home

Obama Blasts Carter For Meeting With Hamas

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:25:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Barack Obama said:

Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday criticized former President Jimmy Carter for meeting with leaders of the Islamic terrorist group Hamas as he tried to reassure Jewish voters that his candidacy isn't a threat to them or U.S. support for Israel. . . Obama told the Jewish group he had a "fundamental disagreement" with Carter, who was rebuffed by Israeli leaders during a peace mission to the Middle East this week. "We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction[.] "We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements."

(Emphasis supplied.) There is certainly a contradiction with some of Obama's earlier stated positions on "meeting with dictators" et al. My own view is that Carter should not have met with Hamas, but that is based on the idea that the foreign policy of the United States should be carried out by the current government (like them or not) and former Presidents should not be out there freelancing.

And in case anyone is watching, I have not a word of rebuke for Obama's statement as he is a pol and pols pander. It is what they do.

< DUI Not a Violent Felony For ACCA Sentencing | Weds. Afternoon Open Thread: San Quentin >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Blasts Carter For Meeting With Hamas | 209 comments (209 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    {scratches head} (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:32:18 PM EST
       "We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements."

    umm, isn't this a pre-condition?

    Ding ding ding ding ding (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:35:40 PM EST
    you get a prize!  This is EXACTLY what a precondition is.

    Does he even pay attention to what he says?

    [ Parent ]

    Hamas is not a state (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Jgarza on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:42:25 PM EST
    so it isn't the same as a foreign country like Iran.  I think intelligent people can distinguish between Humas and the recognized government of a state.

    [ Parent ]
    Hmm (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:45:38 PM EST
    Hamas is not some nothing. At least not in Gaza and the West bank. they won the elections.

    [ Parent ]
    This might help you (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:47:03 PM EST
    Link.

    [ Parent ]
    i know what (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jgarza on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:51:40 PM EST
    Hamas is, it still isn't a state.

    [ Parent ]
    So why meet with Abbas? (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:52:32 PM EST
    Do we only meet with UN states is the idea? I do not think that was Obama's point.

    [ Parent ]
    We can meet with non state actors (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Jgarza on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:02:35 PM EST
    I think the idea that we need to meet with STATES that aren't friendly is correct.  Iran is not Al Quada and you wouldn't meet with them.  Diplomacy is a necessity with all states, not all actors in the world.

    [ Parent ]
    I think you're thinking the whole of the (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:55:26 PM EST
    Palestinian territories is not "officially" a state. However, the people did have elections...and kinda sorta elected themselves a Hamas led government.

    Hamas is not a state. But then again...neither is the Bush administration.

    [ Parent ]

    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by david mizner on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:32:07 PM EST
    That's exactly what the purpose of meeting with Palestinians is, to find a two-state solution.

    The PLO doesn't head a state either.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes but the west bank (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jgarza on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:48:08 PM EST
    and Gaza are not recognized states.  The other difference is that meeting with Iran/North Korea/etc. has to do with US interests, Hamas concerns it self almost exclusively to Israel, so you would not meet with them without Israels blessing.

    [ Parent ]
    They are recognized political authorities no? (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:51:47 PM EST
    Or why would we meet with Abbas? It is not as easy as your formulation.

    Obama is pandering here. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

    [ Parent ]

    We meet with Abbas (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by AF on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:01:05 PM EST
    Because we think it is in Israel and the US interest, NOT out of a general principle of meeting with leaders of foreign states.

    Obama panders on Israel as do most liberals, but he's not contradicting his previous statements about meeting with foreign leaders by condemning Carter's meeting with Hamas.  There's an important difference between pandering and contradiction -- it's the difference between a good pol and a bad pol.

    [ Parent ]

    Ohh ofcourse he is pandering (none / 0) (#83)
    by Jgarza on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:10:09 PM EST
    but that is part of running for president, you have to pander to the Israel vote regardless of the party.  It just isn't inconsistent with meeting with Iran.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:14:22 PM EST
    if you bend yourself just so and then reach to the back and bend yourself back the other way it will come out to make sense in Obama words. But I don't think so.

    [ Parent ]
    WORM, squirmy worm (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by ineedalife on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:47:35 PM EST
    Are you one of the little red ones, or a big fat nightcrawler?

    I know. Ban me. But I just couldn't resist.

    [ Parent ]

    They were legally elected (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:12:56 PM EST
    government.  

    [ Parent ]
    They are elected in the sense (none / 0) (#102)
    by Jgarza on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:19:15 PM EST
    that a Govenrment of California or Texas is elected, they have limited international authority.

    [ Parent ]
    The Palestinians held elections (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:21:56 PM EST
    Americans and Israel did not like the results.  They sanctioned and kept all resources, starved the people.  This is democracy?  

    People chose them as their leaders and the US and Israel sabotaged them with sanctions.  Now the agent of change, goes along.  

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not disagreeing with you (none / 0) (#110)
    by Jgarza on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:24:07 PM EST
    i'm saying it isn't inconsistent.  I dont agree with mainstream us Israel policy, but the reality is that negotiation with a state and negotiating with Hamas are two entirely different things.

    [ Parent ]
    how do you get peace then? (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by TheRefugee on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:00:38 PM EST
    The IRA wasn't a state but they were demanding similar things to Hamas, a voice in the govt, a seat at the table, an ability to protect the citizens they were representing.  The UK recognized that they would have to deal with the IRA, it may have taken awhile because all it took was one UK soldier beating a Catholic or one IRA member taking a pot shot at a UK soldier and aggression ramped back up.

    For Carter to talk to Hamas or Israel does not mean he is talking on behalf of the US.  He has long been a proponent of ME peace and it should not shock Obama or BTD that he is going to continue to try and be a relevant intermediary between the Palestinians and Israel.

    For any one to think that Hamas is irrelevant?  Israel isn't going to voluntarily bow to Palestinian demands and Palestinians aren't going to leave their lands voluntarily.  So it has to be a two-sided conversation.  Obama is thinking along the lines of the UK, 'There can be no discussion until the IRA hands over their weapons.'  Well that is impossible, once one side holds an undue advantage the other side has no reason to believe they are going to be treated fairly. All this proves is that Obama's years in Indonesia actually didn't teach him as much about the people of all countries as he thinks it did.  

    [ Parent ]

    they were dully elected (none / 0) (#115)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:25:47 PM EST
    representatives.

    [ Parent ]
    of a nonstate (none / 0) (#118)
    by Jgarza on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:27:27 PM EST
    i dont think its fair that that is how the West Bank and Gaza Strip are characterized but it is.

    [ Parent ]
    Arab perspective (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:52:05 PM EST
    From a great Pro-Palestine blog, an analysis of Carter talking to Hamas, somethings we don't hear in the MSM or blogs

    Israeli and other Carter critics surely know this. Their concern, however, must be twofold. One is that such contacts are slowly breaking the isolation of Hamas when what is desired by Israel is Hamas' delegitimization and destruction. The other is the genuine fear that Meshal's message to Carter may be able to shake the myth that Hamas wants simply to destroy Israel, or continue on a course of war and violence for the sake of it.

    Meshal may repeat the same language he used in an op-ed in The Guardian on 31 January 2006, just after Hamas was declared the winner in the Palestinian general elections. There, he extended a message of peace to Israel, based on full rights and reciprocity, starting with a long-term truce. But this was still distant from the Israeli-tailored terms applied by the so-called international community for accepting to deal with Hamas.



    [ Parent ]
    Please quit with the non-state nonsense (none / 0) (#188)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:13:05 PM EST
    The US meets with Abbas and he is at the same level as Hamas in representing the Palestinians.  He is just doing what all Democrats and Republicans do in the Middle East, say one thing for the Israeli Jewish consumption and then talk about democracy and representation as if they really believed in them.  No they don't if they did they would have accepted the Palestinian's decision of who represents them and not put sanctions in place with the Israeli so that they could show how Hamas could not deliver.

    [ Parent ]
    Dull elections almost would be a break (none / 0) (#201)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:31:06 PM EST
    here right now. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    So are you saying that (none / 0) (#199)
    by tree on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:54:53 PM EST
    the President should not meet with the elected government of California or Texas? 'cuz that's where your argument leads.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course, if we apply that logic (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by tree on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:47:14 PM EST
    it should be applied to the IRA in Northern Ireland,  and to the ANC in apartheid South Africa. But, rightly in my view, it wasn't. The major difference  between Hamas today and the IRA and the ANC in the past is that Hamas is the only one that could claim  to be democratically elected prior to becoming a part of a recognized state government.

      Obama's bending over backwards to toe the AIPAC line. Unfortunately, the vast majority of higher elected officials toe that line, but it certainly  proves that Obama isn't going to be any better than anyone else on these types of foreign policy issues. He may in fact be worse simply because he has to pander harder on the subject. If he's elected he won't change because there's always the next election to worry about. And if there's anything that really stands out in Obama's resume its that he's always looking ahead to the next election.  

    [ Parent ]

    correction (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jgarza on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:44:51 PM EST
    Humas=Hamas

    [ Parent ]
    It Is The Same (none / 0) (#138)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:53:56 PM EST
    They are the elected representatives of the Palestinian people. IOW hamas stands for Palestine, and that is who you have to negotiate in order to sit down with Palestine.

    Besides, who does he think he is Golda Meir?

    He's running around talking about how this is an insult to jews, how he values the position that Palestine does not exist......

    [ Parent ]

    What is your logic? (none / 0) (#166)
    by BigB on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:58:29 PM EST
    So, in your view it is ok to meet with terrorists without pre-conditions as long as they are terrorist states. If they are not a "state" recognized by U.N. then they are off limits. Thus, by your logic, it would have been ok to meet with Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan but not after they were overthrown. Right?

    The logic behind this is..., what?

    [ Parent ]

    I think the logic was to imply (none / 0) (#194)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:44:13 PM EST
    I was less than intelligent  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    ah, thank you . . . (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:43:53 PM EST
    I'm starting to get confused here. I was wondering if I really was a low-info voter, lol!~!  ;)

    I can see the Oct ads now. Split screens anyone?

    [ Parent ]

    Really now you dont know (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jgarza on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:45:22 PM EST
    the difference between Iran and Hamas?

    [ Parent ]
    I am not sure you know what Hamas is (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:46:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Political party (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:14:51 PM EST
    they won the election which annoyed Israel and the US.  They are a real political party.  By the way they were originally started by Israel when they wanted to put the PLO out of business.  Sort of like the US supporting Bin Laden in Afghanistan.  

    [ Parent ]
    That's pretty clear -- what a thread (none / 0) (#202)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:32:58 PM EST
    this is, which just took several minutes off my life trying to figure out what the heck was going on here with jgarza.

    [ Parent ]
    You are bitterly clinging (none / 0) (#9)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:36:14 PM EST
    to logic in your assessment of Obama's remarks.

    Just chant "hope" and "change" until this distressing tendency goes away.

    /snark

    [ Parent ]

    Logic. It bites me in the behind yet again ;) (none / 0) (#26)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:45:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's a "preparation" (none / 0) (#87)
    by Practically Lactating on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:13:22 PM EST
    In one of the debates, Obama stated he would have preparations but not preconditions. Ha. If I had to WORM it, I guess he calls these "preparations."

    [ Parent ]
    There went the Carter endorsement. Wonder if (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Angel on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:32:51 PM EST
    Carter will reply to Obama.  Hope he has a striging rebuke for him.  If anyone can meet with other foreign leaders or groups, friends or foe, it is Jimmy Carter.  He's different and has more respect in this area than any other living president.  

    I'm of two minds about this (none / 0) (#42)
    by angie on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:53:03 PM EST
    (oh, no! I'm turning Obamense).  On the one hand, I agree with BTD that this is the province of the administration (love of 'em or hate 'em).  On the other hand, Carter just isn't anybody. He has a lot of cred with this kind of thing.  

    [ Parent ]
    Carter isn't representing the U.S. (none / 0) (#112)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:24:53 PM EST
    He is representing himself and his trip is in direct conflict with official U.S. policy and the authority of the U.S. govt. to meet with and negotiate peace talks.

    Carter is interfering.

    Yes, Obama is pandering. So what. Whoever wins the White House is not going to approve of Jimmy Carter running around and engaging in his own sets of talks with foreign leaders.

    [ Parent ]

    Like this administration (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:43:14 PM EST
    has done diddly for P/I.  Condi and her "birth pangs".  This admin has done more to destabilize the Mideast since I don't know when. (Talking Iraq etc here.  It's all related.)

    [ Parent ]
    Couldn't agree more (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:01:42 PM EST
    I can't think of any administration in my lifetime that has done more damage to the security of the Middle East than the Bush Administration.

    If a President Obama or President Clinton asks Carter to act as envoy to the Middle East then we have a possible game-changer. But, for the moment, since he has not been tapped by the Bush Administration to act on our government's behalf, he is still interfering. In recent years, Carter seems to have become an attention hog, intent on burnishing his legacy. I still remember how he slammed Bush at Coretta Scott King's funeral. Despite my loathing for Bush, Carter's grandstanding was inappropriate and embarrassing.    

    [ Parent ]

    You have a valid point. (none / 0) (#148)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:06:19 PM EST
    I'd be more unhappy with Carter if there was actually something happening that he was endangering.

    [ Parent ]
    Carter may be on (none / 0) (#175)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:47:12 PM EST
    to something.  I think dealing with some of the terrorists organizations, like Hamas, that have gained political credibility by winning an election is delicate but needed.  Carter has a handle on the culture in the middle east and he knows that, not unlike the Chinese, losing face can have disasterous consequences.  Sometimes progress is made through back channels, especially if Carter can do anything to help them come to a compromise without losing face for doing it.  

    Obama's denunciation is pure politics and in my mind in direct contradiction to his previous comments about how he would handle foreign diplomactic issues. I may be wrong, but there may be also be public outrage from our govt, but "under the table" approval of Carter's efforts (don't know if that would apply to Obama or not).  I am basing my opinion on the fact that Carter actually understands the arab culture better than any other President or former President.  He also does not care what people think of him.

    [ Parent ]

    as long as he isn't playing chess tournaments (none / 0) (#197)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:52:56 PM EST
    Carter can do whatever the hell he wants and can't really be called out on issues of democracy or the middle east because he has substantial respect and stored political capital. His 'interference' isn't anything new and isn't news.

    This is especially true when it comes from someone that uses lawyers to disqualify opponents and opposes full representation.  And even more so when it's crystal clear that Obama is pandering based on past doubts about his support for Israel.

    Personally, I think this pander reaches close to gaffedom -- it's too transparent that he's trying to clear up two issues (israel, meetings) by whacking carter.  And furthermore, it's not like Carter's positions and involvement are new -- he DID publish a book called peace not apartheid. if i recall.

    [ Parent ]

    Nah (none / 0) (#141)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:57:03 PM EST
    Carter knows exactly what Obama is doing. He will still support him. Too bad Obama's double talk is soooo obviously pandering. But, nonetheless,  I am sure it will have the desired effect.

    [ Parent ]
    Unless of course... (none / 0) (#160)
    by gmo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:37:36 PM EST
    ...this was Carter's test of Obama's mettle regarding meeting with anyone without precondition.   He's basically given Obama his endorsement; I think this will qualify whether that endorsement is actually worth anything.

    [ Parent ]
    His Position Has Been (none / 0) (#161)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:40:59 PM EST
    Meeting without preconditions with enemies, but he has excluded Hamas from that equation with consistency.

    [ Parent ]
    Since when? (none / 0) (#185)
    by Manuel on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:04:11 PM EST
    As a state legislator and even senatorial candidate, Obama sported a more even handed P/I approach.  BTW This past history will be made an issue by the Republicans in the GE.


    [ Parent ]
    Hamas (none / 0) (#187)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:11:35 PM EST
    Was not in power then. No one can become president of the US without stacking the deck toward Israel, imo. His shift is clear, but I am not sure what he had said about Hamas in the past.

    I disagree with Obama's and Clinton's position on this, big time. Carter is on the right track, imo.

    [ Parent ]

    Carter and Clinton (none / 0) (#190)
    by Manuel on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:17:38 PM EST
    both became president and made progress on peace talks in the Middle East.  It is unfortunate that Obama runs away from that track record.


    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#196)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:45:59 PM EST
    What is unfortunate is the popular right wing lock regarding the Mid East in America, read Likud/AIPAC. Any politician running for office who voice anything but the right wing lockstep position regarding Hamas would suffer a humiliating loss, and that goes triple for POTUS contenders.

    The only significant pols that can talk reasonably about Palestinian/Israeli affairs are those who are retired.

    [ Parent ]

    Two minds too (none / 0) (#172)
    by Rainsong on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:31:22 PM EST

    I would agree with BTD. Carter doesn't have the right to represent US in talks with Hamas. (not without official permission of the current admin anyway)

    But on the other hand, Hamas is not a recognised state, its a political party, so it could be argued he wasn't representing the US at all anyway, and as it wasn't anything official or formal in an international diplomacy context, its no Big Deal. As a citizen he can meet with whoever he likes if his passport is valid.

    Its Obama's spin that bothers me, far more. Its not like we have a large number of Dem Presidencies in our history, and Obama seems to want to denigrate and distance himself from them, (except the dead ones), and by implication, the Party.  Why bring it up at all? He could have made his point without mentioning any names. Or better still, he could have slagged off on any gazillion of Bush's actions to make his point.

    Can someone remind which Party Obama is running to represent again? I keep forgetting.

    [ Parent ]

    my favorite part (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:34:55 PM EST
    of his speech to the jewish leaders today is when he said he can fight better on Isreal's behalf than any other president could because of his background.

    I hope Carter responds.

    And no one, repeat, no one (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:38:36 PM EST
    has done more for fair and democratic elections than Obama.  No one.  Carter, what has he done?

    [ Parent ]
    Oh no he didn't... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:40:36 PM EST
    ...well at least he didn't say that no one has fought harder on Israel's behalf than he has. I guess this is an improvement.

    [ Parent ]
    He really is quite full of himself, isn't he? (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:43:40 PM EST
    He keeps saying things that are so self-congratulatory and so also removed from reality that it's actually quite stunning!

    He knows more about foreign affairs than any other candidate. He can fight better for Israel than any other US president. Wow.  

    He really is The One, isn't he? I bet he thinks that song is about him....

    Clouds in my coffee....

    [ Parent ]

    Here is just some of what he said. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:54:49 PM EST
    Would he continue to veto anti-Israeli resolutions at the UN?

    He said he would and that he would be "uniquely positioned" to do so due to his background. "That kind of blunt talk is something I can deliver with more credibility than some other presidents might."

    He talked about being influences by Jewish writers, philosophers and friends.

    "There is a kinship and a sense of shared community that predates my political career and will extend beyond this particular election...Know that I will be there for you, just as I believe that you will be there for me."

    He was asked why he favors meeting with Iran but rejects the idea of President Carter meeting with Hamas.

    He answered that "Hama is not a state, Hamas is a terrorist organization...so I think here is a very clear distinction." Said his desire to meet directly with Iran is "practical."

    Read the rest of the story HERE


    [ Parent ]

    I prefer to lurk (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by MMW on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:01:22 PM EST
    This man keeps saying that he is "uniquely positioned" so he has more "credibility". This isn't snark, I need someone who knows to tell me what this "uniquely positioned" means or is and how is he more credible, particularly on this, than say Bush?

    [ Parent ]
    He is uniquely positioned (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:16:36 PM EST
    because he is not that evil shameless tart Hillary, and that is all he needs to win any argument.

    /snark

    [ Parent ]

    In this sense, if I am reading him right.... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:15:21 PM EST
    ...he seems to be saying that he will have street cred.

    [ Parent ]
    But WTH (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:25:31 PM EST
    does that mean?!

    He makes no sense.

    And don't ys love his, "some of my best friends are jewish" line?

    [ Parent ]

    I suspect (none / 0) (#156)
    by tree on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:27:35 PM EST
    its the same kind of lazy "reasoning" that led Kerry to make that stupid comment about how Obama being black would lend him more credibility with Muslim governments. (There was a post about it here a few weeks back, with Kerry's video'd quote.)

     Of course the whole idea is ludicrously shallow and stereotypical. And its already been proven false, because we know how much "credibility" Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice have had with Middle Eastern governments.

     I also suspect that part of that supposed "cred" has to do with him spending 4 years as a child in Indonesia and spending a month in Pakistan 20 odd years ago. Cuz we all know that all Muslim countries are the same, and that Obama has the magical ability to understand any area after spending a few weeks there. (See Pennsylvania for a glorious example of this.)

    [ Parent ]

    I am with you (none / 0) (#177)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:53:02 PM EST
    what is this really code for?  I am Black?  I am "fill in the blank"?  What does it mean?

    [ Parent ]
    It's code for (none / 0) (#186)
    by Manuel on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:11:14 PM EST
    I have muslim relatives.  Of course, this betrays a misunderstanding of the Arab "street".  They won't care about his roots.  They'll care about his policies which, granted, are bound to be an improvement over the current administration (as would Clinton's).


    [ Parent ]
    i don't think it is code for anything (none / 0) (#189)
    by TheRefugee on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:16:28 PM EST
    I think he has decided that the best way to fight the inexperience charge is to promote the idea that it isn't about experience, it is about capability.  The fact that one's capability to achieve is defined by their experience seems to have escaped him and his handlers.

    Once again, this type of rhetoric works on those who have already chosen him, it won't win over voters because it is transparent pandering.  The Jews who will be voting for Hillary listen to that and think the same as you, "how does he suddenly have the ability to serve our community better than anyone else, just because he 'says so'?"  Most voters aren't as dim as Obama would like them to be.  From Jews to gays to any other group he has said, "nobody has done more for you than I have"...the proof is in the deeds and Obama is exceedingly short on deeds when he makes these claims.  It is this idea, that he has all the answers, that will doom him in the GE.  The GOP already has their attacks made up concerning Wright, "bitterness", Rezco, and he is continually giving them more fuel by claiming this unique ability to help everyone when his record is thin, both in IL and the US Senate.  He is going to get absolutely picked apart by the GOP, moreso than even Kerry.  But whereas Kerry, Gore, and Clinton had strong records to back their claims..Obama doesn't.

    [ Parent ]

    So Hillary is running (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jgarza on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:56:55 PM EST
    on not being better then carter on peace negotiations?

    [ Parent ]
    uh (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by Nasarius on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:19:09 PM EST
    You really want to take on the diplomatic cred of Jimmy Carter? He's got vastly more experience, much of it successful, than either of them.

    [ Parent ]
    And I'll bet HRC is humble enough (none / 0) (#126)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:40:28 PM EST
    to acknowledge that fact.

    [ Parent ]
    Remind me (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by ghost2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:34:58 PM EST
    Who was the politician who said he would meet with 'bad' guys in his first year of office, and said (well, a rip off of Hillary's statement) that "you don't negotiate with your friends, you negotiate with your enemies"?

    Perhaps, Hillary should put all of these together and ask him where he stands. He changes position so fast that we are getting dizzy.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:57:15 PM EST
    that line was uttered most famously by Yitzhak Rabin.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure he has an (none / 0) (#47)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:54:17 PM EST
    answer explaining the distinction between his two positions ready for the debate(s) coming up.  A reporter will ask.

    What will be interesting is Hillary's comment as surely she will be asked...does she agree with Obama?  Or with Carter?  Or take a different view than either?

    [ Parent ]

    Not allowed to have her own position? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:46:56 PM EST
    What is your position relative to these other standard bearers?

    Gonna have to keep an ear out that kind of framing.

    [ Parent ]

    Is there a single democratic ex-president..... (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by ineedalife on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:37:19 PM EST
    that Obama admires as much as Reagan and Papa Bush? This isn't snark, it is a serious question for the Obama supporters. He has trashed Clinton, Carter, and Johnson. I am sure that if he didn't have Teddy Kennedy's endorsement he would have problems with JFK as well (invasions of Cuba and Vietnam don't fit the Obama doctrine).

    Gosh, you're correct -- every Dem prez (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:39:51 PM EST
    gets attacked by Obama, every Repub prez was a great man. What is it with Obama?  Wants to be able to say that no one was a better Dem president than him?

    [ Parent ]
    think Obama (none / 0) (#84)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:12:22 PM EST
    has attacked Bush and Reagen quite a bit.  pushing a silly argument.  he's picked on clinton b/c her husband ran the country; pretty fair to highlight the things that went wrong (there were some).  He has also praised Bill many times.  move on.

    [ Parent ]
    move on? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:16:42 PM EST
    The guy is like a flame thrower aimed at former Dem presidents.

    [ Parent ]
    Telling posters to move on isn't playing nice. :) (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:20:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He lies (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:21:20 PM EST
    about the Clinton administration. He did it in his bitter-cling remarks.

    Pennsylvanians did NOT lose their jobs during Clinton's two terms.

    He also blames Bill for losing Democratic Congressional seats and governorships in 1994. Guess what, that was the year of the Gingrich revolution. No Democratic President would have withstood it - it was too well-planned.

    These are just two obvious examples.

    [ Parent ]

    Ha ha ha -- A to D (none / 0) (#200)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:27:07 PM EST
    you have fast become one of the most ridiculous commenters here, called out as a spammer in record time.  

    [ Parent ]
    Btw, watch out Truman and FDR (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:41:25 PM EST
    as the New Deal really didn't do a darn thing to ease the Depression.

    [ Parent ]
    Dont look now (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:26:10 PM EST
    But Jimmy Carter just got thrown under the BitterTalk Express

    [ Parent ]
    Bitter bus magical mystery tour (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:29:19 PM EST
    Boomers, women of a certain age, along with grandma, big states, Carter, Palestinians, small town people, small town church going people, people with rifles, Annie Oakley, Clintons, the welfare state, the war on poverty, feminism, pro -choice voices, ....did we miss any?

    [ Parent ]
    4.99 per lb ham (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:30:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yep (4.42 / 7) (#135)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:52:52 PM EST
    Social security (remember that privatization is 'on the table')

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#164)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:51:28 PM EST
    Privatization is explicitly NOT on the table for him.

    More of your constant BS trolling here.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not a troll (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:55:56 PM EST
    And 1's don't work here to silence people the way they work over at Orange State.

    [ Parent ]
    And as for my (none / 0) (#183)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:02:48 PM EST
    Pertaining to "BS trolling," Obama said everything is on the table, when it comes to Social Security.  He then backtracks and says, oh yeah, not privatization.

    Yeah, right, Mr. Obama.  Either he isn't  thinking very hard before saying "everything" is on the table, or he's backtracking.

    Maybe he has something more sinister than privatization left on the table?  What is Everything?

    The very idea that he's saying social security is in peril is right wing baloney.

    Just another place where I don't trust him.

    Here's the link where he said 'EVERYTHING'.



    [ Parent ]

    Oops (none / 0) (#184)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:03:30 PM EST
    Link

    [ Parent ]
    His stated policy position (none / 0) (#192)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:35:29 PM EST
    is NO privatization.

    From your own link: "Obama: Privatization is not something I would consider."

    From his Senate website: NO privatization of SS

    From his campaign site: NO privatization of SS

    Now you admit you knew that even though you said otherwise above. And you've been similarly dishonest repeating the same lie a number of times before. I'd say that counts as trolling.

    [ Parent ]

    Problem is IMO that he says no privatization (none / 0) (#195)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:45:18 PM EST
    and then says everything is on the table.  That is called at best hedging your bet and at worse doublespeak.

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#206)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:47:50 PM EST
    He said at the time that everything was on the table...except privatization.

    [ Parent ]
    edwards after he dropped out (none / 0) (#173)
    by kimsaw on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:42:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This is my favorite part... (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:41:07 PM EST
    he did it because John McCain said so.

    Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting John McCain called on Obama to repudiate Carter in a speech to The Associated Press Monday.

    He held out for a couple of days, then he caved.

    Oyyyyyyyyy.

    He''s a walking talking contradiction politician (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by kimsaw on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:53:36 PM EST
    Okay the candidate who would meet "without preconditions" with bad guys all over the globe  condemns a former President for doing exactly what he says he would do and that such action should be our foreign policy. I guess I understand why he didn't hold his foreign relations committee meeting, no teleprompter involved. And people are going to vote for this guy... its beyond oyyyyyy!

    [ Parent ]
    Condemns (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:53:37 PM EST
    a DEMOCRATIC president.  This is a pattern for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    sorry (none / 0) (#174)
    by kimsaw on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:43:38 PM EST
    am bad he didn't condemn only "criticized" i have to be fair

    [ Parent ]
    Mr. Carter, Mr Carter!!!! (none / 0) (#108)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:19 PM EST
    Watch out for that BUS!!!!!

    [ Parent ]
    Pander, pander, pander (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Lahdee on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:41:46 PM EST
    Oh, the joy of pandering. Obama, sorta straight talker for sorta change. Yeah, yeah, I know, he's a politician. Wonder if there are any exploding heads on the Obama blogs.

    Obama - the Not-Hillary candidate! (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:49:27 PM EST
    What more can you ask for?

    [ Parent ]
    He used to be for it (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by magisterludi on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:44:03 PM EST
    before he was against it.

    Why does that ring a bell?

    but he's not a pol! he's not a pol! (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Turkana on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:44:25 PM EST
    leave barack alooooone!

    damn- i think i'm ready to return to daily kos!

    Barak is not a pol? (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by stefystef on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:54:53 PM EST
    I can hear the Obama-bots crying this out even as I type.  Then what is he?

    Oh yeah, he's the savior of America, who will fix our soul, bring us hope and make changes to save America for generations to come.

    Geez, PT Barnum was right after all.

    [ Parent ]

    This suggests a lack of diplomacy (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:46:16 PM EST
    Obama could have easily spoken of his great respect for Carter, his concern for peace, and his history of peace negotiations, while distancing himself from Carter's present actions, and without setting hard preconditions for future actions he himself might take if he were President.

    One of my big problems with Obama (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:49:23 PM EST
    is that he claims to be so wonderful at reaching out to the other side, but that he shows very little aptitude for doing so.

    The President should be able to disagree without being snide or disrespectful. I have yet to see Obama in diplomatic mode.

    [ Parent ]

    He can only do it if we all leave him alone ... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:55:49 PM EST
    .. and stop criticizing him. Otherwise he gets all flustered, the words come out wrong. So we have to give him a break, and let him get this election thing out of the way. Then he'll be just fine.

    [ Parent ]
    Cymro, that requires fore thought (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by MMW on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:53:20 PM EST
    When your base just got out of high school, you're asking for way too much.

    Life experiences tell most of us that the hand we bite today, may be connected to the posterior we must kiss tomorrow.

    Obama needs older advisors.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe if (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:47:37 PM EST
    J Street takes off there will be less need for such blatant hypocrisy from otherwise progressive politicians.

    I have heard about this initiative (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:51:28 PM EST
    and I think it's incredibly important. It's about time the voices of advocates for peace were heard by our national leaders.

    [ Parent ]
    Spread the word and support for them (none / 0) (#54)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:55:59 PM EST
    I think it could be very significant too.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:00:12 PM EST
    for posting this, although it may be OT.

    I will make it a blog topic of my own soon.

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:54:12 PM EST
    But kudos to you for not pretending this was not pandering.

    [ Parent ]
    Pretty hard to spin it as anything but (none / 0) (#70)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:02:43 PM EST
    I hope one day it won't be such a third rail and can be discussed on some kind of rational policy basis. Groups like J Street can be a start.

    [ Parent ]
    Sign Me Up (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:02:39 PM EST
    Although I am for a one state solution.

    [ Parent ]
    Throwing Carter under the bus (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by stefystef on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:49:21 PM EST
    and Carter practically endorsed him.

    I find it interesting that Obama made that statement during a meeting with Jewish voters.  Again, he's pandering to his audience and flip-flopping on his previous statements.  Obama has accused Hillary of willing to do and say anything to win, but Obama is doing the same thing.

    I can only wish that someone during the debate will bring this up.  He can talk to Castro or Chavez, or Iranian leadership but not Hamas?  All of a sudden, Obama is the champion of the Jews?  

    What a hypocrite!

    So Hillary is defending carter? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jgarza on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:54:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Carter kinda sorta helped (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:00:08 PM EST
    negotiate a peace between Egypt and Israel in 79, right?

    It's possible that he's got some gravitas in the region that might help get Fatah and Hamas to work together so as to return some level of shaky stability to the region.

    Cause right now? The Bush "hands off" policy that started in 2000 sure doesn't seem to be doing the trick.

    [ Parent ]

    But-but-but-CLINTON! (5.00 / 1) (