OK, yes, McCain's being slimy

The Republicans love to play the guilt by association card. "Look! Hamas endorsed Barack HUSSEIN Obama! He must be Muslim!"

Maybe Hamas is playing this country a bit. What if they want McCain to win the election. What would be the best way to do that? It would be to handicap his opponent. And what kind of handicap plays best with the most vocal segment of our media? Association with terrorists!

So, Hamas simply endorses Obama to help McCain, knowing the Republicans and FOX/GOP news will play it up.

And we have a topic of discussion to keep our minds off the poor economy, the growing violence in Lebanon, the dead and dying in Myanmar, the oil price rising yet again, and all the other real issues facing us.

Now all we need is Britney to go without panties or Miley to pose topless again and our next month of news and blogs will be set!

Hamas also says all Jews should die. Are they right about that also? Why do people take terrorists statements at face value? I hear Hamas is selling land real cheap if any of you guys are looking. They sure could use some buyers who trust them.

The NYT endorsed McCain on the Republican side of he primaries. At the time McCain was starting to pull ahead and I thought this was an attempt on their part to manipulate the Republican primary.

Steve

Didn't some pundit first bring up the subject in a question to McCain? Doesn't that change the slime quotient?

But if Senator McCain w a n t e d to repudiate the endorsement of Hagee or Parsley or whichever cult leader endorsed him, surely he could? just as surely as he w o u l d were the KKK, e.g., being so iconically and mediatically evil, to endorse him: he might wish to God they had kept their bloody opinions to themselves, and wish likewise that the media and every other politician, even every other political opponent, would keep silence, but he w o u l d repudiate their act and not try to play it off as if it is beneath his political dignity to notice.

So I think it is fair to provisionally conclude that Senator McCain is of the opinion that Hagee--if that is the person in question--is not so evil as the Klan, e.g., that he has, perhaps, something, at least, positive going for him. If Mr Sullivan and R. D. want to characterize the articulation of that provisional conclusion by a political opponent of Senator McCain's as 'slime', tant pis pour moi. Perhaps the Arizona senator h a s repudiated Hagee's and Parsley's extremist views at some point; I don't know: someone who cannot bring himself to cast a vote in the public assembly against torture isn't worth the effort required to keep up with all of his opinions and activities.

Yes, yes, I realise that reasonable people cannot legitimately distinguish between 'infanticide' (more precisely, what that word represents in the specific political context here) and 'torture' (more precisely, what that word represents in the specific political context here), and 'the relationship between Senator Obama and Rev Wright' and 'the relationship between Senator McCain and Rev Hagee'. Alas for us, and for our Republic.

If the KKK endorsed McCain, even against his wishes, that would tell us something about McCain, at least in relation to the other candidates. Like it or not, it would tell us that the KKK likes his policies and promises more than Obama's or Clinton's. Would it be "fair" to bring that up? Of course, but that would give McCain a chance to reject the endorsement and score points off it, if he didn't do anything to attract it in the first place.

Obama could score major points if he used this opportunity to turn those awesome rhetorical abilities I keep hearing about against Hamas, letting people know that his opposition to Iraq doesn't mean he's soft on Islamic jihadism. Will he? It's a ripe fruit just waiting for picking; if he doesn't pick it, people can't be blamed for wondering why.