Barack Hussein Obama and Rashid Khalidi

Doesn't that just sound like a banner neoconservatives would loooove to wave at McCain rallies. "Look at their names! There's no way he could be pro-Israel, right?"

Wrong morons.

Anyway, this post is in regards to a previous post in which I shared my latest frustrations with the McCain camp and its newest attempts at "guilt by association", using Obama's relationship with Palestinian college professor, and alleged former PLO spokesman, Rashid Khalidi. I was engaging in my morning screening of blogs and came across an article by Jeffrey Goldberg responding to this post by Joe Klein, in which Klein also defends Obama's friendship with Khalidi by engaging in a bit of wordplay. Goldberg disagreed with Klein's assertions about "semites" and "anti-semites", but he did have the following to say specifically about Khalidi:

But about Khalidi -- he's a fierce partisan of the Palestinian cause, of course, and in my conversations with him, and in his writing, I see that his sympathies frequently cause him to distort Middle East history. But an anti-Semite? I don't think so. In fact, Rashid Khalidi is one of the rare Palestinian advocates who argues, as he has with me, that Arabs must study Jewish history, including and especially the history of Jew-hatred, in order to better understand Israel, and to reach a compromise with it.

Food for thought.

UPDATE: I just found the footage of Michael Goldfarb, a national spokesman for McCain's campaign, talking about Khalidi with Rick Sanchez of CNN. Take a look...



Let me spell out exactly what the tail end of that dialogue looked like:

SANCHEZ: Now, is the -- I need to parse this out as best I can from you, Michael. The fact that John McCain's organization gave $448,000 to this group that was founded by Mr. Khalidi, is there no reason for some to be critical of as well just as some might be critical of Barack Obama for being at a meeting with some girl read a poem for example?

GOLDFARB: Look. You are missing the point again, Rick. The point is that Barack Obama has a long track record of being around anti-Semitic and anti-Israel and anti-American rhetoric.

SANCHEZ: Can you name one other person besides Khalidi who he hangs around that is anti-Semitic?

GOLDFARB: Yes, he pals around with William Ayers.

SANCHEZ: No, no, the question I asked you is that can you name one other person who he hangs around with who is anti-Semitic? Because that is what you said.

GOLDFARB: Look, we know there are people who Barack Obama has been in hot water--

SANCHEZ: Michael, I asked you the name one person. One.

GOLDFARB: Rick --

SANCHEZ: You said he hangs around with people who are anti-Semitic. Okay. Khalidi and name other people that we all know about?

GOLDFARB: And rick, we both know who number two is.

SANCHEZ: Who? Would you tell us?

GOLDFARB: No, Rick, I think we all know who we are talking about here.

SANCHEZ: Somebody who is anti-Semitic that he hangs around with.

GOLDFARB: I think we all know who we are talking about.

SANCHEZ: Say it.

GOLDFARB: I think we all know who we're talking about, Rick.

SANCHEZ: Well, you say that his policies differ from Barack Obama and many other people, and either way, we have the leave it at that.

John McCain should worry less about Obama's association with Khalidi and more about his own association with this...unsavory character. Full post and comments here...

Kill Them With Kindness?

McCain is running a new ad today, and I think he's really got a game-changer here...



Senator Obama responded to McCain's ad during a rally today in Iowa:

Now, Senator McCain has served this country honorably. And he can point to a few moments over the past eight years where he has broken from George Bush. Just this morning, the McCain campaign put out an ad that showed me praising him and Senator Lieberman for their work on global warming – as if there's something wrong with acknowledging when an opponent has said or done something that makes sense. I think we need more of that in Washington. I don't disagree with Senator McCain on everything, and I respect his occasional displays of independence.

This election really is becoming more and more bizarre each day. I'd like to have been in the room when the McCain people thought up this new ad.

"Ok guys, the Ayers thing doesn't seem to be panning out. The socialist argument is passable, but I keep forgetting to use the flashy thingy so people don't remember I voted for the bailout. I like the Joe the Plumber angle, but he's getting kinda cocky, isn't he? Didn't show up for the rally yesterday - made me look like an idiot. He won't even return my phone calls...you know what, let's move on. I tried the Democratic triple threat argument, but apparently people want that. I've said maverick so many times even I'm starting to twitch when I hear it. And the experience thing went out the window when I picked Sa... oh, hey Sarah. Didn't see you there. Wait...wait a minute. I think I've got it. Do you think we can find footage of Obama complimenting me? Oh, we have some?? Perfect! I think we've got him now...ha ha...ha ha ha ha...AH HA HA HA...HAAAA HAAAA HAAAA... hack...cough...cough..."

Right. A quick recap: in the last days of this historic election, anywhere from 5 to 10 points behind in national polls, during a time in which one must make their best, strongest argument to the American people in order to garner their votes, Senator John McCain thought he'd attack Obama's friendship with a college professor with a different point of view, and Obama's words of praise for McCain's environmental efforts.

If McCain's goal was to make us really start to question, "Why are the polls so close?", he's done it. Kudos, sir. Full post and comments here...

Are You There Jah?

Full post and comments here...

Wassup?!

The boys are back (watch it quick because it seems to be disappearing from YouTube pretty rapidly).

Here's the original...



And the 2008 update...

Full post and comments here...

U-G-L-Y, You Ain't Got No Alibi

On the poll-junkie site FiveThirtyEight.com (a new favorite) I came across this blog about some tensions at a recent McCain campaign rally. Here's an excerpt:

After the rally, we witnessed a near-street riot involving the exiting McCain crowd and two Cuban-American Obama supporters. Tony Garcia, 63, and Raul Sorando, 31, were suddenly surrounded by an angry mob. There is a moment in a crowd when something goes from mere yelling to a feeling of danger, and that's what we witnessed. As photographers and police raced to the scene, the crowd elevated from stable to fast-moving scrum, and the two men were surrounded on all sides as we raced to the circle.

The event maybe lasted a minute, two at the most, before police competently managed to hustle the two away from the scene and out of the danger zone. Only FiveThirtyEight tracked the two men down for comment, a quarter mile down the street. "People were screaming 'Terrorist!' 'Communist!' 'Socialist!'" Sorando said when we caught up with him. "I had a guy tell me he was gonna kill me."

Asked what had precipitated the event, "We were just chanting 'Obama!' and holding our signs. That was it. And the crowd suddenly got crazy."

I know my buddy Arny pointed out that you can't point to the "fringe" folks at these kinds of rallies as an indicator of all Republicans, but darn it if the frequency of these kinds of interactions and altercations isn't at least more prevalent at McCain rallies than Obama rallies. That is, unless the liberal media elite leftist main stream pro-Obama media elite are sweeping all of the Vietnam POW jokes being made at Obama's rallies under the rug.

NOTE: Someone should tell the folks in this crowd that McCain apparently doesn't think Obama's a socialist. In their defense, I can see how such a revelation can seem confusing and inconsistent. And when pressed (surprisingly by FOX News' Chris Wallace) McCain has a little trouble distinguishing some of his actions from "socialist" behavior...

Full post and comments here...

On-The-Job Training

First of all, I am a blogging fiend today.

The latest ad from the Republic National Committee...



So, the point that I believe they're trying to make is John McCain is "experienced" and Obama is "inexperienced." OK, a pretty good argument back in mid-August, but one that was and has continued to be debunked by the choice of Sarah Palin as his VP nominee. For anyone who needs any evidence of this, just search my blog archive for anything having to do with Sarah Palin - I think I make a pretty strong argument.

However, if we are to take John McCain's advice and "really pay attention to words", I think the RNC has shot themselves in the foot on this one. Here's the argument they're making - it's very SAT worthy:

• You wouldn't want to a pilot who's never flown a plane
• You wouldn't want a childcare providerb who's never cared for children
• You wouldn't want a surgeon who's never operated
• THERFORE, you don't want a president who's never led anything

---More after the jump---

Now, there are two ways to look at this. The first is to argue that Obama has no leadership experience. Let's give McCain and his cronies the argument that Obama's superior campaign organization doesn't count. I think Obama's being President of the Harvard Law Review and chairman of several different boards during his time in Chicago count towards the fact that people trust Obama in positions of leadership. And let's not forget, much as RNC would like us to, the fact that to be a community organizer is to be a leader of the community.

The second argument is one that Sarah Palin likes to make...a lot. This one says that Obama has no executive experience, unlike, say, a governer. You watch all of these joint McCain-Palin interviews and she cheerily proclaims that, as a governer, she has more executive experience than Obama, having been in responsible for thousands of government employees and billion-dollar budgets. What I never understood is how they were so effortlessly able to gloss over the simple, yet critical fact that McCain has no executive experience either! If "governing" something is the criteria (which is reasonable since being President is essentially being governer of the country), then Palin has all three of the other guys beat out - that includes John McCain.

Bottom line, this election is not about who has the "experience" to lead the country, because both candidates have demonstrated leadership abilities and characteristics while neither of the candidates has any directly relevant experience. That was, and has been, the failure of John McCain's argument, and probably part of the reason he switched from being the "experience" candidate to being the "maverick reformer" candidate. The RNC's advertisement is bunk and really a waste of time and, more important, precious money.

Full post and comments here...

It's Not Always Wise To Save the Best For Last

Republicans tried to make a big deal out of it way back when the general election started. Then, we didn't hear much about it. Recently, I heard Campbell Brown mention it on her show on CNN. And finally, McCain is making what I believe to be his best argument to undercut Obama, perhaps of the entire campaign, but definitely of the last couple of weeks. What's the argument?

Commenting on Obama's 30-min infomercial that played this evening (about which I don't have much of a comment since there was no new information), McCain made these remarks in Florida:

When you're watching this gauzy, feel-good commercial, just remember that it was paid for with broken promises. Senator Obama signed a piece of paper committing to public financing of his campaign. Twice he looked the American people in the eye and said he would sit down with me before he abandoned public financing. He didn't mean a word of it. When it was in his interest to break his promise, he tossed it aside like it didn't mean a thing. He is the first candidate since Watergate to abandon the public financing system, and his campaign is now being flooded with hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed and questionable donations. His campaign has directly profited from his broken promise and because of that, the American people have to ask: what does the broken promise behind tonight's infomercial say about the value of his other commitments?

Let's leave aside McCain's accusations of "undisclosed and questionable donations", accusations which rely less on evidence and more on conjecture. The issue of campaign finance is obviously one he feels very strongly about -- almost as strongly as the bear DNA research -- but this argument could have actually gotten some traction. The fact of the matter is that Obama did say say he would participate in public financing, and then when the money started to come in he opted out. As I said before, this is not new information and every now and again the McCain camp tried to make it a big deal without much luck. Even after Obama pulled in a mind-boggling $150 million in a single month the argument failed to stick because, in my opinion, it made the McCain campaign look whiney and petty. But now Obama has provided a very real, very tangible showing of his strong financial position and McCain does very well to make the point that the only reason Obama was able to buy $3 million worth of ad time was because he broke a promise.

Now, I personally think that it's a good thing that Obama opted out of public financing. For the first time in a long time a Democrat is able to energetically and thoroughly campaign against Republicans and their too often devious strategies. With funding from private donors Obama has been able to effectively avoid being "swiftboated" in a pretty remarkable way - he's had the kitchen sink thrown at him twice and will likely be made leader of the free world in spite of it. And I know his campaign's senior aides made a lot of arguments when he did opt out as to why it was OK for him to do so - I don't remember them and, honestly, I don't think they held a lot of water. But the fact of the matter is these ads, for whatever good they may do him, have given McCain an opening with what could be a lot of potential. I think if McCain avoids hyperbole and exaggeration and just hammers that point home he could, at the very least, put a more significant chink in the armor that external polls have given Obama.

But that's just my opinion. Full post and comments here...

JT and Johnny Mac

What do they have in common? I think Justin sang it best when he crooned, "Cry me a river".

And that's what McCain and his entourage continue to beg the rest of us to do every time they try to raise another "questionable" Obama association. Granted, there are some legitimate ones, like Rev. Wright, that, if not for the racially-charged dynamic of the campaign, I'm sure the McCain camp would be complaining about from the rooftops (though Obama parried that attack deftly during the Democratic primary). Other associations, like Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko, are such old news, especially given the climate of economic discouse, that nothing short of video (not a photo - could be doctored) of Obama giving one of them a sponge bath could probably make them a central issue for independent and undecided voters.

So, for a time we thought the McCain cohort would actually start addressing issues of interest, and in a way they have by trying to paint Obama as a tax-and-spend socialist. But, with just days left until this soap opera draws to a close, the McCain-Palin ticket is back to doing what they love: hopping up and down and pointing frantically at another inconsequential Obama "association".

This time, it's Rashid Khalidi, currently a professor at Columbia, formerly a professor at UChicago, and, from 1976 to 1982, director of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA, which was operating in exile from Beirut with the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization). Specifically, they're pissed that the LA Times, who wrote about Obama's relationship (we can call it that) with Khalidi in April of this year, isn't releasing a video believed to show Obama at a farewell dinner for Khalidi. ooooh.

I do not pretend that I have any extensive knowledge concerning the PLO, besides the fact that Arafat used to head them up, and Bush was working to try and broker peace between them and Israel (with no success). I also don't condone any violent actions they took that led them to be considered by the US as a "terrorist" group (I think this is back when you had to do more than smudge Bush's Pumas to get on that list). That being said, I think this particular attempt at guilt by association is disappointing for a slightly different reason: I don't see a problem with it.

---More after the jump---

Khalidi is a university professor with a very specific and significant set of life experiences that both the University of Chicago and Columbia University felt of such quality as to make him a professor at each of their institutions. What I think McPalin fails to understand is that it's possible for people who disagree with one another to be civil in expressing their differing points of view, and a lot of that happens in the university setting. The LA Times wrote the following of Obama's remarks to the gathering:

A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking. His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."

This sentiment is exactly what's wrong with Bush's approach to foreign policy, and almost everybody (including Gen. Petraeus) agrees. And, as far as I can tell from my reading on the issue, Khalidi is no longer a part or supporter of the PLO, and had even "helped facilitate negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in the early '90s" according to none other than FOX News. Frankly, I think it's good that Obama had a relationship with him - it could actually help to inform his actions as they pertain to that region of the world.

And riddle me this: when did Israel become an infallible nation state? I understand this is a very sensitive issue and don't pretend to deny the horrible acts of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, but our seemingly blind, unflappable, whole-hearted committment to the absolute innocence of one side of this ongoing struggle seems a bit surreal, particularly around election time. It baffles me that the President is expected to be Israel's greatest ally, and somehow also make inroads for a peace agreement with Palestine. If Palestine is truly out of line to the point that we need to use military force, then let's call that spade a spade. But if the intent is to bring stability to the region, we have to be willing to try and understand both sides of this gridlock while advocating not for a country but for a state: a state of peace.

And that's the lesson McCain should take from Obama and Khalidi's "association".

Full post and comments here...

Racist Rush?

I can't, with confidence, go that far, but Rush Limbaugh is definitely a hell spawn sent here to do the bidding of dark and sinister forces. I was flipping channels last night and happened upon MSNBC's Keith Olbermann (a pretty angry dude himself) railing against Limbaugh's most recently spewed refuse concerning comment's Obama made about the Constitution.

Here's the skinny. On Monday Limbaugh made the following comments while broadcasting that drivel we loosely associate with radio programming:

"Obama, ladies and gentlemen, calls himself a constitutional professor or a constitutional scholar. In truth, Barack Obama was an anti-constitutional professor. He studied the Constitution, and he flatly rejected it. He doesn't like the Constitution, he thinks it is flawed, and now I understand why he was so reluctant to wear the American flag lapel pin. Why would he?" Limbaugh later added, "I don't see how he can take the oath of office" because "[h]e has rejected the Constitution."

Geez, just reading that is getting me riled up. Deep breaths... OK, Limbaugh was referring to an interview Obama gave in 2001 on Chicago public radio. Here's the excerpt that Limbaugh played on his show:

OBAMA [audio clip]: I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

LIMBAUGH: That's not even true. Even if you refuse to call it a fundamental flaw -- just remove the word fundamental -- he is saying, seven years ago, this country has made no progress whatsoever on the official status of black citizens going back to the days of the founding. That simply is not true. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died. The Constitution was a document set up to fix itself, to allow itself to be repaired in the area of individual liberty, and it has been far more than anybody would have ever dreamed back in the days of the founding.

Well, Rusho lays out quite the convincing argument: we're about to elect a hate-mongering, anti-Israel, socialist, communist, domestic terrorist sympathizer who hates the Constitution and hates Americans...but wait. Is it possible there's a little more to the story here? Of course.

What "He-who-must-not-be-named" fails to mention is that the topic of the radio program was "Slavery and the Constitution" and Obama was talking about the founding fathers' failure to right the wrongs of slavery!

---More after the jump---

Here's the full excerpt (is that an oximoron?) from Obama's interview:

OBAMA: The original Constitution, as well as -- as well as the Civil War amendments, but I think it is an imperfect document, and I think it is a document that reflects some deep flaws in American culture -- the colonial culture nascent at that time. African-Americans were not -- first of all, they weren't African-Americans. The Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers. I think that, as [program co-panelist] Richard [John] said, it was a nagging problem in the same way that, these days, we might think of environmental issues or some other problem that, where you have to balance, you know, cost-benefits, as opposed to seeing it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth. AND, IN THAT SENSE, I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day. [emphasis added]

Dear God give me strength! Where in the hell does Rush Limbaugh get off making the inflammatory and outrageous claim that Obama is anti-Constitution? For the love of all that is good and sensible, at least have the decency to pick a clip that isn't so obviously reasonable!! And yes, racism is still a fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day, such that it's taken over 200 years to get to the point that a black person (or, as those who would like to downplay the significance point out, a half black person) may actually have a shot at the White House.

This reminds me of the other "American pride" issue that has continued to come up: Michelle Obama's statement that, for the first time in her adult life, she was really proud of America. Conservatives and McCain supporters jumped all over that statement, claiming that there was never a time when they have not been proud of America. Give me a freakin' break! I can think of a couple incidents in American history of which we, as American citizens, should NOT be proud: treatment of Native Americans, slavery/segregation, oppression of women, Japanese internment... and I'm just picking the ones I remember from 7th grade social studies. Frankly, if you're not a "rich", white male America has pretty much sucked for you at one time or another. So yes, Rush and the rest of you "true patriots", the Constitution was a flawed document, Americans are flawed people, and America is a jacked-up country - but all three are also the greatest in the world.

And if that juxtaposition makes your heads explode, all the better.

Full post and comments here...

You Really Have To Pay Attention To Words

Well freakin' done.

Get the latest news satire and funny videos at 236.com.

Full post and comments here...

A Subtle New Strategy?

It's the final week of campaigning and the candidates are making their closing arguments to the American people. McCain is presently on his "Joe the Plumber" tour, trying to draw attention to Obama's "socialist" leanings. Obama has bought up 30 minutes of advertising time on two major broadcasting channels (at $1 million a piece) to outline his plan for the next four years. As a preemptive strike, the McCain camp put out this ad about tonight's inf-"O"-merical...



Did you catch that? "The fact is, Barack Obama's not ready...yet." What's that "yet" in there for? The way that it was spoken, and displayed on the screen, doesn't the statement seem to indicate that he will be ready in the not-too-distant future? Perhaps this is a subtle (a much-lacking descripter of the McCain campaign) attempt to sway on-the-fence Democrats and Independents to vote McCain now and Obama later, once he's got a bit more experience under his belt.

It's not quite committing to serving only one term, but it is an interesting tactic. Still, as with much of McCain's tactics over the last few weeks, it's likely too little too late. Full post and comments here...

Oh No He Didn't!

I think this is probably the first time that the Obama campaign has explicitly (though wordlessly) called into question McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as VP nominee.

Full post and comments here...