Ingraham complained Obama didn't "talk about Hamas endorsement," ignoring Obama's denunciations, Hamas' retraction of endorsement
SUMMARY: On The O'Reilly Factor, Laura Ingraham said that when Sen. Barack Obama was speaking at a fundraiser to Orthodox Jews in New York, "He did not talk about the Hamas endorsement." But Obama has repeatedly denounced Hamas, including during his comments to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, in which he said: "We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements."
During the June 6 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, guest host Laura Ingraham said that "the other day, [Sen.] Barack Obama was speaking ... at a fundraiser to Orthodox Jews in New York." She said of his comments, "He did not, however, address the relationship that he has had in the past with Reverend [Louis] Farrakhan. He did not talk about the Hamas endorsement." But Obama has repeatedly denounced Hamas, including during his June 4 comments to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), in which he said: "We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements." As Media Matters for America noted, Obama has repeatedly stated that his willingness to meet with international adversaries "does not include Hamas" and that he "does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements."
Moreover, after Obama's AIPAC address, Hamas reportedly retracted its endorsement of Obama. According to Reuters, Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri stated on June 4, "Hamas does not differentiate between the two presidential candidates, Obama and [Sen. John] McCain, because their policies regarding the Arab-Israel conflict are the same and are hostile to us, therefore we do have no preference and are not wishing for either of them to win."
From Obama's address to AIPAC:
OBAMA: The long road to peace requires Palestinian partners committed to making the journey. We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot. The Israelis and the Palestinian Authority warned us at the time against holding these elections. But this Administration pressed ahead, and the result is a Gaza controlled by Hamas, with rockets raining down on Israel.
The Palestinian people must understand that progress will not come through the false prophets of extremism or the corrupt use of foreign aid. The United States and the international community must stand by Palestinians who are committed to cracking down on terror and carrying the burden of peacemaking. I will strongly urge Arab governments to take steps to normalize relations with Israel, and to fulfill their responsibility to pressure extremists and provide real support for President [Mahmoud] Abbas and Prime Minister [Salam] Fayyad. Egypt must cut off the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps -- consistent with its security -- to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements -- as it agreed to with the Bush Administration at Annapolis.
Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper -- but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.
From the June 6 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
INGRAHAM: I do this thing on my website called "The Pander Alert," OK, and on my show -- who's pandering to what group. And I know that's politics. But Howard, the other day, Barack Obama was speaking to -- at a fundraiser to Orthodox Jews in New York. And he was talking about Israel and you know, trying to obviously, I think, smooth relations between Jewish voters and his campaign.
He did not, however, address the relationship that he has had in the past with Reverend Farrakhan. He did not talk about the Hamas endorsement. Is that enough? I mean, for Jewish voters across the United States? Don't you have to do more than just try to make nice on the surface?
HOWARD GUTMAN (member of Obama's national finance committee): It would be great if he had addressed his relation with Reverend Farrakhan, since he had denounced Reverend Farrakhan long before he ever ran for president. Barack Obama is by far the strongest candidate for Jews and for Israel in this entire race. He's come out of Chicago, ran -- supported by the Jewish community by Penny Pritzker, by the entire Jewish community in Chicago was where he got the start in politics. His position on Israel is second to none. Witness the AIPAC speech yesterday.
So, true, there's a lot of misinformation in the Jewish community. It's something I've been working on in the last 16 months. But there is no stronger friend of Israel and no better friend for the Jewish community than Barack Obama.















I am suprised FOX has not given her a show of her own...
I expect Faux News will do something totally repugnant, such as pairing Laura Ingraham with one of Bill O'Reilly's favorite guests, "feminist" Marc Rudov:
Obviously, she is an absolute IDIOT since she fails to understand that Obama has DENOUNCED Hamas. What part of that is difficult for you to grasp, Laurie?
Once again, a moronic con talker ignoring the facts. What else is new?
Obviously, she is an absolute IDIOT ...
Laura Ingraham has been an absolute idiot for years. That's why the brain-dead righties love her.
And Laura? In case you're reading this thread, bite me.
And why should President Obama (forgive my hubris) talk about something he has no control over? Dumb question from a dumb questioner.
My rhetorical question is this: Once Obama becomes president, will these righty talkers support him? Will they call anyone who disagrees with him unpatriotic?
My rhetorical question is this: Once Obama becomes president, will these righty talkers support him? Will they call anyone who disagrees with him unpatriotic?
Of course not. They'll attack and smear him every day of his administration, just like they treated Bill Clinton. Remember the right-wing wacko mantra - Democrat BA-A-A-A-A-A-A-D, Republican GO-O-O-O-O-O-D......
Media Matters ignores that Obama changed his position (flip-flopped) the next day regarding the division of Jerusalem, which was the issue that made Hamas un-endorse him.
<i>Did Obama seek out the endorsement of Hamas, yes or no?</i>
Of course not. Who is suggesting Obama sought Hamas' endorsement?
Critics of the endorsement stress the fact that the fact that Hamas wants Obama to win the presidency is reason not to vote for him.
Who is suggesting Obama sought or wants Hama endorsement? That is a truly disengous qustion and you know it. Even FOX cannot come right out and say "Obama needs endorsement from Hamas to satisfy far left Dems".
But they can reinforce the lies that circulate via email and message boards that Senator Obama is secretly a Muslim and wants to enslave whites.
Why the bold you ask? Because the real message is between the lines, so I am posting in bold so you won't miss it.
Write an email to Media Matters and tell them they shouldn't care about Hamas' endorsent. Tell them to stop writing "irrelevant" stories such as this one.
If their "unendorsement" is important, whi is the endorsement not important? What's up with the double standard?
If you don't like what MMfA writes about, tough.
if Truthseeker doesn't like what MMFA reports here, maybe he should go over to the Media Research Council web site. Their meaningless crap may be more to his liking......
They are criticizing her because what she says is not accurate or reliable.
Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda.
It forwards the conservative agenda to ignore Obama's denounciation of Hamas. She present a misleading image of Obama as someone who refused to denounce them when in fact he did just that.
That's why Media Matters covers this.
Ellie/nomobush/notthatgeorge
Care to defend Sueeld against Truthseekers slur below? or are you not agreeing with what she said about Obama and Hamas?
Okay, so now it's my job to defend another poster when you demand it?
I don't think so.
What's clear is that it's your job to attack me with vile, baseless attacks. There is no reason for you to demand from me that I defend another poster, and you don't have that right, but you do.
Don't you know how sick this looks? I made a post defending Media Matters and clearly explaining why they made this posting and you think an appropriate reply to that post of mine was to demand that I defend Sueeld?
Truthseeker never said what Sueeld said that he said.
He then mockingly called her a genius for distorting what he did say.
What unfair smear does she need defending from? She distorted what he said and he threw it back at her for her error.
He's a deceitful and misleading poster himself who twists words and says stuff that isn't accurate or reliable all the time. That doesn't change the fact that Sueeld accused him of saying something that he didn't say.
Truthseeker
Please do not lie, Obama did not ask for Hamas support.
I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about the Hamas "endorsement" itself.
It's not Obama's fault that Hamas endorsed him. But Hamas' endorsement is fair game, as critics may point out that Obama's positions attract terrorist groups.
Looks like SUEELD was the only genius who somehow read somewhere that I said Obama sought Hamas' endorsement.
It's not Obama's fault that Hamas endorsed him. But Hamas' endorsement is fair game, as critics may point out that Obama's positions attract terrorist groups.
And your positions attract derisive laughter.
Of course, there are some positions of McCain's that terrorists also find attractive...
That depends, of course, on McCain actually sticking with a position long enough to make it matter...
"as critics may point out that Obama's positions attract terrorist groups."
Plural usage noted. What other "terrorist groups" are on the record as "attracted" to Obama?
Yes, critics who don't know any better or have agendas to serve will point out the Hamas "endorsement," just as we see the morons of Fox News doing in this example, despite evidence that Hamas has flip-flopped and is now equally repulsed by both Obama and McCain.
You are the one that's lying, suggesting that I ever said Obama sought Hamas' support.
When did I say that?
The issue of Hamas' 'support' for Obama is IRRELEVANT. THAT is what you are failing to understand. Obama does not get to choose who 'supports' him and this 'guilt by association' thingy you morons love to use reeks of DESPERATION.
It will not work... especially with intelligent voters... simply because it is irrational.
As for those who fall for it... they and only they are a reflection of themselves and the moronic side they represent. Get it now?
It's relevant for MMFA because you jackasses on the Right keep pounding away at the 'guilt by association' drum.
Obama - Hussein - Muslim - Hamas - destruction of Israel - bad for America. See? That's how your infantile minds operate - make assumptions and links using 'buzzwords' using zero logic and critical thinking skills.
Want an example? Remember that moron from the Indiana diner whose oh-so-brilliant quote made it into the papers about Obama being a Muslim and anti-American? Because of what, you ask? Because he has the middle name Hussein?
...dumb, dumb, dumb, DUMB!
I don't belong to the "right".
Sometimes people do not parrot pro-Obama talking points 100% of the time. Look at wingnut SUEELD. He's an ultra-conservative who is defending Obama in this thread.
Clearly, you belong to the 'wrong'
Also - if Hamas knows that Americans won't vote for the candidate they want to win, then why wouldn't they say they want the other guy to win?
I can see right through their trap. I'm voting for Obama, just to spite those terrorists!!!
I don't belong to the "right".
You're bought and paid for. It's obvious.
Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda.
When this rightwing mouthpiece said what she said, it was not accurate information and it furthered the conservative agenda because it puts Obama's stance towards Hamas into question.
Media Matters got it right. It's not their fault if you can't see it.
He did not, however, address the relationship that he has had in the past with Reverend Farrakhan. He did not talk about the Hamas endorsement.
Why should Obama have addressed either? As many here have already stated he did not seek out either the endorsement from Hamas or Farrakhan. And he distanced himself from Farrakhan long ago. And the Hamas endorsement was about as relevant as a KKK endorsement of McCain would be.
I'm more irked that our political leaders still feel the need to go pander to AIPAC. It's our totally unfair bias towards Israel that has been the cause of many of our problems in that region.
Snoop, don't be a bad doggie & force me to whack you across the nose with my newspaper ;-)
My point was that even if the KKK endorsed McCain [which they have not], that doesn't mean McCain would welcome their support. Just like Hamas endorsing Obama didn't mean Obama welcomed that support.
And though you're correct in saying Hamas can't vote...there would be some on the extreme far-left who might look at that endorsement favorably.
Now git into your doghouse till I tell ya you can come out.
Oops! No doggy house for me tonight, J-man! The KKK loves M-k-k-k-ain!
I pee in your general direction (said in a french accent!).
Ha! Yeah that looked real authentic Snoop... did you make that video in your basement? ;-)
Seriously though, if the KKK had actually endorsed McCain, it would be news...not just some video featured on an obscure website.
Of course the New Black Panthers actually did endorse Obama [the endorsement was even featured on Obama's website, till he smartly removed it]....It's the game of politics," the NBPP's Malik Zulu Shabazz told WND. "The camp's move to remove our blog doesn't mean much because I understand politics. We still completely support Obama as the best candidate."
Shabbaz, who has given scores of speeches condemning "white men" and Jews, said today Obama "is the best guy to bring the kinds of racial changes supported by our community at the New Black Panthers."
Sorry it's the doghouse for you. And no dinner. Not even a bone ;-)
Seriously though, if the KKK had actually endorsed McCain, it would be news...not just some video featured on an obscure website.
Not necessarily. The KKK is an irrelevant group of losers whose positions are well-known and repudiated by thinking Americans everywhere.
I'm more irked that our political leaders still feel the need to go pander to AIPAC. It's our totally unfair bias towards Israel that has been the cause of many of our problems in that region.
Careful, Jeter2. Your anti-semitism is showing ;P
I swear it kills me how some on the right suddenly turn PC and overly sensitive when people rightly criticize our relationship with Israel.
Yeah, why not the Gray Panthers in reference toGramps McCain?
(Because they don't like him, for one thing...)
The commentators at Fox have gone way over the edge. They no there is no dirt out there on Sen. Obama so they resort to petty and meaningless conections or out right lies to smear him. Trust if the Clintons couldn't dig anything up on this man no one can. I just hope they keep pushing so far that they finally fall off the cliff and everyone who watches sees them as the senseless gullible bullies they are.
It's Farrakhan all over again. I guess he has to reject and denounce. Unfortunately, the republican hate machine is just getting started. They are attempting to walk that fine line of race baiting and being edgey. The problem is they the country is not as tolerant of this ignorance as it once was. I'm proud as an American, but more importantly an African-American that the media is actually beginning to call out its members who are agents of intolerance.