance. He claims something close to omnipotence. (Remember
that laughable physicians report?)
Neither his image nor his ego leaves any room for a setback, any allowance for
second place. And as Iowa draws near and several polls suggest the strong possibility
that Ted Cruz will finish ahead of him there, its time to talk about what that would
mean for a self-enamored emperor who pretty much insists on his own perfection
and who has built his brand on it.
At that point, Trump would no longer be a brilliant exception to the laws of
political gravity. Hed be someone whose lax management of his Iowa operation was
laid bare, whose basic competence was in dispute. Hed be one of many exhausted
soldiers, girding himself for a muddy slog. Thats not the path he plotted, the myth
hes selling. Thats not how hes rigged.
18/1/2016 9:58 AM
2 of 4
Other candidates can rack up a few disappointments. They havent made their
cases by pointing to their percentages, their ratings, their crowds. They dont draw
such a sharp, unforgiving line between winners and losers. They dont equate being
on top with being the best.
Trump does. Incessantly. Its his worldview, his philosophy, his morality, his
tautology.
Hes inverted the usual political logic. Typically, candidates cite their
qualifications as the reason that voters should affirm them. Trump asserts that hes
qualified because voters have affirmed him, or at least because they seem poised to.
Challenged on his policies (which dont really exist) or his credentials (which are
dubiously applicable to the presidency), he whips out his poll numbers as proof of
his worthiness. Sometimes he whips them out just for fun. And as he holds them
high, he makes the argument that he must have good ideas, good sense and good
preparation. After all, hes winning!
But by that reasoning, losing wouldnt be just a fluke, just a failure of the body
politic to recognize and reward majesty when they behold it. No, it would be
evidence that hes inferior or at least unexceptional. It would destroy the brands
foundation.
His bid for the presidency is all triumphalism, all superlatives. It rejects any
humility. It forbids any humbling especially the first time that voting becomes
actual instead of theoretical and Iowans crown a champ.
When he kicked off his campaign from the gilded throne of Trump Tower last
June, he didnt merely say that hed create jobs.
I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created, he decreed,
emphasizing a divine patrimony.
On the day when he and his hair move into the White House, unbelievable
blessings will rain down on this parched land of ours. He will be the best thing that
ever happened to women, the best security president.
18/1/2016 9:58 AM
3 of 4
And did you know that he has the worlds greatest memory, by his own
estimation?
Its one thing everyone agrees on, he added, which is wrong, because many of
us at The Times dont agree at all, especially not after the most recent Republican
debate, on Thursday night. He was asked then about his proposal, made during a
recent meeting with the newspapers editorial board, for a 45 percent tax on Chinese
goods brought into this country. And his magic powers of recollection eluded him.
Thats wrong, he said. They were wrong. Its The New York Times. They are
always wrong.
Except we werent, not about this. A transcript and an audio recording of the
meeting unequivocally demonstrate as much.
Were probably losers anyway. Thats the designation he assigns to anyone who
fails to genuflect in his presence.
He has meted it out promiscuously and diversely. The megastar Cher is a
loser. So are the mogul Mark Cuban, the basketball player Chris Jackson, the war
hero John McCain.
The ranks of talk show hosts, journalists, pundits and political consultants are
especially robust with losers, including Ana Navarro, Bill Maher, Howard Stern and
Karl Rove, whos not just a loser but dopey and a total fool, as Trump tweeted.
His testy Twitter feed is his Hall of Shame. Its where the losers are rounded up and
publicly flogged.
And his go-to arguments for why someone is a loser, a dope or a dummy is that
he or she has made erroneous predictions or been repudiated by the ratings, the
marketplace, the audience. A television personality is a loser if not all that many
viewers tune in.
So what if not all that many Iowans turn out for Trump? What if, at the least,
more of them choose Cruz? How can Trump dismiss the precise kind of judgment
and measurement with which he dismisses everyone else?
18/1/2016 9:58 AM
Lately hes started to hedge, alternating prophecies that hell win Iowa with
statements that he hopes to. Its a little too close for comfort, he told voters in
Cedar Falls last week. Ill say.
For other candidates a loss is a part of the process, a prompt for
self-examination, a cause for a reset and maybe an embarrassment. For Trump its
an existential crisis. Who is he if he cant look down on all of his rivals? What does he
become if he has to look up to one of them, especially if the one is a natural-born
irritant like Cruz?
Comeback kid wont fit Trump. Its a middle seat in coach for a titan with his
own planes plural. (His own helicopters, too.) If hes wedged into it, hell come
unglued. I mean, more than he already has.
When he appeared on the late-night talk show Jimmy Kimmel Live last
month, Kimmel teased him by claiming to have written a childrens book for Trump.
Its title? Winners Arent Losers.
This is my point, and this is Trumps pickle. If Iowas voters dont swoon for
him, it erases the whole gaudy prelude to that moment. He ceases to be the best, the
most, the greatest. Trump will have been trumped, which means hes not the same
Trump at all.
the headline: Donald Trumps Existential Pickle.
4 of 4
18/1/2016 9:58 AM
The Bill Clinton Question - The New York Times
1 of 3
http://ezproxy.lcsc.edu:2274/2016/01/17/opinion/sunday/the-bill-clinton...
http://nyti.ms/1RWDraP
SundayReview
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Ross Douthat JAN. 16, 2016
IN 2014 Matt Bai published a book called All the Truth Is Out, a history of Gary
Harts scandal-driven downfall that doubled as a lament for political journalisms
surrender to the lure of tabloid culture.
Bais book was a great read, and nobody would dispute his point that theres far
less privacy for politicians than in the days when Lyndon Johnson could tell a group
of reporters: You may see me coming in and out of a few womens bedrooms while I
am in the White House, but just remember, that is none of your business.
But his books title was still a little bit misleading. Even today, we dont get all
the truth about the sex lives of the powerful and famous. We get more of it than
people got in the 1960s, but it still often comes in fragments, glimpses, rumor and
conjecture.
You can read a thousand supermarket stories, for instance, without getting any
closer to the truth about most Hollywood relationships. And while the mainstream
press isnt necessarily protective of public figures, neither is it rushing out to do
National Enquirer-style digging whenever theres a plausible rumor in the wind. For
every Eliot Spitzer or Mark Sanford, theres a scandalous story that flares and
vanishes amid a lot of journalistic discomfort about touching it.
Theres also a certain randomness to when a scandal actually breaks big. To take
a nonpolitical example, Bill Cosbys sexual exploitations were kinda-sorta in the
public record for years and years, but they were a footnote in profiles and
18/1/2016 9:59 AM
2 of 3
biographies until Hannibal Buress starting talking about Cosby-the-rapist in his

comedy routines. Then suddenly, it was a story, a cascade of stories, and the whole
truth or something close was out.
Similarly, in the political realm, The National Enquirer first published John
Edwards-Rielle Hunter stories in October of 2007. But Edwards was able to make
his way through an entire primary campaign before the mainstream media finally,
reluctantly, started reporting on his love child.
Which brings us to Bill Clinton, whose old scandals are once more in the news
because Donald Trump is talking about them, because Juanita Broaddrick took to
Twitter to reassert her claim that Clinton raped her in 1978, and because todays
liberal deference toward rape victims makes an uneasy fit with how the Clinton camp
dealt with accusations from Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones in the
1990s.
This has produced a lot of discussion about whether the former presidents
sexual past is fair game during his wifes 2016 campaign. But that question tends
to assume that theres some consensus about the former presidents sexual past. It
assumes that all the truth is out.
In reality, though, the narrative around Clintons sexual past is highly unstable,
with several variations that have a plausible claim on being true.
Theres the official Clintonite narrative, in which the former president strayed
with Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky, was forgiven by his wife and daughter,
and deserves to have his repentance respected.
Then theres the narrative that I suspect most Americans believe, in which the
former president was much more of a tomcat in Arkansas, and probably has
tomcatted occasionally in his post-presidency but always consensually, and lately
in ways that have minimized exposure or embarrassment.
If either of these narratives are true, then Clintons sex life will be a non-issue in
2016. If an adulterer, even a frequent adulterer, is all he is, then an America that
didnt want him impeached in the 1990s isnt going to object to having him as the
18/1/2016 9:59 AM
First Gentlemen today.

But suppose you believe the Broaddrick story. Liberals dismissed it during the
impeachment days, but if you read the summary of the case from the (mostly liberal)
Dylan Matthews at the (mostly liberal) website Vox, this dismissal looks unfair.
Theres an inescapable he-said/she-said dynamic, but one need not be a believe all
rape allegations absolutist to find her claim persuasive.
If shes telling the truth, then Clintons sexual past becomes something more
predatory. The slippage between a powerful mans dalliances and straightforward
predation is something that could happen just once. But looked at in the light of a
credible rape allegation, there are all sorts of Clinton stories the Willey and Jones
cases, the rumors collected by Joness lawyers, the old tales of state troopers being
used as procurers, the 2002 globetrotting on the jet of a billionaire whos also a
convicted statutory rapist that could suggest a darker pattern, tending toward the
Cosby-esque.
The truth about Bill Clintons past, then, is that we dont actually know the
truth. And even in our tabloid-driven age, its quite possible that we simply never
will.
But if the question is, Does Bills past matter for Hillarys campaign?, the
answer depends less on what we know right now than on what might be waiting to
come out.
I invite you to follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/DouthatNYT.
the headline: The Bill Question.
3 of 3
18/1/2016 9:59 AM
Reigning Cats and Dogs - The New York Times
1 of 4
http://ezproxy.lcsc.edu:2274/2016/01/17/opinion/sunday/reigning-cats-a...
http://nyti.ms/1liCyMH
SundayReview
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Maureen Dowd JAN. 16, 2016
WASHINGTON AFTER running as a man last time around, Hillary Clinton is now
running as a woman.
Matthew Dowd, the former W. strategist who became an independent, says
Hillary got it backward: She should have run as a woman in 2008, when she was
beating back a feminized antiwar candidate. And she should have run as a man this
time, when Americans feel beleaguered and scared and yearn for something big and
masculine and strong, as Dowd put it.
Despite the deafening dearth of excitement among younger women, Hillary has
cast herself as Groundbreaking Granny.
Shes campaigning with Lena Dunham, Katy Perry and Demi Lovato and is
selling T-shirt pantsuits on her website. And she showed up last week on Lifetime,
sharing a white couch with Amanda de Cadenet, who hosts a cozy chat show with
women. Hillary shared the childhood woe of being told by boys in her neighborhood
that she couldnt play with them because she was a girl.
She told Rachel Maddow she wouldnt rule out an all-estrogen ticket by
choosing a female running mate.
A group of women in the Senate most of whom deserted Hillary for Barack
Obama in 2008 descended on Iowa on Friday in the spirit of sisterhood.
Theres this element of women getting to where they are by working harder and
18/1/2016 9:59 AM
2 of 4
being accountable, Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota told me on the eve of their
swing. Right now, Americans are demanding that politicians be accountable
because theyre tired of all the bull going on.
And Hillary told the Time reporter Jay Newton-Small for a new book, Broad
Influence: How Women Are Changing the Way America Works, that she would
govern differently as the first female president.
I just think women in general are better listeners, are more collegial, more
open to new ideas and how to make things work in a way that looks for win-win
outcomes, Hillary said.
Of course, if she had been a better listener on her health care initiative and the
Iraq invasion, those two towering issues might not have scuppered her.
It always sounds nice to say that women are more collegial and empathetic and
helpful to other women and that they see the big picture more clearly, and
sometimes its true. But sometimes its not especially with hard-boiled alpha
women trying to break gender barriers.
Look at Carly Fiorinas crash at Hewlett-Packard.
Since we cannot know if a woman is going to overcompensate on machismo
as Hillary did on the unjustified Iraq invasion we may want to look at it a different
way.
It may be more relevant to ask if someone is a cat or a dog.
The feline Barack Obama began his aloof reign wanting to prowl alone on the
stage and hes ending it the same way. His State of the Union speech was an exercise
in thumbing his nose at the noxious obstructionist Republicans, and lecturing
Americans who have gone from strong and silent to weak and chatty to grow up
about ISIS and stop acting as though World War III has broken out.
The hyper-rational President Obama, who disdains easy emotion in politics, has
had a hard time offering comfort or capturing the public mood at moments when
people dont feel safe, from the Christmas underwear bomber to the BP oil spill to
18/1/2016 9:59 AM
3 of 4
the rise of ISIS.

Juliette Kayyem, his former assistant secretary for Homeland Security, said its
important to try to soothe peoples fears by calmly explaining exactly what is being
done to protect them.
The author of the forthcoming Security Mom warned Democratic senators to
take Americans unease seriously when she spoke at the senators retreat at
Nationals Park last week.
Otherwise, she said, the Republican paranoia, the craziness and hysteria of
Its the Muslims and Just keep them out, fills the vacuum.
She cited a recent Wall Street Journal story suggesting that Republicans may get
a boost from security moms, women who moved toward the Republican Party after
9/11 and who have gotten jittery again after the spate of ISIS attacks. The story noted
that only 35 percent of women in a CNN/ORC International poll from December
approved of the presidents performance on terrorism, compared with 64 percent
who disapproved.
You can paint the fear of ISIS as overblown and irrational, as Obama suggested
to columnists at the White House and in his State of the Union speech, but thats the
wrong approach, Kayyem said.
You can say someone is more likely to die in a car this weekend than from a
terrorist attack, she said. But people are feeling it and you cant ignore that fear.
W. was all about the gut and Obama is all about the head and now Donald
Trump is soaring by being the opposite of Obama, all about the gut again.
Both Hillary and Trump have been emphasizing that they will do a lot more
schmoozing with lawmakers and others who disagree with them, vowing to be dogs
with a bone, eager canines offering paws, and not a cool cat stalking away at the first
sign of difficulty or when affection is most desired.
You have to build those relationships and constantly be looking for common
ground no matter how small a sliver it may be, Hillary told The Des Moines Register
18/1/2016 9:59 AM
on Monday.
At a town hall talk in Iowa on Friday, Trump made it clear that he would not be
as scornful of wheeling, dealing and wheedling as Obama.
You get them in a room and you say Do it, Trump said about working on a
budget with Congress. Obama doesnt get anyone in a room. He tried I think for a
little while and it failed. So he signs executive orders and then everybody sues and
youre not supposed to be doing that.
Cajole! Cajole! Trump exclaimed.
Have you ever seen a cat cajole?
Follow Maureen Dowd on Twitter.
the headline: Reigning Cats and Dogs.
4 of 4
18/1/2016 9:59 AM

Sundayreview: by Piers J. Sellers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sundayreview: by Piers J. Sellers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cancer and Climate Change - The New York Times

JAN. 16, 2016

Cancer and Climate Change - The New York Times

Cancer and Climate Change - The New York Times

Americans 70 percent, according to a recent Monmouth University poll believe

Cancer and Climate Change - The New York Times

2016 The New York Times Company

The Opinion Pages

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

JAN. 17, 2016

determination to pursue a negotiated solution to the nuclear threat, despite

2016 The New York Times Company

Donald Trumps Existential Pickle - The New York Times

Frank Bruni JAN. 16, 2016

Donald Trumps Existential Pickle - The New York Times

Donald Trumps Existential Pickle - The New York Times

Donald Trumps Existential Pickle - The New York Times

2016 The New York Times Company

The Bill Clinton Question - The New York Times

Ross Douthat JAN. 16, 2016

The Bill Clinton Question - The New York Times

biographies until Hannibal Buress starting talking about Cosby-the-rapist in his

The Bill Clinton Question - The New York Times

First Gentlemen today.

2016 The New York Times Company

Reigning Cats and Dogs - The New York Times

Maureen Dowd JAN. 16, 2016

Reigning Cats and Dogs - The New York Times

Reigning Cats and Dogs - The New York Times

the rise of ISIS.

Reigning Cats and Dogs - The New York Times

2016 The New York Times Company

You might also like