McCain: What the World Will Look Like in 2013

[Darius871]

A quote from a spokesman "clarifying" McCain's position today doesn't answer the question I posed.

To clarify, you accused McCain's mentioning talks with Hamas of being hypocritical, which of course suggests that McCain has at some time in the past criticized Obama for (supposedly) intending to open talks with Hamas.

I'd only read that McCain 1) criticized Obama for (supposedly) intending to have unconditional talks with Iran, and that he 2) "emphasized" a Hamas spokesman's preference for Obama, but I'd never read where McCain 3) actually criticized Obama for (supposedly) intending to have any sort of talks with Hamas, so I simply asked you for quote #3 as it undergirds your point about the hypocrisy. I don't see how Bounds' comment today answers my question.

[Ramo]

Did you read my last post?

And again, McCain's spokesman spelled out his public position pretty well. I'd imagine that he was pretty careful about the wording here, and it jives with everything I know about American-Israeli politics, so I don't see the point in looking for a direct quote.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
Did you read my last post?

I hadn't due to the near-xpost, but what I gather is that there's no actual accusation behind Door #3, only an ever-so-subtle implication that one who tries too hard might extrapolate from McCain's and Bounds' comments regarding #1. Typical.

[Ramo]

I have no idea what your point is. You asked for proof that McCain was criticizing diplomacy with Hamas; I provided proof. Again, are you saying that McCain's spokesman is lying?

[Ramo]

only an ever-so-subtle implication that one who tries too hard might extrapolate from McCain's and Bounds' comments regarding #1. Typical.

The subject here is Hamas, not Iran. WTF

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
I have no idea what your point is. You asked for proof that McCain was criticizing diplomacy with Hamas; I provided proof.

I did not ask for proof that McCain was criticizing the abstract notion of diplomacy with Hamas. Rather, I asked for proof that McCain ever directly accused a certain individual named Barack Obama of intending to engage in unconditional diplomacy with Hamas.

I don't know how much more clear that can get.

[Ramo]

He implicitly said that Obama was pro-Hamas. Why the **** else would he bring up a member of Hamas' supposed preference in the Presidential race?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why the **** else would he bring up a member of Hamas' supposed preference in the Presidential race?

All that McCain's emphasizing the Hamas statement "implies" to the voters is that an Obama presidency would ultimately be better for Hamas' interests than a McCain presidency. Drawing any more meaning out of it says more about you than it does about McCain.

What I want to know is where McCain commented on Obama's intentions regarding the conditions of talks with Hamas, or lack thereof. I simply can't find any such comments, so I fail to see where he accused

[Ramo]

All that McCain's emphasizing the Hamas statement "implies" to the voters is that an Obama presidency would be better for Hamas' interests than a McCain presidency.

Yes. As I wrote, "He implicitly said that Obama was pro-Hamas." Can you suggest the grounds on which he's making that case, given that they have basically identical Hamas policies?

[Ramo]

his response was simply that it's an interesting look at how enemies view America

Totally ridiculous. I don't know how you can say that in the context of post 9/11 politics. He also, in the Stewart interview, claimed that it's of interest to the voters.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ramo
He also, in the Stewart interview, claimed that it's of interest to the voters.

That part is true...

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
Yes. As I wrote, "He implicitly said that Obama was pro-Hamas." Can you suggest the grounds on which he's making that case, given that they have basically identical Hamas policies?

I don't see where he's making a "case" needing "grounds" when all we're talking about here is supposed implications in our own minds which the man may or may not have intended. He may have only had Hamas' perspective on an Obama presidency's effect in mind, with no reference whatsoever to what Obama would or would not do wrt Hamas.

Hell, when Jon Stewart pushed McCain about what he really meant between the lines, his response was simply that it's "indicative of how some of our enemies view America." This sounds more focused on, as I mentioned, Hamas' perspective than what Obama would or whould not do.

So again, I would like to know when McCain actually accused Obama of subtantively deviating from the "same public position" that I agree McCain, Clinton, and Obama all share. All I see so far is an emphasis of how Obama is perceived by Hamas, but I concede that you're more privy to the soundbytes of the day than I, and should be able to lay down the accusation on a silver platter.

[Ramo]

his response was simply that it's "indicative of how some of our enemies view America."

As I wrote, that's a totally ridiculous explanation that no one who has lived in the Bush era should take seriously. How, exactly, do you think this is of interest to the American public, as McCain told Stewart?

Are you saying that McCain meant that Obama can make bad guys magically like us even in the absence of change in policies? If that's the case, McCain should probably concede...

[Darius871]

Meh, I'm not going to take this semantic quibble any further when I don't agree with either candidate anyway (I'm for unconditional diplomacy in all instances personally). I was just naturally curious what the substantive basis of your logic was, and it's now clear that we're only hypothesizing about supposed subtext. While it may be true that supposed subtext makes up 99.9% of politics for most voters (especially after the Bush era), that doesn't mean I have to stoop to their level. As soon as a candidate actually goes on the record about something, then it might pique my interest.

[Ramo]

While it may be true that supposed subtext makes up 99.9% of politics for most voters (especially after the Bush era), that doesn't mean I have to stoop to their level.

So what McCain tries to communicate to electorate (i.e. not so subtly claiming that Obama is in bed with Hamas) is of no interest to you? I personally consider calling the loyal opposition pro-terrorist to be a bad thing in a political leader.

There is only one clear interpretation (unless you actually think McCain's trying to attribute to Obama super badass diplomatic powers that would render McCain's own candidacy next to pointless). I don't know how you could disagree.