John McCain, Hamas and Hypocrisy

It's sad to say that this can't even be called "stunning hypocrisy," because hypocrisy has become par for the course for John McCain.

From last month, McCain's reaction to former President Carter's plan to meet with Hamas:

It is a grave and dangerous mistake for an American leader to meet with a terrorist organization like Hamas...The very idea that a former President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief would meet with a terrorist organization demands a clear stance from all presidential candidates. Refusing to take a stand, as Senator Obama has done, is not the strong leadership we need today. If Senator Obama is not decisive enough to condemn former President Carter, how can he be strong enough to deal with the threat they pose to America and to our allies?

...and during a conference call with conservative bloggers:

I think that the people should understand that I will be Hamas’s worst nightmare.

I think it is very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly.

But two years ago, during an interview with James Rubin, was this exchange:

Q:  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.

It seems that McCain has shelved that "new reality" on dealing with Hamas in the interest of furthering a chosen line of attack against Barack Obama.   Unprincipled and hypocritical, and of course, completely in line with his goal of carrying out George Bush's third term.  And in fact, following Bush's attack yesterday on Obama as an "appeaser," McCain took the opportunity to expand on Bush's remarks:

And the belief that somehow communications and positions and willingness to sit down and have serious negotiations need to be done in a face to face fashion as Senator Obama wants to do, which then enhances the prestige of a nation that's a sponsor of terrorists and is directly responsible for the deaths of brave young Americans, I think is an unacceptable position, and shows that Senator Obama does not have the knowledge, the experience, the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation's security.

When John McCain said that he was "fine" with staying in Iraq for 100 years, he proved that he doesn't have the judgement to be the Commander in Chief, and with his hypocritical attacks on Barack Obama over Hamas, he proves that he doesn't have the character either.

•  Fancy new orange YouTube vid frame! n/t

  by LaughingPlanet on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:52:04 PM PDT

  •  yup...orange for the big orange satan

    by soms on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:53:54 PM PDT

    •  Maybe an orange jumpsuit is in his future??

      We can only hope for justice.

      by Egypt Steve on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:54:29 PM PDT

      •  I think the Syria Link could hurt more

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        Direct Links to Advocacy of Negotiations with State Sponsors of Terror

        by Steven R on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:58:51 PM PDT

        •  Fresh MoveOn Attack

          by kubla000 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:00:04 PM PDT

          •  Speeding Bus

            The Flip-Flop Express is goin strong. (I need a pic of some flip-flops with McSames pic on em)

            by DumpDoolittle on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:07:17 PM PDT

          •  And the ensuing pie fight:

            First Read

            "Barack Obama's failure to stop his closest supporters from running these kinds of attacks is evidence of his weak leadership and undermines everything his campaign is supposed to be about," RNC spokesman Alex Conant said.

            Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan responded to that. "John McCain's failure to stop his closest advisors from advocating on behalf of some of the most corrupt governments, dictators and tyrants in the world is evidence of his failed judgment and his inability to change the way Washington works and bring the change we need," he said.

            by ManahManah on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:07:19 PM PDT

            •  Didn't McCain say he deplored the

              independent antiObama ads in NC but had no control over disparate political groups with their own agendas?
              So sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander? All Obama has to do is agree with McCain on independent ads.

              by entlord1 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:32:20 PM PDT

          •  Wow this is hard hitting.

            All those rows of crosses on graves of Marcos' victims.

            The goopers are going to shit their pants when this lightning bolt hits them.

            by MAORCA on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:08:14 PM PDT

•  Negotiating with turrists --

  McCain was for it before he was against it.

  by Egypt Steve on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:53:56 PM PDT

  •  yup...that's

    McFlipflop for you.

    by soms on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:55:48 PM PDT

    •  McCain was really fat two years ago

      Look at all that chub hanging from his chin! Or is it just loose skin?

      I seem to remember Republicans getting on Kerry for botox four years ago. Maybe we should start asking if McCain has had major plastic surgery on his face.

      If so, it was a botched job because the guy still looks horrible.

      by existenz on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:28:55 PM PDT

  •  What people are forgetting

    is that we should, in fact, be talking with Hamas.  John McCain is guilty not only of hypocrisy, but stupidity too.  Hamas is one of the significant actors in the I/P conflict, and there will be no durable solution without either Hamas acquiescence or marginalization.  Confrontation with Hamas only strengthens the organization, just as the idiotic Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 has now consolidated Hizbullah power in the south, east and in Beirut.

    McCain is amazingly ignorant of the Middle East, even for a Republican.  Obama, frankly, is not as conversant as he should be.  But his instincts are better, he's smarter, and he's far more credible to all actors in the region.

    by ivorybill on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:13:34 PM PDT

    •  Also the Israeli and US response to the election

      in effect besieging Gaza drove Hamas and Hizbullah closer together. If the Israelis are serious about the Syrian and Iranian threat, it seems driving an indigenous population both within your borders and adjacent to your borders to seek sponsorship from these countries would be insane.  

      by entlord1 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:34:50 PM PDT

    •  Al Qaeda is a significant actor in the mideast.

      Should we talk to them too?

      by politicelite on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:07:06 PM PDT

      •  Rather fatuous comment

        First, al-Qaeda is neither a political party, nor a significant actor. They are a tiny fringe movement.  Comparing al-Qaeda to Hamas is not particularly accurate or relevant.

        If we were really concerned about al Qaeda, we would be distancing ourselves a little from Saudi Arabia and doing more to help strengthen the moderates in Iran - rather than sabre-rattling and strengthening hard liners there.  At the end of the day, we need Iran more than we need Saudi Arabia, and our long-term interests are more closely alligned with a post-Ahmedinejad Iran.  

        by ivorybill on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:13:54 PM PDT

•  Oh, you know you want to add

  his latest response to Obama up there too.

  I've never seen such a calmly delivered Hysterical Diatribe in my life.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:55:03 PM PDT

•  The Senior Senator needs a new moniker

  I vote for "The Double Talk Express"

  by LaughingPlanet on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:55:41 PM PDT

  •  Old Man Yells at Cloud!

    

    by logsol on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:56:19 PM PDT

    •  Think Abe "Grandpa" Simpson's younger than McCane

      But like Cindy McBush, Grandpa Simpson keeps his records secret.

      I think it's high time to re-link to the DKos' favorite politically incorrect blog:

      Things Younger Than McCain Dot Com

      by LaughingPlanet on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:04:04 PM PDT

  •  Any audio wizards here...

    ...that could put together a McCain version of Groucho's song from "Duck Soup"? I'm thinking, "Whatever It Is, I Was For It Before I was Against It".

    by Roberticus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:28:36 PM PDT

•  What does that mean?

  I will be Hamas’s worst nightmare.

  So he'll be worse than Bush, than Sharon, than the IDF?  Is that a pledge to get US troops directly involved in the Occupation of Palestine?

  by weasel on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:56:04 PM PDT

  •  He doesn't think that far.

    His thoughts begin and end with what falls out of his mouth.

    by MAORCA on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:59:03 PM PDT

  •  The Nightmare

    It's the dream where they are talking to the US President, and they suddenly realize they forgot to wear pants.

    That's McCain's precondition you see; he will only talk to Hamas provided the are not wearing pants. It's a nightmare come true.

    by DJ Adequate on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:59:31 PM PDT

  •  Sharon and the IDF

    made Hamas! By crushing Fatah, they made Hamas inevitable. And like Barak said today, Bush's policies have only made Hamas stronger. McBush will make them McStronger yet.  These guys pray for hardliners to take over.  

    by Egypt Steve on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:02:36 PM PDT

    •  Exaactly

      Just as Bush and Israel have dramatically increased Amal and Hizbullah in Lebanon.  

      by ivorybill on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:14:37 PM PDT

    •  Don't forget after crushing the old PLO

      and denying Arafat his preference in burial site, they then tried to make Fatah into a puppet organization. However after years of alleged corruption and incompetence, Fatah was voted out of power. At this point Abbas remains in power because of the IDF in the West Bank after the attempted Fatah coup in Gaza failed. Many Fatah leaders now live abroad, feeling living in the WB is living on the lip of Vesuvius.  

      by entlord1 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:38:15 PM PDT

      •  well, I never claimed

        that Israeli, or American, or Palestinian, or anyone else's policy in the Middle East has ever been exactly coherent!

        by Egypt Steve on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:51:53 PM PDT

•  Is there anything this guy

  has been consistent on, I mean besides his love of lobbyists?

  by dansk47 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:56:13 PM PDT

  •  He's reamined WHITER than Obama (n/t)

    by LaughingPlanet on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:59:23 PM PDT

  •  No and every single

    moment is on video

    by IamTheJudge on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:00:34 PM PDT

•  I'm going to enjoy this.

  Senators make bad presidential candidate because they have such a long record of votes and statements. McCain has been in the senate since the Taft administration--and he's pulled so many personal reinventions in that time these kind of clips should haunt him all the way till he looses big in November.

  by DJ Adequate on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:57:21 PM PDT

  •  my 2nd or 3rd

    comment in GOS was exactly that senators as candidates are not very successful and JMC is the worst of the breed talking to the press 24/7 for 20+ years, there is absolutely not one position where he did not support both sides or support one side a vote for the m and there is plenty of video of both.

    the GI Bill vote will be a classic even if he doesn't to show up.

    by IamTheJudge on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:07:13 PM PDT

•  Can we Google-bomb "hypocrisy" to John McCain

  just like "failure" was mapped to George W Bush?

  by SeattleDanny on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:58:20 PM PDT

  •  Or add a new definition to Webster's and the OED?

    Seriously, this is one of the best labels we have for him. Because it is dead-on: it defines almost every aspect of his career.

    Maverick, my ass!

    by earicicle on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:20:47 PM PDT

•  Even Peggy Noonan, the fatuous, perky

  matron of the nutbags, is now crying over spilt milk:

  Is the Republican solid South over?

  "Yeah. Oh yeah." He* said, "I eat lunch every day at Buck's Cafe. Obama's picture is all over the wall."

  ....

  What happens to the Republicans in 2008 will likely be dictated by what didn't happen in 2005, and '06, and '07. The moment when the party could have broken, on principle, with the administration – over the thinking behind and the carrying out of the war, over immigration, spending and the size of government – has passed. What two years ago would have been honorable and wise will now look craven. They're stuck.

  Mr. Bush has squandered the hard-built paternity of 40 years. But so has the party, and so have its leaders. If they had pushed away for serious reasons, they could have separated the party's fortunes from the president's. This would have left a painfully broken party, but they wouldn't be left with a ruined "brand," as they all say, speaking the language of marketing. And they speak that language because they are marketers, not thinkers. Not serious about policy. Not serious about ideas. And not serious about leadership, only followership.

  This is and will be the great challenge for John McCain: The Democratic argument, now being market tested by Obama Inc., that a McCain victory will yield nothing more or less than George Bush's third term.

  That is going to be powerful, and it is going to get out the vote. And not for Republicans.

  *Clarke Reed of Mississippi, one of the  architects of resurgent Republicanism in the South

  (emphasis added)

  by MAORCA on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:58:21 PM PDT

  •  Peggy says Rethugs are

    Not serious about policy.

    And she says it like it's a bad thing!  Doesn't she remember that St. Ronnie said "government is not the solution, it's the problem"??  

    Trying to run the government competently is a cardinal sin in the Reagan cult. This is theological. Even if they knew how to run an administration, they couldn't stand the thought of ever being labled "pro government." So they let everything go to hell. When tax cuts stop working; when gutting health, safety, environmental and market-place regulations starts to backfire; when wars go bad, then they are at a total loss.  Total.

    by Egypt Steve on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:14:11 PM PDT

    •  That was their double bind.

      Being "anti-government" even when they were the government.

      The Republican brand is, to use your phrase, a total loss. It's like a 16 year old car getting rear-ended. The insurance company simply declares it a total loss and moves on. So will the voters.

      by MAORCA on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:16:42 PM PDT

    •  St Ronnie

      is that the same St Ronnie who negotiated with the terrorist kidnappers in Lebanon and got caught red-handed selling missiles to the Ayatollah Khomeini?

      by drewfromct on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:26:22 PM PDT

  •  Imagine an ad with Peggy Noonan....

    quoted saying this...

    Even Reagan's speechwriter thinks Republicans are "marketers, not thinkers. Not serious about policy. Not serious about ideas. And not serious about leadership, only followership."

    by MAORCA on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:14:23 PM PDT

•  Why is Obama

  attacking McCain from the right on foreign policy?
  In effect (beyond the flip-flop) are we saying that he was suggesting appeasement 2 years ago? Do we disagree with his position 2 years ago? Why are we endorsing this republican-likud ideology of not talking to Hamas until they "recognize Israel" and accept past agreements etc.?

  by Chilean Jew on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:59:21 PM PDT

  •  Thank you

    Thanks for pointing that out.  I think it is very important to call out McCain's hypocrisy.  But it is more important to link McCain back to Bush, and to call out Bush's complete incompetence by demonstrating the myriad of ways Obama could do better at foreign policy.

    by weasel on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:04:19 PM PDT

    •  I don't think

      you fully understood me.
      I'm actually concerned that Obama is sounding like a hawk here...he's spewing the same establishment language of the past 20+ years "we don't negotiate with terrorists (anti-american ones only of course)" "We won't talk to Hamas until they bend over for Israel" etc.

      by Chilean Jew on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:09:11 PM PDT

      •  He has little choice

        Hamas cannot maintain an absolutist position forever if the US starts to pressure Israel on the settlements.  Hamas should not be firing rockets into civilian areas, and Hamas will sooner or later have to recognize Israel's right to exist.  But that's never going to happen until a US administration makes some real progress on reversing Israeli land grabs on the West Bank and forces some tough choices between US economic assistance, and evacuating at least some of the settlements.  

        If Obama can get back to where we were with Clinton at Oslo - and that's a big "if" - then Hamas will be undermined and they, too, will have to start negotiating.  It's no fun sitting around in that Gaza prison camp, and everyone knows it's unsustainable.  

        by ivorybill on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:20:23 PM PDT

        •  If.

          You say that if we can get back to where we were in '93 with Oslo, then Hamas will have to negotiate.

          But we got to Oslo by negotiating with the recognized Palestinian leadership of the time (Fatah). How can we get to Oslo now when the Palestinian leadership won't negotiate?

          In other words, Hamas won't negotiate until we negotiate with them so they'll be undermined and have to negotiate. It makes no sense.

          So what's to talk about, and who do you talk to?

          by politicelite on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:12:01 PM PDT

          •  You know

            Fatah will certainly talk if we have a decent, less biased Administration.  That's a good place to start.  If we finally have an Administration that will do the right thing - leverage some of the massive and wasteful US assistance to Israel to finally insist that they stop building settlements and treat the Palestinians as human beings, then Hamas may well back away from some of their more extreme positions, at least far enough to get a dialog started.  

            Where it goes from there, who knows?  But it is time, finally, for a US administration to put US interests first.  US interests in the region extend beyond Israel's borders, and our foolishly one-sided policy cannot remain as it is forever.  Joe Lieberman and John McCain are placing the interests of a foreign government above our own, for ideological or electoral reasons.  That has to stop.

            by ivorybill on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:24:19 PM PDT

            •  Joe Lieberman?

              What has Joe Lieberman got to do with anything?

              by politicelite on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:19:58 AM PDT

      •  I agree

        hence the need for Obama not to simply talk over the Republican talking points, but to show why he would to better than simply repeat the we-don't-talk-to-tourists line.

        by weasel on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:26:05 PM PDT

      •  This is his pushback against

        the meme that he is soft and naive on foreign affairs unlike the two fisted, hairy chested international brawler McCain. The problem is that nuance in foreign policy rarely makes for effective campaign speeches and Kerry showed the futility of introducing complexity into what is basically a pissing match.
        The Democrats are now seen as stronger on national defense than the GOP and that was the one hope that McCain has clung to for the Nov GE.  

        by entlord1 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:42:33 PM PDT

        •  So we should

          bullshit the people into believing that we actually think something, and once we get elected do something else? Kerry was not charismatic in the way Obama is and was not able to frame liberal positions in moderate language the way Obama is. Kerry was a hawkish Democrat who sounded hawkish. Obama is a Dovish Democrat who is starting to sound Hawkish out of fear that he'll be depicted as weak on National Security. We've played this game before, it not only dosn't work, but it is dishonest and undemocratic. Obama need not be overly nuanced and technical to make a reasonable argument, it would suffice to say "Yes. If Hamas is willing to establish a truce and come to the negotiating table, we Should negotiate, offer them carrots and sticks and get them to compromise. We have negotiated with terrorists and dictators before when it was the only path to avoid more death and violence and we will do so again. For 8 years the greatest country in the world has behaved like a 8 year old kid, unwilling to talk to anyone who isn't a fried and uncapable of dealing with our challenges, prefering to ignore them instead. That hasn't exaclty worked out very well. Hamas is stronger, Iran is stronger, Hezbollah is stronger. It is time to recognize the failure of these policies and change course in the middle east for once and for all"

          Now that is a progressive fucking candidate.
          What we're hearing now is right-wing bull shit.

          by Chilean Jew on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:22:56 PM PDT

          •  Hamas has already offered a truce that was

            brokered by the Egyptian security chief and which was rejected out of hand by Olmert and Peretz. What does Obama do with this situation?

            by entlord1 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:44:33 PM PDT

            •  He doesn't talk about it

              He keeps talking in the abstract about how we should engage in "tough diplomacy" with any enemy who is willing to sit down at the table.
              I would love to hear him say that these groups have actually been asking for a truce and negotiations for a long time and that it is Israel and the West that have refused to sit down like grown ups...but maybe that's asking for too much. I'm content as long as he's not spewing right wing crap, which is what he is doing now...

              by Chilean Jew on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:47:22 PM PDT

•  I like CNN's home page

  Obama blasts Bush, McCain over 'attacks'

  But it's attacks in quotes, so they're not really attacks, apparently.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:00:18 PM PDT

  •  They're NOT false attacks

    to a media trying very hard to administer fellatio to the Republican nominee.

    by sunbro on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:13:23 PM PDT

    •  naw

      Why would you do that?  The media ain't stupid.  If they did, their ratings would follow the same curve as Bush's ratings.  

      by spookthesunset on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:59:03 PM PDT

•  John McCain's motto: Dishonor before Death!

  by Hesiod on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:01:27 PM PDT

•  Hey Johnny Boy... Gotcha Bitch!!!!! LOL.Pwnage!!

  by MasterHurrikane on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:02:01 PM PDT

•  yes, but can we get the MSM to step up?

  It doesn't matter that WE know it and put it out there, it matters that the MSM does.

  by BlueStu on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:02:12 PM PDT

  •  This seems to be getting

    ...a lot of tradmed coverage.

    by BarbinMD on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:15:04 PM PDT

•  Hamas Responsible for Deaths of Young Americans??

  I thought that was Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Feith, Yoo, Addington....

  I can't follow this line of thinking... how does he figure???

  by Tom Paines Ghost on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:02:19 PM PDT

  •  It is the same way Hamas gets the credit for the

    suicide bombers though they declared a halt to the practice in December, 2004.  The Palestinians in Gaza are all considered Hamas though Hamas is in considerable disarray. Many of their top leaders are in exile in Damascus and often in open dispute with the Hamas hierarchy still resident in Gaza. Many of their legislators remain in Israeli jails and there have been several splinter groups that now act independently of the main party.

    Many of the suicide attacks can be attributed to Islamic Jihad (or other groups since each attack seems to have multiple groups taking credit) and Islamic Jihad is an outgrowth of Fatah, which is Olmert's and GWB's ally in trying to solve the present mess.

    Granted Hamas celebrates many of these attacks and condones them but Hamas may be still trying to convert to a political entity, as has been argued about Hizbullah in Lebanon. The problem in the ME is that political power, whether for nations or individuals or groups, still comes from the barrel of a gun.

    by entlord1 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:09:27 PM PDT

•  McCain finds his voice

  http://yesterdayssalad.files.wordpre...

  by exploring on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:02:31 PM PDT

•  YouTube will be McCain's downfall

    If there was any more powerful argument for net neutrality...

  by Buzzer on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:03:40 PM PDT

•  Hamas' "worst nightmare" is peace with Israel.

  So, I'm not sure where he's going with that. Does he mean he will force Israel to appease Hamas and cave in to tehir demands?

  by Hesiod on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:04:08 PM PDT

  •  which Hamas?

    Since in theory there is disagreement among the exiles in Damascus and the leaders resident in Gaza and disagreement even among the leaders in Gaza. Unlike Fatah which was centered around an individual, Hamas developed more along a decentralized model, with decisions reached more by committee and compromise within the party than by fiat.

    If this is so. there should be moderates within the group, just as there are hardliners as no political party is ever monolithic. The problem is that with the leadership under the threat of imprisonment or death is that moderation has never had a chance to develop.

    Imagine in 1920 if Britain had negotiated with the IRA instead of deploying the Black and Tans.

    by entlord1 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:15:14 PM PDT

    •  Very perceptive

      and worth a diary... oh, I forgot, this is the I/P conflict!

      by ivorybill on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:21:58 PM PDT

      •  I have started diaries before trying to

        parse and nuance the conflict but the problem is that I am like one of the blind men trying to describe an elephant. I can very well describe the part of the elephant I have but have very little information on the rest of the beastie.

        If Jimmy Carter could not satisfactorily do it in a book, I know I would never do the situation justice in a shorter venue.

        by entlord1 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:45:12 PM PDT

        •  True

          But it's good to step back and consider the IP conflict as another ethnonationalist conflict over resources and identity, not necessarily more complex than the Kurdish issue, the Congolese civil war, the Balkan wars, or even Northern Ireland.  Each is different, of course.  The problem is that the I/P conflict always has so much excess emotional baggage attached to it, that negotiating a solution or even talking logically about it becomes impossible.

          by ivorybill on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:52:51 PM PDT

          •  also so many different factions

            at least with Ireland it was the Irish and the Brits and to a lesser extent the US, Germany and France. The ME is a lot more screwed up than that scenario ever was.

            by entlord1 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:08:41 PM PDT

•  Easier to get right-wing-whacko votes with

  rhetoric rather than reality (new or otherwise).

  by Boisepoet on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:06:08 PM PDT

•  I like to think Obama has a pocket notebook

  and every day he sits down and writes down every maniacal thing McCain says. And on the first Obama-McCain debate, he will simply pull out his notebook and start reading the greatest list of all time.

  by AngryZealot on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:07:53 PM PDT

•  McCain IS NOT TOO OLD!

  It's important to remember that, no matter how tempting it is to say that McCain had a "senior moment," that comments like that are disrespectful and condescending towards McCain the war veteran and maverick.

  So I certainly hope no one here accuses McCain of just beind too old and befuddled to remember what he said.

  No. It's better to think he's a lying hypocritical douche nozzle who will say anything to smear his opponent & then hope to high heaven comments he made in the past don't rise up to bite him on the ass. Better to think he's short-sighted, pandering, cloying & stupid. But NOT too old.

  by slappymagoo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:08:14 PM PDT

  •  Isn't Robert Byrd older than McCain?

    Or maybe older than anybody?  Doesn't matter -- Byrd's not so old he couldn't see through the White House fog of lies  leading up to the Iraq Occupation, while a lot of younger pols who should have known better fell right into line with Bush (yes, HRC, I'm talking about YOU).  

    by dotalbon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:22:11 PM PDT

    •  He is old enough to be old enough

      to be the alleged former KKK leader that the GOP drags out each time the GOP tries to defend itself against charges of being the party of racism.

      by entlord1 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:46:38 PM PDT

  •  Maybe not too old, but certainly

    too ossified.  Petrified, maybe.  Those are often characteristics of the elderly, but not exclusively.

    The thing that strikes me about McCain is his utter inflexibility.  Like Bush, he's not a particularly curious guy.  He's marginally smarter than Bush (but I've known smarter house plants than Bush).  He and Bush share a certain rigidity - an inability to change course or improvise when necessary.  

    John McCain won the primary not because he changed his game plan, but because Romney imploded and Huckabee split the ticket. He's never been faced with any challenge that required creativity or new thinking.  

    by ivorybill on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:25:52 PM PDT

  •  McCain the war veteran

    Some schmuck on NPR was talking yesterday morning about McCain being the only candidate with military experience---as though that is his winning edge. I beg to differ. Didn't his military experience consist largely of getting shot down and tortured? That makes him the best choice to run the country? If getting tortured by your enemy is the new qualification for leadership, then we're churning out the next leaders of Iraq and the Muslim world by the hundreds.

    by drewfromct on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:33:39 PM PDT

    •  all they should do

      is look at 2004 and see that being the one with military experience doesn't guarantee a win.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:35:40 PM PDT

    •  In 2000 in SC primary the GOP pilloried him as

      a coward and collaborator.  All MoveOn has to do is to resurrect some of the Bushie antiMcCain literature from that time.  After all, then it would not be anyone attacking McCain except his own party.

      by entlord1 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:48:48 PM PDT

•  McCain's behavior

  doesn't even qualify as flip flopping anymore. He's a frickin multiple personality! He needs a damn doctor for crying out loud!

  But again, privately the State Department approved of Carter's trip, yet publicly they denounce Carter. Carter could do well to go public again-maybe even go on FOX-to remind people of this duality.

  by plok on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:10:28 PM PDT

•  Obama KOd Bush (Original) & McBush (Extra Crispy)

  With One Punch.

  OUCH!

  by DFutureIsNow on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:11:12 PM PDT

•  We are going to get fact-checked hard, again

  The samed day of the now-famous interview, McCain set conditions for talks with Hamas, as seen in a video released to Politico a few moments ago: They had to give up terrorism. Factcheck.org and other website are going to kill us on this one.

  http://www.youtube.com/...

  by kingsbridge77 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:11:27 PM PDT

  •  Sure, he tried to back and fill.

    That wasn't his first answer.

    by muledriver on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:14:31 PM PDT

  •  The author of the interview

    stated that McCain supported communication with Hamas and did not note the imposition of conditions by McCain.

    by entlord1 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:17:07 PM PDT

    •  link?

      link to this "autor of the interview" claiming such thing?

      by kingsbridge77 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:20:52 PM PDT

      •  here ye go

        http://thinkprogress.org/...

        and

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

        I'm not sure if the person who did the interview said himself that McCain didn't note any conditions, but McCain did not state any conditions in the interview.

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:26:59 PM PDT

      •  OK I am typing on the kid's keyboard

        and I don't always hit squarely on each key. At least I clean up where I am off by a whole line.

        by entlord1 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:50:04 PM PDT

  •  Unless the clip is taken out of context

    of the broader, SAME interview, the point is clearly made.

    A separate interview on the same day does not cut it.

    McCain has been so inconsistent on almost every issue that he has practically said everything for as well as against any given position on each issue.

    by MAORCA on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:20:56 PM PDT

    •  context is everything

      If we exclude one interview, we risk repeating the "100 years in Iraq" blunder, in which key parts of his statements were disappeared by some.

      by kingsbridge77 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:24:08 PM PDT

      •  Where is the lost context

        of his "100 years in Iraq" comment?

        OK, so he thinks its fine to stay 100 years in Iraq if there is peace.

        So how are we going to get to that state?  How long are we going to stay to get it?  Are we going to fight for 100 years so we can stay another 100 years peacefully?

        He's never answered that question.

        The closest he's said is "when we win or when it becomes unwinnable."

        Of course, he doesn't say under which consitions it becomes unwinnable either.

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:28:44 PM PDT

        •  Exactly

          The McCainiacs of the corporate media have given him a total pass on this. They buy his lame spin of a hundred year "peacetime" occupation, but have never bothered to ask him just how long he would have us stay fighting until the "100 years of peaceful occupation" can even begin.

          by drewfromct on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:39:19 PM PDT

        •  That's not what i'm talking about

          The DNC and Obama, and Clinton, said he wanted a 100 year war in Iraq, leaving out the part where he made clear he wanted a peace-time prescence lasting that long.

          by kingsbridge77 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:51:45 PM PDT

•  Nailed it.

  by muledriver on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:12:23 PM PDT

•  McCain is a fool

  Why would anyone let a member of Hamas decide who I am or not voting for???

  by nierika on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:12:33 PM PDT

•  McCains Respose: Old Man Yells At Cloud!

  by DFutureIsNow on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:12:51 PM PDT

•  It's pretty funny

  watching the White House backpedal.

  They're so impotent at this point that they need to try to walk back silly statements "Oh - we didn't mean YOU Senator Obama".

  Imagine that... Sitting President fearful of the wrath of the presumptive Dem nominee!

  by zonk on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:14:01 PM PDT

•  Not just hypocrisy but cowardice

  Since when is sitting on the sidelines making comments and accusations considered a viable diplomacy. Bush and McCain like to talk tough, but the person who is really tough will confront those he has a problem with face to face. McCain and Bush have been talking to Hamas, Iran, and Hezbollah. But they have been doing it by proxy through speeches and comments in the press. This is not how a real leader deals with conflict. Conflict can only be resolved by direct communication. Anything else is a cowardly approach that only serves to antagonize one's opponents without resolving any problems. If McCain and Bush think they are talking tough, they are sadly mistaken. Obama is talking tough when he says he will meet with Iranian leaders face to face, just as he is willing to debate Bush and McCain face to face and not vicariously through third parties.

  by MagisterLudi on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:16:20 PM PDT

  •  Don't forget Bush's entire foreign policy

    Is three words:  "Bring 'em on!"  

    by dotalbon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:23:27 PM PDT

    •  Talk is cheap

      It takes a braver man than Bush to sit down face to face with his enemies and negotiate and to stand firm on your convictions.

      by MagisterLudi on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:32:27 PM PDT

•  Maybe McCain isn't being duplicitous. His

  behavior seems to hint at senility.  Is he mentally fit to protect the country?

  by sweeper on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:18:42 PM PDT

  •  I'm a lot more worried about

    his temper than his senility.

    This is a frat boy in the body of a 71 year old Grampa Simpson.

    by MAORCA on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:22:13 PM PDT

    •  He seems to have a scary cocktail of

      unappealing psychological traits.

      by sweeper on Fri May 16, 2008 at 03:29:39 PM PDT

•  Mad Jack will be be beaten like rented mule

  Yeah, I know, it ain't over until it's over.

  And the repubs will move to disenfranchise voters state by state, in the wake of SUSA decision re: IN (like in Missouri), along with their other usual tricks.

  But this guy's a seriously flawed candidate and person, and Obama's gonna wipe the floor with him.

  by RubDMC on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:19:01 PM PDT

•  All I can say is...

  McCain better shave for the debates.

  by archer070 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:23:57 PM PDT

•  McCain = MORE WAR....... period n/t

  by KnotIookin on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:31:23 PM PDT

•  I covered this video

  and several other notable ones in my first ever diary.

  by Phil N DeBlanc on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:31:30 PM PDT

•  Why this might be a good time for HRC to bow out

  This foriegn policy debate that's exploded between the parties is the Nov. campaign's "Fort Sumpter" ... this discussion goes to the core of one of the top few critical issues in the upcoming general election (some view it as the most important issue), and battle has been joined in particular between Obama and both Bush and McCain (or shall we say McBush).

  Whatever benefit might accrue to Hillary and her supporters of her continued presence in the Presidential process, the fact is that we are now at (political) war ... and the nomination contest has become an interesting sideshow, at best.

  HRC's last significant victory will likely occur this Tues, in KY. After that, there will be close (but relatively unimportant) contests in SD and MT. And while she might gain a lot of delegates in PR's winner-take-all primary, PR has no role in the general election.

  Whether you're for or against HRC (yes, I like Obama more than her, but I like both) ... everyone knows this nomination contest is over, and she's looking increasingly like a distraction in the face of this ongoing stuggle between us and the GOP.

  The moment may have arrived for her and her supporters to bask in the glory of their last resounding (and relevant) victory in KY, and then to gracefully bow out on that high note, so that we can get on with the general election campaign.

  And I believe that would benefit her, as well as Democrats. She could then spin her departure as a sacrifice, proof of her new status as one of a small handful of highly-revered elder Democratic statespersons, and perhaps even increase whatever limited leverage that she possesses - as a possible contender for the VP role.

  It's now time for all good (wo)mem to come to the aid of the party.

  by Raj47905 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:34:14 PM PDT

  •  Well said

    by deluge99 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:37:51 PM PDT

•  It's about being President

  McCain has no moral values that he will not sacrifice.  There are no lies that he will not tell.  There is no friend that he won't abandon.  He is willing to do anything that gets him into the Oval Office.  He is a man with no honor.

  by Tom Paul on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:49:41 PM PDT

•  he said we won't leave till we win even if

  it takes a 100 years..

  by lookout1967 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:51:53 PM PDT

•  John McCain - Master Baiter

  welll wasnt that what he was trying to do?  bait Obama into a fight?  

  by KnotIookin on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:54:18 PM PDT

•  Thats the real secret

  to John McCain

  Once he really was a maverick. A man of integrity.

  In his desperate quest for the presidency he's lost all that. he is no longer a man of character. He faced the torturers in viet nam. But apparently he finally cracked at the hands of torturers of the neocon far right.

  The man has completely abandoned his honor.

  by cdreid on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:56:22 PM PDT

•  I'm sure McCain is a hypocrite

  But I do not believe this "exclusive" video provides the punch we want it to.

  When McCain says "deal with them" he might be implying talking to them, but it doesn't pin him down very well.

  He can now claim that he meant he'd "deal" with them by threatening to bomb them.

  He's an old sell-out, but in this case, he crafted his words in a manner that will be hard to twist.

  by MiddleCity2000 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:56:43 PM PDT

•  Deal with them one way or another

  The question was about diplomats engaging with Hamas--McCain did nothing to distinguish his positive assertion from any thing other than diplomacy. He also seems to be suggesting that Hamas might be able to do a better job than the regime they replaced.
  He is not talking about anything other than diplomacy and the degree of diplomacy and it's somewhat unpopular reality.

  by ccap1 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:00:49 PM PDT

•  JedReport should do a mash up of the McSame

  contradiction.

  McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist

  by Nonconformist on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:27:06 PM PDT

•  Where did McCain's neck fat go?

  Do you see his neck now compared to a year or two ago?  What, did he get lipo?  If he lost that neck fat naturally, the rest of him would be stick-thin.  You can't spot reduce neck fat!

  by Media Concepts on Fri May 16, 2008 at 02:41:24 PM PDT

•  Climb aboard the double talk express

  I don't want to get complacent, but how can Obama not wipe the floor with this guy?

  Are there really that many low information voters?

  by DrWolfy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:11:18 AM PDT

•  John McCain --THE MORE-WAR CANDIDATE

  by dancobmd on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:28:43 AM PDT