Wash. Post falsely reported that Obama questioned "whether McCain was 'losing his bearings' over Middle East peace issues"
SUMMARY: A Washington Post article falsely reported that "[Sen. Barack] Obama questioned in early May whether [Sen. John] McCain was 'losing his bearings' over Middle East peace issues." In fact, Obama was responding to a smear by McCain when he said, "John McCain always says, well, I'm not going to run that kind of politics ... And, so, for him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination."
In a June 3 Washington Post article about the New Jersey Democratic primary race for the U.S. Senate between Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Rep. Robert E. Andrews, staff writer Paul Kane wrote that "New Jersey's Democratic voters will answer a question today that may weigh heavily on John McCain's prospects in November: Just how old is too old?" Kane further wrote of McCain's age, "[Sen. Barack] Obama has yet to raise the issue directly," adding, "The McCain campaign has reacted with ferocity at what it perceives to be even subtle hints aimed at bringing attention to McCain's age, most notably when Obama questioned in early May whether McCain was 'losing his bearings' over Middle East peace issues." However, Obama did not question whether McCain was " 'losing his bearings' over Middle East peace issues"; rather, Obama was responding to a smear by McCain that "Senator Obama is favored by [the terrorist organization] Hamas" when he accused McCain of violating his pledge to avoid negative campaigning. The Post did not note the context of the "losing his bearings" remark or the Obama campaign's subsequent statement that his comment was not about McCain's age.
During an interview with Obama on the May 8 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer quoted McCain as saying, "I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas' worst nightmare. Senator Obama is favored by Hamas. I think people can make judgments accordingly." In response, Obama told Blitzer that McCain's assertion was "disappointing, because John McCain always says, well, I'm not going to run that kind of politics." Obama went on to say: "I've said that they are a terrorist organization, that we should not negotiate with them unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and unless they're willing to abide by previous accords between the Palestinians and the Israelis. And, so, for him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don't need name-calling in this debate."
After McCain adviser Mark Salter asserted in a memo that Obama's "losing his bearings" comment was a "not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said:
Clearly losing one's bearings has no relation to age, given this bizarre rant that Mark Salter just sent out. It's clear why a candidate offering a third term of George Bush's disastrous economic policies and failed strategy in Iraq would want to distract and attack, but it's not the kind of campaign John McCain has promised the American people that he would run.
From the June 3 Washington Post article:
In a preview of what could become a central theme of the fall presidential campaign, New Jersey's Democratic voters will answer a question today that may weigh heavily on John McCain's prospects in November: Just how old is too old?
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, 84, is facing a primary challenge from Rep. Robert E. Andrews (D-N.J.), who has made the octogenarian's age, his competence and the energy he brings to the job the defining issues of his underdog campaign.
[...]
Age has always been a touchy subject in the Senate, where Lautenberg is among 10 current members who are 75 or older. Several in that group have fallen ill in the past year: Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who underwent brain surgery yesterday; Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), currently undergoing chemotherapy treatments for Hodgkin's disease; Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), who was diagnosed with a brain disease; and John W. Warner (R-Va.), who has been treated for abnormal heartbeats since last fall.
Domenici, 76, and Warner, 81, have announced their intention to retire at the end of this year.
Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), who turned 90 in November, remains chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee despite suffering from a tremor and three hospitalizations this year, the most recent coming last night [Story, A2].
McCain's presidential candidacy has raised the age issue to its greatest political prominence since Ronald Reagan batted back a question in 1984 by promising not to exploit the "youth and inexperience" of Democratic presidential challenger Walter Mondale in 1984. If elected, McCain would be 72 next January, the oldest person ever sworn in for their first term as president.
Obama has yet to raise the issue directly. The McCain campaign has reacted with ferocity at what it perceives to be even subtle hints aimed at bringing attention to McCain's age, most notably when Obama questioned in early May whether McCain was "losing his bearings" over Middle East peace issues.
But there has been nothing subtle about Andrews's attacks on Lautenberg. In the only televised debate Lautenberg agreed to, Andrews accused the incumbent of making "a commitment to run a vigorous campaign" and said, "I believe he has not done that."















In fact, Obama was responding to a smear by McCain
That is the basis for the McCain campaign. Smearing Obama. No plan, no vision,just more division. MSM will not report it either.
In fact, whether it was a smear or not is not as conclusive as you make it sound. Politi-fact, named best news website in 2007, concluded that McCain was mostly right when he claimed Obama had been endorsed by Hamas:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/may/09/terrorist-endorsement-obama/
named best news website in 2007,
By whom and why should I care?
You seem to care, since you asked me who named it best news website in 2007.
Anyway, The Newspaper Assosiation of America granted the award:
http://www.naa.org/blog/digitaledge/1/2008/02/NAA-Announces-Digital-Edge-Award-Winners.cfm
We've already been over this. How relevant would it even be that someone from Hamas thinks about our politics and picks who they think should win??!
That's just such a lame talking point, and if I were you, I'd earn a living some other way than posting these dorky comments for 10 cents a pop.
You were listening to Thom Hartmann today, apparently.
but, gee that Palace is cheap;
when I get back to my chilly hall room
I'm much to tired to sleep.
I'm one of those paid misinformers,
a pitiful sell-out, you know,
the kind the right-wing features
for only a dime a throw.
REFRAIN
Ten cents a post
that's what they pay me,
gosh, how they weigh me down!
Ten cents a post
posing like tough guys
Lying does wear me down!
Seven to midnight I post talking points.
Mostly trash talking that blows.
Falsehoods are tearing my conscience.
I cannot crush my foes.
Sometime I think
I've found my hero,
but it's a real queer boast.
All that you need is a screen name
Come on, big boy, ten cents a post.
Anyway, I'm convinced that some of the oddball people that pop in here, poop out right wing spin, then vanish, are indeed paid. Unlike you, me and the others who toil for no pay ;-)
Mary, they should pay you for your work here. But a lot more than 10 cents a throw. But those other cats who come here with the duplicitous talking points, ten cents is really too much. I've actually witnessed some that come here use points made by Ann Coulter in her newspaper articles. It's really too much - after all a mind is terrible thing to waste. :-)
Yes, and if Obama lacked class, he could have shot back with something like "well, the KKK endorsed McCain, so I guess that makes us about even."
Fortunately for most of us, Obama has class. McCain "on the one hand and on the other" does not.
Hey Kyle,
Get a load of this:
Former Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan, endorses Senator Barack Obama.(i.e.,Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia) :-)
The "best news website" agrees that it wasn't Hamas. Sorry, that's not mostly right.
And of course any leap from Yousef's statement (which was correct by the way) to an assertion that Obama is weak on security has zero foundation.
Whoops, I read Hamas as a person, misreading this sentence: "Hamas won the Palestinian elections in 2006"
I can't compete with the best news website, but I'm still light years ahead of the mainstream media.
But there has been nothing subtle about Andrews's attacks on Lautenberg. In the only televised debate Lautenberg agreed to, Andrews accused the incumbent of making "a commitment to run a vigorous campaign" and said, "I believe he has not done that."
May be off topic but MMFA posted it, the Andrews attacks on Lautenbergs age have been out of bounds. Shame on Andrews. Democrats are not supposed to treat eachother like this.
Heck, I wish Obama did say McCain was off his bearings on Iraq, Iran and enything else foreign policy related. McCain can't get a fact straight to save his life.
Anybody ever hear of a double entendre?
Who cares? Obama's rejoinder occurred back on May 8th.
It is getting bad when you have to point out Applebee's lack of salad bar and old quips about McCain's age.
DB,
I know the article is recent. MMFA in my opinion, looks foolish for highlighting such a minor point. It's as laughable as the Applebees thread and borders on the pathological. MMFA is becoming a parody of itself.
The "losing one's bearings" can be interpreted two ways. It was relevent back when Obama and McCain were taking the potshots at each other. Even then it was simply snarky on both sides. This article simply referencing the fact at the end of the article that McCain took offense to this a month ago and making it the subject of the thread to again bore us with the alternative meaning, is going way over the top in my estimation.
MMFA is missing the larger picture that it says is it's mission, for irrelevancies and non serious issues like this and the Applebee's thread. Rather than think about what is important and what is not, most of the liberal crowd here forgets what the point is and instead tries to justify what is really something silly.
You're totally wrong again.
It's not true that Obama was talking about McCain's Mideast policy. This article says it was. That forwards the conservative agenda.
It's that furthering of the conservative agenda that's the issue.
"This article simply referencing the fact"
Wrong. The article is not referencing a fact.
The fact is Obama's comment was in regard to McCain's smear tactics, not over McCain's views on Middle East peace issues.
"The "losing one's bearings" can be interpreted two ways."-AA
Yes. There's the usual way it has always been interpreted by everyone who speaks English and the new McCain Campaign way.
Can you provide a single example in American literature where "losing one's bearings" has been undeniably or inarguably used as specifically a pejorative term against the elderly - an agist smear? I would really like to see that. It should be easy to find if your as yet unsupported assertion is indeed true.
Open,
It is not necessary to find any place in literature. The point is that McCain felt this was a veiled reference to his age and he so he responded.
I am not arguing that the traditional interpretation is what Obama meant. I only pointed out that there are two interpretations of Obama's comments regarding McCain. You don't have to agree with McCain to acknowledge that fact.
My point is that McCain's response back in May was minor to begin with and the whole flap lasted maybe one news cycle, but it did occur. The article very briefly points that out. It did not argue one way or the other, it only noted that it occurred.
As I stated earlier, I see here at MMFA an inability to distinguish serious issues from frivolous. This and the Applebees thread are clearly frivolous.
You're totally wrong again. It's not frivilous.
It's not true that Obama was talking about McCain's Mideast policy. This article says it was. That forwards the conservative agenda.
It's that furthering of the conservative agenda that's the issue.
"I only pointed out that there are two interpretations of Obama's comments regarding McCain. You don't have to agree with McCain to acknowledge that fact."--AA
I suppose that is true, but it should be noted that McCain's campaign are apparently the first people in the world to have this interpretation. I don't see how it is rational to possibly believe that is how Obama meant it - especially knowing what the McCain campaign is doing.
In addition, your "shifting emphasis".
First the news was too old. Now it's too minor.
Which is it?
*you're*
(dang it)
Am too.
(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)
AA,
If you have a second, could you go back to the Townsend thread? I want to know what the Democrats did to
"In my view the Democrats have done just about everything in their power, (except remove funding,) to lose the war, even declaring it lost when it wasn't."
Could you please go back and label every strategic decision made by the Dems that led to this conclusion?
Thanks in advance.
Feel free to skip on past as this is way off topic. My friend Fried seems to be stuck on another thread for some reason. No need for me to go anywhere. I'll answer this here and it will be my only comment regarding Fried's question. Time to move on.
Go back and look at all the pronouncements by the Dems. Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Durbin, Edwards, Kerry, Hillary, Obama, and Clyburn. The Dems are so invested in defeat that they cannot even admit when things are going better.
Just one small example to illustrate my point and then I'm done.
In an interview Democrat Majority Whip James Clyburn gave to the Washington Post last July 30th. In that interview WaPo reporter Dan Balz asked Representative Clyburn, “What do Democrats do if General Petraeus comes in in September and says, ‘This is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it’?”. Clyburn responded, “Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that, simply because of those 47 Blue Dogs. I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us.”
I'll continue this discussion anytime the thread is relevant, but I'm done for now.
AA,
Thanks, but that was absolutely mind-boggling. NONE of those guys is invested in defeat, but rather want to see America's best fighting enemies of the United States.
I guess you felt that the right was anti-American and invested in defeat when Clinton was President, correct?
I appreciate your response, but I really am disappointed that you see those on the left who want Americans to fight those who attacked us as investing in defeat.
You said that the Dems were doing everything they can to defeat American interests. Unfortunately for your reasoning, speeches here do not make tactical decisions. Any policies that didn't work in Iraq are solely the domain of Bush, the Commander in Chief.
Shinseki wanted 300,000 troops, Bush fired him. Do you think Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, commander of the U.S. troops in Iraq for 2003-2004 is actively cheering for defeat?
"Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded ground troops in Iraq from 2003 to 2004, has since been speaking out about the conduct of the Iraq war — especially about what he calls the Bush administration's "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90229404
The Dems I have voted for, AA, have consistently supported troop benefits when they return. They look out for their every need. They want only the best for America's fighting men and women as do Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin and the rest.
Typical BS, AA. Clyburn was talking about the effort to legislate withdrawal from Iraq.
At the time you kinda got it, as the best you could come up with was “I think you are spot on that Clyburn is speaking in political terms. However it still comes across as a Freudian Slip and makes the Democrats look very bad. .” - anotheramerican / Friday August 3, 2007 11:49:44 AM
You knew a liar could use this quote to portray Democrats as “invested in defeat” and now, ten months later you offer it as your “small example.”
Clyburn was talking about the effort to legislate withdrawal from Iraq
Right, not to mention his response was not to any reality of victory, but to a question about what Petraeus might say.A pretty simple and obvious analysis, in political terms, of the effects of a yes-man for the White House spreading the "good news" talking points.
AA continues his sad descent into dittobot trolldom.
Craig,
Nothing I wrote here is at odds with what I wrote then. Your quote only proves it.
Like I said, you only partially got it before.
Maybe you had a Freudian slip that makes you look very bad.
AA,
I know this is off-topic, but did you accuse Republicans of wanting to lose in Somalia and Kosovo when they screamed there was no goal or exit strategy?
And the point of the Applebee's item was not that there's no salad bar there.
It must be strange going through life like that, just completely unable to understand the most simple things. Blissful, i'd imagine.
"Who cares?"
Be sure to ask the Washington Post the same question.
It would be much more enjoyable to point out democratic errors and mistakes of course. There are a goodly number of places that do that. Your saying there arn't enough of them?
Hey McSpud was opposed to telecom imunity back in December. He now is all stared all fired in favor of domestic spying with, of course imunity. By your call this is no news either I suppose and totally irrelivent.
Thank you for playing concern troll.
Hahahaha... To make such a big deal out of a nothing like this speaks to your mindset. To start labeling me a troll because I find this thread ludicrous is ludicrous.
I'd much rather read and talk about your subject. MMFA is spinning into irrelevency.
Kyle,
Was that ever in doubt? ;-)
AA,
I think we can add another category here as opposed to WITH?
DEATH. Defend Every Astounding Thread Here!
Funny Tommy! I'll have to remember that one.
Being surrounded by liberals is NOT the devil's playground? You wish.....
;)
You come here, you must love MMFA or us. Or both.
I think thou doth protest too much little buddy.
JJ, I am so misunderstood.......do you really think I don't like MMFA, or the posters here? If that were the case why would I practically get my mail here?
I am thorn, or a pain, or a jerk, or a different opinion who sometimes gets conversations going to disrupt the altogether liberal lovefest......so I complain now and then, but I am so harmless and mostly irrelevant it's amazing. I may enjoy the needling, or the arguing, but I am here to be informed, to hear the other side, to challenge myself and my opinions, and for a little entertainment once in awhile.
And OK, I like you, even though you get under my skin too......in fact I like everybody here, except a few and they know who they are.
Shh, not a word to anyone.......
;)
Yes, we are pretty nice and fun and intelligent and wonderful. I can see why you spend ALL day EVERY day here. We're just gems. Sheesh. :-0)
LOL.
Not so much defending the topic, Tommy, as much as asking that those who attack it show a grasp of it first. That is, it's more interesting to see the opposing viewpoint to the actul point of the item, and not some misunderstanding of it.
Just trying to help out the IDGUTs*
(I Don't Generally Understand the Topic)
And, for Tommy:
Deflect If Corrected, Knowing He Eagerly Attempts Derailing.
Gosh. I feel like Sally Fields at the Oscars! :-)
Thanks, accept my good natured punch to the shoulder back.
Duluth Bucko, you can get Tierra Delfiego.
And look here under the handy dandy imitation of the wild west gunrack, with the look of real wood, for the channel, of your choice.
Odyssius! Odyssius! My friend. What has happened to your Nose?
I've just returned from Rome.
Can you get UHF?
No I don't believe in flying saucers.
Media Matters doesn't note that Obama is indeed favored by Hamas.
Fact-checking award-winning site Politi-fact.com concluded that, " Obama did not deny that the Hamas official had been supportive of his campaign", referring to comments made by Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the prime minister of Hamas.
Yousef said,
“We don’t mind — actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope that he will (inaudible word) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with a great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with domination and arrogance.”
Politi-fact added:
[The word in parentheses above is not audible in the recording, but Yousef's comments before and after the word suggest he was saying "we hope he will win the election."]
No need to visit site all, they start off with this summary:
"SUMMARY: John McCain says Hamas has endorsed Barack Obama. We find it's not an official endorsement, but it's certainly effusive praise."
Sort of like the effusive praise McGramps gets from you know who, right? Eh, no what I mean, nod same as a wink to a blind man, say no more?
You don't note that John McCain is indeed favored by the KKK.
I love your source. Nothing like using shaded out anonymous talking head with no attribution. It is an obvious dirty trick by Democrats.
Having said that, what about a former KKK Grand Kleggel endorsed Obama. Just go google Robert Byrd. :-)
Hey AA:
Since you've apparently been dying to use that KKK/Byrd reference sobadly that you used it twice in the same day, let me ask this: How long ago was it that Sen. Byrd was involved with the KKK?
Sporting guy,
I thought the same thing. Why did someone falsely accuse Mccain of getting a KKK endorsement twice in one day?
I think Byrd was in the KKK way back just before he became a Democrat.
ps. Enough snarkiness. I wish Sen. Byrd a quick recovery from his recent hospitalization. Same to Sen. Kennedy.
Hey AA, once again, you point out what a great gut Obama must be to garner support from a former racist.
Thanks again.
A smear is still a smear, even it's based on some truth Yes, Hamas has spoken highly of Obama, but...
"Whether this constitutes a political endorsement is debatable, as Yousef is in no position to vote for Obama himself, nor did he recommend that others vote for him. And endorsements are usually sought-after and greatly publicized, whereas Obama has in no way welcomed Yousef's supposed endorsement.
Also, saying that Hamas supports Obama is not saying that Obama supports Hamas, or that he would acquiesce to the group's demands as president. Indeed, Obama has explicitly condemned Hamas."
What part of the bolded statement is so hard for some to understand?
How bout a cleverly post dated dry cleaning ticket cosigned by Karl and Dick? Laugh that off spreader of a corrosive mythology. :0P
"Nyah nyah na nyah nyah!",Exclaimed the minister's wife.