Don't put yourself to any trouble on my account. My point is that Bush was in office for 7 months prior to the 9/11 attacks. I am sure that he would like to have a do-over of those seven months, as I am sure that Bill Clinton would like to change the approach to terrorism that his administration pursued for eight years.

 

However, we now live in a post-9/11 world, except Obama seems to be stuck with a pre-9/11 world view. That is what makes him so appealing to terrorist organizations like Hamas.

 

Fair enough. Not quite sure I agree 100% on Obama being stuck in a pre-9/11 world.

Oh and this same man, Sami al-Arian, posed for a picture with George W. Bush and his wife Laura in early 2000. They discussed politics as well. Bush later mentioned something in a debate with Al Gore that thrilled al-Arian so much that he began registering local Muslims for the Republican party and he began praising Bush at local mosques.

 

This is according to a Newsweek magazine.

Did Bush spring Sami al-Arian from prison for the photo-op? Had al-Arian been convicted of killing a couple of policeman? Had he bombed the Pentagon and the US Capitol Building before meeting with Bush? If not I do not see the parallel with either Clinton or Obama.

Fair enough. Not quite sure I agree 100% on Obama being stuck in a pre-9/11 world.

I think most people would be willing to overlook Obama's association with former Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn if Obama had disassociated himself with Ayers after the 9/11 attacks. He did not do so and that is why stories of favorable statements by a Hamas leader will have legs in the general campaign. The "Is Obama tough enough to deal with terrorists?" question will be asked over and over by McCain's surrogates and it is a fair question.

Eagle are you part of McCain's press entourage? If not, then do you know someone inside of the McCain organization? My guess is no to both of these, so the only way you even know of these repeated gaffes is through the press. If these things were not reported then neither you nor I would know about them. I have heard each of those items reported, even on FOX news.

 

McCain went through 6 months of bashing by "Conservative media" (his side). Now that it is inevitable that he is the candidate some of the talking heads (Rush and Sean) have eased up on him a bit but even they still take some shots.

 

If the media spent as much time covering McCain's gaffes and his association with his Florida campaign co-chair that was caught soliciting sex in a bathroom, as they do with Obama's poor choice of words about bitterness and a minor association with someone who was part of the weather underground then I'd believe McCain gets some media scrutiny.

 

The 'conservative' news (Feaux) and Drug-o Limbaugh beat up McCain b/c they wanted someone else. They're a propaganda machine and they were pulling for Rudy, and Romney. The media won't talk about his flip-flops on the tax cuts, the religious right, and actual veterans benefits. They give McCain a big pass.

 

Obama's been treated with kid gloves? We spent a week talking about Rev. Wright. And the other day I saw Pravda (Fox) get rid of their usual news ticker to continually play tiny snippets of the "bitter" comment and stuff Wright said. The entire Fox News machine has been attacking Obama for about 15 months now so I don't think we've seen kid gloves.

Obama has had a long term honeymoon with the media compared to Clinton. McCain has gotten off easy because the republican race was boring the past few months. Once the democrats decided it will be interesting to follow how the two candidates are covered. If you look at individual networks, Fox has hammered Obama more than anyone while MSNBC has spent it's time drilling McCain and rooting for Obama. That said, I don't think the american voter gives a hoot who Hamas supports.

Apparently, some are weak-minded enough to have their vote for president steered by public statements from organizations outside of our country. It is the hallmark of desperation to continually employ the politics of distraction rather than have a meaningful debate on a real issue or two.

For all of you who are anti-O, if Hamas had said that they supported McCain in the election, would that determine that you cast your vote for someone else? If they had said that they supported Pres. Bush in the last election? Please answer.

For all of you who are anti-O, if Hamas had said that they supported McCain in the election, would that determine that you cast your vote for someone else? If they had said that they supported Pres. Bush in the last election? Please answer.

As for me, I don't listen to such nonsense when it comes to who I will vote for. I will vote for the one that I think will do the best job of leading this country.

If the media spent as much time covering McCain's gaffes and his association with his Florida campaign co-chair that was caught soliciting sex in a bathroom, as they do with Obama's poor choice of words about bitterness and a minor association with someone who was part of the weather underground then I'd believe McCain gets some media scrutiny.

 

The 'conservative' news (Feaux) and Drug-o Limbaugh beat up McCain b/c they wanted someone else. They're a propaganda machine and they were pulling for Rudy, and Romney. The media won't talk about his flip-flops on the tax cuts, the religious right, and actual veterans benefits. They give McCain a big pass.

 

Obama's been treated with kid gloves? We spent a week talking about Rev. Wright. And the other day I saw Pravda (Fox) get rid of their usual news ticker to continually play tiny snippets of the "bitter" comment and stuff Wright said. The entire Fox News machine has been attacking Obama for about 15 months now so I don't think we've seen kid gloves.

So one station goes after Obama and the rest go after the Conservative. Still kid gloves by my count.

As for me, I don't listen to such nonsense when it comes to who I will vote for. I will vote for the one that I think will do the best job of leading this country.

 

:ylsuper: I'm with you.

Absolutely no one, no one, has had an easier ride than John McCain. The media tries to get Obama on guilt by association or guilt by someone mentioning his name but refuses to point out McCain's continual gaffes about Al Qaeda in Iran (which doesn't exist), his idiotic economic policy, his running as supporting the new GI bill when he voted against it. I could go on.

 

Obama has had the hardest ride from the media, especially Pravda....I mean Feaux News.

They will get to him soon enough, soon as Hill and Obama slug fest comes to an end then it will be open season on McCain.

For all of you who are anti-O, if Hamas had said that they supported McCain in the election, would that determine that you cast your vote for someone else? If they had said that they supported Pres. Bush in the last election? Please answer.

They would never support McCain. He is too strong on Military Affairs.

He wants to get rid of terrorists.

I think most people would be willing to overlook Obama's association with former Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn if Obama had disassociated himself with Ayers after the 9/11 attacks. He did not do so and that is why stories of favorable statements by a Hamas leader will have legs in the general campaign. The "Is Obama tough enough to deal with terrorists?" question will be asked over and over by McCain's surrogates and it is a fair question.

That alone will/would keep me for voting for Obama.

They would never support McCain. He is too strong on Military Affairs.

He wants to get rid of terrorists.

 

Thanks, but that is not my question.

Thanks, but that is not my question.

Try another name for comparison.