I was in New York City yesterday on my weekly visit to produce "The World in Time" with Lewis Lapham on Bloomberg Radio and, while waiting nearly 20 minutes just to get on the 59th Street Bridge and another 30 minutes to cross it into Manhattan, realized that President Bush (and President Ahmadinejad and others) were in the city at the UN. Streets were blocked off, lanes were restricted to police and motorcades, and traffic was gridlocked. No wonder New Yorkers hate it when they get VIP visits.

President Sarkozy of France, also at the UN, continues to take a hard line against Iran.

Because I am now a frequent air traveller (going back and forth between Boston's Logan International Airport and LaGuardia in NYC), this kind of story has a certain appeal.

The historian and author Arthur Herman says Columbia made a "squalid mistake" in allowing President Ahmadinejad to speak there. Herman is referring to the words used by Winston Churchill to describe the resolution of the Oxford Union in 1933 that members of that house would, under no circumstances, fight for King and Country. Adolph Hitler, who came to power that same year, certainly got the message that England would not fight, a message that was reinforced time and again right up to his invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939. Is allowing President Ahmadinejad to speak an expression of strength or weakness? Some future historian, with the advantage of hindsight, will make the final determination. All I know is that, in my view, mass murderers, holocaust-deniers, and tyrants, should not be afforded the respect that is gained by speaking at a major American university and, if I was running one, I wouldn't allow it. Of course, people like me aren't allowed to run major American universities.

Here at home, a new poll shows Hillary Clinton well ahead in New Hampshire over Barack Obama. I still find it hard to believe that she is running away with the Democratic nomination. I had thought that Obama would strike a cord with Liberals and excite independents. My guess is that he has not run a very good campaign so far, and Liberal Democrats (and independents) are so fed up with the Bush Administration and the Republicans that they are desperate to get rid of them. Therefore, they see Clinton as the best weapon to accomplish the mission. They may be right.