Meanwhile, not everyone's so optimistic

Over on the front page, Meredith has a piece about this week's Middle East peace talks. And after reading her report and frolicking around the internet to see what others are saying, I can't help but note the pessimism surrounding these talks. For example, take a look at the front page of The Hill's website:

I know it's hard to read, but here are the top three headlines (and excerpts from each story) as of about 4 pm ET:

1. "Sec. Clinton warns of 'setbacks' as Middle East peace talks begin."

"We've been here before, and we know how difficult the road ahead will be," she said. "There undoubtedly will be obstacles and setbacks."--Sec. Clinton

2. "Related Story: Lawmakers see little hope for Mideast success"

"The prevailing view on Capitol Hill is that the Middle East peace talks beginning Thursday in Washington have only a slim chance for success."

3. "Related Story: Obama ‘cautiously hopeful’ as Mideast talks begin"

"This is just the beginning of the long road ahead."--President Obama

I guess no one can be accused of getting ahead of themselves. The reason? We have all been here before. Every U.S. president in recent memory wants to be known as the president who brought peace to the Middle East. So every president repeats the same cycle. First, institute talks. Second, give some hope but not too much, and be slightly evasive of what will or should be accomplished. Third, broker an agreement along with concessions. Fourth, watch that agreement go up in flames after everyone returns home.

Why?

Because the agreement can't just be between three heads of state. There are real Israelis and Palestinians involved here. And until each leader goes back to his respective people and they buy into the agreement, peace will not happen.

See you back here next here.