Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper
Jake Tapper is ABC News' Senior National Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of national stories.
RECENT POSTS
- Obama's Globetrotting
- DNC Sees Cindy McCain's Wealth as Fair Game
- Crypto-Gramm
- Night of the Gun
- Michelle Obama Fair Game for Another State GOP
- All the World's Obama's Stage
- The McCain Campaign's Anti-Obama Video
- Rahm: Bush and McCain Are Following Obama's Foreign Policy Lead
- Thanks for Nothin', Joe!
- Comedy Is Not Pretty
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Stories From the Near Future | Main | Could Hillary Force Her Way Onto the Ticket? »
McCain: 'We Are Going to Have to Deal With' Hamas
May 16, 2008 1:19 PM
FROM GUEST-BLOGGER RICK KLEIN, OF ABC'S THE NOTE
This hiccup just in from John McCain's attempts to blast Barack Obama over his supposed eagerness to meet with terrorist leaders: McCain wants to meet with them, too.
Well -- sort of, and not quite. Jamie Rubin, whom you may remember as a State Department spokesman during the Clinton administration, uses a Washington Post op-ed today to relate this interview he conducted with McCain two years ago, shortly after Hamas took over the Palestinian government.
Rubin: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"
McCain: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
Huffington Post has the VIDEO HERE.
The Democratic National Committee is putting this out there actively.
And liberal bloggers jumping on this. At Huffington Post, Max Bergmann, deputy policy director at the National Security Network, sprinkles in some quotes where McCain supports direct talks with the Syrians to come to this conclusion:
"McCain is directly contradicting himself by attacking Senator Obama on his plan to confront Iran at the negotiating table. A pattern is emerging. While McCain claims to be a deep foreign policy thinker with positions carefully developed from his quarter century in Washington, the reality seems to be that his positions -- when not outright crazy -- are often knee-jerk and contradictory -- often dictated by what his temperament is at that moment or influenced by how the political winds are moving."
Rubin -- a supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's candidacy -- writes that McCain "is guilty of hypocrisy."
The McCain campaign is clearly concerned about this -- I got this identical response three separate times from the campaign this morning: "There should be no confusion, John McCain has always believed that serious engagement would require mandatory conditions and Hamas must change itself fundamentally -- renounce violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept a two state solution." -- Campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds.
Bounds continues with the contrast: "John McCain's position is clear and has always been clear, the President of the United States should not unconditionally meet with leaders of Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah. Barack Obama has made his position equally clear, and has pledged to meet unconditionally with Iran's leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the leaders of other rogue regimes, which shows incredibly dangerous and weak judgment."
McCain's 2005 answer about Hamas is certainly interesting -- and doesn't exactly sound like something that would come out of his mouth as a presidential candidate. But I'm not convinced it's "hypocrisy," either.
But in that quote, McCain is not saying specifically how he would engage Hamas; critically, he is not advocating direct negotiations without preconditions.
Conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin writes at Commentary: "This is supposed to be a gotcha quote? It doesn't appear that McCain was saying we should talk to Hamas immediately and without preconditions, or that we should talk directly to their state sponsor Iran (the latter has been the real point of contention of late)."
As to whether McCain and Obama have a real difference here, recall the key quote that the McCain campaign hopes to hang around Obama's neck. Last July, Obama was asked at a Democratic debate whether he would "meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea."
Obama's answer: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."
More recently, Obama has been clear that he would not meet with Hamas, and criticized former President Jimmy Carter's decision to do so. His pledge to meet with the leaders of rogue states, he told ABC's David Wright last month, "does not include Hamas. They are not heads of state and they don't recognize Israel. You can't negotiate with somebody who doesn't recognize the right of the country to exist. So I understand why Israel doesn't meet with Hamas."
Obama has said he would be willing to meet with the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, as president.
-- Rick Klein
UPDATE: The McCain campaign has secured a more complete clip from the Rubin-McCain interview -- and it seems to back up the McCain position, that he was not advocating direct negotiations with Hamas. View that clip HERE.
Rubin: "So should we -- the United States -- be dealing with that new reality through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United States?"
McCain: "I think the United States should take a step back, see what they do when they form their government, see what their policies are, and see the ways that we can engage with them. And if there aren't any, there may be a hiatus. But, I think part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not by how the United States acts."
From the McCain campaign: "As the entire video -- just posted on SkyNews -- clearly shows, John McCain absolutely did not advocate unconditional engagement with Hamas. Indeed, Rubin conveniently cut off his follow-up question to which McCain was clear that any engagement with Hamas would be conditioned on their actions and policies -- that any actions would be "dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts."
UPDATE II: With the McCain campaign and the RNC in full attack mode -- subject line of the McCain campaign e-mail: "JAMIE RUBIN LIED" -- Jamie Rubin reached out to defend himself on Saturday.
He stands by his assertion that McCain was guilty of "hypocrisy" here -- and points out (rightly) that he never said in his op-ed that McCain favored direct negotiations with Hamas without preconditions. He wrote in the op-ed that McCain appeared "ready to do business with a Hamas-led government" in the two-year-old interview; he did not say that McCain embraced direct, immediate talks.
Rubin said Saturday: "There is an obvious difference between the John McCain of two years ago, and how he was talking about Hamas, and the John McCain of today, and how he was talking about Hamas. ... Someone who says that Obama is the preferred candidate of Hamas, that's a political smear, and it's hypocritical given that he was far more open to negotiating with Hamas than he is today."
May 16, 2008 in McCain, John, Obama, Barack | Permalink | User Comments (84)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/29155426
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference McCain: 'We Are Going to Have to Deal With' Hamas:
McCain is driving the Flip Flop express down the Hypocrisy track!
The U.S. military currently pays about $300 a month to each of the 90,000 Sons of Iraq security personnel, but officials say they hope the Iraqi government will take over the contracts by the end of the year. The original plan was for the overwhelmingly Sunni Sons of Iraq to be incorporated into the Iraqi Security Forces, but the Shiite-majority government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has resisted hiring them.
More recently, the U.S. command has said that only about 20,000 should be added to the security forces — nearly all of them in Sunni-dominated Anbar province.
Sen McCain supports the Surge in Iraq, including the payment to the Sons of Iraq(Sunni Terrorists who killed US Soldiers)sort oy paying the terrorists not to fight against the US.
Sen McCain is lying, hypocritacal Appeaser. for supporting the monthly payments of over $30 million to terrorists.
Don’t talk to terrorists, just pay them! Is McCain and Bush’s foreign policy claim to fame!
Next issue for debate! Economics anyone!
Dems08
Posted by: jld1959 | May 18, 2008 12:13:51 PM
Well we know what Hillary's position would be...she would just OBLITHERATE them. She won't talk to other nations and she won't take the advice of her commanders. She openly stated her commanders will follow HER rules and policies. I guess she may say she would oblitherate the Saudi's too since she is planning on taking them on with the oil supply.
If any nation would be so bold as to disagree with her she wouldn't be receiving that stupid 3:00 am phone call...she would be MAKING IT.
Posted by: What Foreign Policy | May 17, 2008 11:08:16 PM
I am an avid Obama supporter, but I have to say, Jamie Rubin did take McCain's comments out of context. Rubin is an ex-Clinton person and we all know they are masters of sound bites skewed to their advantage.
I am in no way taking up for McCain with his earlier comments on Hammas wanting Obama as their choice. The truth is the truth and on this one issue Rubin's clip is misleading. He is just trying to hitch his wagon to a rising star since there won't be any jobs available in the Clinton administration.
Obama doesn't need this kind of distortion to beat McCain. He will do it on his own and fair and square. But, he really doesn't need to keep fighting a primary election battle and take on the Republican nominee and the current President all at the same time. We really need to know who the democratic nominee is so we can move forward and not stay in this democratic party election hell.
Posted by: Consider The Source | May 17, 2008 10:57:10 PM
Sully writes,"I think that anyone who thinks they can negotiate with one group that wants nothing more than to wipe another group off the face of the earth is not using sound judgement."
=============================
Sound judgement? No offense but it is CLEAR you're not familiar with the HISTORY of Egypt and Israel. Do you honestly THINK the Egyptians wouldn't WANT to see Israel wiped off the planet? Well? Do you? Yet for some strange reason they're at peace. I wonder why? Oh, yeah..because the a President of the United States of America had the AUDACITY and INTELLIGENCE to know it would be pretty friggin' stupid to just ASSUME policy instead of MAKING it.
Posted by: Dems | May 17, 2008 9:52:02 PM
We are the last super power in the world. We should use that as leverage in dealing with many world situations. I am not advocating beating the daylights out of rogue nations, just make sure that everyone knows that we could.
I think that anyone who thinks they can negotiate with one group that wants nothing more than to wipe another group off the face of the earth is not using sound judgement.
If McCain meant that he would sit down and talk with Hamas, then he is wrong. What he said is that we would have to deal with them eventually in one way or another. I take this to mean that one way is to negotiate and the other way involves some type of military force.
I think that warfare is one of the most disgusting things man has ever taken part in, but in certain situations I understand the necessary effectiveness of it.
No matter who is elected in November (apparently it will be one of these three marginal choices) they had better be ready to take a strong stance regarding the defense of not only our country, but of countries that we consider our friends.
Posted by: sully | May 17, 2008 3:09:52 PM
Akin to refusing to place a 'stop light' at an intersection until a number of people have had an accident there, so it will go for those that vote and place Oprahma in the White House. The soope of the mistake will not be fully realized until it is far too late for the country. Voting for a candidate that may or may not be the 'lessor of two or three evils' is not very smart or prudent for a democracy to flourish. 'We the people' should demand and promote qualified candidates, if they do not now exist; and they don't, in my opinion. Oprahma does one thing very well; slicing baloney.
Posted by: therockofages | May 17, 2008 12:43:45 PM
Cindy McCain had (note "had") a drug problem. Michelle Obama has (note "has") an anti-American problem in which she gained admittance to Ivy League colleges through affirmative action but is now whining about having had to pay off student loans, calls 2008 American a "downright mean" country, and says she is for the first time in her adult life proud of her country. Which is relevant to this election?
Posted by: HoosierSue | May 17, 2008 11:47:48 AM
The McCain interview was conducted right after Hamas won election. Times have changed since then (and McCain's words at the time have been misconstrued). We now know those elections were rigged. We also know that Hamas has since bombed Israel. Obama hasn't got a leg to stand on and is only making himself look more foolish.
Posted by: HoosierSue | May 17, 2008 11:43:45 AM
Wow its great how prejudice America is. obama has racism, Clinton has sexism and Mccain has ageist comments to contend with too. I find it concerning that a guy who could remember to provide false names of his comrades whilst being tortured, should be mocked for not remembering what he may have said last year- just because he's of certain age. How demeaning.
Back to topic. Actually I think out of the three candidates, Mccain has said the most sensible thing. Whats wrong with preconditions? He's not saying he wouldn't fight hard to use diplomacy and he's not saying that he wouldn't use diplomacy. Obama spin.
I guess only Obama, the one blest with a 'gift of the gab' can be the one to reach these nations.
Problem is these nations are looking for more substance in their diplomatic meetings than a cute inspiring speech, especially one from a man who is not bringing anything new to the table (other than an intense belief he has been chosen). He will not talk to Hamas, he has staunchly advocated israel and said he himself (and america) will not compromise so why should anyone else?
Perhaps the question should be why would they want to talk to him? we're all assuming Iran are desperate to negotiate. Negotiate what? They might be quite happy and would just like the US to but out and keep to themselves. I don't see any articles pleading for a meeting.
One rule for US : Our way or the highway?
Except isn't that the same kind of foreign policy we are hated for throughout the rest of the world?
I'm sick of people making America values look like hypocritical. Thats what Bush has done blatantly for 8 years.
Posted by: firefox | May 17, 2008 11:31:08 AM
Howard Kurtz noted the oddity of Barack referring to his “father’s” flag draped coffin. Only problem, Barack’s dad died a Kenyan. He was not entitled to having the U.S. flag swaddling his coffin. Barack really meant to say “grandfather.” But making it about his father makes it more endearing. Or was Obama trying to "bamboozle" us?
His "father" was buried in "the Muslim tradition" according to Obama's book.
Nit picking you say? Really? Well then why criticize Hillary for one comment about taking sniper fire in Bosnia. Let’s ignore Dan Quayle’s spelling errors. And let’s give McCain a preemptive pass for seeming confused, when it happens. It if is good for one it is good for all.
Posted by: Matt | May 17, 2008 1:59:40 AM
Of course, John McCain meant to meet with Hamas, although for politics' sake he is denying it now because he simply doesn't remember he said it in 2006.
We all should know that McCain is suffering from the 'remembering disease'. His gene is just half his mother's while the other half is from his father, so he already began to lose his bearing.
If McCain needs memory during this campaign period I am ready to give it to him - memory bag to carry around. Methusallah had a memory bag.
Posted by: eezii | May 16, 2008 10:50:10 PM
Dr. Sam,
'Racism at its finest hour.' Actually the allusion would be to an albatross, ie. Rime of the Ancient Mariner, meaning the McCain campaign hopes the quote would become a liability for Obama. Your indignation would be better expressed fighting real problems than (incorrectly) parsing blogs for the outrage of the hour, imo.
Posted by: flambasto | May 16, 2008 9:29:54 PM
Come on people get it right.
Obama basically spelled out the current policy today. We are willing to talk, as long as certain conditions are in place. Of course, Obama did say previously that he would meet unconditionally...but then he back-tracked when he realized what he had said.
The current administration does engage in limited talks using lower level diplomats. People act like it is a total refusal to talk with our enemies.
Get the whole story.
In the meantime, McCain seemed to be the one scoring points.
Obama...once again...it is all about him. Bush has said these same comments many times before. Obama just wanted to make news today and give another speech.
Posted by: Raleigh Voter | May 16, 2008 9:28:29 PM
it's kind of funny seeing the obamaniacs going after Mccain;
they better be careful because one day really soon...... the Repubs are going
to get really M E A N.... just like them!
I'll stick with Hillary and enjoy the respite.
Posted by: questioner | May 16, 2008 7:25:28 PM
StMTraveler:
I thought this was one nation under G-d for both Democrats and republicans.
What's with this Commonwealth manifesto?'Will you be offering your services to re-write our Constitution?
Frankly I think before we go any further. we need to fix OURSELVES!
Then, whenever possible, we should continue to support our allies .
Posted by: questioner | May 16, 2008 7:21:49 PM
Hamas will not negotiate with Israel, and Israel is/has alway been a staunch ally of the United States.
Frankly I wish there were an Umbrella of Deterrence over the head of that particular crackpot party!
Israel is the only country I know of which has given back lands acquired during a 7 day war instigated and lost by their enemies.
Israel is a teeny tiny haven in the mideast surrounded by big enemies with big bombs .
According to the book of Genesis,
" the 13th tribe, Levi (the third of Jacob's sons), was set apart and had no one portion of land of its own. A break in the Hebrew kingdom was precipitated by Rehoboam, a son of Solomon. An independent southern kingdom, consisting of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin as well as a portion of the Levites, was called Judah; the northern kingdom, which consisted of the rest of what had been the larger Hebrew nation, was called Israel"
But you're right when you say we cannot afford to protect the world; why don't we just toss the Olde Testament into the ocean..... along with the Koran?
Posted by: questioner | May 16, 2008 7:12:12 PM
Do people really believe Obama can protect the national
security of this country when he is friends with a
known terrorist bill ayers. this is the truth spin it
all you want but the truth is the truth. And do not tell
me Obama was only 8 years old when bill ayers set bombs.
A terrorist is a terrorist past and present.
Posted by: smallestvoice | May 16, 2008 7:08:48 PM
"McCain wants to meet with them, too."
Can we please get the basic facts right about this? Obama has never said he would meet with them. Republicans have been pushing this and it is false.
Posted by: phi | May 16, 2008 6:51:51 PM
sweetie pie:
"McCain talks out of the side of his mouth so that what he says can be take in many ways. It's called lying, cheating, and misleading. On the other hand, Obama speaks with purpose and openess as not to deceive. Thank u very much."
OBANMA speaks out of BOTH sides of his mouth. "It's called lying, cheating, and misleading".
In his first "race" speech, B O clung to his pastor who was like an uncle and protected him while he trashed his typical white granny and threw her out to the wolves.
In his second "race" speech, he took back his original supportive message of love and compassion for Jeremiah and then threw HIM to the wolves and the company of his granny.
It doesn't bother me because I'm not going to vote for him BUT I have this sneaking suspicion that as soon as all the primaries have been run, there will be a THIRD speech in which BO will forgive his pastor and the two will be best buds again!
To me, this sort of says that especially when you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth, two WRIGHTS can definitely be wrong.
I'll stick with Hillary as long as it takes.
Should she want to start a third party, I'm willing a ready to do the demo switcheroo.... and I won't be alone!
Posted by: questioner | May 16, 2008 6:38:45 PM
I hear there is a video that is about to be released by the dems that show cindy mccain leaving a drug rehab clinic! wow!
obama 08!
Posted by: BBLACK | May 16, 2008 6:25:03 PM
This is a problem McCain seems to have quite often. He keeps having to ask his aides what his position is on any subject, as if he does not remember and has no opinions of his own.
Posted by: jock59801 | May 16, 2008 6:06:56 PM
I am hearing that there is a video (with audio) of Cindy Mccain railing against Black people that is about to be released for the world to see. Also hearing that there is equally damaging footage (with audio) of john mccain that is about to be released.
Posted by: BBLACK | May 16, 2008 6:04:02 PM
I am hearing that there is a video (with audio) of Michelle Obama railing against white people from the pulpit at Trinity that is about to be released for the world to see. Also hearing that there is equally damaging footage (with audio) of Barack Obama that is about to be released.
What have you heard about this, Jake?
Posted by: USVet | May 16, 2008 5:57:43 PM
In one of the debates Obama clearly said he would negotiate with terrorists. Bush simply does not agree with this position, because it has not worked in the past. The left wing press and all the liberals can spin it any way they want but that is what was he said.
Posted by: Tim | May 16, 2008 5:42:55 PM
Flip flop goes ol' John. This guy even votes against the bills he sponsors. Great presidential material.
Posted by: Big Al | May 16, 2008 5:38:47 PM
McCain only talks to himself
Posted by: Jim B | May 16, 2008 5:29:05 PM
Bush-McCain Foreign Policy
BushMcCain Foreign Policy
McBush Foreign Policy
105 years of war
Posted by: Jim B | May 16, 2008 5:11:24 PM
McCain: Do You Support a Federal States of Israel and Palestine as One Nation?
We have had 60 years of experimenting about the Israeli- Palestinian struggle. The region would need help before we will be dragged into a World War III.
No one can reject the fact that creation of Israel on the land of Arabic nations has created tremendous political and economical problems for the United States. We may have to look outside of the box to diffuse the problems. One solution would be for Israel joining us as a member of the Unites States’ Common Wealth.
We are already supporting Israel economically, politically and by sharing intelligence and military hardware. In addition, some Israeli Americans with both Israeli and American citizenships serve in the Israeli Armed Forces. Israel never would have to be fearful of any other nation; our great American Armed Forces will protect the common wealth as they would the homeland.
Would it be politically more advantages for the United States to manage the Jewish state as a member of our Common Wealth?
The Israeli Common Wealth will be free to exercise the religious freedom that our great nation would offer without being isolated among the hostile Arabs.
The Common Wealth should include the Arabs who were forced to leave the land when Zionist invaded the land. It should also include all of the land called by Palestinian as their homeland and by Israeli as their state. I don't suggest this proposal would work or be acceptable by Israel. Then what next?
Would really two nation model for Palestinian and Israeli work in the future? Many experts on the Middle Eastern politics and people would suggest that a two state solution in not viable model. We have struggled with it for nearly 60 years.
Should we be looking at the region as a Federal States with one government elected by all of the people? This model may have a much better chance of survival as a solution for both Israeli and Arabs.
We have been forced into one box by the Israeli Lobby; we need to look outside of this box. We can’t fight wars after wars to support a non-working model of a two state solution. We can’t afford war after war to support a failed two state model.
Posted by: StMTraveler | May 16, 2008 5:06:08 PM
At least Reagan term #1 had smart people involved whether you agreed with their politics or not. Even Bush #1 was pretty good but after reading the quote below, I think McCain inherited inbreds and fools:
"It was remarkable to see Barack Obama's hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn't even mentioned. "
Who do they think they are fooling?
Posted by: Mr. Coffee | May 16, 2008 5:02:37 PM
Here it is again twwo sets of rules.One said I would meet and one oh my gosh ,NO now he will meet with them gesh unreal .I will be so glad when this mess is over and we can get on with the regular election.Go get him Obamaaaaaaaaaaa
Posted by: IND older person | May 16, 2008 4:46:31 PM
The Most DISAPPOINTING THING about Sen. McCain this season is his utter lack of principle in making allusions that he knows don't hold any water. He made statements about Obama and Hamas in the past that are clearly not true, just to score a political point. He wrongly and purposefully sought to make a connection between Obama and Hamas, even though Obama had in the past condemned Hamas and expressed his strong support for Israel. McCain is not honorable afterall--just a creature of the old politics Obama is campaigning against! Furthermore, Sen. McCain takes offence when he feels that Obama is alluding to his age;yet, he clearly makes a not-so-veiled reference to Obama's age by accusing him (wrongly) of being naive, "foolish" (a language from a politician who says he expects "respectful" debate, unwise,and inexperienced. And now this! Obama is right that we should make a clean break with Bush-Cheney-McCain approach to foreign policy. Democrats must chat a new course , especially in the face of Bush dismal failure in international politics and foreign policy.
Posted by: Dr. Sam | May 16, 2008 4:43:48 PM
"recall the key quote that the McCain campaign hopes to hang around Obama's neck." Racism at it's finest hour. Thanks RICK.. What the hell is this all about. I believe we could have a used a better chose of words.
Posted by: Charlie | May 16, 2008 4:38:57 PM
Lets see, are you a fortune teller too? Do you know that the war won't be over in 2013? I doubt it buddy. Maybe you are too lazy to research on McCain's stance regarding US policy that handles domestic issues. There's an entire web of information that can be utilized. So use it. Too many of you who descended from the colonists (illegal immigrant equivalents) are lazy. I bet England, France, and the rest are glad they got rid of you.
Posted by: right on | May 16, 2008 4:38:17 PM
jo
tell me where mccain stand on the economy, education, all the things that are important to us. he wants war war war, no he is saying like the dem. party the war will be over by 2013 and it will be a victory. is he a fortune teller b/c right now the war doesn't look like it will be victories in 4 years. why does mccain flip flop on hamas, on his 100 year war, on the economy. ?????
Posted by: bez | May 16, 2008 4:22:35 PM
Interestingly, McCain no longer feels we may have to be in Iraq for 100 years. He expects to have our troops out of Iraq by the start of 2013. This raises the following question:
Will the troops:
a) simply be deployed elsewhere?
b) refuse to serve, like Army Sgt. Matthis Chiroux who announced yesterday to Congress he refuses to be delpoyed to Iraq?
Posted by: Jim | May 16, 2008 4:22:12 PM
All entities must be dealt with over in the middle east. Hamas has legitimacy among the Palestinians and should therefore be engaged.
Posted by: huh | May 16, 2008 4:20:45 PM
Sara
McCain has a wonderful education but he was 3rd to last in his graduating class. He barely got out.
The big question I have about him, is whether his all-too-apparent short term memory loss includes incipient Alzheimer's yet. He is known in the Senate as 'not a detail man' which is code for "he doesnt remember conversations we had with him two days ago".
Posted by: bruce becker | May 16, 2008 4:16:06 PM
Mr Coffee, the only part you are missing is that the land where Israel and Palestine are now was a British protectorate, and I think it should be again, and not have a 'Jewish state' and "Muslim-Arab state'.
Then there can be fair division of water rights.
If the US would offer visas to the Jews who are on former Arab lands, we would get a huge influx of educated workers, who can read and write in a few languages and have degrees in engineering and medicine. It would be a big improvement over the illegals who dont read English.
I notice no one even comments on the 12 million illegals anymore. I suppose the power in charge have just given up, since it would offend the Latinos.
Anyway, Mr Coffee, the Brits were the holders of that land, by UN protectorate.
Posted by: bruce becker | May 16, 2008 4:12:32 PM
You might note that Obama doesnt say he would meet with Hamas, but McCain clearly does. Perhaps he thinks that there would be preconditions, but he certainly didnt say that there must be, in fact, he implies that there isnt any choice at all "sooner or later we will have to". Obama on the other hand suggests meeting face to face with leaders of STATES. He does not suggest that Hamas is the leader of a State, John Mccain doesnt call them terrorists, he calls them "the Government".
Posted by: David S | May 16, 2008 4:10:59 PM
You might note that Obama doesnt say he would meet with Hamas, but McCain clearly does. Perhaps he thinks that there would be preconditions, but he certainly didnt say that there must be, in fact, he implies that there isnt any choice at all "sooner or later we will have to". Obama on the other hand suggests meeting face to face with leaders of STATES. He does not suggest that Hamas is the leader of a State, John Mccain doesnt call them terrorists, he calls them "the Government".
Posted by: David S | May 16, 2008 4:10:57 PM
Did any of y'all stop to think that there might be more to the quote than where Rubin stopped? Get the rest of the tape and you'll hear McCain say that Hamas has to recognize Israel's right to exist before we should consider even talking to them.
Posted by: Buford Gooch | May 16, 2008 4:02:31 PM
McCain must really want to separate himself from Bush by talking to Hamas. But he is right, Fatah was not helping the Palestinians. Supposedly Hamas is concerned about the Palestinians and for their welfare. Let's see them show it now.
Posted by: Bob | May 16, 2008 3:59:44 PM
ANYTIME AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT STOOPS TO THE LEVEL OF THESE "THUG' STATES, THERE IS NO ONE LEFT ON EARTH THAT THEY FEAR. UNFORTUNATELY, FEAR IS THE ONLY THING THAT GETS TO THESE THUGS. THE NORTH KOREANS HAVE CHANGED HIS POSTURE--IT IS OKAY TO HAVE LOW-LEVEL NEGOTIATING WHEN THEY SHOW THEY ARE CHANGING, NOT BEFORE.
OBAMA IS VERY NAIVE... EVEN HIS CHANGAMANIA AND HOPEAMANIA SHOWS HE HAS NO CLUE. CANT CHANGE WASHINGTON, THE CONSTITUTION IS THERE TO MAKE SURE YOU DONT CHANGE IT. HOPE TO UNITE ALL PEOPLE FAILED WHEN HE LIVED WITH JEREMIAH WRIGHT FOR 20 YRS.. HOPE IS THE OPIUM OF THE MASSES.
TJ, THE CLINTONITE, OBAMAMANIA BUSTER
Posted by: TJ | May 16, 2008 3:57:39 PM
For all you idiots Obaba said, He would meet with the foreign leaders of those nations. Which is Iran , NOT HAMAS. Regan called the Soviet Union an evil empire. He was willing to meet with them , not the KGB.
Y'all are so dumb and ignorant
Posted by: Jguill | May 16, 2008 3:50:38 PM
All of this aside, I just do not think McCain is up to snuff on foreign policy. Maybe it's his age, or he's just had so many things happen that he gets confused, but whatever it is, he just doesn't seem to understand the entire picture. I do not think he's up to the job of being president. I'm voting for Obama. I think he's very very smart, and he's thoughtful, and I trust him.
Posted by: Marilyn | May 16, 2008 3:46:03 PM
HAMAS, IN 2006, SEEMED
TO BE CLEANING ITS ACT, TO BE EMERGING AS A LEGITIMATE PART OF
PALESTINIAN GOVERNMENT...VOTED BY THE PEOPLE AS PART OF GOVERNMENT.
MCCIAN HAD STATED THE OBVIOUS;IF PEOPLE VOTE THEM INTO POWER, AS THE
PEOPLE DID, WHO ARE WE TO REFUSE THEM AS LEGITIMATE REPRESENTATIVES OF
THE PEOPLE??? WE MAY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TALK WITH THEM. WE ARE NOT
BETTER THAN THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE. THEY ARE PEOPLE TOO. THAT IS
DEMOCRACY. MCCAIN WAS RIGHT ON IN 2006 ...
THE FACT , HOWEVER, IS THAT HAMAS HAS SINCE RETURNED TO TERRORISM.
THE FRINGE ELEMENTS CAME BACK.. SO GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
THE HAMAS IN 2006 AT THE TIME, MCCAIN SPOKE HAD JUST BEEN VOTED IN BY
THE PEOPLE.
THEY HAVE SINCE RETURNED TO THREATENING ISRAEL IN AN ATTEMPT TO OUTDO
AL-QUAEDA AND GAIN FAVOR WITH MUSLIMS.
THE HAMAS THAT CARTER SPOKE WITH IS NOT THE SAME HAMAS A FEW WEEKS
AFTERWARDS, GO FIGURE.
I BELIEVE THEY MADE OVERTURES TO CARTER, AS CARTER CLAIMED, ONLY TO CHANGE THEIR MIND WITHIN WEEKS.
THESE PEOPLE ARE SICK AND AMERICA HAS SURVIVED BY BEING WARY OF HER
ENEMIES.
SO OBAMA IS A KID IN THIS REGARD..
mccain was right in 2006 to make that STATEMENT. BUSH IS RIGHT IN HIS STATEMENT AGAINST OBAMA APPEASEMENT!
YOU ARE DELIBERATELY MISLEADING PEOPLE BY POSTING THIS... NATURALLY, MY COMMENT, WILL BE DELETED BECAUSE IT DOES NOT FAVOR OBAMA.
TJ, THE clintonite.
Posted by: TJ | May 16, 2008 3:42:43 PM
One thing people don't know is that McCain has “remembering disease”, so it makes him like all suffers of the disease to forget the present and near past. He can't remember anything he said previously including what he said yesterday. This is why he is sounding like a hypocrite. He is indeed like Bush a flip flopper.
He doesn't mean to be a liar, but my question is: are we going to entrust the future and fate of this great nation - the United States of America to a man who can't recognize his surrounding due to an ailment not of his make?
NO. It will be foolhardy for us to do that. It will almost be suicidal to vote for Sen. McCain, but in voting for Sen. Obama let’s all remember that we all wish to be old one day – that growing old is a good thing not a bad one. We should all see how graceful Sen. McCain’s mother has grown old, with all her senses in place. Unfortunately, everyone does not have the kind of gene that graceful woman has, even her son Sen. John McCain who only inherited half her gene and comes up short with “hard to remember disease”.
Please, don’t hold it against Sen. McCain; just politely send him back to Arizona to help him come to terms with his state of the mind. BUT come NOVEMBER 4, 2008 let us vote Sen. Obama enmass. He is the agent of true change – the next President of the United States of America.
Posted by: eezii | May 16, 2008 3:39:00 PM
Obuma basically read his speech - why doesn't he just call it in.
He sounded like he was on something.
Posted by: Reagan Democrat | May 16, 2008 3:26:08 PM
"What happened to John, my friend John, cause I don't like this BUSH.." McCain is toast, even republicans don't like him and are pumping Hilliary to my face... Short of another attack allowing Bush to spuspend the election, the Democrats will take the White House, count on it. Bush has put the party in the same trap his father was put in '92. The virgin mary herself couldn't save the party now. Count on it.
Posted by: blog | May 16, 2008 3:20:55 PM
Ronald Reagan, one of the greatest Presidents this country has ever had, would have NEVER considered bombing or attacking the USSR in the way Bush and McCain attacked Iraq, and want to attack Iran. Reagan used strong diplomacy and strength through resolve to end the Cold War. The handful of neo-conservative fools that have hijacked the Republican party have nearly destroyed this country, and already destroyed the Republican party.
Obama's plan for the future is very similar to Reagans, and he will be the next President thank God.
Posted by: Eric | May 16, 2008 2:52:15 PM
Oh, first McCain says he didn't vote for Bush in the first place, then he flip flops, then the MLK holiday flop flip on the campaign trail, now this is just another flop flip. We don't need a flopper flipper in the WH next time.
Posted by: sweetiePie | May 16, 2008 2:51:26 PM
Tim -- You said "Nobody seems to care on here that McCain blasted Obama...but he wants to meet with Hamas". That is the whole INCORRECT assumption with the title of the article ---- read what Jennifer says (correctly) later "It doesn't appear that McCain was saying we should talk to Hamas immediately and without preconditions, or that we should talk directly to their state sponsor Iran." --- That is what OBAMA wants to do --- talk to the people responsible for killing Americans.
Posted by: MDB33 | May 16, 2008 2:50:56 PM
Jo,
Obama is right.
There are 57 contests (primaries/caucauses).
51 State Contests (49 States & 2 in Texas)
6 Other Contests
American Samoa
Democrats Abroad
District of Columbia
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Posted by: Steve_NJ | May 16, 2008 2:50:07 PM
Two years ago, in an interview with James Rubin for Sky News, Sen. John McCain expressed a willingness to negotiate with the terrorist group Hamas — the very group that McCain has been relentlessly using to smear Sen. Barack Obama over the last several weeks.
Rubin has written an op-ed in Friday's Washington Post about his exchange with McCain, and The Huffington Post has obtained exclusive video
Posted by: jld1959 | May 16, 2008 2:46:22 PM
Mr Coffee --- You said there was something wrong with "60 years ago, the state of Israel did not exist. It was forcefully created on Palestinian land". --- Probably because there was a division of land based on the dominanat population at the time --- Jews were in the majority in some areas.
Posted by: MDB33 | May 16, 2008 2:45:03 PM
Nobody seems to care on here that McCain blasted Obama about wanting to meet with Hamas but he was just called on the fact that he said that he would meet with them 2 years ago. That makes John McCain no better than Hillary clinton because he will lie to make himself look more credible. I think McCain will end up burying himself. Obama 08'
Posted by: Tim | May 16, 2008 2:43:47 PM
GWP, Franklin Boro, NJ ----- You think McCain is pandering "fear". I want to hear from you again if there is (or WHEN there is) another terrorist attack against us ---- then you wont be so self-assured that there is nothing to fear from terrorists!
Posted by: MDB33 | May 16, 2008 2:41:45 PM
McCain talks out of the side of his mouth so that what he says can be take in many ways. It's called lying, cheating, and misleading. On the other hand, Obama speaks with purpose and openess as not to deceive. Thank u very much.
Posted by: sweetiePie | May 16, 2008 2:41:28 PM
Unfornatunely, Obama will be another Bush but Dems' version...
Posted by: True Truth | May 16, 2008 2:39:03 PM
Obama's foreign policy is very weak. He will toast in November by GOP.
Posted by: Laura | May 16, 2008 2:37:56 PM
If McCain thinks he's going to win the election by using the same tactics Bush used in 2004 by trying to use fear, he's not going to win. It's clear he is very much like Bush regarding foreign diplomacy, and we do not need another Bush in the WH. Thanks to Bush, most of the world do not like the USA, so it's time we get a leader that is not another Bush.
Posted by: GWP, Franklin Boro, NJ | May 16, 2008 2:36:42 PM
Mr. McCain's bearings have been lost ever since he stood in the way of Martin Luther King Jr. Day in the State of Arizona. Somebody fire this creep.
Posted by: sweetiePie | May 16, 2008 2:34:08 PM
McCain has lost his Barrings again he doesn't know if he would speak with with Hamas or not. He Better ask his warmunger buddy George first. I wonder if England or France had issues with Iseral would George / McCain want to talk or send more of our brave men an women to die for no reason. I think they would talk and not just because they are our alies. But because Neither one of them care about Muslems. When did talking become a dirty word. Being the Greatest Nation in the World with the breavest men and women, and yet we still haven't won the war in Iracq yet. Maybe it's like McCain said during that speach he made. That he was looking for new energy "so that more brave men and women don't have to go over there and lose thier lives any more".
Posted by: MikeB. | May 16, 2008 2:24:34 PM
What is untrue about this statement?
60 years ago, the state of Israel did not exist. It was forcefully created on Palestinian land.
Posted by: Mr. Coffee | May 16, 2008 2:21:15 PM
If Hillary is not the nominee, then democratic party deserves to lose in November. How can a good democrat vote for a person who seems to be comfortable living in the swamp of Rev. Wright, Louis Farrakhan and Ayers?
Posted by: Roger Miller | May 16, 2008 2:19:45 PM
Barack Carter Obama wants to meet with Hamas. Why should we be surprised? Afer all, Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan went to Libya before. Mr. Obama belongs to the same swamp of Wright, Farrakhan and Ayers.
Posted by: Roger Miller | May 16, 2008 2:17:07 PM
Politicians who claim to be strong on defense are doing one thing for sure. Transferring monies from the tax payer to the weapons builders. No doubt we have to be strong enough to defend our country. But we are spending today far more than any other other nation on the military. I wish they paid our soldiers better instead of buying exotic weapons that performs better on the drawing board than at the battlefront. Our defense spending is meant not to protect our country but to project our power around the world.
Posted by: worldsam | May 16, 2008 2:16:45 PM
Instead of McSame, McCain should be called Beandito which is the name a company has for their Mexican Jumping Beans. He's flipping all over the place. The way that he denies it makes it look like he's related to the Clintons. Beandito 2008!
I had some respect for him until yesterday. He's like a new driver on the road with this race. He move's to the right and then worries he's too far over so moves left then back and now he's going back and forth.
Posted by: Mr. Coffee | May 16, 2008 2:16:04 PM
You Republicans scared yet? You better be...
Posted by: ouchy | May 16, 2008 2:14:18 PM
Mr. Obama wants to talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. What for? To convince Israel is not a stinking corpse? To convince holocaust did not happen? Or people who are not muslims should not be killed.
Let him first explain what change stands for other than a quarter, nickel and dime.
Let him first explain why he chose Rev. Wright's church?
Posted by: Roger Miller | May 16, 2008 2:13:50 PM
OT - Stop reading liberal blog or the MSM, revenue to the Goverment is at the highest ever under Pres. Bush, what is happening is the Dems are spending it, 250 billion dollar Farm bill to give RICH farmers money not to grow food!!
Posted by: spock | May 16, 2008 2:12:14 PM
Hey Libs hate to tell you this but McCain is not Pres. Bush, McCain is too much like a Democrat, if you want to compare him to a past President look at his policies and you will see he is more similar to JFK a Democrat, the last good Democrat or true Democrat.
Obama the closest to him would be Stalin of Russia!!