Cohen Scolds McCain for Mudslinging

[Puppycow]

Richard Cohen writes in the Washington Post that John McCain, who once "bristled with integrity," has now resorted to mudslinging.

In 2000, I boarded John McCain's campaign bus, the Straight Talk Express, and, in a metaphorical sense, never got off. Here, truly, was something new under the political sun -- a politician who bristled with integrity and seemed to have nothing to hide. I continue to admire McCain for those and other reasons, but the bus I once rode has gone wobbly. Recently, it veered into the mud.

I have in mind McCain's charge that Barack Obama is the favored presidential candidate of Hamas. The citation for this remark is the statement of Ahmed Yousef, a Hamas political adviser, who said, "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the election." Yousef likened Obama to John F. Kennedy and said that Obama "has a vision to change America" and with it the world. Yousef apparently got so carried away that he forgot that Obama has repeatedly called Hamas a "terrorist organization."

McCain seems to have forgotten that, too. His campaign has sent out an e-mail showing how guilt by association really works. "Barack Obama's foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders," it said. The message went on to claim that Obama's foreign policy positions have earned him "kind words" from Hamas.

Never mind that this was the sort of campaigning that McCain vowed to eschew. More to the point is what McCain said in his own defense. Not only was Yousef's praise of Obama "a legitimate point of discussion," he said, but everyone should understand that McCain himself will be "Hamas's worst nightmare." This aspect of McCain is my worst nightmare.

Will McCain's mudsling tactics alienate his base (the media)?

Marty Peretz and Jeffery Goldberg recently talked with Barack Obama about Israel and specifically about the comments of Ahmed Yousef of Hamas.

 

[Texas]

Richard Cohen writes in the Washington Post that John McCain, who once "bristled with integrity," has now resorted to mudslinging.



Will McCain's mudsling tactics alienate his base (the media)?

Marty Peretz and Jeffery Goldberg recently talked with Barack Obama about Israel and specifically about the comments of Ahmed Yousef of Hamas.

Obama and his acolytes appear to view any and all criticism no matter how truthful as mudslinging. Obama would do well to remeber the boy who cried wolf and that the general election is the big leauges and Hillary's occasional sharp elbows will feel like loving caresses as the GE gets under way. Him and his followers are about to find out what a real political fight is all about. Obama has NEVER been in one. The American public will not stand for a whiner. Ya'll should have nominated Hillary.

 

[Puppycow]

But this isn't Obama or his "acolyte."

 

[BPSCG]

I have in mind McCain's charge that Barack Obama is the favored presidential candidate of Hamas. The citation for this remark is the statement of Ahmed Yousef, a Hamas political adviser, who said, "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the election."

Wait a minute. Hamas says, "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the election." McCain points out that Hamas prefers Obama. It's a statement of fact. How is this "mudslinging?"

Never mind that this was the sort of campaigning that McCain vowed to eschew. More to the point is what McCain said in his own defense. Not only was Yousef's praise of Obama "a legitimate point of discussion,"

Does Cohen mean to suggest that it isn't? Shouldn't he be asking why Hamas prefers Obama? Is it possible they prefer him for reasons that Americans might not sympathize with? Is it possible they prefer him because they think he might not be as strong in his support for Israel as McCain would be? Obama has said he would not have discussions with Hamas, but he has said he would have unconditional discussions with the rulers of Iran, the country that just happens to be Hamas's sugar daddy. Is it possible they prefer him because they see a certain amount of political innocence they could take advantage of?

These are fair questions to ask, particularly in light of Obama's lack of any significant record in his short political career.

Back to Cohen:

...he said, but everyone should understand that McCain himself will be "Hamas's worst nightmare." This aspect of McCain is my worst nightmare.

Another case of poor Richard Cohen getting the vapours. Someone get him a fainting couch. The salient feature of any Richard Cohen column is his love affair with the word "I." Eight times in this column, three in the very first paragraph, about par for the course. It's always about him.

 

[BPSCG]

Ya'll should have nominated Hillary.

Texas, far me it for a damyankee like me to point this out, but I believe it's spelled, "y'all."

 

[Cleon]

Obama and his acolytes

Oh, just give that BS a rest, already.

 

[Drudgewire]

Mudslinging in a presidential campaign? Why, I've never heard of such a thing.

 

[Puppycow]

Shouldn't he be asking why Hamas prefers Obama?

OK, I'll try. Lemme put on my tinfoil thinking cap.

Since the endorsement of a terrorist organization is, if anything, a political liability, they would obviously endorse the candidate they want to lose. This is because they don't really want a peace deal because then they would lose their raison d'etre. They want to preserve the status quo forever, and correctly perceive McCain as the candidate who will help perpetuate the stalemate that Hamas thrives in.

 

[Lurker]

You know, I have always feel that when a terrorist organization gives their word that it is gold. I mean, who can envision a terrorist actually lying about anything? No way that would happen. No way. I am glad Beeps and Texas put such faith in the word of Hamas.

But I am confused. I recall a while back that some terrorist supported Bush saying he was great for recruitment and conservatives scoffed. Very confusing.

 

[BPSCG]

OK, I'll try. Lemme put on my tinfoil thinking cap.

Since the endorsement of a terrorist organization is, if anything, a political liability, they would obviously endorse the candidate they want to lose. This is because they don't really want a peace deal because then they would lose their raison d'etre. They want to preserve the status quo forever, and correctly perceive McCain as the candidate who will help perpetuate the stalemate that Hamas thrives in.

You know, I have always feel that when a terrorist organization gives their word that it is gold. I mean, who can envision a terrorist actually lying about anything? No way that would happen. No way. I am glad Beeps and Texas put such faith in the word of Hamas.

So y'all think Hamas is engaging in some kind of political jiu-jitsu...

[The Princess Bride]
Vizzini: Let me put it this way: Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons!
Man in black: Really! In that case, I challenge you to a battle of wits.
Vizzini: For the princess? [Man in black nods] To the death? [Man in black nods again] I accept!
Man in black: Good, then pour the wine. [Vizzini pours the wine] Inhale this but do not touch.
Vizzini: [taking a vial from the man in black] I smell nothing.
Man in black: What you do not smell is Iocaine powder. It is odorless, tasteless, and dissolves instantly in liquid and is among the more deadly poisons known to man.
Vizzini: [shrugs with laughter] Hmmm.
Man in black: [turning his back, and adding the poison to one of the goblets] Alright, where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink - and find out who is right, and who is dead.
Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine it from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you...But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in black: You've made your decision then?
Vizzini: [happily] Not remotely! Because Iocaine comes from Australia. As everyone knows, Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So, I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Man in black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait 'till I get going!! ...where was I?
Man in black: Australia.
Vizzini: Yes! Australia! And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
Man in black: You're just stalling now.
Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you! You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong...so you could have put the poison in your own goblet trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied...and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!
Man in black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
Vizzini: It has worked! You've given everything away! I know where the poison is!
Man in black: Then make your choice.
Vizzini: I will, and I choose...[pointing behind the man in black] What in the world can that be?
Man in black: [turning around, while Vizzini switches goblets] What?! Where?! I don't see anything.
Vizzini: Oh, well, I...I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. [Vizzini laughs]
Man in black: What's so funny?
Vizzini: I...I'll tell you in a minute. First, lets drink, me from my glass and you from yours.
[They both drink]
Man in black: You guessed wrong.
Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha, you fool!! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia; and only slightly less well known is this: Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!
[Vizzini continues to laugh hysterically. Suddenly, he stops and falls right over. The Man in black removes the blindfold from the princess.]
Buttercup: Who are you?
Man in black: I'm no one to be trifled with. That is all you'll ever need know.
Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.
Man in black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up immunity to iocaine powder.
[/The Princess Bride]

 

[Lurker]

You're forgiven, Beeps. Anyone that quotes PB is A-OK in my books.

I have no idea if Hamas meant what they said or not about our Presidential race. Frankly, I don't care all that much.

Are you saying that Al-Qaeda was using their "political jiu-jitsu" when they said how much they like Bush because he helps their recruitment?

Glad you can discern when they use the "political jiu-jitsu" cause I cannot. I bet you only think they use it when they talk well about conservatives.

 

[varwoche]

Wait a minute. Hamas says, "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the election." McCain points out that Hamas prefers Obama. It's a statement of fact. How is this "mudslinging?"

Ah, I get it, McCain was just passing on an innocuous factoid. Like 'Davenport is the second largest city in Iowa' sort of thing.

 

[BPSCG]

You're forgiven, Beeps. Anyone that quotes PB is A-OK in my books.

I have no idea if Hamas meant what they said or not about our Presidential race. Frankly, I don't care all that much.

Hm. Someone else said yesterday they didn't care that the New York Times lied about Obama's position on unconditional talks with Iran's leaders. Seems to be a lot of stuff about Obama you guys don't care about.

Are you saying that Al-Qaeda was using their "political jiu-jitsu" when they said how much they like Bush because he helps their recruitment?

I have no idea.

Glad you can discern when they use the "political jiu-jitsu" cause I cannot. I bet you only think they use it when they talk well about conservatives.

I wasn't sugesting they were using political jiu-jitsu. I was asking if you thought so. In other words, did they really mean it when they said they preferred Obama, or were they trying some gamesmanship for purposes known only to them?

When A knows something about B, and B knows that A knows, and A knows that B knows that A knows, that's when you get into Princess Bride territory.

Which is why it might be useful to know why Hamas prefers Obama. If it's because they think they can roll him, because they perceive some weakness in him that would make him useful in attaining their terrorist ends, that would be significant, don't you think? Part of the reason we got into the Cuban Missile Crisis was because Khrushchev thought Kennedy was weak and inexperienced, and that Kennedy wouldn't risk a war over the missiles. Foreign leaders' perceptions - and misperceptions - of our presidents can have grave consequences.

If, OTOH, they're just trying to stir the pot, then the endorsement is meaningless.

Which is it, do you think?

 

[Brainster]

I have in mind McCain's charge that Barack Obama is the favored presidential candidate of Hamas. The citation for this remark is the statement of Ahmed Yousef, a Hamas political adviser, who said, "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the election." Yousef likened Obama to John F. Kennedy and said that Obama "has a vision to change America" and with it the world. Yousef apparently got so carried away that he forgot that Obama has repeatedly called Hamas a "terrorist organization."

Maybe because Obama got word to Hamas through advisors that he was just playing politics, as with his stern denunciations of NAFTA, while his aides were letting Canada know that he didn't mean it?

DeMora wrote Wilson that in the Chicago meeting, Goolsbee "candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign" but reassured Rioux that Obama's NAFTA-bashing "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

Of course, in order to prove that we'd have to establish that one of Obama's advisors had met with Hamas.

 

[varwoche]

These are fair questions to ask, particularly in light of Obama's lack of any significant record in his short political career.

Here's another angle to consider: I speculate with some confidence that if polled, a vast majority of countries in the world -- maybe every country -- would favor Obama over McCain. Does that more or less synch with your world view? (The reasons/motivations are irrelevant to my point and I'm hoping you don't go there.)

In which case, a fuss is being made that Hamas shares the opinion of the entire world. Ye gads.

 

[BPSCG]

Ah, I get it, McCain was just passing on an innocuous factoid. Like 'Davenport is the second largest city in Iowa' sort of thing.

Innocuous? Of course not. Irrelevant? Maybe yes, maybe no. Depends on why Hamas prefers Obama.

But that's not the point of this thread, nor of Richard Cohen's column. Cohen's big point is that this is "mudslinging." Please. I get more mud on me when my cat jumps on my lap after coming in out of the rain. "Obama beats his wife," is mudslinging.

We're seeing a lot of this.

Here are the Obama rules in detail: He can’t be called a “liberal” (“the same names and labels they pin on everyone,” as Obama puts it); his toughness on the war on terror can’t be questioned (“attempts to play on our fears”); his extreme positions on social issues can’t be exposed (“the same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives” and “turn us against each other”); and his Chicago background too is off-limits (“pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy”). Besides that, it should be a freewheeling and spirited campaign.

Democrats always want cultural issues not to matter because they are on the least-popular side of many of them, and want patriotic symbols like the Pledge of Allegiance and flag pins to be irrelevant when they can’t manage to nominate presidential candidates who wholeheartedly embrace them (which shouldn’t be that difficult). As for “fear” and “division,” they are vaporous pejoratives that can be applied to any warning of negative consequences of a given policy or any political position that doesn’t command 100 percent assent. In his North Carolina speech, Obama said the Iraq war “has not made us safer,” and that McCain’s ideas are “out of touch” with “American values.” How fearfully divisive.

We could take Obama’s rules in good faith if he never calls John McCain a “conservative” or labels him in any other way. If he never criticizes him for his association with George Bush. If he doesn’t jump on his gaffes (like McCain’s 100-years-in-Iraq comment that Obama distorted and harped on for weeks). And if he never says anything that would tend to make Americans fearful about the future or divide them (i.e., say things that some people agree with and others don’t).

This is, of course, an impossible standard. Obama doesn’t expect anyone to live up to it except John McCain.

And quoting Hamas when they say they prefer Obama is "mudslinging," while sneakily suggesting McCain is getting senile ("losing his bearings") is not.

 

[Lurker]

Which is why it might be useful to know why Hamas prefers Obama. If it's because they think they can roll him, because they perceive some weakness in him that would make him useful in attaining their terrorist ends, that would be significant, don't you think? Part of the reason we got into the Cuban Missile Crisis was because Khrushchev thought Kennedy was weak and inexperienced, and that Kennedy wouldn't risk a war over the missiles. Foreign leaders' perceptions - and misperceptions - of our presidents can have grave consequences.

If, OTOH, they're just trying to stir the pot, then the endorsement is meaningless.

Which is it, do you think?

Very good question. Why would Hamas "endorse" Obama? Could be for many reasons. I suspect they see him as possibly being less Israel-adoring than McCain or Clinton. I am just hazarding a guess.

 

[BPSCG]

Here's another angle to consider: I speculate with some confidence that if polled, a vast majority of countries in the world -- maybe every country -- would favor Obama over McCain. Does that more or less synch with your world view? (The reasons/motivations are irrelevant to my point and I'm hoping you don't go there.)

In which case, a fuss is being made that Hamas shares the opinion of the entire world. Ye gads.

Wow...

Yeah, Hamas is just like everyone else.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Obama and his acolytes appear to view any and all criticism no matter how truthful as mudslinging. Obama would do well to remeber the boy who cried wolf and that the general election is the big leauges and Hillary's occasional sharp elbows will feel like loving caresses as the GE gets under way. Him and his followers are about to find out what a real political fight is all about. Obama has NEVER been in one. The American public will not stand for a whiner. Ya'll should have nominated Hillary.

I agree that this Hamas "endorsement" is fair game. Furthermore, so does Obama. Obama has never "whined" about mudslinging. If you want to see a whiner, look no further than McCain whining about Obama using the phrase "losing his bearings."

Obama toppled the Clinton Machine. You are seriously underestimating his political moxie.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Hm. Someone else said yesterday they didn't care that the New York Times lied about Obama's position on unconditional talks with Iran's leaders. Seems to be a lot of stuff about Obama you guys don't care about.

Hm. That would be about NYT, not Obama, wouldn't it?