It Gets Worse

Obama has flip flopped on the security fence in Israel.

Here is what he said in 2004 about it:

When Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, the Chicago Jewish News interviewed him on his stance regarding Israel's security fence. He accused the Bush administration of neglecting the "Israeli-Palestinian" situation and criticized the security fence built by Israel to prevent terror attacks: "The creation of a wall dividing the two nations is yet another example of the neglect of this Administration in brokering peace," Obama was quoted as saying.

Now Obama is magically for the security fence. No reporter has ever questioned him on this flip flop.

But that gets no media scrutiny because the media is biased.

Now McCain seems more of an "appeaser" than Obama, who has declared--wrongly, I believe--that he won't negotiate with Hamas.

How Hillary of Obama.

Well, Barack Obama fans?

Are you really going to defend Obama's Hamas position on principled grounds?

Thanks for pushing back against this Joe.

I too was rather surprised that they would try to deny the meaning of words clearly spoken on video.

Rubin did lie, he cut up the tape to leave out McCain elaborating on his position.

Someone needs to ask Rubin why he cut this out from the video released and why he didn't provide the context in his op-ed.

Rubin: “So should the United States be dealing with that new reality through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United States?”

Sen. 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 how the United States acts.”

Rubin cut this from his op-ed and the video posted on huffington post. This was shameful on both their parts.

Rubin brings up conflict of interest problems as well. He is a political activist who the media this morning treated as an unbiased journalist.

As usual, Joe, you did not even bother to do your research. If you had, you would have seen that McCain clearly states, in the Rubin interview, that Hamas would have to denounce violence and accept the existence of Israel before he would meet with them.

You might want to check the tape yourself. Taking at face value a video clip, released by the Huffington Post and promoted by a Clinton flunky, that is abruptly edited in mid-discussion is not a very good source for a "reporter" such as yourself to rely on.

Shoddy work. As always.

-Ben

Hey look, CNN reports Rubin lied:

CNN'S DANA BASH: "You remember these interviews were done shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian elections. Lou, the McCain campaign just in the past couple of hours, found a link to more of Jamie Rubin's interview from back then. In it, I'll read you a quote from the rest of or at least more of the interview, In that quote Sen. McCain says, 'I think part of the relationship will be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.' Now the McCain campaign, as you can image, says that this is proof that Senator McCain has been consistent all along, and I should tell you that CNN asked Jamie Rubin earlier today for the rest of the interview or at least for a transcript and he said he didn't have it. He said he only had this particular quote he said that was e-mailed to him."

CNN'S LOU DOBBS: "Well that seems, certainly to, as you report, to substantiate precisely what Senator McCain is saying."

Joe. You are digging a big hole here. You are trying to present lies as facts. Either you are knowingly trying to deceive your readers, or you are not even bothering to check your facts.

-Ben

It's weird. You were my least favorite Swamplander in the beginning. Then there was Bad Joe and Good Joe. Then it was mostly Good Joe writing about Iraq and mostly Bad Joe writing about the campaign. Now it's mostly Good Joe, with only the occasional Bad Joe making an appearance.

By Bad Joe, I don't mean not liberal, but reflexively buying into conventional wisdom, wih for over a decade, has been consistently wrong. When you attack Obama and Hillary on Farm subsidies, even if I disagree, you're not being intellectually dishonest. And it's a good point. And this is where I want a functional press corps to be able to not be partisans -- for political reasons, I expect Obama and Hillary HAVE to do certain things that are dumb. Some, like Obama, will occasionally do the smart things that are politically dumb -- like on the Gas Tax -- which only has a benefit if there are people like you there to reward such behavior, rather than playing Tit-for-Tat.

How much better would our discourse be if we had more people taking a stand on the side of climate scientists, as you did with the Gas Tax? For visionaries like Gore, their principled stands would have then become an asset rather than a liability. And even if I have to stomach my candidates doing the occasional Farm subsidy bill, I'm glad to have an independent, intellectually honest press corps who will call them on it. At the very least, this will start to set the stage for a time when we can eventually kill the beast.

When journalists are earnestly attempting to assess the world rather than the Midwesterners in David Broder's head, when they act like analysts who are empiricists rather crafters of images that cater to a particular demo, then there's some accountability any time a pol does the political thing rather than the right thing.

Sometimes you can have an honest debate about what that is -- a market driven, or more hands-on, government approach. But that's a debate based in reality. Flag-pins and questions about Obama's patriotism, or making him disavow any black man who gives whites the willies, has no basis in anything but crass, political cynicism.

So please continue to not reflexively accept McCain's "straight-talk" or Lieberman's supposed centrism, and continue to call out the filth that has infected our discourse that has gone unchallenged for far too long, and to resist the double-standards that are so ingrained after decades of Republican Administrations that they are operating entirely on inertia.

I know you're still getting hammered rather regularly by Glenn and Atrios, but having been one of the most ardent Klein haters in the beginning, I've honestly come to believe you are earnestlly attempting to assess the world, even if you don't always get it right. Who does? The most I can hope for is that someone is constantly vigilant about trying. And not many people even try any more.

Truth is nebulous enough when everyone is struggling to find it. What I never thought I'd see happen, is for truth to cease to be valued, or even considered.

Towers of straw.....

From the CNN article:
claims by a former State Department official that McCain had advocated unconditional dialogue with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas were misleading.

From the Editorial:
The old John McCain, it appears, was ready to do business with a Hamas-led government, while both Clinton and Obama have said that Hamas must change its policies toward Israel and terrorism before it can have diplomatic relations with the United States.

So Rubin overstates McCain's position in order to prove a point in the WaPo, in the meantime McCain overstates Rubin's overastatement in order to be able to refute something beyond the actual accusation.

In the meantime jamesryan writes:
Rubin brings up conflict of interest problems as well. He is a political activist who the media this morning treated as an unbiased journalist.

While from the WaPo editorial:
I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton.....

The writer, an adjunct professor at Columbia University's School of International Affairs, was an assistant secretary of state and the State Department's chief spokesman during the Clinton administration.

No one suggested trhat Rubin was impartial.

More straw.

In the meantime, everybody is in a contest to see who can more resolutely refuse to talk to people.

Yet Reagan withdrew from Lebanon and GWB withdrew from Saudi Arabia as a direct result of terrorist intimidation.

So who's the appeaser?

What a thought: That our intimate issues touching on the democracy of the people of these USA shall be discussed in foreign fora!

It is like a governor (GWB) of a Roman colony who goes to Rome, stands before the Roman lawmakers(Knesset) to chastise the enemies of the Empire in the colonies - promising dire fire and brimstone upon the wayward, restless natives who would cause the Empire some discomfort. And the citizens of Rome line up the streets cheering. Of course.

What happened? What should we read into this act by Mr Bush?
Do we owe our allegiance (de facto) to a foreign power?
And if an American declares allegiance to a foreign power - and would have America behave in a manner that appeases a foreign power and diminishes our standing internationally (contrary to our best imperial interests) - can that be considered an act of ---?

Voters in California go to the ballot box to vote on all manner of issues affecting the citizen and public expenditure.

Can it be that we are getting to a point whereby the subject can be broached publicly: Where is the vote?
When did we, the people, decide that our government (of the people, by the people, for the people) shall be subservient to a foreign power? Did the people, the bitter, poor rural people - even decide that we want to be in that war zone - or did someone decide for the people and why??

Do we want to spend $trillions of OUR dollars and thousands of OUR young American lives on adversaries who
- through vendetta (that is actually none of the business of island America) refuse to deal with one another;
- who claim a legitimacy to the same common ancestral lands; and
- have little in common with us in terms of core language and culture?

What is the end game here, and for how long?
Do we owe our allegiance to a foreign power?
It may be asked: Do we, the people, want to feed our $trillions and lives into that inferno? What is it to us, REALLY, in terms of long-term (selfish) national interests?

Can we imagine ourselves disentangled/disengaged from the mess foisted upon the citizens of America by those that - without a vote - think they know what is best for the masses?

It may be asked: Does Mr Bush know that the capital of USA is not outside the United States of America and that significant foreign and domestic policy pronouncements would come from Washington DC, not in some foreign parliament?
So Mr Bush's handlers said that he was actually trashing ex-President Carter, not Sen Obama. Really? In Israel?

McChangeling:
John McCain is the quintessential 'change' man. Don't wait to criticize what he says today - 'cause tomorrow he will probably have changed his mind(s)

I thought this was a post about what McCain had said in years past regarding Hamas. Some seem to want to turn this rare look at McCain by a member of the MSM into an attack on Obama.

The attack appears to be coming from the Conservative side of the aisle. They are being joined in the attack by someone who appears to be a Clinton supporter.

I seem to recall an episode several days ago when Obama supporters were criticized by someone for using selected comments from Peggy Noonan, a WSJ Conservative columnist. It is interesting that the first responses from a Conservative and a Clinton supporter is an attack on Obama. McCain is the subject of the article.

For a simple mind exercise just use the Google for "The creation of a wall dividing the two nations is yet another example of the neglect of this Administration in brokering peace," and note the site that are linked. (Watch out for flying wingbats)

I would think that a Democrat who reflexively takes an action identical to that of a Conservative, and berates a Democratic candidate in a post that actually dealt with John McCain may have issues.

Yeah, before we take the bait and get bogged down on the question of did he say deal with Hamas, or only on conditions? It's the same thing they tried with 100 years, saying it was an occupation not a war. In both cases, IT DOESN'T MATTER. The point is, McCain want's troops in Iraq 100 years, and he would negotiate with Hamas.

McCain wants to push this image that he would just wipe Hamas off the planet, but he would meet with Hamas and negotiate under certain conditions. Obama demands the same conditions from Hamas, anything less would be a "non-starter". So the whole question of who's "tough on Terror" is whether or not you believe you can relay those initial demands directly, or just hope the message of terms somehow reaches them through the media. Why insisting that Hamas get's this message filtered through CNN rather than a formal communication is beyond me.

The worst part is Rubin tried to cover it up:

Over at NRO [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Via the McCain campaign:

"I should tell you that CNN asked Jamie Rubin earlier today for the rest of the interview or at least for a transcript and he said he didn't have it." — CNN's Dana Bash

So either Rubin is a sloppy journalist and did an op-ed without a transcript to the interview the op-ed was based on or he lied.

Imagine if a republican who worked in the bush administration did this to Obama. Would the washington post have let the republican operative write an op-ed and then would the msm have trotted him out on the morning shows and larry king.

Then picture if later the obama campaign found out the republican operative had cut the tape so he could smear Obama and take him out of context. Then imagine if the republican operative said he couldn't find the transcript to the rest of the interview.

Somehow if this had happened I don't think the media would be blaming Obama like they are blaming McCain.

Skynews posted the video later in the day. All Rubin would have had to do is get in touch with Skynews. Shouldn't have been that hard considering he did the interview for them. Huffington Post still has the interview without the second part. Who gave Huffington Post the cut version? Arianna Huffington and Jamie Rubin love to lie.

MSM with Time included seem to bring issues in half-truths and video which is filtered to "look" like that is what the candidate "said" during a so-called interview.

As most most far left liberals would not believe in Fox News because it has a more moderate to conservative slant, the same is also known about CNN and the other MSM outlets.

Unfortunately gone are the days when reporters just reported, without their own opinions and commentary thrown in for good measure.

Like so many of Obama's speeches, MSM is "Just Words", with no factual basis to back it all up.

Although the redacted/recovered excerpts do add nuance to McCain's response, the point is that McCain has been trying to claim there was no nuance.

Scream all you want, but Obama's "UNCONDITIONAL", "NO PRE-CONDITIONS" type of foreign policy will not work with terrorists. You might as well pull ALL troops out of ALL places in the world, build a wall that will be the next "Great Wall" of the world and begin isolationism.

Once the "Great Wall" is built, then the Democrat Socialism spending programs will start gearing up, churning out dollars for the down-trodden. Fully supported on the backs of the working middle class.

Obama = Isolationism
Obama = Socialism
Obama = Destruction of the great US of A

Isn't negotiating with people we don't like the thing that led to John McCain getting out of the Hanoi Hilton?

Why does every Presidential candidate have to go before Jewish audiences and AIPAC to lay out their position on Israel? Doesn't that tell us how our domestic debates and selective foreign pressure skew our politics. Who does AIPAC serve? Why is it a required stopping place for all candidates?

The NRA is another one of a kind but it a domestic group and therefore entitled to call on candidates to explain themselves, if they wish to.( Mike Huckabee showed his true colors yesterday with his reference to Obama.)

attaturk: great point.

Why does every Presidential candidate have to go before Jewish audiences and AIPAC to lay out their position on Israel? Doesn't that tell us how our domestic debates and selective foreign pressure skew our politics. Who does AIPAC serve? Why is it a required stopping place for all candidates? Posted by bitterpill8 | May 17, 2008 6:59 AM

Why? It is called Politics. Courting the devil himself is not out of the realm of possibilities for most politicians, both Republican and Democrat. It is what they live, breath and die for.

Half the battle in politics is figuring out which base they can "energize" to get the vote out on Nov 3rd. The rest is made up of lobbyists.

Israel is an ally, not Hamas. Utilizing Jimmy Carter style foreign policy of appeasement, will not work with the terrorist, even if they were voted into office as the case of the Palestinian faction.

It's always disappointing when someone I essentially agree with overplays his hand.

As I've said elsewhere, parsing words and extracting core meaning can be lots of fun, but they distract wholly from the actual debate we should be having.

The question before the house is this, "is there a tactical advantage to be gained by refusing to talk to our enemies".

The obvious answer is "only if your personally profiting by continued conflict"

Joe clearly remembers when the USA was a credible arbiter of the conflict in the Middle East. The peace between Israel and Egypt has proven to be relatively stable and long-lasting.

Sadly, our ability to be useful in the region has been sacrificed to the demands of a vocal minority here in America and John McCain shows every sign of continuing to pander to that intolerant minority.

The good news is that the American people are better able to see through the charade. I hope that trend continues.

But McCain has foreign policy experience skillz that the defeatocrats can't touch!

He has almost as much experience as Dick Cheney! He wants to bomb Iran. The democrats are doomed by his mighty foreign policy chops.

/media sycophants

Is anyone in the MSM going to mention anything about Robert Gates' comments yesterday:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200805160007

Bush's Secretary of Defense: Nazi appeaser.

Jamesryan:

Are you accusing Rubin of "sound biting" his Hamas comments?

FORSOOTH! You have peesolutely absulartly have to be kidding.

AND HOW MANY Republicans, have attempted to do the exact same thing.

What's good for the goose is good for the other goose. Like Hillary said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Rustydog:

You left out "white" when you mentioned working class.

I'd run like hell, given the number of boogeymen chasing you...

JJ:

A little contradictory fly in the ointment never bothered them in the past, so why should it now?

oh yea..the extreme liberal bias in the media strikes again..Bush gave a great 20 min. speech and was interrupted 8 times during his speech by applause yet..all the media can focus on is through thier little prism of if it might offend obama and take a cue from of all things..Huffpost...then circle the wagons and have guests like idiot rubin lying. Blatant lies...yet the media won't cover that. In that same McCain interview..he said he would not negotiate with Hamas unless it renounced violence and recognized israel. Boy Joe, you truly are a libtard idiot. Instead of Swampland..this sight should be called Libland.

Good job finding some objectivity on McCain Joe. It appears that the press is waking up to his real nature, rather than the one he and his team try to manufacture. He is just another lying, flip-flopping, right-wing nut job, limited to throwing insults from the cheap seats. He has nothing of substance to add to modern politics. His claim to bipartisanship has about as much truth to it as the recent Republican claim that they are now the party of change.

wow derek, you are very ininformed on this issue..not sure if you heard..this was a cut and paste lie..you really need to get your news from other than the Huffpost.The blatant liberal media bias against McCain has begun..How about some objectivity Joe instead of being so blatantly open about your hatred for McCain and Republicans and your support for Obama.

Rusydog: yes, I understand. That is why Mr Straight Talk has now become a pretzel: too many contortions. Not that the Democrats are not above tailoring their message to suit their audience. On balance McCain has the greater task: Mr ST, Mr Mave, Mr Give-it-to-em-Straight is having to bob and weave like everyone else.

i'm a Chinese people!we are proud of my soldiers!if you want to know soldiers of China VS America! please you look at:

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4c57e9a601009hg9.html

http://news.ifeng.com/special/0512earthquake/photo/

53 and no sense _3, sorry but the race baiting from this campaign was started by none other than the great Messiah, Barak Obama. I've only responded to him and his wonderful Pastor's remarks.

Try again.

Obama and McCain have essentially the same view on talking with Hamas, which Joe has correctly pointed out is not to Obama's credit. What is to Obama's credit is that in his presser yesterday, he put responsibility for the Hamas situation squarely where is belongs: on a Bush administration that pushed for elections in Palestine despite warning from both Israel and the Palestinian Authority as to how much this would help Hamas. JK's description of Bush's approach as

We want elections unless we don't like the results of those elections. It stands as Exhibit A of the incoherence of the Bush foreign policy.

is spot on.

KathyR: McCain was always willing to have contact (though not necessarily presidential contact) with a rogue state that renounced violence, stopped threatening violence and stopped killing Americans.

Obama wants to meet with Iran "without preconditions." As in, he would meet with them as they threaten Iran, arm terrorists and find and sanction the murder of American troops.

McCain will not meet with them until they stop. (While Obama is naive enough to think they need to be told we want them to stop doing these things. He expects the supreme leader of Iran to say "Wow! We had no idea you didn't want us promising the destruction of Israel and murdering your troops. We will stop right away!")

-Ben

jimmyjamz what is McCain afraid of? Talking to people doesn't mean you agree with them, or are even interested in negotiating with them. However, if you want to have peace with them, which is in everyone's interest, you have to talk to them, and draw up written agreements. How does McCain plan to negotiate with Hamas, send smoke signals?

This seems to be a pattern with McCain. Consider:

McCain says he'd be willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years, or even a million. When confronted with his own words, he claims that others are lying about what he said, then claims it was taken out of context.

McCain says he doesn't know anything about economics (repeatedly). When confronted with his own words, he first denies that he ever said it.

McCain says that we should negotiate with Hamas. When confronted with his own words, first he denies he ever said it, then claims his statement was taken out of context.

And on and on it goes. The pattern emerging is that McCain is either a serial liar or is suffering from some sort of dementia. What a maverick.

"That sort of feral swill-peddling has worked for a long time; but given the phenomenal--and deserved--unpopularity of the current President's Middle East policies, I"m not sure it'll work this time"

Just wanted to point out how this statement illustrates the essential disconnect in the Village. No Joe, Bush's unpopularity is a symptom of the situation facing people in their everyday lives. These tactics are unlikely to work, not because Bush is unpopular, but because people have seen the writing on the wall...and they're scared. Their futures just aren't as bright as yours Joe. Otherwise great post.

Great point Attaturk, as part of his biography tour, or whatever it's called, Maverick should demand the Vietnamese government re-imprison him as a protest against our 'appeasement' of the Commie govt during the war.

Florida: you have not seen the whole video yet and you do not understand McCain's position on contact with Hamas or Iran. (He has always left the door open for talks if they renounce violence and accept Israel. That is all he said to Rubin. Nothing changed.)

McCain said he does not know as much about economics as he would like. That is not even close to saying he does not know anything about economics. (Given Obama's bizarre position on the cpital gains tax, it is not as if Obama is an economic genius.)

McCain's "100 years" quote was taken out of context. Every impartial observer admitted as much. Obama lied to his constituents about that quote and said McCain wanted 100 years of war. Obama is the one you should be mad at, not McCain. McCain said something completely inoffensive. (We have troops in Kuwait. Does Obama think we are at war with kuwait?)

-Ben

Does Obama think we are at war with Kuwait?

He would if the Kuwaitis started planting IED's.

The difference between 100 years of occupation and 100 years of war in not McCain's to bestow.

McCain either wants to continue the war indefinitely or he's wishing for a magic pony.

> Obama = Destruction of the great US of A

Rusty, your idol, GWB, has already laid the foundation and put up the first three tiers for that. That's why you're hiding in your basement, nervously eyeing the color-coded terror chart, clutching that shotgun, crying out for Bush to SAVE US! Wait! What was that noise?! Oh, it was just a duck...

Jamesryan: saying, "Well, he did it too!" does not absolve your candidate. I wish people would get past that. Hmm. Might as well wish for a unicorn, too.

And since when is simply talking with people appeasement? Our relationship with Vietnam, for example, has improved tremendously since we put down the guns and held discussions with them. It's not a perfect relationship, yet, but these things take time.

I chose a moniker today to remind everyone that Time Magazine has changed it's name to ObamaTime. Now that you think you have succeeded in kicking that devious, terrible, rotten, awful WOMAN Hillary out of the race, you are starting on that OLD MAN, McCain. Your magazine arrived today with the headlines, "Is John McCain Healthy Enough To Be President?" I would like to ask the questions: Are you too biased to be writing about any candidate but your beloved Obama? Is your magazine an example of high journalistic standards? I can answer this myself: Yes to your biases and no to high journalistic standards. My real question: What has Obama promised to ObamaTime Magazine in return for you tearing down as much as possible the other candidates? Or, maybe phrased another way, are sexism and ageism appropriate journalistic standards?

OK.
He said. She said.
BUT:
Is "negotiating" bad?
NO.
Negotiating isn't appeasement.

" ... if there is anything that has been discredited by history, it is the argument that every enemy is Hitler, that negotiations constitute appeasement, and that talking will automatically lead to a slaughter of Holocaust-like proportions. It is an argument that conservatives made throughout the Cold War, and, if the charge seemed overblown at the time, it seems positively ludicrous with the clarity of hindsight...."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-scoblic17-2008may17,0,6293795.story
[We kept on talking to North Vietnam. And POW McCain was released, right? Bad?]

McFlipFlop a.k.a. McChangeling:
John McCain is the quintessential 'CHANGE' man: Don't wait to criticize today what he says today - 'cause tomorrow he will probably change his mind(s) and contradict himself.

Enough of this.
Surely the politics and the power of USA are NOT defined by Israel.
Nor should America's foreign policy and its execution be approved by a foreign country's parliament or Knesset.

Here is Rubin's response to the McCain campaign

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-rubin/talking-with-our-enemies_b_102205.html

McCain also supported Colin Powell's trip to rogue nation Syria to practice diplomacy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-bergmann/mccain-was-in-favor-of-ta_b_102099.html

Perhaps he can deny this as well

"And neither are McCain's handlers, which is why they resort to such arrant hysteria--much like the tone Al Gore's handlers sadly took in 2000, when they were afraid, after Clinton's 8-year term, that the public was ready for a change."

I honestly can't recall arrant hysteria or feral swill-peddling on the part of Al Gore's handlers in 2000. Is this more of Joe Klein's compulsion to balance Republican outrage with it's pale (and sometimes imaginary)Democratic version? As a frequent admirer of Joe's insight and clarity of thought, I find this journalistic tic unattractive.

Independent, I agree. But it's also illogical to talk about errant hysteria when things have gone so badly in Bush's Presidency. It's not "errant" if it's proved correct.

Very thoughtful post Mr. Klein. It's going to get worse for McCain as the Democratic primaries wind down and McCain's words make the news.

Jamesryan, thanks for the update on the classic joke: 'Who are you going to believe, Kathryn Jean Lopez or your own lying eyes?'

Man, could Joe Kline be even more of a weasel than he already is. His "journalism" stinks of "bias" for Obama at every turn. I'm a Democrat and I get sick of seeing these fluff pieces for Democrats from this man. Why on earth does CNN let this man on TV? I know most mews organizations are in the tank for Obama but come on, at least get a guy on that doesn't creep you out when seeing and hearing him. Joe, stick to print and take down your picture. Might get more hits on this site.

I just want people to know that even though the media tells you that Hillary supporters won't defect to McCain, they're wrong. Also it's not just women. I'm a 28 year old college graduate that makes over 50 g's a year and things like this (meeting with Iran) along with other "character" issues lead me to believe that You can't trust Barack Obama. He is a media built candidate that couldn't function without a teleprompter or David Axelrod. Axelrod devised a plan to basically make a president, who has appointed more people of color to positions of power than all presidents COMBINED, into a racist. The media and the DNC were complacent in this by ignoring their own knowledge of memo's leaked showing the plan to do this from inside the Obama campaign. I saw the media and the DNC stand up for Obama when Hillary called Obama's experience into question but NEVER heard one person from the DNC stand up for Bill Clinton. Actually DNC member Donna Brazile is the one guilty along with Rep. Clyburn of the race baiting scheme against President Clinton. You couldn't mention a color or someone of color and Obama without being called a racist. I thought the black community thought a lot of Jesse Jackson until this happened. Then it was like he was a leper. The DNC and media stood by and watched this campaign's dirty tactics and never called Obama on them because they were to busy fawning over him. In two debates, Obama was asked about one incident and he said all the right things, saying that those things weren't fair to Sen Clinton. But the moderator then asks, "Well isn't your campaign pushing this story?" He had to fess up then. Yet the media let this story slip by unnoticed. I think this was the turning point for me. Seeing the Hillary bashing from all sides while when Barack is caught in an outright lie, the media never presses him on it. He claimed in the last debate that he hadn't brought up the Bosnia story then the moderator said, "But your campaign has" he could only answer, "of course" The next day, nothing. For whatever reason, sexism, hatred or bias, the media has tried to down play Obama's faults and always plays up small things on Hillary Clinton. There are 3 things that I think should have been campaign killers in the eyes of the media. First Obama's meeting with the Canadians, were he claimed that his talk of redoing NAFTA was just campaign rhetoric. Second, Reverend Wright. He lied so many times during that whole ordeal anyone could see it. Any other pol in American History could have never survived attending a racist, anti American Church for 20 years. and finally, WIlliam Ayers. Do you think John McCain could have been friends with a guy like this without his campaign getting killed? I don't. I just wanted the media and people to know that Obama has a real problem with fellow Democrats. My entire family are Democrats and always have been. This year, if faced with McCain or Obama, we are going with McCain. You can't deny this man loves his country and would do whatever it took to set it on a better course. With Obama, your never sure where his loyalties lie. I urge other Democrats to do the same as me and vote against Obama. I would love to see Democrats back in the white house but not this Democrat.

hwebb54:
" ..You can't deny this man loves his country and would do whatever it took to set it on a better course. With Obama, your never sure where his loyalties lie..."
Are you daring us to "deny"?
We may dare you to prove it - which you may find difficukt to do, pro-actively.

Strike #1: For starters, taking us into war in Iraq may not qualify as an effort to set our USA on a better course. And we suspect that McFlipFlop knew it - he had the intelligence info and, presumably, "age" to guide him.

Strike #2: You cannot accurately judge someone's mettle until the time of reckoning: Don't forget that Rev Wright served in our armed forces (like Sen McCain) and he loves this land - but you probably don't think that he aims to do whatever it takes, in his own way, "to set it on the better course".

Strike #3: Do you remember that Oklahoma guy who served in the Navy like Sen McCain - and his name was Tim McVeigh?
He probably perceived in his actions a way to redeem this land.

How many more strikes ...

A devil named "Angel"? A fibber called "Straight-Talk"? How cynical!
"I've never done any favors for anybody — lobbyist or special interest group — that's a clear, 24-year record." - John McCain
http://gdaeman.blogspot.com/2008/02/mccains-paxson-problem.html
---
Lowell Paxson, Keating 5 / McCain '08, WRONG for America

J.J. alluded to this earlier, but here's an excerpt of what Gates said just hours before Bush gave his little speech before the Knesset:

'"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."'

So Gates feels that we need to offer Iran something to induce them to talk. Something like, oh, I don't know, Poland? The Sudeten?

Well, Barack Obama fans?

Are you really going to defend Obama's Hamas position on principled grounds?

Posted by stuart_zechman | May 16, 2008 11:51 PM

Stu,
I'm not going to defend it on principled grounds. It's pure political posturing, to avoid losing more Jewish (and other) votes. But it's no different than the positions the other candidates are taking, so it's not a reason for me to vote for someone else. I feel exactly the same way about his position on the Israeli land grab, I mean security barrier. I would really love to see a politician take a principled stand against Israel's policies, but such a politician will never get elected, so I'm not going to hold it against him. At least he expressed opinions much closer to mine before he was running for President, so at least there's hope that he will better than the others, since they never have. I'd rather vote for a candidate who has the right idea but is forced to conceal it to get elected than one who has no clue. If HRC had come out and advocated dialogue with Hamas or against the wall my estimation of her would increase exponentially, but I doubt I will ever see such a thing, since she panders even worse than him (cf. gas tax).

I feel similarly on NAFTA. I disagree with both HRC and BHO, who I believe are blatantly pandering. (Although Democrats traditionally have in general been against Free Trade.) In that case, HRC took the lead, renouncing her former position, and he followed to avoid being at a disadvantage. (He also seemed a little more measured in his criticism of NAFTA - focusing on labor and environmental laws that are largely irrelevant.) I have no idea how serious each candidate is about their stance, and I'm not overly concerned so long as they don't attempt to actually implement the most extreme positions that they advocated. This is one of the few things that I prefer McCain on (as well as the Farm Bill), but that wouldn't remotely be enough for me to vote him.

The only issue I can think of on which HRC is taking an arguably more principled stance than BHO is mandates for health care. But one can make a case that opposing mandates is also principled, and frankly I prefer not to have them anyway. If this makes such health care legislation more likely to pass then I'm all for it - it's reasonable to compromise a little to get something very valuable.

hwebb54, yes the media has been ridiculously biased against Obama. But McCain would be a terrible President, which as a longtime Democrat you must know. In fact, I believe that the end result of the MSM's bias against Clinton - I don't think this is a conspiracy, but I do think it conveniently advances the MSM's priorities - is to nominate a Democrat who will be a weaker opponent against McCain. So by voting for McCain, you are doing exactly what the MSM apparently wants.

Also, we know where Obama's loyalties lie: They are with America. And as bad as Wright is, he's a lot better than Hagee. About Ayers, he barely knows the guy. It was politically foolish, but it doesn't say anything about his trustworthiness or patriotism. It was sad to see so many Democrats fall for the pro-Obama MSM bias; I don't want to see the same pattern repeated with Democrats falling for right-wing bias.

This election has been very difficult for Clinton supporters. We have seen our candidate demonized, and her opponent escape criticism for obvious failings (e.g. his dishonest answer about Rezko in the SC debate, etc.). But Obama will be a much better President than McCain, especially for the ill, the elderly, children, and everyone who is vulnerable to the effects of a bad economy. So even if you don't want to vote for Obama, please think of a vote for him as being a vote for those people.

Posted by hwebb54 |

First, structurally there are things called paragraphs. Second, there have been post that seem to have touched a nerve with some Conservatives. Since this is an anonymous blog, we never truly know who a person really might be. I will take your word that you are the person that you say you are even though sentence structure like yours is somewhat uncommon among Liberal bloggers.

Are you really willing to give up reproductive rights to McCain court appointees? Do you really want to risk a foray into Iran when we haven't completed Iraq? Do you want to trust US economics to a man who has a person who drove HP stock into the ground and had to be shown the door as the economic point person in his campaign?

On the issue of race, Clyburn attempted to point out to the Clinton campaign how they were perceived by many African-American voters. Obama addressed the Ayers and Wright matters. We will see as the campaign heads into November if he was successful in calming concerns.

You are free to vote for McCain. I hope you can live with the consequences if the Arizona Senator wins.

I think that before hwebb54 and the like keep trying to make Obama out to be racist, they NEED to remember that Obama has never said any of those things other than the persistant 'guilt by association' attempts.

Of course, nobody points out that Obama is also White. A fact that NONE of you in the 'Obama is a Racist' camp have got any sort of handle on. I think they need to take a deep breath.

Just because Hannity is playing that music relentlessly to dittoheads, don't forget that the your beloved candidate has a few rather questionable associatations himself - and his aren't so tainted with any self-contradictory theories as you espouse for Obama.

This is fantastic. For the last two months, people have been concentrating on Obama's missteps and alleged inconsistencies.

I think it's going to hit McCain a lot harder-- not only is his record longer, but he's also painted himself as being the straight-talker throughout his career. Finally he'll be under intense scrutiny.

I would love to see Democrats back in the white house but not this Democrat.

Mmm-hmm. And probably not the last Democrat either, or the one before that. Probably not the next one either, or the one after that. Thanks for all that wonderful concern though, we sure do appreciate it.

ObamaTimeMagazine: Apparently Newsweek may as well change its name to ObamaNewsweekMagazine, also, especially after last week's cover story/Valentine to Obama. They did nothing but blow kisses to Obama and tell everyone that since 1968 the Republicans have won elections by exploiting people's fears. Not because voters agree with them, but because their fears were exploited.

CMR:

Maybe, just maybe, the ridiculous claims by Republicans are getting the short shrift they deserve.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/19/mccain.free.trade/index.html

Iran as big a threat is the Soviet Union?

Typical Republican bullsh!t!

Maybe you can add ObamaCNNNews to the Obama* list.

WHAT a bunch of losers.

We're gonna kick your arses out, you know...

Watch those rocks from space, your filthy days are done!

M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has not been installed. Integrated High-speed MPEG-2 encoder which let you convert M4V to DVD-Video files(VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS) and VCD/SVCD image(*.bin,*.cue), so you can burn VCD/SVCD/DVD disc easily from QuickTime files by using third-party buring tools. It is a software program for converting video formats at fast speeds and high quality. Very user-friendly interface and Quality Profiles.
m4v to mpeg
m4v to mp4

بلوتوث - -
مقاطع بلوتوث - -
يوتيوب - -
مقاطع يوتيوب - -
فديو يوتيوب - -
فيديو يوتيوب - -
افلام - -
موقع يوتيوب - -
youtube.com - -
يوتيوب عربي - -
منتديات - -
مسنجر - -
مدونة - -
العاب بنات - -
العاب باربي - -
Mzaeen’s Weblog - -
يوتيوب - فيديو - بلوتوث - -
تحميل افلام - -
تحميل افلام
تحميل افلام
افلام
افلام
مشاهده افلام
تحميل افلام - مشاهده افلام
افلام - تحميل افلام - مشاهده افلام
مركز تحميل - -
تحميل - -
تحميل صور - -
تحميل ملفات - -
مركز التحميل - -
صور - -
العاب لعب العب - -
لعب - -
العاب - -
لعب العب - -
hguf - -
العب - -
67 - - -p-2 - - افلام انمي - - صور انمي - -
صور الأنمي - - خلفيات انمي - - انمي بنات حزينة - -
صور بنات انمي - - انمي بنات رومنسية - -
انمي حزينة - - صور بنات انمي - - اجمل بنات انمي - -
زفاف انمي - - زفاف عرايس - - انمي اطفال - -
بنات انمي رومنسي - - صور انمي حزينه - - صور الجاسوسات - -
صور انمي 2008 - - صور بنات حلوات - -
شباب انمي - - صور انمي - -
صور احلى بنات - - بنات انمي رومنسي - -
انمي رومنسي - - انمي رومنسي حلوة - -
صور انمي احضان - - افلام كرتون - - افلام انمي - -
انمي خليجي - - مسلسلات كرتون - - افلام انمي - - صور انمي - - 68 - -
68-p-2 - - سياحة وسفر - -
سياحة - -سفر - -فنادق - -
46 - -46-p-3 - -46-p-6 - -
ناطحات سحاب - -أفضل 10 مدن - -
مدينة الحب الفرنسيه - -فندق الحب - -
صور - -24 - -34-p-3 - -
34-p-6 - - - -34-p-13 - -
34-p-15 - -34-p-20 - -
34-p-25 - -34-p-29 - -
34-p-30 - -34-p-35 - -34-p-38 - -
34-p-40 - -صور جيملات العرب - -صور طبيعية - -صور متحركة - -صور بنات - -صور رومنسية - -صور اطفال - -صور رومانسية - -
صور قلوب - -صور قلوب حب - -
صور قلوب رومانسية - -ورود وزهور - -
زهور - -صورة الغروب - -
سوالف بنات - -صور حب - -صور حب رومانسية - -
صور حب 2008 - -صور قلوب - -
قلوب روعة - -صور قلوب رومانسية - -
صور حزينة - -صور متحركة - -
صور متحركه منوعة - -صور حب - -
صور خلفيات - -خلفيات رومانسية - -
صور انهار - -صور شلالات - -
صور مصرقعه - -جنس ثالث - -
صور جنس ثالث - -صور حزينة - -
صور شلالات وانهار - -صور جميلة - -صور غريبه - -
صور رومنسية - -صورطبيعة - -صور السعودية - -
صور الورد - -صور وتعليقات - -صور مضحكة - -
شموع - -صور حلوة - -
احلى عروس - -صور رعب - -24 - -24-p-3 - -
24-p-5 - -24-p-8 - -فوتوشوب - -
تصاميم - -صور تصاميم - - صور تصاميم رومانسية - -
صور قلوب - -صور تصميم - -صور تصميم رومنسية - -
صور عيون - -صور دباديب - -بطاقات رومانسية - -
صور تصميم شباب - -صور بنات للتصاميم - -صور بنات - -
صور رومانسيه حزينه - -صور نسائية - -صور نسائية روعة - -
صور رجال - -صور احترافية - -59 - -
58 - -ملحقات التصميم - -دروس التصميم - -
جميلات العرب - -اليسا - -
صور طبيعية - -صور قلوب - -
صور رومنسية - -بلوتوث مزايين - - البوم صور مزايين - -
صور ماسنجر - -وسائط - -
صور حب - -صور بنات - -صور بنات للمسن - -
العاب مكياج و ميك اب - - العاب ازياء - - العاب مغامرات - -
العاب بنات - - العاب تلبيس بنات - - العاب باربي - -
العاب بلياردو - - العب - - العاب - -

1 - -2 - -3 - -4 - -5 - -6 - -7 - -
13 - -14 - -8 - -15 - -10 - -21 - -30 - -
17 - -16 - -23 - -20 - -25 - -24 - -27 - -
26 - -29 - -28 - -31 - -32 - -33 - -34 - -
37 - -38 - -35 - -36 - -39 - -40 - -41 - -
42 - -43 - -44 - -45 - -46 - -47 - -58 - -
53 - -54 - -48 - -55 - -56 - -49 - -57 - -
50 - -59 - -60 - -51 - -61 - -62 - -52 - -
11 - -12 - -63 - -64 - -
المنتدى العام - - مواضيع ساخنة ومثيرة - - ترجمة - -
ازياء - - موضة - - فساتين - -
مكياج - - ميك اب - - اكسسوارات - - ديكور - - غرف نوم - -
اثاث - - طبخ - - مطبخ - - حلويات - - اكلات - - معجنات - - تغذية - - صحة - - طب - -
شعر - - قصايد - - خواطر - - عذب الكلام - -
قصص - - روايات - - طرب - - رجة - - مسابقات - - صرقعة - - صور - - بلوتوث و مقاطع فيديو - - بلوتوث - - العاب فلاش - - صور انمي - - افلام انمي - - عدسة التصوير - -
افلام عربية و مسلسلات - - مسلسلات اجنبية تلفزيونية - - افلام عربية و افلام اجنبية و مسلسلات تلفزيونية - - برامج كمبيوتر - - فوتوشوب - - ثيمات - العاب الجوال - خلفيات - - برامج نوكيا - نغمات - برامج جوال - - رسائل جوال - مسجات - رسايل وسائط - sms - - مسنجر - برامج ماسنجر - توبيكات - - دروس التصميم - -
ملحقات التصميم - - بلوتوث - -
-
برامج نوكيا - - -كورة - - -صور - - -
مسنجر - - - طرب - - -
العاب - - -
قصص - - - مكياج - - - موضة - -
- ديكور - -
- وسائط - -
- برامج - -
-افلام - - -
مقاطع فيديو - - -
مواضيع ساخنة - - -ثيمات
جوال - - -نغمات - - -
افلام انمي - - -خواطر - - -
العاب جوال - - -افلام
عربية - - -ازياء - - - صور
انمي - - -
سياحة - - -مسلسلات اجنبية - - -
شعر - - -اناشيد - - -
توبيكات - - -رسائل
جوال - --تصاميم -
شات
شات الرياض
بنت حواء
بنت نجد
عروسة
عروس
العاب شمس
صور رومنسيه
صور جميلة
احلى رومانسيه
صور رومنسيه
صور جميلة
احلى رومانسيه
67
-p-2
توبيكات
مسنجر
برامج ماسنجر
توبيكات ملونة
- توبيكات -
توبيك -
صور ماسنجر -
مقالب للماسنجر
- ماسنجر بلس
- صور قلوب ماسنجر
- صور ماسنجر
رومنسيه - صور
للماسنجر -
أحلى توبيكات -
رموز للماسنجر
- توبيكات ملونه
- ثيمات ماسنجر
- توبيكات توبيك
- توبيكات رومنسية
- توبيكات اغاني
- صور بنات
للمسن - صور
بنوتيه - صور
مسنجر -
توبيكات حب -
توبيكات حب وغرام -
توبيكات ملونه
للمسن - صور
بنات للماسنجر 2008 -
توبيكات شعر -
صور مسنجر اطفال
- توبيكات مصرقعة
- زخارف مسنجر
- سكربتات
للماسنجر -
اختصارات للماسنجر -
كلمات للمسن -
توبيكات مسلسل
سنوات الضياع -
صور مهند ونور
للمسن -
توبيكات روعة -
توبيكات رومانسية
ملونة - احلى
توبيكات للمسن -
توبيكات حزينة
- توبيكات
رومانسية ملونه مع صور -
صور قلوب رومانسية
للمسن - صور
بنات للمسن -
صور بنوتات للماسنجركلمات رومنسية عبارات رومانسية للمسن
بنات للمسن msn صور بنات رومنسية للمسن عذاب وحب للمسن توبيكات خيانة صور اليسا للمسنجر
صور فنانين للماسنجر احلى توبيكات رومنسية توبيكات روعة
جميلات العرب
اليسا
صور طبيعية
صور قلوب
صور رومنسية
بلوتوث مزايين
البوم صور مزايين
صور ماسنجر
وسائط
صور حب

صور بنات
صور بنات للمسن
العاب مكياج و ميك اب
العاب ازياء
العاب مغامرات
العاب بنات
العاب تلبيس بنات
العاب باربي
العاب بلياردو
العب
العاب

صور ماسنجر
صور قلوب للمسن
صور مسن كتابية
صور مسن كرتونية
منوعات ماسنجر
صور مناسبات واسلاميات للمسن
صور ايدي وارجل للمسن
صور اطفال مسن
صور فنانين للماسنجر
صور بنات للمسن
صور مهند -
صور لميس -
صور توبا -
اغاني سنوات الضياع -
لحن اغنية سنوات الضياع -
فضايح استار اكاديمي -
سنوات الضياع -
مسلسل نور -
حلقات مسلسل نور التركي -
برامج نوكيا n73 -
مسلسل غزلان في غابة الذئاب -
لميس بطلة سنوات الضياع -
توبيكات ملونة بالصور -
توبيكات ملونة -
صور مهند مسنجر -
توبيكات حب -
ثيمات بنات -
ثيمات بنات رومنسيه -
توبيكات مسنجر -
توبكات مصرقعة -
توبيكات مسنجر ملونه -
توبيكات ماسنجر -
توبكات حب وعتاب للمسنجر -
توبيكات رومنسية -
توبيكات ماسنجر -
العاب نوكيا -
صور انهار -
ثيمات n80 -
صور وسائط -
مسجات اسلامية -
مسجات حب وغرام -
وسائط رومنسية -
فساتين 2008 -الازياء
-
فساتين سهرة -
فساتين -
تسرحيات -
صور بنوتات انمي -
ديكورات -
توم وجيري -
قصات شعر -
طيور الجنة -
اناشيد -
اثاث -
انمي -
اثاث - قصور -
قصات2008 -
تسريحات عرايس ‏2008 -
صور بنات -
العاب بنات -
جميلات العرب -
صور انمي -
فيديو كليب -
صور رومانسية -
صور تصميم -
صور للماسنجر -

ديكورات -

توبيك -
افلام كرتون -
اناشيد طيور الجنه -
صور حب -
صور للمسن -
تسريحات شعر -
يوتيوب -
افلام انمي -

صور قلوب -
صور انمي
-
صور اطفال للماسنجر -

صور باربي -
صور بنات للتصاميم -
نور ومهند -
رموز للماسنجر -

صور خلفيات رومانسية -
صور تصاميم -
توبيكات -
فساتين زفاف -
غرف نوم -
ديكورات روعه -
تلبيس بنات -
تلبيس الجاسوسات -
صور الجاسوسات -
الجاسوسات الثلاث -
صور انمي حزينه -
اجمل بنات -
أزياء بنات -
موضة 2008 -
موديلات فساتين -
اثاث جديد 2008 -
ميك اب -
ديكورات حمامات -
مسجات حب -
رسائل حب -
وسائط رومانسيه -
انمي رومنسي -
صور بنوتات جنان -
انمي حزينة رومانسية -
انمي خليجي -
صور انمي -
صور انمي 2008 -
بنات انمي رومنسي

صور ولادة نور -
صور مهند - صور مهند ونور رومنسية  -
نهاية مسلسل نور -صور اليسا - صور لميس
ويحيى - ثيم رومنسي مهند ونور -
العاب أزياء -
العاب باربي  -
العاب بنات -العاب تلبيس - صور مكياج خطير -صور
مكياج بنات - تسريحات وقصات شعر -صور مكياج عروس  - كوشات عروسه - صور ديكورات مطابخ - حلويات -صور
قلوب حب - صور زفاف عرايس -صور انمي بنات رومانسية  -
صور انمي بنات -صور بنوتات للماسنجر -