Bush takes aim at Democrats

[huevonkiller]

<div><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" /></embed></object></div>

 

[Real]

Among Democrats:

May 15th Gallup Poll:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking of national Democratic voters from May 12-14 finds Barack Obama favored for the nomination by a six percentage point margin over Hillary Clinton, 50% to 44%.

May 16th Gallup Poll:

PRINCETON, NJ -- After leading Hillary Clinton for three days by a statistically significant six percentage point margin, Barack Obama now only has a 4-point advantage in national Democratic preferences, 48% to 44%, according to Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 13-15.

Gallup Poll Daily interviewing on Thursday, May 15 showed Clinton leading Obama by a few percentage points, after several days of Obama in the lead. The resulting slight narrowing of the race -- returning it to a statistical dead heat -- is typical of the way the contest has gone over the past several months, with neither candidate able to maintain a significant lead among national Democratic voters for very long. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 3, 2008, click here.)

Obama's spat with President Bush Thursday about U.S. diplomacy with Iran may have focused voters' attention on Obama's limited foreign policy credentials and could be a factor. However, media coverage of the campaign is conveying a growing sense of inevitability around Obama getting the nomination, and John Edward's endorsement of Obama on Wednesday seemed to prove it. With this kind of momentum in his favor, one might expect Obama to be stretching his lead over Clinton among national Democrats, not still struggling to surpass her.
At the same time, the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking data on the national election, from May 11-15, finds John McCain moving slightly ahead of Obama, 47% to 45% among registered voters, after the two were tied at 45% in Thursday's report. There has been no change in voter preferences in a McCain-Clinton race, with Clinton holding a 3-point advantage, 48% to 45%. -- Lydia Saad

Link

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 16 2008, 03:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Among Democrats:

May 15th Gallup Poll:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking of national Democratic voters from May 12-14 finds Barack Obama favored for the nomination by a six percentage point margin over Hillary Clinton, 50% to 44%.

May 16th Gallup Poll:

PRINCETON, NJ -- After leading Hillary Clinton for three days by a statistically significant six percentage point margin, Barack Obama now only has a 4-point advantage in national Democratic preferences, 48% to 44%, according to Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 13-15.

Gallup Poll Daily interviewing on Thursday, May 15 showed Clinton leading Obama by a few percentage points, after several days of Obama in the lead. The resulting slight narrowing of the race -- returning it to a statistical dead heat -- is typical of the way the contest has gone over the past several months, with neither candidate able to maintain a significant lead among national Democratic voters for very long. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 3, 2008, click here.)

Obama's spat with President Bush Thursday about U.S. diplomacy with Iran may have focused voters' attention on Obama's limited foreign policy credentials and could be a factor. However, media coverage of the campaign is conveying a growing sense of inevitability around Obama getting the nomination, and John Edward's endorsement of Obama on Wednesday seemed to prove it. With this kind of momentum in his favor, one might expect Obama to be stretching his lead over Clinton among national Democrats, not still struggling to surpass her.
At the same time, the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking data on the national election, from May 11-15, finds John McCain moving slightly ahead of Obama, 47% to 45% among registered voters, after the two were tied at 45% in Thursday's report. There has been no change in voter preferences in a McCain-Clinton race, with Clinton holding a 3-point advantage, 48% to 45%. -- Lydia Saad

Link</div>

Lol, Clinton Owns McCain, she's more than popular.

You also never want to put all your hopes in one poll.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Obama leads by an average of 6.5 points right now. MVP! :]

He's +20 in Supers.

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 16 2008, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 16 2008, 03:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Among Democrats:

May 15th Gallup Poll:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking of national Democratic voters from May 12-14 finds Barack Obama favored for the nomination by a six percentage point margin over Hillary Clinton, 50% to 44%.

May 16th Gallup Poll:

PRINCETON, NJ -- After leading Hillary Clinton for three days by a statistically significant six percentage point margin, Barack Obama now only has a 4-point advantage in national Democratic preferences, 48% to 44%, according to Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 13-15.

Gallup Poll Daily interviewing on Thursday, May 15 showed Clinton leading Obama by a few percentage points, after several days of Obama in the lead. The resulting slight narrowing of the race -- returning it to a statistical dead heat -- is typical of the way the contest has gone over the past several months, with neither candidate able to maintain a significant lead among national Democratic voters for very long. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 3, 2008, click here.)

Obama's spat with President Bush Thursday about U.S. diplomacy with Iran may have focused voters' attention on Obama's limited foreign policy credentials and could be a factor. However, media coverage of the campaign is conveying a growing sense of inevitability around Obama getting the nomination, and John Edward's endorsement of Obama on Wednesday seemed to prove it. With this kind of momentum in his favor, one might expect Obama to be stretching his lead over Clinton among national Democrats, not still struggling to surpass her.
At the same time, the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking data on the national election, from May 11-15, finds John McCain moving slightly ahead of Obama, 47% to 45% among registered voters, after the two were tied at 45% in Thursday's report. There has been no change in voter preferences in a McCain-Clinton race, with Clinton holding a 3-point advantage, 48% to 45%. -- Lydia Saad

Link</div>

Lol, Clinton Owns McCain, she's more than popular.

You also never want to put all your hopes in one poll.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Obama leads by an average of 6.5 points right now. MVP! :]

He's +20 in Supers.
</div>

Nobody's putting all their hopes in anything. But the Gallup poll shows that there are people who aren't buying Obama's rhetoric about Iran.

And in case you haven't been paying attention, the media has ignored Hillary. Hillary has 8 years of diplomatic experience as first lady, yet the media barely aired her opinion on the issue even when she spoke out.

Hillary is irrelevant on this issue, because the media wants to paint the Bush/McCain vs. Obama picture, linking the President and the Republican nominee together when McCain would like that to happen as minimally as possible.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 16 2008, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 16 2008, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 16 2008, 03:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Among Democrats:

May 15th Gallup Poll:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking of national Democratic voters from May 12-14 finds Barack Obama favored for the nomination by a six percentage point margin over Hillary Clinton, 50% to 44%.

May 16th Gallup Poll:

PRINCETON, NJ -- After leading Hillary Clinton for three days by a statistically significant six percentage point margin, Barack Obama now only has a 4-point advantage in national Democratic preferences, 48% to 44%, according to Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 13-15.

Gallup Poll Daily interviewing on Thursday, May 15 showed Clinton leading Obama by a few percentage points, after several days of Obama in the lead. The resulting slight narrowing of the race -- returning it to a statistical dead heat -- is typical of the way the contest has gone over the past several months, with neither candidate able to maintain a significant lead among national Democratic voters for very long. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 3, 2008, click here.)

Obama's spat with President Bush Thursday about U.S. diplomacy with Iran may have focused voters' attention on Obama's limited foreign policy credentials and could be a factor. However, media coverage of the campaign is conveying a growing sense of inevitability around Obama getting the nomination, and John Edward's endorsement of Obama on Wednesday seemed to prove it. With this kind of momentum in his favor, one might expect Obama to be stretching his lead over Clinton among national Democrats, not still struggling to surpass her.
At the same time, the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking data on the national election, from May 11-15, finds John McCain moving slightly ahead of Obama, 47% to 45% among registered voters, after the two were tied at 45% in Thursday's report. There has been no change in voter preferences in a McCain-Clinton race, with Clinton holding a 3-point advantage, 48% to 45%. -- Lydia Saad

Link</div>

Lol, Clinton Owns McCain, she's more than popular.

You also never want to put all your hopes in one poll.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Obama leads by an average of 6.5 points right now. MVP! :]

He's +20 in Supers.
</div>

Nobody's putting all their hopes in anything. But the Gallup poll shows that there are people who aren't buying Obama's rhetoric about Iran.

And in case you haven't been paying attention, the media has ignored Hillary. Hillary has 8 years of diplomatic experience as first lady, yet the media barely aired her opinion on the issue even when she spoke out.

Hillary is irrelevant on this issue, because the media wants to paint the Bush/McCain vs. Obama picture, linking the President and the Republican nominee together when McCain would like that to happen as minimally as possible.
</div>

Hillary lost because no one likes her, apologist.

And there are polls with him up 8 points. Hence the spread.

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 16 2008, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 16 2008, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 16 2008, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 16 2008, 03:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Among Democrats:

May 15th Gallup Poll:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking of national Democratic voters from May 12-14 finds Barack Obama favored for the nomination by a six percentage point margin over Hillary Clinton, 50% to 44%.

May 16th Gallup Poll:

PRINCETON, NJ -- After leading Hillary Clinton for three days by a statistically significant six percentage point margin, Barack Obama now only has a 4-point advantage in national Democratic preferences, 48% to 44%, according to Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 13-15.

Gallup Poll Daily interviewing on Thursday, May 15 showed Clinton leading Obama by a few percentage points, after several days of Obama in the lead. The resulting slight narrowing of the race -- returning it to a statistical dead heat -- is typical of the way the contest has gone over the past several months, with neither candidate able to maintain a significant lead among national Democratic voters for very long. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 3, 2008, click here.)

Obama's spat with President Bush Thursday about U.S. diplomacy with Iran may have focused voters' attention on Obama's limited foreign policy credentials and could be a factor. However, media coverage of the campaign is conveying a growing sense of inevitability around Obama getting the nomination, and John Edward's endorsement of Obama on Wednesday seemed to prove it. With this kind of momentum in his favor, one might expect Obama to be stretching his lead over Clinton among national Democrats, not still struggling to surpass her.
At the same time, the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking data on the national election, from May 11-15, finds John McCain moving slightly ahead of Obama, 47% to 45% among registered voters, after the two were tied at 45% in Thursday's report. There has been no change in voter preferences in a McCain-Clinton race, with Clinton holding a 3-point advantage, 48% to 45%. -- Lydia Saad

Link</div>

Lol, Clinton Owns McCain, she's more than popular.

You also never want to put all your hopes in one poll.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Obama leads by an average of 6.5 points right now. MVP! :]

He's +20 in Supers.
</div>

Nobody's putting all their hopes in anything. But the Gallup poll shows that there are people who aren't buying Obama's rhetoric about Iran.

And in case you haven't been paying attention, the media has ignored Hillary. Hillary has 8 years of diplomatic experience as first lady, yet the media barely aired her opinion on the issue even when she spoke out.

Hillary is irrelevant on this issue, because the media wants to paint the Bush/McCain vs. Obama picture, linking the President and the Republican nominee together when McCain would like that to happen as minimally as possible.
</div>

Hillary lost because no one likes her, apologist.

And there are polls with him up 8 points. Hence the spread.
</div>

And the media proves that she's lost for ignoring her.

Best thing for the Democrats right now is for Obama to be (at least portrayed as) the nominee. Good thing the DNC has the media in it's pocket now eh?

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 16 2008, 04:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 16 2008, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 16 2008, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 16 2008, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 16 2008, 03:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Among Democrats:

May 15th Gallup Poll:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking of national Democratic voters from May 12-14 finds Barack Obama favored for the nomination by a six percentage point margin over Hillary Clinton, 50% to 44%.

May 16th Gallup Poll:

PRINCETON, NJ -- After leading Hillary Clinton for three days by a statistically significant six percentage point margin, Barack Obama now only has a 4-point advantage in national Democratic preferences, 48% to 44%, according to Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 13-15.

Gallup Poll Daily interviewing on Thursday, May 15 showed Clinton leading Obama by a few percentage points, after several days of Obama in the lead. The resulting slight narrowing of the race -- returning it to a statistical dead heat -- is typical of the way the contest has gone over the past several months, with neither candidate able to maintain a significant lead among national Democratic voters for very long. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 3, 2008, click here.)

Obama's spat with President Bush Thursday about U.S. diplomacy with Iran may have focused voters' attention on Obama's limited foreign policy credentials and could be a factor. However, media coverage of the campaign is conveying a growing sense of inevitability around Obama getting the nomination, and John Edward's endorsement of Obama on Wednesday seemed to prove it. With this kind of momentum in his favor, one might expect Obama to be stretching his lead over Clinton among national Democrats, not still struggling to surpass her.
At the same time, the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking data on the national election, from May 11-15, finds John McCain moving slightly ahead of Obama, 47% to 45% among registered voters, after the two were tied at 45% in Thursday's report. There has been no change in voter preferences in a McCain-Clinton race, with Clinton holding a 3-point advantage, 48% to 45%. -- Lydia Saad

Link</div>

Lol, Clinton Owns McCain, she's more than popular.

You also never want to put all your hopes in one poll.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Obama leads by an average of 6.5 points right now. MVP! :]

He's +20 in Supers.
</div>

Nobody's putting all their hopes in anything. But the Gallup poll shows that there are people who aren't buying Obama's rhetoric about Iran.

And in case you haven't been paying attention, the media has ignored Hillary. Hillary has 8 years of diplomatic experience as first lady, yet the media barely aired her opinion on the issue even when she spoke out.

Hillary is irrelevant on this issue, because the media wants to paint the Bush/McCain vs. Obama picture, linking the President and the Republican nominee together when McCain would like that to happen as minimally as possible.
</div>

Hillary lost because no one likes her, apologist.

And there are polls with him up 8 points. Hence the spread.
</div>

And the media proves that she's lost for ignoring her.

Best thing for the Democrats right now is for Obama to be (at least portrayed as) the nominee. Good thing the DNC has the media in it's pocket now eh?
</div>

The Media was also begging to make this a close race when it was over a long time ago, you're wrong about that.

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 16 2008, 04:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 16 2008, 04:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 16 2008, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 16 2008, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 16 2008, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 16 2008, 03:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Among Democrats:

May 15th Gallup Poll:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking of national Democratic voters from May 12-14 finds Barack Obama favored for the nomination by a six percentage point margin over Hillary Clinton, 50% to 44%.

May 16th Gallup Poll:

PRINCETON, NJ -- After leading Hillary Clinton for three days by a statistically significant six percentage point margin, Barack Obama now only has a 4-point advantage in national Democratic preferences, 48% to 44%, according to Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 13-15.

Gallup Poll Daily interviewing on Thursday, May 15 showed Clinton leading Obama by a few percentage points, after several days of Obama in the lead. The resulting slight narrowing of the race -- returning it to a statistical dead heat -- is typical of the way the contest has gone over the past several months, with neither candidate able to maintain a significant lead among national Democratic voters for very long. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 3, 2008, click here.)

Obama's spat with President Bush Thursday about U.S. diplomacy with Iran may have focused voters' attention on Obama's limited foreign policy credentials and could be a factor. However, media coverage of the campaign is conveying a growing sense of inevitability around Obama getting the nomination, and John Edward's endorsement of Obama on Wednesday seemed to prove it. With this kind of momentum in his favor, one might expect Obama to be stretching his lead over Clinton among national Democrats, not still struggling to surpass her.
At the same time, the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking data on the national election, from May 11-15, finds John McCain moving slightly ahead of Obama, 47% to 45% among registered voters, after the two were tied at 45% in Thursday's report. There has been no change in voter preferences in a McCain-Clinton race, with Clinton holding a 3-point advantage, 48% to 45%. -- Lydia Saad

Link</div>

Lol, Clinton Owns McCain, she's more than popular.

You also never want to put all your hopes in one poll.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Obama leads by an average of 6.5 points right now. MVP! :]

He's +20 in Supers.
</div>

Nobody's putting all their hopes in anything. But the Gallup poll shows that there are people who aren't buying Obama's rhetoric about Iran.

And in case you haven't been paying attention, the media has ignored Hillary. Hillary has 8 years of diplomatic experience as first lady, yet the media barely aired her opinion on the issue even when she spoke out.

Hillary is irrelevant on this issue, because the media wants to paint the Bush/McCain vs. Obama picture, linking the President and the Republican nominee together when McCain would like that to happen as minimally as possible.
</div>

Hillary lost because no one likes her, apologist.

And there are polls with him up 8 points. Hence the spread.
</div>

And the media proves that she's lost for ignoring her.

Best thing for the Democrats right now is for Obama to be (at least portrayed as) the nominee. Good thing the DNC has the media in it's pocket now eh?
</div>

The Media was also begging to make this a close race when it was over a long time ago, you're wrong about that.
</div>

At what point was this race over?

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 16 2008, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 16 2008, 04:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 16 2008, 04:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 16 2008, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 16 2008, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 16 2008, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 16 2008, 03:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Among Democrats:

May 15th Gallup Poll:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking of national Democratic voters from May 12-14 finds Barack Obama favored for the nomination by a six percentage point margin over Hillary Clinton, 50% to 44%.

May 16th Gallup Poll:

PRINCETON, NJ -- After leading Hillary Clinton for three days by a statistically significant six percentage point margin, Barack Obama now only has a 4-point advantage in national Democratic preferences, 48% to 44%, according to Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 13-15.

Gallup Poll Daily interviewing on Thursday, May 15 showed Clinton leading Obama by a few percentage points, after several days of Obama in the lead. The resulting slight narrowing of the race -- returning it to a statistical dead heat -- is typical of the way the contest has gone over the past several months, with neither candidate able to maintain a significant lead among national Democratic voters for very long. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 3, 2008, click here.)

Obama's spat with President Bush Thursday about U.S. diplomacy with Iran may have focused voters' attention on Obama's limited foreign policy credentials and could be a factor. However, media coverage of the campaign is conveying a growing sense of inevitability around Obama getting the nomination, and John Edward's endorsement of Obama on Wednesday seemed to prove it. With this kind of momentum in his favor, one might expect Obama to be stretching his lead over Clinton among national Democrats, not still struggling to surpass her.
At the same time, the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking data on the national election, from May 11-15, finds John McCain moving slightly ahead of Obama, 47% to 45% among registered voters, after the two were tied at 45% in Thursday's report. There has been no change in voter preferences in a McCain-Clinton race, with Clinton holding a 3-point advantage, 48% to 45%. -- Lydia Saad

Link</div>

Lol, Clinton Owns McCain, she's more than popular.

You also never want to put all your hopes in one poll.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Obama leads by an average of 6.5 points right now. MVP! :]

He's +20 in Supers.
</div>

Nobody's putting all their hopes in anything. But the Gallup poll shows that there are people who aren't buying Obama's rhetoric about Iran.

And in case you haven't been paying attention, the media has ignored Hillary. Hillary has 8 years of diplomatic experience as first lady, yet the media barely aired her opinion on the issue even when she spoke out.

Hillary is irrelevant on this issue, because the media wants to paint the Bush/McCain vs. Obama picture, linking the President and the Republican nominee together when McCain would like that to happen as minimally as possible.
</div>

Hillary lost because no one likes her, apologist.

And there are polls with him up 8 points. Hence the spread.
</div>

And the media proves that she's lost for ignoring her.

Best thing for the Democrats right now is for Obama to be (at least portrayed as) the nominee. Good thing the DNC has the media in it's pocket now eh?
</div>

The Media was also begging to make this a close race when it was over a long time ago, you're wrong about that.
</div>

At what point was this race over?
</div>

Texas clinched it for Obama when he erased her 8 point lead. Pennsylvania was always going to get canceled out by North Carolina. She should have saved herself the trouble of competing long ago.

Squeaking out a victory in Texas was a huge loss, the Media lost sight of that.

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 16 2008, 04:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Obama has commented on his love for Israel and how he would not help their enemies if they continued to engage in terrorism. This thread is too hypothetical for my liking, you shouldn't worry about anything.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Obama has gone to great lengths to set the record straight about his position on Israel, meeting numerous times with Jewish leaders during the campaign. That may seem like a lot of effort for a group that has comprised about 4 percent of Democratic primary voters as of March 2008. But studies show that the Jewish voter turnout rate is significantly higher than other ethnic groups. (Exit polls show Clinton has held a 52-46 percent edge over Obama among Jewish voters this primary season.)

The doubts about Obama’s stance on Israel stand in stark contrast to the thumbs-up he has gotten from several major Jewish organizations.

“All of the leading presidential candidates ... have demonstrated a fundamental commitment to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship,” said Joshua Block, a spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), America’s pro-Israel lobby. “All three senators have strong congressional voting records on issues important to the pro-Israel community.”

The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) isn’t taking sides in the primary but has concluded that both Clinton and Obama “are strong supporters of Israel.”

In its analysis of Obama, the NJDC states: “Senator Obama has an outstanding voting record on Israel issues. Senator Obama co-sponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act. He has joined several letters urging actions on behalf of the interests of the State of Israel, including a letter calling on the European Union to add Hezbollah to its list of terrorist groups, a letter urging President Bush to press Palestinian leadership to bar terrorist groups from Palestinian elections and a letter expressing solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. He has voted multiple times in favor of foreign aid and is a leader in pushing for divestment from Iran.”
<u>
In an address at the 2007 NJDC Washington Conference, Obama promised that as president he would “stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel” in search of peace.</u>
<u>
To an AIPAC audience in Chicago on March 2, 2007, Obama pledged “a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel. ... That will always be my starting point.”</u>

Rep. Wexler, who has been at the forefront of Obama’s efforts to woo Jewish voters nationwide, said he wouldn’t be so adamant if he weren’t convinced of Obama’s commitment to Israel. “If you gave it a grade, it would be an A-plus,” Wexler said.</div>

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ar...i-israel-issue/
</div>

As a long-time student of international politics, and particularly those that affect the Middle East, there is little talk that is cheaper than campaign promises. He can mouth the words all he wants - it's part of the game. But with Obama, as it is with most every candidate, his choice of advisers means infinitely more than campaign rhetoric - whether pro- or anti-Israel in nature. It's not about hypotheticals, it's about general rules of politics.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 16 2008, 09:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 16 2008, 04:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Obama has commented on his love for Israel and how he would not help their enemies if they continued to engage in terrorism. This thread is too hypothetical for my liking, you shouldn't worry about anything.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Obama has gone to great lengths to set the record straight about his position on Israel, meeting numerous times with Jewish leaders during the campaign. That may seem like a lot of effort for a group that has comprised about 4 percent of Democratic primary voters as of March 2008. But studies show that the Jewish voter turnout rate is significantly higher than other ethnic groups. (Exit polls show Clinton has held a 52-46 percent edge over Obama among Jewish voters this primary season.)

The doubts about Obama?€™s stance on Israel stand in stark contrast to the thumbs-up he has gotten from several major Jewish organizations.

?€œAll of the leading presidential candidates ... have demonstrated a fundamental commitment to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship,?€? said Joshua Block, a spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), America?€™s pro-Israel lobby. ?€œAll three senators have strong congressional voting records on issues important to the pro-Israel community.?€?

The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) isn?€™t taking sides in the primary but has concluded that both Clinton and Obama ?€œare strong supporters of Israel.?€?

In its analysis of Obama, the NJDC states: ?€œSenator Obama has an outstanding voting record on Israel issues. Senator Obama co-sponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act. He has joined several letters urging actions on behalf of the interests of the State of Israel, including a letter calling on the European Union to add Hezbollah to its list of terrorist groups, a letter urging President Bush to press Palestinian leadership to bar terrorist groups from Palestinian elections and a letter expressing solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. He has voted multiple times in favor of foreign aid and is a leader in pushing for divestment from Iran.?€?
<u>
In an address at the 2007 NJDC Washington Conference, Obama promised that as president he would ?€œstand shoulder to shoulder with Israel?€? in search of peace.</u>
<u>
To an AIPAC audience in Chicago on March 2, 2007, Obama pledged ?€œa clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel. ... That will always be my starting point.?€?</u>

Rep. Wexler, who has been at the forefront of Obama?€™s efforts to woo Jewish voters nationwide, said he wouldn?€™t be so adamant if he weren?€™t convinced of Obama?€™s commitment to Israel. ?€œIf you gave it a grade, it would be an A-plus,?€? Wexler said.</div>

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ar...i-israel-issue/
</div>

As a long-time student of international politics, and particularly those that affect the Middle East, there is little talk that is cheaper than campaign promises. He can mouth the words all he wants - it's part of the game. But with Obama, as it is with most every candidate, his choice of advisers means infinitely more than campaign rhetoric - whether pro- or anti-Israel in nature. It's not about hypotheticals, it's about general rules of politics.
</div>

It's not just his words that support my case. He isn't Wright, he isn't a carbon copy of his advisers.

I like his voting history and his stance on this position. Every politician has connections to dubious people, the way McCain has ties to Charlie Black. Until something happens this is a hypothetical subject.

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 16 2008, 10:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 16 2008, 09:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 16 2008, 04:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Obama has commented on his love for Israel and how he would not help their enemies if they continued to engage in terrorism. This thread is too hypothetical for my liking, you shouldn't worry about anything.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Obama has gone to great lengths to set the record straight about his position on Israel, meeting numerous times with Jewish leaders during the campaign. That may seem like a lot of effort for a group that has comprised about 4 percent of Democratic primary voters as of March 2008. But studies show that the Jewish voter turnout rate is significantly higher than other ethnic groups. (Exit polls show Clinton has held a 52-46 percent edge over Obama among Jewish voters this primary season.)

The doubts about Obama’s stance on Israel stand in stark contrast to the thumbs-up he has gotten from several major Jewish organizations.

“All of the leading presidential candidates ... have demonstrated a fundamental commitment to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship,” said Joshua Block, a spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), America’s pro-Israel lobby. “All three senators have strong congressional voting records on issues important to the pro-Israel community.”

The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) isn’t taking sides in the primary but has concluded that both Clinton and Obama “are strong supporters of Israel.”

In its analysis of Obama, the NJDC states: “Senator Obama has an outstanding voting record on Israel issues. Senator Obama co-sponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act. He has joined several letters urging actions on behalf of the interests of the State of Israel, including a letter calling on the European Union to add Hezbollah to its list of terrorist groups, a letter urging President Bush to press Palestinian leadership to bar terrorist groups from Palestinian elections and a letter expressing solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. He has voted multiple times in favor of foreign aid and is a leader in pushing for divestment from Iran.”
<u>
In an address at the 2007 NJDC Washington Conference, Obama promised that as president he would “stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel” in search of peace.</u>
<u>
To an AIPAC audience in Chicago on March 2, 2007, Obama pledged “a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel. ... That will always be my starting point.”</u>

Rep. Wexler, who has been at the forefront of Obama’s efforts to woo Jewish voters nationwide, said he wouldn’t be so adamant if he weren’t convinced of Obama’s commitment to Israel. “If you gave it a grade, it would be an A-plus,” Wexler said.</div>

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ar...i-israel-issue/
</div>

As a long-time student of international politics, and particularly those that affect the Middle East, there is little talk that is cheaper than campaign promises. He can mouth the words all he wants - it's part of the game. But with Obama, as it is with most every candidate, his choice of advisers means infinitely more than campaign rhetoric - whether pro- or anti-Israel in nature. It's not about hypotheticals, it's about general rules of politics.
</div>

I like his voting history and his stance on this position. Every politician has connections to dubious people, the way McCain has ties to Charlie Black. Until something happens this is a hypothetical subject.
</div>

What voting stance? His actual track record is extremely limited. In fact, of the three remaining candidates, the only one who has a demonstrated 'good' track record on Israel is McCain.

And I can't stress enough that it's not about 'dubious people' it's about who the candidate relies upon to advise him or her on various matters. Obama's advisers are extremely worrisome to anybody who cares a bit about Israel and knows enough to ignore campaign platitudes. One can try to ignore the virulently biased slander that spews from that worthless piece of shit Wright, and various off-the-cuff statements by Obama himself. But if you ever want to understand where a candidate is really aligned, look at his advisers carefully, and then go back to analyze the rhetoric in that light. And that goes for everyone running.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 16 2008, 09:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 16 2008, 10:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 16 2008, 09:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 16 2008, 04:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Obama has commented on his love for Israel and how he would not help their enemies if they continued to engage in terrorism. This thread is too hypothetical for my liking, you shouldn't worry about anything.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Obama has gone to great lengths to set the record straight about his position on Israel, meeting numerous times with Jewish leaders during the campaign. That may seem like a lot of effort for a group that has comprised about 4 percent of Democratic primary voters as of March 2008. But studies show that the Jewish voter turnout rate is significantly higher than other ethnic groups. (Exit polls show Clinton has held a 52-46 percent edge over Obama among Jewish voters this primary season.)

The doubts about Obama?€™s stance on Israel stand in stark contrast to the thumbs-up he has gotten from several major Jewish organizations.

?€œAll of the leading presidential candidates ... have demonstrated a fundamental commitment to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship,?€? said Joshua Block, a spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), America?€™s pro-Israel lobby. ?€œAll three senators have strong congressional voting records on issues important to the pro-Israel community.?€?

The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) isn?€™t taking sides in the primary but has concluded that both Clinton and Obama ?€œare strong supporters of Israel.?€?

In its analysis of Obama, the NJDC states: ?€œSenator Obama has an outstanding voting record on Israel issues. Senator Obama co-sponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act. He has joined several letters urging actions on behalf of the interests of the State of Israel, including a letter calling on the European Union to add Hezbollah to its list of terrorist groups, a letter urging President Bush to press Palestinian leadership to bar terrorist groups from Palestinian elections and a letter expressing solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. He has voted multiple times in favor of foreign aid and is a leader in pushing for divestment from Iran.?€?
<u>
In an address at the 2007 NJDC Washington Conference, Obama promised that as president he would ?€œstand shoulder to shoulder with Israel?€? in search of peace.</u>
<u>
To an AIPAC audience in Chicago on March 2, 2007, Obama pledged ?€œa clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel. ... That will always be my starting point.?€?</u>

Rep. Wexler, who has been at the forefront of Obama?€™s efforts to woo Jewish voters nationwide, said he wouldn?€™t be so adamant if he weren?€™t convinced of Obama?€™s commitment to Israel. ?€œIf you gave it a grade, it would be an A-plus,?€? Wexler said.</div>

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ar...i-israel-issue/
</div>

As a long-time student of international politics, and particularly those that affect the Middle East, there is little talk that is cheaper than campaign promises. He can mouth the words all he wants - it's part of the game. But with Obama, as it is with most every candidate, his choice of advisers means infinitely more than campaign rhetoric - whether pro- or anti-Israel in nature. It's not about hypotheticals, it's about general rules of politics.
</div>

I like his voting history and his stance on this position. Every politician has connections to dubious people, the way McCain has ties to Charlie Black. Until something happens this is a hypothetical subject.
</div>

What voting stance? His actual track record is extremely limited. In fact, of the three remaining candidates, the only one who has a demonstrated 'good' track record on Israel is McCain.

And I can't stress enough that it's not about 'dubious people' it's about who the candidate relies upon to advise him or her on various matters. Obama's advisers are extremely worrisome to anybody who cares a bit about Israel and knows enough to ignore campaign platitudes. One can try to ignore the virulently biased slander that spews from that worthless piece of shit Wright, and various off-the-cuff statements by Obama himself. But if you ever want to understand where a candidate is really aligned, look at his advisers carefully, and then go back to analyze the rhetoric in that light. And that goes for everyone running.
</div>

I'm sure his advisers also have contradicting opinions. If I want to know about Obama, actions will speak loudest.

McCain does have decent stances on various things, obviously that's why he's a candidate. Too bad he's out of touch on the subjects I care most about.

 

[AEM]

^ The problem is that there can be no real actions until after the election...

[And Obama's Mid-East advisers are all of the same school of thought]

 

[The Return of the Raider]

Speaking of Israel, after WW2, we should have just moved all those people into Montana or North Dakota or something. Then we wouldn't be dealing with all this crap right now. We also wouldn't be spending billions per year supporting their country. Stupid idea in the first place.

 

[CelticKing]

Still Obama has no experience at all and that is why Mr. McCain is getting my vote.

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ May 17 2008, 12:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Speaking of Israel, after WW2, we should have just moved all those people into Montana or North Dakota or something. Then we wouldn't be dealing with all this crap right now. We also wouldn't be spending billions per year supporting their country. Stupid idea in the first place.</div>

As if that were ever even a remote possibility...

And American aid doesn't 'support' Israel, it's the basis of a remarkably lucrative joint program that reaps benefits both in defense and technology.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ May 16 2008, 11:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Still Obama has no experience at all</div>

Good thing Obama has better overall policies then.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 16 2008, 11:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^ The problem is that there can be no real actions until after the election...

[And Obama's Mid-East advisers are all of the same school of thought]</div>

This is silly, his voting on the issue is very appropriate.

 

[The Return of the Raider]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 16 2008, 11:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ May 17 2008, 12:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Speaking of Israel, after WW2, we should have just moved all those people into Montana or North Dakota or something. Then we wouldn't be dealing with all this crap right now. We also wouldn't be spending billions per year supporting their country. Stupid idea in the first place.</div>

As if that were ever even a remote possibility...

And American aid doesn't 'support' Israel, it's the basis of a remarkably lucrative joint program that reaps benefits both in defense and technology.
</div>

I'm going to choose not to debate Israel anymore. I know that you are Jewish. All I will say is that we have plenty of room in our own country, and that would not have sparked global conflicts otherwise. You can do technology anywhere. Its not like mining for gold.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Two names getting the most discussion are Zbigniew Brzezinski, a national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, and Robert Malley, once a special assistant to President Bill Clinton for Arab-Israeli affairs. These men ring alarm bells for some pro-Israel people who follow Israeli-Palestinian relations.

Whether either is anti-Israel as described is a matter of opinion. More important, the Obama campaign claims neither is a formal adviser.</div>

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ar...i-israel-issue/

He also has other advisers.

 

[Denny Crane]

Zbigniew was awesome. This happened on his watch in the Carter administration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States where 53 U.S. diplomats were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981, after a group of students took over the American embassy in support of Iran's revolution.

In Iran, the incident was seen by many as a blow against U.S. influence in Iran and its support of the recently fallen Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had been restored to power by a CIA-funded coup in 1953 and who had recently been allowed into the United States for cancer treatment.</div>

I get it now.

"Change" means "get lucky negotiating with terrorists" and "go back to the old ways of propping up dictators that got us into this whole diplomatic mess with Iran in the first place."

Not to mention the "tuck tail and run away" military strategy.

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ May 16 2008, 10:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 16 2008, 11:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ May 17 2008, 12:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Speaking of Israel, after WW2, we should have just moved all those people into Montana or North Dakota or something. Then we wouldn't be dealing with all this crap right now. We also wouldn't be spending billions per year supporting their country. Stupid idea in the first place.</div>

As if that were ever even a remote possibility...

And American aid doesn't 'support' Israel, it's the basis of a remarkably lucrative joint program that reaps benefits both in defense and technology.
</div>

I'm going to choose not to debate Israel anymore. I know that you are Jewish. All I will say is that we have plenty of room in our own country, and that would not have sparked global conflicts otherwise. You can do technology anywhere. Its not like mining for gold.
</div>

Anti-semitism at the time wasn't restricted to the Nazis. There was plenty to go around here in the good ol' USA. There's no way we'd have taken them in at the time. In fact, we turned 'em away when they came here seeking asylum from the Nazis in the first place.

One real choices were to try and do something in Eastern Europe, but there you had the actual holocaust take place. Another was to migrate to Israel/Palestine where there were already hundreds of thousands of Jews and where they were promised a state in the first place (see Balfour Declaration), and where they could govern themselves instead of relying on some government to not turn into something like the Nazi regime.

The US barely supported making Israel a state in the first place, and provided little aid until quite recently (last ~25 years, Israel's 60 years old).

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 17 2008, 03:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Zbigniew was awesome. This happened on his watch in the Carter administration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States where 53 U.S. diplomats were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981, after a group of students took over the American embassy in support of Iran's revolution.

In Iran, the incident was seen by many as a blow against U.S. influence in Iran and its support of the recently fallen Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had been restored to power by a CIA-funded coup in 1953 and who had recently been allowed into the United States for cancer treatment.</div>

I get it now.

"Change" means "get lucky negotiating with terrorists" and "go back to the old ways of propping up dictators that got us into this whole diplomatic mess with Iran in the first place."

Not to mention the "tuck tail and run away" military strategy.
</div>


The Obama camp today said they wouldn't talk to Iran without "preparations". It was all over MSNBC. Bush is also the douchebag that made Iran stronger by eliminating their secular Sunni rival.

Lol at the tuck comment though, it means nothing.

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 17 2008, 02:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Two names getting the most discussion are Zbigniew Brzezinski, a national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, and Robert Malley, once a special assistant to President Bill Clinton for Arab-Israeli affairs. These men ring alarm bells for some pro-Israel people who follow Israeli-Palestinian relations.

Whether either is anti-Israel as described is a matter of opinion. More important, the Obama campaign claims neither is a formal adviser.</div>

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ar...i-israel-issue/

He also has other advisers.
</div>

His other advisers are actually more worrisome. And whenever he sacks someone, like Robert Malley, it's accompanied by the hiring of the likes of Joseph Cirincione. I'm not primarily concerned with peripheral figures, but his actual advisory team.

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 17 2008, 04:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ May 16 2008, 10:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 16 2008, 11:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ May 17 2008, 12:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Speaking of Israel, after WW2, we should have just moved all those people into Montana or North Dakota or something. Then we wouldn't be dealing with all this crap right now. We also wouldn't be spending billions per year supporting their country. Stupid idea in the first place.</div>

As if that were ever even a remote possibility...

And American aid doesn't 'support' Israel, it's the basis of a remarkably lucrative joint program that reaps benefits both in defense and technology.
</div>

I'm going to choose not to debate Israel anymore. I know that you are Jewish. All I will say is that we have plenty of room in our own country, and that would not have sparked global conflicts otherwise. You can do technology anywhere. Its not like mining for gold.
</div>

Anti-semitism at the time wasn't restricted to the Nazis. There was plenty to go around here in the good ol' USA. There's no way we'd have taken them in at the time. In fact, we turned 'em away when they came here seeking asylum from the Nazis in the first place.

One real choices were to try and do something in Eastern Europe, but there you had the actual holocaust take place. Another was to migrate to Israel/Palestine where there were already hundreds of thousands of Jews and where they were promised a state in the first place (see Balfour Declaration), and where they could govern themselves instead of relying on some government to not turn into something like the Nazi regime.

The US barely supported making Israel a state in the first place, and provided little aid until quite recently (last ~25 years, Israel's 60 years old).
</div>

Truman had to face down a State Department insurrection and the threatened resignation of Marshall to vote for Israel in 1947, and then supported the lopsided embargo that nearly killed Israel before it even arose.

Nor was Eastern Europe a real possibility, considering that Jews were still being killed when they were so foolish as to try to get back to their homes...

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 17 2008, 01:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 17 2008, 03:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Zbigniew was awesome. This happened on his watch in the Carter administration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States where 53 U.S. diplomats were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981, after a group of students took over the American embassy in support of Iran's revolution.

In Iran, the incident was seen by many as a blow against U.S. influence in Iran and its support of the recently fallen Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had been restored to power by a CIA-funded coup in 1953 and who had recently been allowed into the United States for cancer treatment.</div>

I get it now.

"Change" means "get lucky negotiating with terrorists" and "go back to the old ways of propping up dictators that got us into this whole diplomatic mess with Iran in the first place."

Not to mention the "tuck tail and run away" military strategy.
</div>


The Obama camp today said they wouldn't talk to Iran without "preparations". It was all over MSNBC. Bush is also the douchebag that made Iran stronger by eliminating their secular Sunni rival.

Lol at the tuck comment though, it means nothing.
</div>

Last time I looked, Saudi Arabia was a Sunni-run state.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 17 2008, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>His other advisers are actually more worrisome. And whenever he sacks someone, like Robert Malley, it's accompanied by the hiring of the likes of Joseph Cirincione. I'm not primarily concerned with peripheral figures, but his actual advisory team.</div>


Not only has that guy barely given him any advice, he does have other advisers. That adviser has ideas that aren't consistent with the way Obama and his other associates have thought. I am tired of your vague references and bordering on slanderous comments. If you're going to call someone out, be a bit more specific.

I also don't think Israel being located where it is is a great idea. I'm sure they could live just fine here in these modern times, since we're already supporting them so much.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I am not a top advisor to Senator Obama. I have never met the Senator. I have written occasional memos to his campaign and publicly endorsed his candidacy, but I am afraid there is no way I could be considered ˜Barack Obama's top expert on matters nuclear".?</div>

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020378.php


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>
There are people in the community that question Barack's commitment, but it's not based on anything solid, said the executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, Ira Forman, who is neutral in the primary.

While Brzezinski is not viewed very highly among people in the so-called ˜Israel lobby" other Obama advisor's from the former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross to the veteran congressional staffer Dan Shapiro are considered staunch allies, he said.</div>

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5783.html

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 17 2008, 12:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 17 2008, 01:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 17 2008, 03:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Zbigniew was awesome. This happened on his watch in the Carter administration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States where 53 U.S. diplomats were held hostage for 444 days from November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981, after a group of students took over the American embassy in support of Iran's revolution.

In Iran, the incident was seen by many as a blow against U.S. influence in Iran and its support of the recently fallen Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had been restored to power by a CIA-funded coup in 1953 and who had recently been allowed into the United States for cancer treatment.</div>

I get it now.

"Change" means "get lucky negotiating with terrorists" and "go back to the old ways of propping up dictators that got us into this whole diplomatic mess with Iran in the first place."

Not to mention the "tuck tail and run away" military strategy.
</div>


The Obama camp today said they wouldn't talk to Iran without "preparations". It was all over MSNBC. Bush is also the douchebag that made Iran stronger by eliminating their secular Sunni rival.

Lol at the tuck comment though, it means nothing.
</div>

Last time I looked, Saudi Arabia was a Sunni-run state.
</div>

Iran is stronger now because of what happened to Iraq.

 

[AEM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 17 2008, 02:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 17 2008, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>His other advisers are actually more worrisome. And whenever he sacks someone, like Robert Malley, it's accompanied by the hiring of the likes of Joseph Cirincione. I'm not primarily concerned with peripheral figures, but his actual advisory team.</div>


Not only has that guy barely given him any advice, he does have other advisers. That adviser has ideas that aren't consistent with the way Obama and his other associates have thought. I am tired of your vague references and bordering on slanderous comments. If you're going to call someone out, be a bit more specific.

I also don't think Israel being located where it is is a great idea. I'm sure they could live just fine here in these modern times, since we're already supporting them so much.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I am not a top advisor to Senator Obama. I have never met the Senator. I have written occasional memos to his campaign and publicly endorsed his candidacy, but I am afraid there is no way I could be considered ˜Barack Obama's top expert on matters nuclear".�</div>

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020378.php


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>
There are people in the community that question Barack's commitment, but it's not based on anything solid, said the executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, Ira Forman, who is neutral in the primary.

While Brzezinski is not viewed very highly among people in the so-called ˜Israel lobby" other Obama advisor's from the former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross to the veteran congressional staffer Dan Shapiro are considered staunch allies, he said.</div>

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5783.html
</div>

You keep bringing up Brzezinski, not me. And I'm encouraging you to do your own research into the likes of Cirincione. As well, you might want to double check the definition of slanderous before applying it to my comments. I've been extremely careful NOT to detail the substance of my issues with the bulk of Obama's Mid-East advisory team. Nor do I care about those who are or are not his 'advisers on matters nuclear.' That's not what worries me.

And Ira Forman is by no means neutral, including in this instance. He's been called to task, in fact, for allegations of 'white-washing' much of Obama's views. The fact that he hasn't jumped on board the Clinton ship is nice though - I'll grant that. I may be very worried by Obama's advisers, but I utterly despise Hillary Clinton - on the basis of her past actions. To put into perspective, had Obama made it clear that someone like Ross was to be his chief adviser (not that I agree entirely with the latter), it would put him light years ahead of Hillary in my book. However, as far as I am aware, Ross does not have a formal title in the Obama campaign.

Bringing up Dan Shapiro is interesting. While he's a political wheeler-dealer as much as anyone, Obama's tabbing him was a rather savvy move. In fact, that's the best reason anyone who's pro-Israel has to believe that Obama might not in fact be worse than Hillary "I hugged Suha Arafat after a bombing slaughtered dozens of Jews" Clinton. The funny thing is that a lot of Obama's named foreign policy team are former Bill Clinton people - which is somewhat odd for its own reasons.

As far as Israel's location, that's a much more complicated issue than simply saying 'it's in a bad place.' It is where it's always been - and is an issue because there are those in the region who consider any non-Muslim nation there to be a direct affront to their religion. That spans the Sunni/Shia divide, which in turn reflects the old Bedouin saying "I against my brother, My brother and I against my clan, My clan and I against the world" But it's a moot point, even as it was back in the 1940s, when virtually all countries kept their doors closed the the survivors of the Holocaust - not to mention the already-existent Yishuv there already.

But there was one good point in the quote you cited. The problem is that there is nothing concrete to go on as far as Obama is concerned - and that makes him open to further question. McCain can point to his voting record, and Hillary can try to point to her occasional pro-Israel speeches to avert people's attention from her decidedly opportunistic anti-Israel pandering whenever that's what suits her needs. But Obama's campaign remains a wild card, with speeches coming from every which way, and a group of advisers that aren't clear in terms of who has his ear.

See, what I don't think is clear is the fact that I don't buy into the demonization of Obama that is out there. While some extreme Islamists consider him an apostate to Islam, his early childhood is infinitely less interesting to me than his advisory team. And some of the people doing the pointing are way over the top to begin with. But that doesn't mean that his advisers aren't open to question, especially the likes of Cirincione, Malley (thankfully gone) and so on. While his foreign policy speeches that directly refer to Israel have been much 'better' as of late, they don't always jibe with his overall foreign policy as expounded.

If you want a real kicker, if the presidential race had come down between Obama and Huckabee, I wouldn't think twice about voting against Huckabee...