Jack & Jill Politics

Maybe I’m reading too much into this, but I seriously think that Obama is going to choose Chuck Hagel as his running mate. Note his acknowledgment of a bipartisanship approach to foreign policy while objecting vigorously to Bush/McCain. While speaking of failed Bush policies he avoids disparaging Republicans.

The old ways will not do, and Senator Obama is changing the political calculus. Hagel represents the vanguard of Republicans who are sensible and don’t need controversial cultural issues to provide legitimacy. Also with a distinguished Vietnam War record of his own, Hagel is the perfect counter to McCain. Additionally, unlike Wesley Clark, Hagel has the proven skill for tough negotiation which is critical in Washington.

As tough as the primary was, this fall campaign will prove to be more arduous. This is no time for political neophytes like Clark or servile adherence to a safe, little known Midwestern Democrat. Obama needs the big joker to win this thing. Only a bold choice like Hagel will solidly confirm Obama’s vision and suck the oxygen from McCain. Obama/Hagel ’08.

Janet,
I guess UN Resolution 1441 doesn’t count, huh?

When I read the comments over at Ben Smith, I was like, HELL YEAH…

Obama put it down in his press conference. Smart, self-assured, competing. And when he flashes that 1,000 watt smile, any tension in the room evaporates.

He’s a badass.

Ain’t nothing more fun then watchin’ Obama slap these fools around. Nothin’.

And I think this affirms Obama’s point that once Sen. Clinton was handled the “nice guy” thing was going to be put on the shelf as well.

Over 70% of this country believes we are headed in the wrong direction, everytime McCain/Bush speaks Obama is going to remind them of that.

If Obama believes the president’s appeasement formulation was wrong, fine; let him make a substantive argument for why that’s the case. And if he wants to present a careful argument for why as president he would meet without preconditions with the leader of not only Iran but also with the leaders of Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, all in his first year, that’s fine, too. In fact, it would be a welcome addition to the presidential debate. But for Obama to lash out in the manner he has is silly and unbecoming.

What is driving this response? Probably the belief by Obama that he’s vulnerable to being portrayed as weak on national security matters and he wants to prove that he can’t be “swift-boated.” But Obama’s response will achieve neither aim and, in fact, it makes Obama look thin-skinned, a bit rattled, and prickly. Indeed, Obama’s response seems so 1990s. His words and the words of the campaign could have come straight from the lips of Paul Begala or other former Clinton attack dogs.

Obama and the Democrat’s DefCon 1 response to the president’s speech to the Knesset is a perfect illustration of the kind of tiresome “old politics” we really don’t need. The early media reports I heard of Bush’s speech didn’t even mention the appeasement line; it was only after Obama’s campaign and other Democrats exploded in (manufactured) fury that it became a political issue at all. Or, perhaps more accurately, a “distraction.” Which is exactly what I thought Obama was trying to move us away from.

Negotiation buys Iran time to build a nuclear waepon which it intends to use on Israel. It is the stated goal of Iran to wipe Israel off the map. I don’t need any ‘intelligence agency’ to tell me this is a hostile regime. Ahmadjinedad is serious.

Iran will start(or should I say escalate) war at the place and time of its choosing and there is nothing we can do to stop them. Threat of retaliation(if they even believe we have the will to make good on the threat) means little to a leader and a culture which embraces martyrdom and apocolyptic visions of the future.

Negotiation implies that the involved parties want to resolve their differences. when has Iran ever stated its desire to do anything other than destroy Israel?

Obama: Hezbollah and Hamas Have “Legitimate Claims”

The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (“Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”

And just what are these “legitimate claims” that Obama mentions in talking with David Brooks of the New York Times?

Is it that the existence of Israel is a catastrophe?

Democratic presidential frontrunner Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director on the board of a nonprofit organization that granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a “catastrophe.” (Obama has also reportedly spoken at fundraisers for Palestinians living in what the United Nations terms refugee camps.)

The co-founder of the Arab group, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, is a harsh critic of Israel who reportedly worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization when it was labeled a terror group by the State Department.

Khalidi held a fundraiser in 2000 for Obama’s failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, at which Khalidi’s wife, Mona, serves as president. The Fund provided a second grant to AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.

Ah, the Woods Fund. Where Barak served with his domestic terrorist friend, Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground, who along with his domestic terrorist (and Charles Manson fan) wife, Bernardine Dohrn, helped kick off Obama’s political career at their house.

Hamas’ charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state, and says (in part):

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.”

“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”

Somehow, I don’t think that is a change most Americans or Israelis can believe in.

But what about Hezbollah?

…Hezbollah’s ideology is inspired by Khomeini, the original leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. According to “The Hezbollah Program”, a document that specifies Hezbollah’s ideology, Hezbollah’s main goals are to fight against “western imperialism”, achieve the destruction of Israel, and establish Islamic rule in Jerusalem. It also supports the transformation of Lebanon into an Islamic state in the same spirit as Iran, which Hezbollah takes as the model of an Islamic state. In addition, the party glorifies suicide bombers as martyrs. It promotes violent resistance as a means to an end and teaches that “each of us is a fighting soldier”. This ideology—which includes anti-Semitic, anti-western and anti-democratic dogma—is indoctrinated in Hezbollah’s schools and kindergartens, which are free for all of Hezbollah’s Shi’a supporters.

I’d really like to know what is legitimate about the claims two terrorist organizations dedicated to the obliteration of Israel in the eyes of Barack Obama.

Please, Barack… do tell.

Just a clarification: I posted my comment at 1:27:00 PM (Fri, May 16) anonymously. I’m saying this and changing my handle to my first name (Setare) to make sure that my comment isn’t thought to be from the same “anonymous” who’s posting all the inflammatory stuff about Obama here.

Negotiation implies that the involved parties want to resolve their differences.

There’s no indication that Israel wants to do that. The are Israelis who openly state that the expulsion of Palestinians was necessary for the existence of the state of Israel to come into existence.

Now, something about your culture might find that acceptable. Some “Americans” have that same attitude about Native Americans — the trail of tears, the whole nine yards. But that’s your bankrupt culture.

I don’t believe many people think Obama is immune from the politics of personal destruction.

But the electorate might have developed some pretty powerful antibodies over the last 8 years.

We’ll find out.

Why don’t you share some evidence of Michelle’s alleged statements.

If Obama considers discussion of foreign policy “divisive”, then he should hie himself right back to Academia. Guess what, Senator? Presidential elections focus on foreign-policy principles, and if you can’t defend yours, then you have no business running for office.

i don’t get the mccsame strategy. it does not seem likely to win. much better to stick with the generalised patriot smears. bad idea to get in to any specifics about mccsame policy. and how about the mccsame dreamer speech? about all the magical things that will happen after four years of mccsame. choose mccsame and everything is going to change for the better?

craig h., but why are his people telling him that? it would seem to me that some notable policy breaks with bush would revive the straight talk express theme. instead they seem intent on mimicking bush. just don’t get it. but o.k. by me if they want to lose.
bush’s zionist appeasement rant took the focus off mccsame’s dreamer speech. hoping the msm will take a closer look at it this weekend. talk about pie in the sky without any nuts and bolts.

There is no reason why the Anon posters can’t type a simple name or serial number in their Anon post for distinction purposes. A few more characters won’t hurt and it really shows a lack of respect for the most basic of common courtesy especially since JJP allows Anon posts which they don’t have to.