Cohen Scolds McCain for Mudslinging

[BPSCG]

I agree that this Hamas "endorsement" is fair game. Furthermore, so does Obama. Obama has never "whined" about mudslinging.

I disagree:

In an interview Thursday with CNN, Obama accused McCain of trying to smear him by repeating the comments.

"This is offensive, and I think it's disappointing, because John McCain always says, 'Well, I'm not going to run that kind of politics,'" Obama said. "And then to engage in that kind of smear, I think, is unfortunate, particularly since my policy toward Hamas has been no different than his."

The Illinois senator added: "For him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don't need name-calling in this debate."

What name did McCain call Obama? "Losing his bearings" certainly borders on name-calling, but what name did Mccain call Obama? Pretty neat trick. Accuse your opponent of a crime he hasn't actually committed, then commit that very crime yourself.

Like McCain, Obama criticized former President Carter for recently meeting with Hamas leaders, saying the U.S. must not negotiate with a terrorist group that is intent on Israel's destruction.

Doesn't Obama think the leaders of Iran are "a terrorist group that is intent on Israel's destruction?" He says he has no problem meeting with them - and they're Hamas's biggest bankroller.

 

[varwoche]

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

All boatsmen and aviators know that to lose your bearings is to lose your way. The term has nothing to do with ball bearings (aka marbles) as some pundits claim. This seems way flimsy to me, but maybe the non-navigating populace sees things differently. I take it you haven't done any navigating nor read books about same?

(Go ahead and google "lost our bearings".)

Of course it can be claimed that Obama knows all of this and is trying to be extra clever with his mudslinging. But that's highly speculative.

 

[BPSCG]

All boatsmen and aviators know that to lose your bearings is to lose your way.

So saying, "He's losing his bearings" is like saying, "He doesn't know which way is up...?"

 

[varwoche]

Wow...

Yeah, Hamas is just like everyone else.

Geez, I hope this is intended as a joke and that you wouldn't actually stoop to such a low level by characterizing my words so unfairly. Or maybe it's a wry object lesson on how to slime via snippet.

 

[Cello Man]

"Losing his bearings" simply means that McCain has gone off course. Now if the Obama camp says McCain is "losing his marbles", that's something else entirely. One phrase suggests a bad decision, and the other suggests senile dementia.

They may be semantically close, but it's not the same thing.

 

[Brainster]

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.

Somebody should tell Obama's aides this, then.

The efforts are part of “a very strong counteraction” against what the Obama campaign considers misinformation about the candidate, said Representative Robert Wexler, a Democrat from South Florida who often speaks on Jewish issues for the Obama campaign.

“We’re going to continue to keep making this case with initiatives to make it clear that his support for Israel could not be more unequivocal,” Mr. Wexler said.

 

[dudalb]

I see the double standard is in full play here.
If my side does it, it's "fair game",if the other side does it, it's evil.......

 

[Brainster]

DOH! This seems like a parody, but it's apparently legit and if it gets around, Obama could lose New York:

 

[mortimer]

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

You are indeed correct. In fact, I believe Texas should have used the plural form of "y'all" by referring to "all y'all".

 

[Texas]

Oh, just give that BS a rest, already.

You do know that that is how half of the democratic party views Obama's supporters don't you? It has not gone unnoticed in the press about the cult of personality being formed around this run of the mill politico. I posted a link to a thread from TalkLeft the other night which was discussing this phenomena.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/7/112248/5633

Joe Klein at Time Magazine points out the Obama gap between inspiration and substance:

More...


there was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism — "We are the ones we've been waiting for" — of the Super Tuesday speech and the recent turn of the Obama campaign. "This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It's different not because of me. It's different because of you." That is not just maddeningly vague but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.

 

[Texas]

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.

?

It seems to be a pattern. Last night I posted a speech excerpt from Obama where he stated TWICE that no one should be confused abut his plan to end the war in 2009. I see today that his supporters are insisting that he actually meant to say by the end of 2010.

 

[Cleon]

You do know that....

Stuff the "other people think it too" crap. Just give it a ****ing rest already.

It's nothing more than snide condescension, and contributes nothing except troll-bait.

 

[Texas]

Stuff the "other people think it too" crap. Just give it a ****ing rest already.

It's nothing more than snide condescension, and contributes nothing except troll-bait.

Well you being a moderator I would probably be wise to avoid the term.

 

[Cleon]

Well you being a moderator I would probably be wise to avoid the term.

Unless specified otherwise, any post I make here is as a member, not a mod.

 

[Texas]

Unless specified otherwise, any post I make here is as a member, not a mod.

Understood.

 

[Tricky]

We need a new word for the way a thread is sent downhill when someone brings up Hamas. This is the same sort of tactic Ben Stein used in in "Expelled". If Nazi's like Darwin, then Darwin is bad.

It is quite possible that maybe the world is not so black and white as people would like to paint it. There might even be areas (gasp!) where the interests of Hamas and the US overlap. One of these might be a lessening of tension in the Middle East. So even if it means that Hamas (double gasp!) likes Obama better than McCain, that does not imply that Obama is a worse candidate or that he is soft on terrorism. The Republicans are just Hamodwinning him.

 

[BPSCG]

We need a new word for the way a thread is sent downhill when someone brings up Hamas. This is the same sort of tactic Ben Stein used in in "Expelled". If Nazi's like Darwin, then Darwin is bad.

Wait a minute. If Obama talks about Hamas, or Hamas talks about Obama, that's not Godwinning (or "Hamodwinning," as the case may be). It's a legitimate topic for discussion - much as Obama would probably prefer it not be. Or is this yet another issue we're not supposed to talk about (see my post above that discusses the "Obama Rules")?

It is quite possible that maybe the world is not so black and white as people would like to paint it. There might even be areas (gasp!) where the interests of Hamas and the US overlap. One of these might be a lessening of tension in the Middle East.

Well, if Hamas really wanted a lessening of tensions in the Middle East, they could go and ask the Egyptians how they have managed to live in peace with the Israelis for the last thirty years.

That assumes, of course, that Hamas actually wants a lessening of tensions with Israel - a premise for which the evidence so far could be comfortably stuck inside a thimble, with ample room to spare. It certainly is in Hamas's interests to make peace with Israel. But their version of peace with Israel starts with the destruction of Israel. That's not Obama's position, and somehow, I don't think Hamas is delusional enough to believe it's Obama's position. So it might be interesting to know why they prefer him.

But Cohen and Obama complain it's mudslinging even to raise the issue.

So even if it means that Hamas (double gasp!) likes Obama better than McCain, that does not imply that Obama is a worse candidate or that he is soft on terrorism.

It does not necessarily imply that Obama is a worse candidate or that he is soft on terrorism. You have to find out why Hamas prefers Obama. For all you know, they prefer Obama because he's a super-secret jihadist mole. If that were the case, he would be a worse candidate.

The Republicans are just Hamodwinning him.

No, the Republicans are simply repeating what Hamas said - that they prefer Obama as president. Calling that mudslinging is just another attempt to invoke the Obama Rules - anything the Republicans say that's remotely uncomfortable for Obama is divisive or a distraction or mudslinging.

 

[Texas]

We need a new word for the way a thread is sent downhill when someone brings up Hamas. This is the same sort of tactic Ben Stein used in in "Expelled". If Nazi's like Darwin, then Darwin is bad.

It is quite possible that maybe the world is not so black and white as people would like to paint it. There might even be areas (gasp!) where the interests of Hamas and the US overlap. One of these might be a lessening of tension in the Middle East. So even if it means that Hamas (double gasp!) likes Obama better than McCain, that does not imply that Obama is a worse candidate or that he is soft on terrorism. The Republicans are just Hamodwinning him.

Shouldn't Obama and his supporters be proud of this endorsement? Doesn't it validate what Obama has been campaigning on all along in that we should talk to our enemies without preconditions anywhere at anytime? I don't understand why Obama and his supporters would be defensive about this being discussed. Why doesn't he tell McCain and his surrogates that he accepts the endorsement as proof that the world is paying attention to his promises.

 

[Tricky]

Shouldn't Obama and his supporters be proud of this endorsement? Doesn't it validate what Obama has been campaigning on all along in that we should talk to our enemies without preconditions anywhere at anytime? I don't understand why Obama and his supporters would be defensive about this being discussed. Why doesn't he tell McCain and his surrogates that he accepts the endorsement as proof that the world is paying attention to his promises.

If Americans were logical, yes he should be proud. But since they tend more to be xenophobic, vengeful and bigoted, this is probably not such a good idea for a person whose future depends on popular perception.

So do you think we should abandon evolution because Hitler liked Darwinism? If not, please explain why the argument that "Obama is not a good candidate because Hamas wants him to be president," is a logical argument.

We're just finishing eight years of "We don't talk to our enemies, we kill them." Would you say those years have been good for America?

 

[Texas]

If Americans were logical, yes he should be proud. But since they tend more to be xenophobic, vengeful and bigoted, this is probably not such a good idea for a person whose future depends on popular perception.

So do you think we should abandon evolution because Hitler liked Darwinism? If not, please explain why the argument that "Obama is not a good candidate because Hamas wants him to be president," is a logical argument.

We're just finishing eight years of "We don't talk to our enemies, we kill them." Would you say those years have been good for America?

You can't abandon evolution if it is a fact can you? Evolution is a process that can't be stopped so you can't abandon it. What that has to do with Hitler I don't know.

Well given what has happened in the last 8 years yes America has done just fine. As to your interpretation of how Americans view the world I wonder how Obama is on the cusp of being elected president. I see your post as indicative of the same mindset Obama shared at his infamous San Francisco fund raiser prior to the PA primary.

Believe it or not many times the only thing to do with enemies, especially those that say to your face that they WILL kill you if given the chance is to kill them first.

If Obama really means what he says then he should be man enough to say it without equivocation in order to protect, say the Jewish vote, in the case of Hamas. If it is his plan to negotiate with Hamas then he owes it to both our Jewish citizens and Israel to let them know up front about it so they can make an informed decision.