http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5DNpJBzxG8

“Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged today that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that Jerusalem “must remain undivided.”

Obama, during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-israel lobbying group, had called for Jerusalem to become the site of the U.S. embassy, a frequent pledge for U.S. presidential candidates. (It is now in Tel Aviv.) But his statement that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.”

The US has no official position on the status of Jerusalem other than to insist that the two parties work it out between themselves. It is considered one of the most sensitive points in negotiations between the PA and Israel, and most diplomats avoid mentioning it at all to avoid unnecessary provocations while trying to get the two parties to talk.

Obama apparently doesn’t know that — because he hasn’t any experience at it.

So let’s make this very clear. Under pressure from Palestinians and terrorists, Obama caves on perhaps Israel’s most fundamental issue. Not a good sign for those meetings with Ahmadinejad.

I wouldn’t be surprised if all kinds of people do some pretty wild and crazy things to try to get Barack riled up.

There are worse combinations.

Also, Obama/Webb is easy to fit on a bumper sticker. Obama/Sibelius no way; Obama/Richardson still too long.

I say this as a born-and-raised Abu-Saba; my brother and I are also (formerly) skinny kids with (still) funny names. One funny name is enough. Two are too many.

I had a friend named Seidenheimer a long time ago and I used to say it would be good for us to get law degrees and go into practice together, just so we could have a door painted with Abu-Saba and Seidenheimer. We had a good time imagining who else we could invite to be in the firm, like Mmes. Yamamoto, Villaraigosa, Shalikashvily, and so forth. This would be lots of fun as a Brooklyn or San Francisco law firm, but not so good for a presidential ticket.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. Joe Lieberman – who has taken on increasingly high-profile campaign roles on behalf of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain – announced Thursday that was launching and heading a new grassroots organization, “Citizens for McCain,” with a direct appeal to Hillary Clinton’s disappointed supporters.

“The phones at the campaign headquarters have been ringing with disaffected Democrats calling to say they believe Senator McCain has the experience, judgment, and bipartisanship necessary to lead our country in these difficult times,” Lieberman wrote in a message sent to the Arizona senator’s supporters. “Many of these supporters are former supporters of Senator Clinton.”

I Have my list as follows

1. Webb
Brings Military muscle. And makes Rikyrah’s map arguement sore! His book, is almost taylor made and in sync with Obamas books.

1a. Gov. Sebelius.
This is not a get the women vote pick., This is a look at the Highly Rated Dem. Gov of a red state who was born in Ohio and can bring economic expierence pick..Who just happpens to be a woman.

2. Sam Nunn.

Represents the old Bluedog bunch which is bad, but brings National Security exp. that is Second to None. Him and Carter on the stump might be enough to still GA away.

3. Bill Richardson. Prolly the most qualified of everybody, but this ticket is a tough sell. Using Rikyrah’s arguement for this one.

I keep seeing Gore’s name, but my question is, why would THAT guy want THAT job again? He was jobbed from the position, and now he gets to be mr. irrelavent AGAIN?? I dont think he’ll bite

Fron Ed Morrisey:

Now that Barack Obama has turned his attention to the general election, he needs to move away from his MoveOn-endorsed positions in order to make a claim among centrists and independent voters. Yesterday he tried doing exactly that on Iran, and ABC noticed the shift. After spending most of the last eighteen months criticizing the Bush administration’s efforts on Iran, he has transformed into a hawk that now espouses the same policies as the current White House:

In his speech Wednesday before the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, Obama sounded a bit like the more hawkish officials in the Bush administration.

He said the military option is “on the table” for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program, and in stark contrast to earlier statements, he said he would meet with Iranian leaders “if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States.”

Obama’s tone was strikingly different from it has been in the past.

During a debate last summer, he said he would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders and other American adversaries “without preconditions” during the first year of his presidency. Today, he made it clear that we should not expect a President Obama to be sitting down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad any time soon:

“[A]s president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States. That is my position. I want to be absolutely clear.”

The Obama campaign insisted that Obama has not changed his position, but ABC quotes him verbatim from last July’s YouTube debate to demonstrate the extent of his shift. He made clear his opposition to the notion that direct, head-of-state level talks with terrorist nations endorsed and encouraged their terrorism. Now he has adopted that premise in arguing against talks prior to the Iranians suspending their uranium enrichment.

As ABC points out, that is also the Bush administration position. Condoleezza Rice has publicly stated that the US would be willing to meet at the highest levels if the Iranians verifiably suspended uranium enrichment and stopped funding terrorists. This White House held ambassador-level talks with Iran about the security issues in Iraq even without those preconditions, talks which the Iranians refused to continue. Obama’s arguing for the Bush policy that he claims has gone so wrong.

Just like Harrison Ford was a kick-ass President in “Air Force One”, I want a President who can stick it in the same way.

I think Jack Kennedy could kick ass.

I Know Lyndon Johnson could kick some ass; that’s how he got stuff done in the Senate and as President.

Nixon talked trash and ran away like a lil’ byotch.

Carter was too much of a gentleman to engage in fisticuffs; too bad, he might have kept Reagan from getting in the joint if he’d known how to throw a roundhouse.

Reagan was a fake cowboy like his boy John Wayne, and was a fake acting like he was President.

Bush, Sr was Chief Spook – but he did look like he could throw a punch or two.

Clinton talked trash for the most part; however, if backed into a corner, he looked like he could take a punch as opposed to throwing one. Mostly…people around him that got in his way…turned up DEAD. Now, I’m not saying he was responsible…but that’s some Al Capone-Don Coreleone shyt right there. Until his wife tore his drawers off and we learned she was the one with the cajones.

Lil’ Bush – trash talking tough guy who I wished Webb had thrown that right hook, just to see if Lil’ Bush crumpled to the floor like a deck of cards.

I now want a President who’s workouts might include Billy Blanks Tae-Bo classes, so he can perfect grabbing Lieberman or some other wanker by the collar and getting them told. ‘Nuff said, LOL.

He’s either Stepin Fetchit or H. Rap Brown. No in-between. Don’t we all have to deal with that at some point or another?

Me too. As a matter of fact, I was troubled by certain points in his well-delivered speech to AIPAC yesterday.

I am also troubled by his being against even filing articles of impeachment against the mobsters Shrub and Darth.

Still, a Dem jacking up JL was long overdue. I liked it. A lot.

As for his VP choice, I’m still partial to Obama/Edwards myself.

An Obama Presidency MUST be about TRANSPARENCY after eight years of backroom-dealing with Iraqi Exiles and US Oil Executives.

So I don’t see it as “enforcing.” I see it as “telling the TRUTH to the American People” or “Keeping it Real.” even when sometimes the “Truth Hurts.”

…w.r.t. Obama bullying Lieberman:
The best thing about the general election campaign is that the deference which *O* gave to Hillary as a gentleman will not apply to McCain or the Republicans.

The “Switch is about to get flipped,” and it will not be about polarizing the country. After eight years, this campaign will be about finally putting this country on the RIGHT Trajectory for the first time in this new century.

Not to mention, enforcer or not, he is a first-term senator as well.

I agree that the ticket needs a disciplined, military-oriented politico to serve as henchman and resident M.F.

That’s the impression I got of Senator Webb upon hearing about his recent encounter with President Bush.

Dude looks intense like he ain’t HAVIN” IT !! The manner in which he stepped to Dubyah at that reception was pure G. LOL

I want Obama/Gore.

Period.

My opinion is that Webb would pull Obama’s political opponents into a back room and beat the hell out of them; he’s a Navy guy, it’s our mentality.

Do y’all think an enforcer-type VP for Obama would be beneficial?

It’s the best ticket for America.

Obama-Webb, Obama-Webb…just rolls off the tongue with total confidence.