Obama Advisor Resigns Over Ties to Hamas Meetings

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:44:00 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

An informal Middle East advsior to Barack Obama quit the campaign yesterday as the advisor's ties to Hamas were about to become more publicized.

Rob Malley said he wanted to stop being a distraction for the campaign after facing attacks from the blogosphere for months for allegedly being anti-Israel, a charge he denies.

...Malley's departure comes at a sensitive time for Obama, who appears to be nearing the Democratic nomination but has struggled to win the support of Jewish and pro-Israel voters. Hamas, which won Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, refuses to recognize Israel and is dedicated to its destruction.

Malley interviewed Hamas, Palestinian and Israeli officials as part of his job...."To do my job, I have to meet with savory and unsavory people," he said. But Malley said that after he fielded a call this morning from the Times of London, which asked about the Hamas meetings, he decided he had had enough. "

The Obama campaign responded:

"Mr. Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign," said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor. "He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future."

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2023. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Obama Advisor Resigns Over Ties to Hamas Meetings | 115 comments (115 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

resigns after his Hamas meetings (5.00 / 7) (#2)
by angie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:49:43 AM EST

garnered publicity? Sounds like the thief who isn't sorry he did it, but is awfully sorry that he got caught. And of course Obama knew nothing about it -- he never knows anything.

Of course, you do not bother to read the (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by independent voter on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:20:57 AM EST

linked article before coming to your conclusion.

Robert Malley told The Times that he had been in regular contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza and is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation. Such talks, he stressed, were related to his work for a conflict resolution think-tank and had no connection with his position on Mr Obama's Middle East advisory council.

"I've never hidden the fact that in my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people," he added.

This is the reaction I expect from John McCain's people: do not question, do not think, just go with the interpretation that is most harmful to Obama and run with it.
You must be so proud

Parent

: you didn't bother to read my post (none / 0) (#132)
by angie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:30:31 PM EST

do you understand what "publicity" means? It means getting reported in the press -- it does not mean that he was "hiding" what he was doing beforehand, but that now it is getting put out in the public forum. Big difference. Now, try reading what I wrote so that you can respond intelligently.

Parent

No formal role (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by landjjames on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:49:53 AM EST

If the campaign says he has "no formal role", then from what position is he resigning? Maybe it's just too late at night and I don't get it.

I'm sick of the BS (5.00 / 7) (#5)
by diplomatic on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:10:48 AM EST

I think a big backlash is brewing. I don't think this nomination thing is over afterall. Something feels different today.

This will not happen to us again. Not after Florida in 2000. Not again.

hope you're right (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by DandyTIger on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:21:08 AM EST

otherwise we get McCain for POTUS. My fingers are crossed that someone in the party wakes up.

Parent

All Dems should (5.00 / 2) (#92)
by 0 politico on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:52:47 AM EST

be concerned by this tidbit in the Times article:

The Republican National Committee has amassed a 1,000-page dossier on Mr Obama, with researchers spending weeks in Chicago seeking fresh material. He is already being criticised for his links with Rashid Khalidi, a Columbia University professor who has branded Israel an "apartheid system in creation".

What is in that dossier that is going to sway middle of the road voters in the Fall?

Parent

: Maybe that's what the dance (none / 0) (#110)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:44:19 AM EST

with Wright was all about. That slow dance before creating the heartbreaking release to make sure the country got the message....do NOT blame Obama for the words and/or actions of people he has mere acquaintences with.

Parent

"Ties to Hamas" (5.00 / 5) (#9)
by Siguy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:37:01 AM EST

That seems like a seriously inappropriate title if what we're saying is that he interviewed Hamas.

If a reporter goes to Lebanon and interviews an Hamas official, is that reporter now tied to Hamas?

agree (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by sarany on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:13:22 AM EST

I have to agree. I assumed that the guy had historical, or participation ties, not just meetings.

Parent

I agree (5.00 / 2) (#119)
by fuzzyone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:55:48 AM EST

Unfortunately, while I love this site for the most part, it for some reason tends toward a Macarthyite approach when it comes to anything related to Isreal-Palestine. It has happened before and the title of the post is another reflection. Progressives should be outraged by the MSM climate that forces someone like this to resign from the campaign.

As BTD pointed out, the MSM is the enemy when they attack any dem.

Parent

haha (none / 0) (#35)
by miguelito on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:13:31 AM EST

nah, he quit the campaign because he wasn't tied to Hamas

Parent

He quit the campaign because of (none / 0) (#40)
by independent voter on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:23:28 AM EST

perception, OK? Because he and the Obama camp knew that many people would be quick to jump to the most unfavorable interpretation and use it to smear Obama. Sound familiar?

Parent

: Of course it's familiar (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by blogtopus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:39:53 AM EST

It's Obama SOP; we're quite familiar with it.

Parent

He also wasn't (none / 0) (#107)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:40:52 AM EST

tied to the campaign :) Just like Wright.

Parent

Yeah (none / 0) (#100)
by Steve M on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:28:47 AM EST

It would be one thing for political opponents to try and make hay out of this, but I cannot believe the media would report this relationship as "ties to Hamas." That's the real travesty.

Parent

: And the press (none / 0) (#114)
by cal1942 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:57:58 AM EST

hasn't distorted anything about Hillary Clinton. The media has always treated her fairly. And I'm the King of Denmark.
Obama supporters should realize that the press has given him a pass because they hate Clinton and want the Clintons defeated. If Obama's the nominee they'll delight in carrying the McCain campaign's water. If the nominee, the precious will be punched silly.

Parent

obama and hammas (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by debbie f on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:05:57 AM EST

i am afraid that this story unless there is more to it won't get legs to stand on by the msm. i hope and pray that it does. by the way, i am new to this sight, excited to find fellow hillarycrats< i hate being a reagan democrat-- lol. also i am a west virginian educated professional, who will vote as a dem on tues and leave as an indpendnt

So you want to win (2.50 / 2) (#55)
by Pootsteen on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:53:42 AM EST

with inuendo? Obama is a Leader who knows that you have to TALK to all sides to get agreements, unless you are prepared to just kill them all instead.

Not talking to any leader or any group who we don't like (or doesn't have oil) has not served us well the last 8 years.

It is disturbing that you would cheer damaging a candidate over something that an eventual president SHOULD DO. Talk, arbitrate, make peace.

Parent

Problem (none / 0) (#75)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:36:24 AM EST

is that Obama has said that he will speak to them without preconditions giving people like Hamas the upper hand.

So, the problem isn't that he wants to speak to them it's how he wants to speak to them.

Parent

Preconditions? (none / 0) (#82)
by Pootsteen on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:50:01 AM EST

Condi Rice has had preconditions for talking and she has gotten nothing done.

So if Hamas agrees to go away then we will talk to them? What is a precondition?

Parent

It's (none / 0) (#84)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:09:45 AM EST

when you set some ground rules before talking to them. Carrot and stick so to speak. Letting them have the upper hand is not a good thing and could make things worse.

Parent

And Condi's (none / 0) (#85)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:10:51 AM EST

not really using preconditions so much as a "my way or the highway" type stance.

Parent

what is the difference? (none / 0) (#89)
by Pootsteen on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:49:15 AM EST

between my way or carrot and stick?

Could you give me an example of a carrot and stick approach, and then, tell me why the Obama state department would not use that approach?

Parent

: Seriously (none / 0) (#102)
by wasabi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:32:49 AM EST

My-way-or-the-highway: If you do 1,2 and 3, first, then I'll talk to you. (GWB's way)
Carrot-and-stick approach: If you do 1, I'll do 2 at the same time. If you don't want to do 1, then I'll make your life hell.

Parent

Have you ever negotiated anything in your life? (none / 0) (#111)
by blogtopus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:49:35 AM EST

This is rule #1 in any negotiation; you always go in with conditions, not matter how small. Otherwise you're just coming from a position of begging.

Seriously, is that a good thing for the next CIC to be doing? We go from bullheaded cowboy diplomacy directly to elite liberal fawning? And even if that isn't what he's doing, precisely, how do you think McCain would present it?

Parent

Assuming that Obama (none / 0) (#121)
by Pootsteen on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:27:51 PM EST

would have NO preconditions is just an assumption.

Attacking him over simply saying that we have to talk to all sides to make peace, makes no sense.

Parent

: Pootsteen (none / 0) (#128)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:47:05 PM EST

You have 10 comments and are a new poster. You can come back another day.

Parent

Oh really? (none / 0) (#126)
by ctrenta on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:44:53 PM EST

"Not talking to any leader or any group who we don't like (or doesn't have oil) has not served us well the last 8 years."

Then read this!

Seems like you and the majority of Israelis are not on the right page. Kinda weird, especially since this affects them directly.

Parent

Lordy ..how much will the party tolerate.. Add (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Salt on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:40:47 AM EST

this and to Wright, Ayers and Obama likely to tank all Dem seats in non safe districts. I just went from probably to no way a Dem sits in the White House and frankly I am also at the point where I believe that may be a good thing.

Merely Talking to Palestinians (5.00 / 2) (#60)
by tokin librul on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:09:10 AM EST

is enough to get AIPAC on your ass?
Chuy!

Yep. (none / 0) (#62)
by magisterludi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:15:58 AM EST

Parent

: Yes, exactly: (none / 0) (#133)
by jondee on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:32:39 PM EST

talking with them carrys the implication that they may be fellow human beings with possibly SOME legitmate grievances, This attitude towards Hamas contradicts too much the prefered hysteria concerning those subhumans who will stop at nothing short of "driving Israel into the sea" -- 200 warheads notwithstanding.

Parent

What's Wrong With Talking (5.00 / 4) (#71)
by CoralGables on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:27:03 AM EST

If we can't talk to Hamas or Cuba we also can't talk to Nelson Mandela. Our Terror Watch List sports such violent people as Nelson Mandela and Cat Stevens along with close to 1 million others. That doesn't bode well for our credibility on these issues. Logically, shouldn't our own President be at or near the top of every nation's terror watch list?

Maybe it's time we open negotiations and make them more transparent rather than black listing people and governments. One of the times I was more impressed with Obama than Clinton was in the debate when he suggested we open discussions with Cuba. That approach comes off as far more grown up than our current policies.

I'd prefer advisers that have spoken with everyone as opposed to advisers that black list people and governments.

We can't even talk to the Buena Vista Social Club (5.00 / 4) (#77)
by Ellie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:41:21 AM EST

I can't forgive the Bush / Cheney admin for a lot of stuff, but the scorching of cultural exchange is at the top of the list.

Hope this isn't too much of a drift, but they prevented Cuban singer Ibrahim Ferrer from flying in to receive his lifetime appreciation lauds at the Grammys, on the basis that the (then) 84 year old great, who was barely well enough to make the trip, was a terrorist.

The footage of a frail but proud Ferrer saying, "I am not a terrorist," just about broke my heart so bad I could hear the fracture. The patriotically incorrect moment barely even raised a blip in the entertainment news at the time which was all about flag-waving. (I saw it outside Bubble America.)

Parent

You got a link (5.00 / 2) (#87)
by Saul on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:33:54 AM EST

Ellie, I fell in love with the Buena Vista Social Club. The 1999 documentary that film director Winders and musician Ry Cooder did was fantastic. I was amazed at that the talent that still existed in these famous musicians. What started as a messed arrangement to film some africans who were to come over to Cuba for the filmiming in Cuba ended up being a masterpiece. When the africans could not show up for the filming Ry and Winders said what are we going to do now. So Ry decided to salvage the trip and he went into the city to see who they could round up to make some sort of documentary. Well the rest was history. From a messed up gig all the way to Carnegie Hall.

However, I was not aware that they tried to prevent Ibram for receiving his award. Would like to read about this if you have a link.

Parent

More on Ibrahim Ferrer and the Buena's (none / 0) (#98)
by Ellie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:18:12 AM EST

I downloaded the wire stories at the time (a few years ago) and sent them around but there were bigger fish to fry on the poliblogs (and fewer poliblogs.)

I doubt the links from the various wires are still active, but will dig around in my archives and maybe get some vid on this. (Otherwise, Google and Lexis should bring forth the sordid story.)

Great doc from Ry Cooder to expose fantastic artists to a new audience. Eliades Ochoa is a favorite, and anyone who loves Latin Jazz MUST MUST MUST check out (double bassist) Orlando Cachaito Lopez's Cachaito CD of cool rumbas, backed up with greats in their own right.

(Here are samples of Tumbanga and Redencion.)

Parent

: Thanks Ellie (none / 0) (#127)
by Saul on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:54:37 PM EST

Parent

If wishes were horses, (none / 0) (#80)
by magisterludi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:43:33 AM EST

beggars would ride!

To paraphrase someone we all know and loathe - we deal with the electorate and spineless politicians we have, not the ones we wish we had.

Parent

Then experience (none / 0) (#83)
by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:52:08 AM EST

will demonstrate what happens when preconditions aren't met and how the terrorists groups use the meeting to manipulate for their purposes.

Watch and learn.

Parent

one more time (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by abiodun on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:34:12 AM EST

I remember when Andrew Young, as UN rep was fired for talking to PLO, now that is accepted dogma. The ME problem appears to be very intractable, and may need unorthodox solutions. But to blame a dem candidate for an unpaid adviser who works for an NGO is a stretch. Whether we like it or not, Hamas is a player in Palestine(just like Hizbollah is in Lebanon).
This appears to me like the lions eating its own cubs.
The court appointments are too important to me to sit by and allow McCain in the WH.
Anyone who claims to be a progressive or dem who claims he will vote for Mc100 years, is not a progressive or a dem.

: I think Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#76)
by Fabian on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:39:36 AM EST

should have pointed out that this all started with McCain - ya know, that Republican dude?

Parent
: Welcome to Republican tactics. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by Radix on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:31:16 AM EST

McCain started this silliness and it's going to continue. Is it fair, no. But then neither was what they did to Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, yet here we are. Besides, this sort of thing only plays well with the "bubbas", since we no longer need them to win who cares. FYI, you're not going to scare anyone with the judicial appoints stuff, I'd drop that one.
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

Parent
: Well (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by Steve M on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:39:39 AM EST

I think this guy's role was perfectly defensible.
But Obama is the one who gets to decide what to do about it, not me.
If he's going to make a practice of throwing people overboard as soon as John McCain claims they were once in the same room with a group like Hamas, my opinion is that we're in for a long and ugly election season. But obviously Obama has a different opinion.

Parent

I'm with whoever said (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:54:04 AM EST

that there's been a change in the air. This Hamas thing is just the latest crack. Maybe not in this specific case, but it's starting to bother a lot of folks that Obama's name keeps coming up with ties to folks who are pro-Palestine.

I made a few calls this morning (not now because folks are at church) and people sound angrier than before. And they are angry on behalf of Clinton. They've figured out that she's still in this for a reason, and they don't understand why she's being called to quit. One lady told me that there was a lead-in story on the local news last night about how Obama hasn't really won, and that the paper today said the same thing. She felt duped, and furious.

I told her to go vote.

: "Pro-Palestine" (5.00 / 1) (#134)
by jondee on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:45:38 PM EST

these days seems to mean anyone who expresses the belief that Palestinians have as much right to life, liberty etc as anyone else. Of course, that belief is based on nothing but sheer hatred.
John Haggee's Armageddon Or Bust people were here a month ago and I can tell you they're getting angrier and angrier too: maybe you should call THEM.
That terrorist lover must be stopped.

Parent

I don't get this whole Hamas thing (5.00 / 1) (#108)
by gyrfalcon on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:42:20 AM EST

Obama said he would, as president, go talk to all these bad guys without preconditions. THen he's mad at Carter for talking to Hamas. Then he's got an adviser who talks to them all the time. Then he's mad at the adviser who has to quit.

WTF? Seriously, I don't get it. What actually is his position about talking to bad guys?

: He Has Drawn The Line (none / 0) (#136)
by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:43:44 PM EST

With Hamas. Not new.

Parent

This is sad... (5.00 / 2) (#117)
by kdog on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:28:08 AM EST

A peaceful coexistence of all peoples in the Middle East will be impossible if talking is prohibited. Like it or not, Hamas is a democratically elected government.

I guess there is no place for peacemakers in our politics. You gotta sign a loyatlty oath to Israel or you're hounded outta the game.

If only we were half as worried about appearing anti-Palestine as we are about appearing anti-Israel...maybe we could be an honest peace broker.

: Yes (none / 0) (#137)
by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:52:03 PM EST

But one of the preconditions for being elected POTUS is to be pro Israel and not ever talk to Hamas. That is a hard and fast rule.

Parent

Robert Malley (5.00 / 1) (#130)
by koshembos on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:35:48 PM EST

I don't see a problem with Malley talking or even dealing with Hamas. I heard Malley many times and mostly agree with his views on the conflict.

What surprises me is that a smart person that he is, he has fallen for the charlatan (Obama).

hello bus (4.00 / 4) (#8)
by boredmpa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:33:51 AM EST

Here's a guy that briefs the state department and works for an international crisis resolution non-profit and used to work for Bill Clinton and he just gives unsolicited advice.

So basically, unless he's lying about talking to campaign folks, Obama just tossed a middle east crisis expert under the bus instead of simply saying he's an unpaid expert that works on mid-east conflict resolution.

At least he didn't bus Carter...of course if it were Hillary Carter running, it'd be game on.

Sad (5.00 / 9) (#11)
by otherlisa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:50:44 AM EST

I say this as a HRC supporter and not knowing this guy's background and dealings in the ME - but it's sad that our Middle Eastern discourse has become so stunted that talking to Hamas is grounds for excommunication under the bus.

I mean, Hamas won an election and controls Gaza. It seems that they should be talked to, maybe not by a President or Presidential candidate, but certainly by advisors and experts

Parent

In defense of Robert Malley (5.00 / 2) (#120)
by tree on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:05:13 PM EST

He served as Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs during Bill Clinton's Presidency. His colleagues at the State Department recently issued a statement in support of him.

Over the past several weeks, a series of vicious, personal attacks have been launched against one of our colleagues, Robert Malley, who served as President Clinton's Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs. They claim that he harbours an anti-Israeli agenda and has sought to undermine Israel's security. These attacks are unfair, inappropriate and wrong. They are an effort to undermine the credibility of a talented public servant who has worked tirelessly over the years to promote Arab-Israeli peace and US national interests. They must stop.
We have real differences among us about how best to conduct US policy toward the Middle East and what is the right way to build a lasting two-state solution that protects Israel's security. But whatever differences do exist, there is no disagreement among us on one core issue that transcends partisan or other divides: that the US should not and will not do anything to undermine Israel's safety or the special relationship between our two nations. We have worked with Rob closely over the years and have no doubt he shares this view and has acted consistent with it.
We face a critical period in the Middle East that demands sustained, determined and far-sighted engagement by the United States. It is not a time for scurrilous attacks against someone who deserves our respect.
Sincerely,
Samuel (Sandy) Berger
Former National Security Advisor
Amb. Martin Indyk
Former Ambassador to Israel and Egypt
and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs
Amb. Daniel C. Kurtzer
Former Ambassador to Israel
Aaron David Miller
Former Senior Adviser for Arab-Israeli Negotiations, Department
of State
Amb. Dennis Ross
Former Special Envoy of the President to the Middle East

Personally, one of the few reasons that I even considered supporting Obama earlier was because of advisors like Malley. But looking at how far Obama tacked to the right on Israel in order to curry favor, I assumed that he would at one point or another throw Malley and people like him under the bus. I just didn't think that it would happen so quickly.

Sadly, I think that Obama will offer the same old foreign policy in regards to Israel, which is essentially bending over backwards to favor Israel, to Israel's detriment, instead of standing firm for all human rights regardless of who is violating them. He has no courage to do anything that rocks the status quo. Losing Malley as an advisor is bad for everyone, including Israel.

Link for statement here.

Warning: The link is from mid February at HuffPo. However, there is no bashing of Clinton in the article linked.

Parent

: Thanks for all these comments (none / 0) (#124)
by otherlisa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:25:48 PM EST

I'm beginning to think "under the bus" is the Obama version of "wishing him under the cornfield."

Parent

Talked to (3.66 / 3) (#64)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:18:36 AM EST

I mean, Hamas won an election and controls Gaza. It seems that they should be talked to, maybe not by a President or Presidential candidate, but certainly by advisors and experts

It isn't the place of a presidential candidate to talk to Hamas. It's just plain the wrong thing for them to do. And note the Obama criticized Carter for talking to Hamas. Apparently, Obama stands on both sides of this issue too.

Parent

Re: Sad (none / 0) (#16)
by Sleeper on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:20:01 AM EST

>it's sad that our Middle Eastern discourse has become so stunted that talking to Hamas is grounds for excommunication under the bus.

Agreed. We talk to everyone. We don't do it publically, and we do it with proxies, but it happens.

Now this article says that this fellow's meetings were above board, he wasn't funnelling them money or anything so sinister, and he did so with permission from the State Department. But apparently this is too much for some elements of the Democratic Party.

>I mean, Hamas won an election and controls Gaza. It seems that they should be talked to, maybe not by a President or Presidential candidate, but certainly by advisors and experts

It's a little more complicated than that. In 2006 it won control of the Palestinian Legislative Council and named the prime minister and government, but still had to deal with a president in Fatah, their rivals. HAMAS then rose up last year and took control of Gaze by force, leading to President Abbas dissolving the HAMAS-led PLC and purging HAMAS from the West Bank. So they have no legitimate government at the moment. But at some point they need to be talked to, we can't just ignore them or invade them.

Parent

I disagree with this part. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by Fabian on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:45:22 AM EST

But apparently this is too much for some elements of the Democratic Party.

This was a reaction to McCain making a big deal out of it, and then Obama flubbing the response. So it isn't the Democratic Party, but the Obama Campaign.

Gotta wonder how the Clinton campaign would have handled it. I must say that it doesn't look good for an Obama/McCain competition if this was the opening skirmish. If you are going to go toe to toe with the GOP, I hope you won't back down and cede ground time and time again. (Off to check the Big O's* reaction. "big Orange")

Parent

The Flubbed response.... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by p lukasiak on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:40:09 AM EST

The Obama campaign doesn't understand how to respond to accusations like what McCain's Hamas comment.

The proper way to deal with it would be to point out that

McCain is making things up, just like George Bush did
all people in the middle east want an end to armed conflict rather than more of the Bush/McCain's strategies of hundred-years wars, and that includes the people in the Palestinian territories.

and that's it.

The Obama campaign really needs to press the "hundred years war" theme, because McCain is proposing a permanent military presence in Iraq with no realistic plan to achieve peace there -- but the Obama campaign seems to run on narcissism and low-ball attacks, rather than political ju-jitsu.

Parent

Re: I disagree with this part (none / 0) (#131)
by Sleeper on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:25:20 PM EST

>So it isn't the Democratic Party, but the Obama Campaign.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was trying to say that that was McCain's strategy, to try and peel off Jewish voters by implying he was anti-Israel or something. Should have worded it better.

I don't think Obama flubbed the response, mainly because it doesn't really require a response. McCain's charge was tantamount to calling Ronald Reagan a Soviet agent because he met with Gorbachev. It was just silly.

Parent

This is a 2-edged sword. (4.00 / 1) (#70)
by wurman on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:25:50 AM EST

On the one side, Sen. McCain does not especially need or seek the so-called "support Israel" vote, that isn't really much of a bloc, anyway.

On the other side, Sen. Obama seeks the money & backing of those various groups & some parts of that group (not a bloc, right?) tend to be very traditional Democratic party supporters.

For me, the key aspect is that the Obama campaign didn't attempt to explain, ignored the genuine issue & the debate that needs to be constructed around it (what will be the Middle East policy for Democrats in general & a putative Obama admin?), dropped the ball on counter-attacking the GOoPerz, threw his informal advisor off the plane, and dismissed the dude, his expertise, and the safe parallels to Pres. Carter.

What an out-&-out wuss! This empty suit is Kerry lite. He & his campaign don't even know how to fight back. He goes negative on other Dems & then kow-tows to his "bi-partisan" brethren.

This is a crock of merde & it stinketh.

The pro-Israel (none / 0) (#94)
by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:57:50 AM EST

voter is ripe for McCain's picking. Don't y'all see how Obama's eggheads and aa's coalition has changed the landscape for the republicans? Our core voters are low-dangling fruit for them.

Parent

: Yup! (none / 0) (#104)
by wurman on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:39:11 AM EST

The right wingnutz always have a simple appeal to the hardcore militarists: as per Kaplan twice, Krystal twice, Wolfowitz, Feiths, Perl & Buckshot Cheney's merry band of neokonz.
Sen. McCain picks that lot up, automatically. Now Sen. Obama's lack of skill leaves several other friendly, but not really affiliated, parts of large groups available to the GOoPerz. Saint John need only waltz through FL a few times & he seals the deals, all 'round.
As you state, really "low-hanging fruit," indeed.

Parent
: It would be that simple (none / 0) (#135)
by jondee on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:53:42 PM EST

if "Pro Israel" meant stupid, one-dimensional thinkers who dont look beyond media spin (the ones McCain will always have), but it dosnt.

Parent

Didn't Obama accuse McCain of losing (3.50 / 2) (#14)
by Left of center on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:10:54 AM EST

his bearings because McCain said Hamas would prefer Obama instead of him? Now we find out McCain was right. Way to look like an idiot Obama.
"YES WE CAN" screw up the general electionhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050802428.html

: Re: (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Sleeper on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:21:16 AM EST

Did you even read the article? Just wondering.

Parent

Hamas (3.33 / 3) (#45)
by abiodun on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:39:06 AM EST

So this guy(an informal adviser) works for an NGO that talks to Hamas, and Obama is guilty? Now it seems this is all part of the "kitchen sink"strategy.

: So, why is he under the Obama's bus? (none / 0) (#66)
by feet on earth on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:22:16 AM EST

Parent

American Thinker (1.00 / 1) (#18)
by karen for Clinton on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:39:27 AM EST

I am a dem but when researching Obama last Dec and Jan, and deciding NO WAY back then, I checked the Republican right wing sources to see what they had and found many articles on Israel and Obama and then googled other sources that were more fair and balanced on the facts.

This has been there all along and like the other elephants in the living room they will not be swept under the carpet.

Where there is smoke there is fire.

Unelectable. The GOP recently announced it has been in Chicago digging up real dirt and has 1000 page dossier on OB. He's gonna get his lights punched out and Hillary is gonna step back to the top. Just you wait and see.

NObama (1.00 / 1) (#20)
by hwebb54 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:15:28 AM EST

We can only hope.

Pardon the pun.

Parent

My dream (none / 0) (#22)
by karen for Clinton on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:27:16 AM EST

is that a crew of Watergate style burglars break into every obama office across the country and take the H and C keys from every key board.

His entire message will fall apart.

ope and ange

Parent

That would also mean that (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by kenoshaMarge on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:35:45 AM EST

take the H and C keys from every key board.
His entire message will fall apart.
ope and ange

They could not blame (H)illary (C)linton for everything. Right?

Parent

: lol (none / 0) (#25)
by karen for Clinton on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:38:23 AM EST

Parent

the MSM barely gave any mention to Hillary's (none / 0) (#81)
by thereyougo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:48:02 AM EST

2 fires at her HQ in Tex and Indiana a few weeks ago.

I don't advocate any violence on them --don't need to, but I wouldn't put it past his supporters to be behind it.

Parent

I think they'll wait until Obama is nominated (none / 0) (#23)
by andrys on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:28:11 AM EST

When we can't go back on that nomination, then they will drop the info, to their own advantage. A lot is already known, but Dems will not talk about it to other Dems, as we have a wider range when it comes to differing value systems that must learn to live together. But it'll hurt him and us in the GE.

Parent

Obama began calling for Hillary to GET OUT (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by Josey on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:02:09 AM EST

in mid-Feb - while the Wright videos were still shooting through the tubes. This week Obama pulled a number out of his !*! and declared he'd crown himself on May 20 - before any other damaging info becomes public?

Parent

: 'Mission Accomplished' - May 20, 2008 (none / 0) (#118)
by andrys on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:52:34 AM EST

I can comfortably predict you'll enjoy this column today by Marc Rubin, on his Tom on Paine site. It's about the May 20th Obama Rule that was apparently just added to the DNC rules and supercedes them too.

Parent

That's why she should (none / 0) (#36)
by americanincanada on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:18:33 AM EST

stay in to the convention, quietly lying low.

Parent

GOP won't wait for the Convention.... (none / 0) (#57)
by p lukasiak on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:57:52 AM EST

they've already started, and its only gonna get worse.

Presidential campaigns traditionally spend the summer getting themselves organized for a national (as opposed to state-by-state) campaign. A LOT of hiring is done, plans made, etc that are key to winning in November.

So making Obama unelectable over the summer is a win-win proposition for them. Even if Obama is replaced, Clinton (or whoever is the replacement) can't hit the ground running, and won't have the orginziation she needs in place.

And the GOP is aware of what Clinton supporters already know -- Obama's real "base" is essentially a personality cult that will go to any lengths to ensure that "Dear Leader" is installed as the nominee.

Here's an experiment -- go to any "Obamaphile" blog, and ask...

"Superdelegates have endorsed Obams based on the premise that he would be electable. If the right-wing-noise-machine goes into high gear, and Obama is down by double digits in just about every state by the convention, will you promise not to vilify Superdelegates who want a different nominee, and will you support a different nominee if one is chosen at the convention?"

and watch what happens....

Parent

And the GOP pays $$$ (none / 0) (#50)
by ineedalife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:42:41 AM EST

Is every slum resident going to turn down the GOP welfare plan out of loyalty to Obama? It only takes a few saying pleas to Obama's office were ignored while they froze their butts off in January without heat in Rezko's slums.

I think the Kerry swiftboaters all made out quite well.

Parent

Haratz debunked all of these myths (none / 0) (#58)
by samtaylor2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:02:17 AM EST

Parent

not play any role in the future... NOW (none / 0) (#4)
by DandyTIger on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:10:39 AM EST

but would he have if this hadn't been publicized. Not sure this has legs. At least not in the MSN as we know it. But we'll see what happens in the next day or two. Oh wait, released on a Friday, never mind. It will be ignored.

: a drop in the bucket, but the picture is forming (3.00 / 2) (#6)
by diplomatic on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:13:49 AM EST

Obama's "judgement" has led him to employ, befriend, support, and associate with people that share a certain worldview that is not in-line with mainstream America. The list just continues to grow.

Parent

Campaigns lower the bar, mafioso style (none / 0) (#10)
by ctrenta on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:47:51 AM EST

If all he's doing is interviewing unsavory people... then those aren't ties. Good point Siguy. Man. If it's all about who they interview how much more asinine is this going to get?

It seems like campaigns today are so desperate to look for any advantage they they're willing to go after staffers. Samantha Power for one. Rob Malley another. It's all sounds so mafioso: Go after the ring leader but take the family along with it. Even more asinine... the media covers it because it makes a good story. Talk about feeding the beast!

Unreal.

: to be a leader, you need to take some hits. (1.50 / 2) (#79)
by thereyougo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:42:50 AM EST

He showing he can't take the heat. Contrast hillary, when her proposal of a gas tax holiday came out she was roundly criticized, yet she stood her ground. Thats responsible leadership. Lets the chips fall where they may and take the consequences.
Funny thing is, after the election, a few states said they would consider a tax holiday !
The MSM and bloggers are not inline with mainstream America, we're seeing this over and over and I'm glad.

Parent

Florida is gone (none / 0) (#13)
by facta non verba on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:05:53 AM EST

Is New York next? He's tied in Massachusetts and New Jersey. The good thing for Obama it is a Friday and so this may be lost in the shuffle.

: McCain will do well in my part of NY (none / 0) (#56)
by ineedalife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:55:11 AM EST

We love Hillary and she would clean up here. Obama, not so much. Our county had went blue but is now back to purple. Our town board went back over to the Republicans last year. In two weeks I get to vote for school board to try and keep the status quo and keep the GOPers muzzled. At the state level the GOP is in disarray but if our town is any indication, at the local level they have an influx of new energy. I think the go-getters see a chance for rapid upward mobility in the Republican party.

Parent

Hillary is understood to be a friend of Israel (none / 0) (#15)
by Mark Woods on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:17:06 AM EST

And this story is going to confirm fears about Obama among Florida Jewish voters, not assuage them.

And yes, Florida is lost if Obama runs without Hillary, but Hillary could carry Florida, still.

The anti-Bush sentiments and the shift of Florida Latinos from majority Republican to majority Democrats is a plot made in heaven for Hillary and several important down-ticket House seats in Miami, previously monopolized by the Mario and Lincoln Diaz-Bilart/Ileana Ros-Lehtinen cartel.

Atlanta-- (none / 0) (#95)
by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:02:27 AM EST

11th largest Jewish population in the country.

Look here and see how many states have Jewish populations on par with their aa populations.

One can cancel out the other in many key states.

(and, holy mother, how depressing is it that the total population is only around 6mm? It brings tears to the eyes.)

Parent

Thank goodness I am in the unity mode (1.00 / 1) (#97)
by riddlerandy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:14:57 AM EST

otherwise I would mention Hillary's famous kiss of Soha Arafat

Parent

You can (none / 0) (#103)
by Steve M on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:34:43 AM EST

and, in fact, you did.

But Jews are not stupid and we recognize that she has made up for that gaffe very well over the years.

There's really no substitute for building a long-term relationship with a constituency. I don't personally feel there's any reason for people who see Israel as an important issue to favor Clinton over Obama, but she has spent the time to build the trust and he is new to the scene. That's how these things go.

Parent

Again with the "we" (5.00 / 1) (#138)
by jondee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:48:11 AM EST

as if these unique, (hopefully) free thinking, indivuals were all part of some monolithic entity in complete lockstep -- or else.

Parent

: "or else"? (none / 0) (#140)
by Steve M on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:01:22 PM EST

Give me a break.

Parent
: Nice Catch (none / 0) (#141)
by squeaky on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:45:42 PM EST

I do not like it when other's speak for me, because judging from SteveM's comment you would might think all jews thought arabs were pieces of sh*t and Obama was weaker in his support for Israel. I had no problem with Hillary's kiss, it took place when peace was on the table, and everyone was kissing.

Obama and Clinton have virtually identical records on Israel. They support the Israel aid package, they favor a negotiated end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and they strongly support the U.S.-Israel alliance. The same is also true of John McCain, the likely Republican nominee.
This is all good.
The bad news is that political partisans within the Jewish community have no scruples about using Israel as a political weapon to bludgeon politicians they oppose for other reasons. Even worse is that some Jews, so intelligent on other matters, fall for the lies and genuinely worry that some Israel-hater is about to become president.
The Jews who put out these lies should be ashamed. But they aren't. Their respective political party and their access to a particular candidate are more important to them than Israel or the Jewish people at large, and they will keep putting out these insinuations and lies. They may hurt the Jews, but the candidate and party appreciate their efforts.
Haaretz

Parent

Key phrase: Long-term relationships (none / 0) (#115)
by blogtopus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:02:50 AM EST

Outside of Wright, has Obama had a chance to build any long-term relationships with people, job-hopping as he has been?

Parent

: Long term relationships (5.00 / 1) (#125)
by otherlisa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:39:39 PM EST

Also why, though my stance vis Israel and Palestine is perhaps not that of many on this blog, I do trust HRC to be an honest broker. The Clinton presidency was genuinely engaged with this issue, and certainly things felt far more optimistic then than they do now.
I trust that HRC would continue with these policies of constructive engagement.

Parent

Another "scandal" for the repubs (none / 0) (#28)
by kenosharick on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:51:30 AM EST

to use in the Fall. When does it stop wih this man? Why are our party leaders so damn intent on losing another presidential election? (though 2000 was stolen)

Doubtless, McCain sees Obama (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by alsace on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:08:34 AM EST

as the Gift That Keeps On Giving.

Parent

: Yup. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Fabian on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:22:15 AM EST

If Obama keeps on dissing his elders, he's going to be competing with military recruiters to find the Youth voters he'll need after he gets done alienating the the Boomers.
After all, there's a reason WHY they are called the Boomers - it's their sheer numbers that makes them significant.

Parent

How is this a scandal? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by independent voter on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:29:11 AM EST

What in the he// is wrong with everyone on this site?
Everyone is SOOOOO quick to jump on the bandwagon.
I came here originally because I thought I found a place filled with good minds for the most part and have unfortunately watched it deteriorate each passing week.
I will check back in once Hillary suspends her campaign. Maybe the sanity will return then.

Parent

I don't have a problem (5.00 / 3) (#54)
by magisterludi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:53:42 AM EST

with Malley or anyone else talking to Hamas. I doubt many here at TL do, either. But if you don't think that the GOP is morphing the Ayer, Rezko, Auchi, Wright and Hamas story lines into one big fat ugly narrative for the GE, then there's a turnip truck parked out back waiting for you to fall off it.

Parent

: Republicans Are Building A Narrative On Obama (5.00 / 2) (#73)
by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:32:38 AM EST

and Malley is just one small piece of it.
Per right wing sites, Tony Rezko was bailed out of Jail with the help of Ali Baghdadi, who served as a Middle East advisor to Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. Baghdadi wrote one of the Anti-Israel pieces in the bullitan of Senator Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ. They are also claiming that Barack Obama and William Ayers funneled money to Professor Rashid Khalidi, who they claim has direct ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a group on the US State Department's list of known terrorist groups.
This is what they plan to use in the GE to further promote the meme that Obama is not patriotic and to raise doubts about his commitment to Israel.

Parent

Gee, any time pressure (none / 0) (#43)
by Fabian on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:34:18 AM EST

from the opposing camp(aign) [McCain] causes an advisor/staffer to (un)officially resign from a campaign, it's been discussed. "monster", Ferraro, so on and so forth.

Why is this any different from those times. What's more, this is relevant to the GE, not just the primary. Obama's supporters have been saying he needs to take the fight to McCain, run against McCain. If this is what happens if it's Obama/McCain, is this good?

Parent

yeah this MIGHT have (none / 0) (#31)
by TruthMatters on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:52:28 AM EST

been an issue IF McCain didn't have an advisor resign a few weeks ago because of ties to Hezbollah.

unless you guys really think McCain will hit Obama for this, but no one will bring up the Hezbollah one?

not the same (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by miguelito on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:20:59 AM EST

Obama is still undefined and these types of mistakes and his obvious poor judgment define him.

Parent

: so you are now replying me (none / 0) (#41)
by TruthMatters on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:25:39 AM EST

saying its different because this shows poor judgment on Obama's part
but McCain who was in the exact same situation, this doesn't reflect on his judgment?
ok

Parent

We'll see what Teh Media does. (none / 0) (#37)
by Fabian on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:20:31 AM EST

BTD bases his tepid Obama support on his Media Darling status. We'll see how the theory holds in this comparison - which one is more the Media's Darling?

Parent

Everybody knows where McCain stands (none / 0) (#44)
by ineedalife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:37:44 AM EST

Since people have to guess what Obama is all about this clue means much more.

Parent

He already (none / 0) (#78)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:42:29 AM EST

has. Obama's response: crickets chirping. What a wuss. He looks completely spineless.

Parent

Another one thrown under the bus. Who is Obama? (none / 0) (#59)
by Saul on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:05:43 AM EST

Looks like Obama pressured him to quit so as not to have the negatives come out but I feel this news will have legs. Obama wants Malley's quitting to look as if he did it voluntarily. The question is if Obama was against Carter talking to Hamas then why was it ok to have an adviser on his staff that was also talking to Hamas. Another check mark for showing bad judgment and hypocrisy that he claims only Hilary is privy to. Moreover, by throwing Malley under the bus this just shows again that he is politics as usual and that his politics are not any different than Hilary's.

Initially I was for Obama but did not know really why I was for him other than his rhetoric on being different. I decided to do my own investigation on him to see who he really was. The majority of those that like Obama never have done a real investigation on who he really is. When there was an acquisition against Obama I would challenge those making the acquisition to show me if they could back up their acquisitions. The internet was the best place to show me their proof. In most cases they would present me with a You Tube, an official voting record on him in his past services as senator for Illinois and U.S. Senate, an authoritative interview reference by a reputable news agency or magazine, actual sign documents by Obama and many more items that proved their acquisitions. So the negatives were not just talk but could be shown that they were true. I feel Obama is a one eyed jack but slowing we are getting to see the other side of his face.

What else is out there that we do not know?

: Now there's a tough choice for Mom's Day weekend! (none / 0) (#72)
by Ellie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:29:52 AM EST

Obama wants Malley's quitting to look as if he did it voluntarily
The double standard in place is that TeamObama can play fast and loose with race-baiting and smearing, but anything less from HRC support than actively stumping for Obama gets a long, loud whine.
Let's see what this resignation brings forth for a rational comparison. Will it be as ridiculous as that lovely F*cking Wh0res rant from Randy Rhodes, condemning both HRC and Ferraro? Were an egregious slur-ridden rant -- one that was right out there, as opposed to based on fluff like monitor gamma -- against Obama and his (resigning) supporter to emerge be waved off so easily?

Parent
: My error. Replace acquistion with accusation(s) (none / 0) (#88)
by Saul on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:41:37 AM EST

Sorry for the misspelled words

Parent

Too late (none / 0) (#69)
by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:25:43 AM EST

to pretend to change direction for Obama. He's on record for suggesting we must talk to our enemies. His ties to Wright and to Ayers and advisors such as this guy are now planted firmly.

My Jewish Dems real life people clearly don't want to vote for him. I was surprised, because they are youngish and seemed pretty supportive of him, although they voted for Hillary.

Now that he's the apparent nominee, they are telling me they are conflicted. They want McCain with assurances of a liberal judges. LOL*

I sympathize.

: Four more wars (none / 0) (#139)
by jondee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:59:29 AM EST

the continuation of the policy of carte blanche for the contractor feeding frenzy; a nice steamy dump on the environment and the poor, but the slight possibility of "liberal" judges (compared to what?).
Great, just great.
This must be that fabled masochism we're always hearing about.

Parent

Stay on topic (none / 0) (#129)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:50:02 PM EST

and stop the personal attacks.

Obama Advisor Resigns Over Ties to Hamas Meetings | 115 comments (115 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment