Oh, nice. And people are screaming in droves about voting for this clown? I swear, if he gets in the Oval Office, the United States as we know it will go the way of the Soviet Union, and in less time. We're fucked, I tell you, fucked.

*cue REM song "It's the End of the World (As We Know It)*

(and this time I'm NOT apologizing for the earworm) o.O

I hear weirder and weirder stories about Obama and his associates.

Here's a really disturbing story about Ayers. It creeped me out to the max.

What's so terribly amusing about the media playing "hide the evidence" for this ass-clown is this: They'll be the first ones up against the wall when Obama takes over.

At least, the ones that don't fall in line will.

I think I need to pay Mr. Hoffman a visit this week.

Again, does this shock anyone? Is this really news? We know Obama is like this. We know the press doesn't care. I'm dismayed by the number of seemingly normal people who also don't care. I bet they'll be caring pretty early in 2009, certainly by summer. I told you so will have no sweet ring to it this time, unfortunately.

Come on people, calm down. Rashid Khalidi is a totally respectable mainstream academic -- he directs the Middle East studies program at Columbia.

The National Review is doing a hit piece because they are desperate to tarnish Obama any way they can. This is true desperation. And it smacks of McCarthyism too.

If you poll opinion in the actual Middle East -- the place, as opposed to the fevered kindergarten battleground of Good and Evil of so many conservative ideologues' imaginations -- you'll find people under no illusions that Obama will continue the US special relationship with Israel. There's just no way he won't -- watch, you'll see I'm right.

So, as I say, just re-laaaaaaax.

Oh, and if you think that anyone who criticizes Israel in any way is somehow beyond the pale, then presumably you think the Israeli government should shut down Ha'aretz.

That, for those of you who don't know, is a mainstream Israeli newspaper often highly critical of its own government. Check it out online -- Prof. Khalidi is quoted in there frequently.

Um - the point is what is on the video and why is the LA Times hiding it, not that you think Jew-hatred is mainstream.

Check it out online -- Prof. Khalidi is quoted in there frequently.

We don't care how often the "good prof." is quoted, we care about who is going to be running this country next year. Nice try with the redirect, though. Jayzuz, I'm catchin' 'em all over the friggin' place today. o.O

This Obama rave strikes me as similar to the couple that just has, HAS, to get married. Afterward the frissons of daily life expose the divisions, and then it's a different story.

There is a distinct difference between criticizing Israel, and turning it over to the wolves.

The consensus opinion in the Middle East is that we need to abandon Israel entirely, such that it can be dispatched and its population eliminated.

Khalidi is among those with this opinion.

And the fact that Obama is even willing to entertain discussions with the madmen of Iran without preconditions tells me that he is probably quite willing to give up Israel in exchange for an empty promise of peace from Iran.

So, if I read the cards correctly, the LA Times aren't keeping the tape a secret, and they aren't keeping the contents of such a tape secret, either.

And they're being accused of hiding it???

I'm not seeing the controversy. They're a private organization that gets to run thier business however they think best fits thier purpose and direction. They may ultimately pay the consequences for this, but that's the nature of the game.

If it was a government agency, I'd say, ok, let's see it. NOW. But, being that I feel private businesses should be free to run thier business as they see fit, condemnation seems appropriate, but forcing them to release it crosses the line.

I love to watch the people go apeshit on this stuff though. Like it's the straw that broke the camel's back. If nothing else is sticking to Obama, I'm doubting that this will, too.

If nothing else is sticking to Obama, I'm doubting that this will, too.

Heh. And I thought "Slick Willie" was the Teflon President. Seems we've got a potential new contender.
o.O

The experiment has been done, and we know how the press responds when the evil doer is a Republican who associates with bad people.

In December 2002, new Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R. Mississippi) praised the life of Senator Strom Thurmond (R. South Carolina) at a dinner celebrating Thurmond's 100th birthday. Thurmond had run for President in 1948. Lott said that the country would have been better if Thurmond had won.

Thurmond began as a segregationist, and renounced his earlier beliefs when he began his career in the Senate. Lott was excoriated in the press for saying anything good about someone who supported segregation in the past, and Lott made a public apology for any hint that his praise of a 100 year old senator was support for segregation.

CNN Story: Lott apologizes for Thurmond comment

Segregation was bad. Lott was saying a kind word about the 100 year old man. Association with segregation is not forgiven or forgotten in the press (and it should not be forgotten).

Association by Sen. Obama with anti-american bombers like Ayers, or praise for "Rashid Khalidi -- former spokesman for master terrorist Yasser Arafat" seems to be another matter. Merely admirable tolerance for Ayers and good feelings expressed for Khalidi. No harm from those associations.

Terror is bad. Association with terror should not be forgiven or forgotten in the press (but it is).

Andrew, who in the press is forgetting this? Or, perhaps, peopel give such associations less weight thatn you do?

What about Sarah Palin, pallin' around with a known felon?

farker -

You do understand that were this a tape involving, say, Sarah Palin and the AIP (a private organization) the tape would have been released already. Oh, wait - that one already was.

The media have already decided for us that Obama ought to be our next president, and they are protecting us from any information that might cause us to vote otherwise.

It's funny how apologists for tyranny never really address the real issue. No one is saying that Israel is beyond reproach modestproposal. Most people in the middle east, however, are for a one state solution, which would have the inevitable consequence of turning the 5M Jews in Israel into potential Dhimmis ...

Most people in the middle east, however, are for a one state solution, which would have the inevitable consequence of turning the 5M Jews in Israel into potential worm food ...

FYP.

What's lousy is they are even admitting it, but this won't hit MSM until we're hosed. Why McCain is getting hosed in the press.

Anything that can be done at this late date?

Well Brian I was trying to be positive ... those not turned into wormfood would of course be treated with classic Islamic equality. But hey! Israel and the US are apparently the worst human rights offenders on the planet ... ask any lefty.

"The media have already decided for us that Obama ought to be our next president, and they are protecting us from any information that might cause us to vote otherwise."

On the other hand, this blog is also media.

Neither Obama or, for that matter, Rashid Khalidi, proposes turning Israel into worm food. In Obama's case, far from it: read his speech to AIPAC.

My point remains: the US policy of a special commitment to Israel will not change under Obama. The National Review is writing a hit piece for purely partisan political purposes. All the rest -- your views on the Middle East, or anybody else's -- is just background noise.

Any rational person would realize that if there were a story here, the LA Times, desperate for readership, would not be sitting on it. And is there any possibility that somehow the LA Times has the only copy of this tape? Do they keep it in the same vault with the Michelle Obama "Whitey" tape?

Anyway, as it turns out, McCain's got equally tenuous ties to Khalidi:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/28/mccain-funded-work-of-pal_n_138606.html

Brian, are there media you do trust, whom you regard as reliable and completely balanced? I wonder where you go to get your news. Any recommendations to share?

@modestproposal

So, Obama should put this slander to rest by asking his friends to release the tape of that dinner. We can find out what Obama thinks about Mideast policy in his own informal words.

When you say that US policy will not change, do you mean *regardless of Obama's views on the subject*, because he will assume whatever views he needs to retain power?

It is a real question. Why will Mideast policy stay the same? What does Obama propose for Mideast policy? I would appreciate a summary and a link.

Khalidi has publicly stated on numerous occasions that he does not believe in a two state solution. Modestproposal, what do you think would happen to Jews in Israel if Muslims regained control of the area? And don't you think it would be important for Americans to know what kind of ties Obama has to this man?

Khalidi is no moderate. He's an extremist.

@PJ: This blog is media, but it is not the media. The Media are the ABC-CBS-NBC-CNN-MSNBC-NYT-LAT-BosGlob-WaPo cabal. They form a nearly monolithic opinion, and their "news", such as it is, must be adjusted to account for their inherent biases.

@Rojak: I read as many different sources as I can and try to suss out the truth from that. Sometimes the only source is an AP or Reuters story, and if it has anything involving a political angle to it, I assume that it's either biased or an outright fabrication. This has proven correct more often than not.

@modestproposal: You're deluding yourself. What Obama said to AIPAC and what he said to CAIR shortly before do not match. Given his associations with known judenhassen, it is reasonable to assume that what he told CAIR is closer to the truth. Therefore, a reasonable person concludes that Obama is going to take a tougher line against Israel the next time the shit hits the fan.

brian, you're assuming I wouldn't hold the same for anyone who had those tapes. Bad assumption on your part, then.

Unless we're talking about getting it through government subpeona, which at this point seems practically improbable, then no company should be forced to give up thier rights to property simply because 'the people' so demand it.

but I understand where you're coming from; it's pretty common nowadays that people demand something from businesses without having proper right or claim against them.

Farker, it's very simple here. We, as citizens and PAYING consumers of the news product, have every right to demand full disclosure.

"The Media" keep telling us (the unwashed proletariat) that they are a specially-protected entity. That they "speak truth to power", and that without them, we wouldn't be able to make an informed decision.

Then they tell us "we have a tape that might be useful to you, but we're only going to tell you our interpretation of it", and they expect us to tolerate that.

If the media are to be protected from government interference, then they have an obligation to the people who protect them (that would be us) to provide ALL information, unfiltered and unbiased.

What they have done, however, is positioned themselves as the deciders who shall process all information, and only give to the people that which can be used to guide us to making the proper decisions.

Besides, if they are truly a business, they have an obligation to provide their customers with the product that they claim to offer - in this case information.

I don't know if you were paying attention in 2004, but this very same media that is now telling us "this is not the tape you are looking for" deliberately, and with malice aforethought, create a news story out of whole cloth with the sole intention being to influence the outcome of a presidential election.

You can forgive us for assuming that the LA Times is keeping this tape under wraps for the same reason (or its inverse).

Charles (and others) --

Here's the essence of your argument about Obama, boiled down to its essentials:

Obama has an association/friendship/whatever with a respected professor of Middle Eastern studies; the professor has expressed views sympathetic to the Palestinian cause; some adherents of the Palestinian cause approve of using violence to further their aims; some of that violence is directed at Israeli civilians, and at the ideological goal of annihilating the state of Israel altogether; therefore Obama is an Israel-hater who can't be trusted with the presidency of the United States.

By that argument you could disqualify just about anybody from running for president. If politicians had to disavow everyone whose views were considered suspect on any level, they would end up talking to nobody.

Let me put it another way. I'm friends with Amy. We disagree pretty sharply on a lot of things -- for instance public education, of which I am a big proponent while she is not. Now, if I ran for president, would it be legitimate to say that because I'm friends with Amy I must be secretly devoted the cause of destroying the public school system and am therefore unfit to be president?

It is clear to anyone with any acquaintance with US foreign policy that Obama won't go anywhere near Khalidi's views while he is president. (And, again, while you may disagree with Khalidi, he is a mainstream guy -- supportive of the Palestinian cause but NOT of a lot of aspects of it; he doesn't support Hamas and he condemns the suicide bombings etc.) The TOUGHEST policy stance against Israel we've seen in the past 60 years came from George H.W. Bush, who threatened to withdraw U.S. funding for Israel if the govt there didn't stop supporting new settlements on the West Bank. That got him into huge amounts of trouble with the Israel lobby and contributed to his election defeat in 1992. For Obama to get even that tough with Israel would pose enormous political risks for him, and he knows it.

(That said, the Bush initiative certainly paid dividends: it led directly to the Madrid peace conference, the Oslo peace process and the closest thing the region has ever seen to an actual peace accord, thwarted largely by Rabin's assassination. All of which proves to me that much of the hysteria bandied around in this country about Israel hatred is waaaaay overblown.)

Again ... Khalidi supports a one-state solution. Whether he gets it through peaceful means does not make it any less radical. So I ask you again ... what do you think will happen to Jews if Israel is once again controlled by Muslims (as Khalidi would like to see happen)?

I also find your comparison between Amy and Khalidi rather ridiculous. Amy is not a radical whose beliefs would result in the oppression and/or death of 5M individuals. If Obama were friends with Amy, I wouldn't care. The fact is he has ties with a radical ... whether this radical is mainstream or not is not relevant.

the Oslo peace process

Which led to the Intifada, a series of horrific terrorist attacks the like of which had never been seen. Man, you are some kinda sheep, eh? Even ARAFAT "condemned" the suicide bombings that he was funding and ordering. You've got a blind spot six miles wide friend, and it's name is Israel.

And if you think that Bush had any support from American Jewry, you're out of your fucking mind. The Jews are almost as monolithically Democratic as the blacks. Bush 41 lost because of six little words:

"Read my lips, no new taxes."

My last word on this, just to set one part of the record straight:

Khalidi does not support a one-state solution. He has been very critical of the so-called one-state solution. You'd know that if you didn't rely on ideologically skewed info sheets but actually sought out some reliable information. (Like the things Khalidi himself writes and says.)

My suspicion with a lot of you who don't want to accept what I'm saying, by the way, is that you see the name Rashid Khalidi and it immediately triggers a whole bunch of deeply ingrained prejudicial reactions, ie Arab name = bomb-throwing terrorist = enemy of America.

Khalidi, for what it is worth, is as American as any of you and rather more accomplished than most. Born here, educated here, worked hard here, prospered here. That used to be called the American Dream.

@modestproposal

You said above:

It is clear to anyone with any acquaintance with US foreign policy that Obama won't go anywhere near Khalidi's views while he is president. (And, again, while you may disagree with Khalidi, he is a mainstream guy -- supportive of the Palestinian cause but NOT of a lot of aspects of it; he doesn't support Hamas and he condemns the suicide bombings etc.)

I have to ask again, because when you express your opinion, I hope it is based on some objective facts. I want to know those facts. If I am too ignorant of Mideast history and policy, then I suppose I will remain unconvinced by you. Anyway, maybe you can supply me with some relevant answers and links to supporting information.

When you say that US policy will not change, do you mean: regardless of Obama's views on the subject? So, maybe it doesn't matter what his views are?

What are Obama's views?
Why will Mideast policy stay the same as it is now?
What does Obama propose for Mideast policy?

I would appreciate your summary and a link.

Andrew:

I'm not your college professor. Go do your own legwork. Read a couple of foreign policy journals; look up Obama's speeches on the Middle East; read the policy analyses in papers like Ha'aretz and al-Ahram (both available in English).

Amy:

I can't believe you can watch that video and not recognize it for what it is, which is a very calculated hatchet job by Mr. Hannity. We can argue about what it means that Khalidi worked in the press office of an offshoot of the PLO in the early 1980s, but frankly I don't have that kind of energy. You clearly don't like the guy; that's fine, that's your call.

Here's a question for you though: would you rather the next president has a track record of hanging out with highly educated, super-smart, well informed guys -- even if you disagree profoundly with their opinions -- or a bunch of pig-ignorant religious bigots who don't think government matters all that much because Jesus is coming soon?

Here's a question for you though: would you rather the next president has a track record of hanging out with highly educated, super-smart, well informed guys -- even if you disagree profoundly with their opinions -- or a bunch of pig-ignorant religious bigots who don't think government matters all that much because Jesus is coming soon?

Given that neither is presently running for President, your question is moot.

We've got Barack Obama, who is a scion of the corrupt Chicago political machine, business partner and long time friend of an unrepentant terrorist and murderer, and follower of a racist preacher, and a total moron to boot. His chosen running mate has what can be best described as a tenuous grasp on reality.

We've got John McCain, who served the Navy with distinction, and has been a senator for twenty years. His chosen running mate has been the subject of a number of lies about her person, character, and associations.

McCain is clearly the better candidate. Obama lost me as soon as I learned he was from Chicago.

In fact, [im]modestproposal, I'll repeat what I've been saying for the past two months.

There is no intellectually supportable reason to vote for Barack Obama.

"Rashid Khalidi is a totally respectable mainstream academic -- he directs the Middle East studies program at Columbia."

Oh right--he can't possibly support a terrorist state! Your naivete is breathtaking.

Why can't the LAT release the tape? Source confidentiality hasn't been such a big deal to them before.

@modestproposal

You said above:

Andrew: I'm not your college professor. Go do your own legwork. Read a couple of foreign policy journals; look up Obama's speeches on the Middle East; read the policy analyses in papers like Ha'aretz and al-Ahram (both available in English).

This was in response to my question:

I have to ask again, because when you express your opinion, I hope it is based on some objective facts. I want to know those facts. If I am too ignorant of Mideast history and policy, then I suppose I will remain unconvinced by you. Anyway, maybe you can supply me with some relevant answers and links to supporting information.

When you say that US policy will not change, do you mean: regardless of Obama's views on the subject? So, maybe it doesn't matter what his views are?

What are Obama's views?
Why will Mideast policy stay the same as it is now?
What does Obama propose for Mideast policy?

Your position is that I might agree with you if I do my own course in Middle East affairs. So, for the moment, I should just take your word for whatever opinion you give.

Forgive me if I conclude instead that you have no backup for your opinions, or don't want to look into your on-line studies to provide me with the basis for your views. I had hoped that you would supply me with pointers to the information that answers my questions. Surely, they are simple enough for you to make your point by backing it up with some objective information.

You are the one pushing the idea that despite Amy's posting, and the video link she posted later, we should believe the opposite of what is presented. I'm open to the information that might change my mind. Where is it?

What are Obama's views on the Middle East?
Why will Mideast policy stay the same as it is now?
What does Obama propose for Mideast policy?

I would appreciate your summary and any informative links.

AG: Two ways of answering your question.

First way: Obama's overt policy positions. You can look them up on his website.

Second way: Figuring out what he really thinks/is likely to do. Since none of us is a mindreader or a fortune-teller, this is a matter of analysis as much as fact-gathering -- considering past US policy on the Middle East, the political pressures on changing that policy, even if you wanted to, the nature and depth of Obama's relationship with Jewish leaders (eg in Chicago, where they love him) as well as critics of Israel like Khalidi, his overall foreign-policy approach etc etc.

I've told you what I think, and ultimately the only way to convince you may be to wait and see how an Obama presidency pans out; if you want to disagree, you do need to do more than just take in a Fox News or a National Review hit piece, both of which are about pushing a partisan political line and promoting the vilest sort of guilt by association, not assessing reality.

so does anyone want to guess which presidential candidate helped found the organization that Khalidi founded?

If you guessed McCain, you win a cookie.

anyone want to guess which candidate asserts that Khalidi formaly spoke for the PLO, despite fact-checking revealing that it was not so much?

more cookies for you....

Amy: your writings and your support for that bastard Daniel Pipes tells me that you are a Talmudic Zionist and most probably you are also an Israeli dual-citizen! What exactly is it about the West that you "hold dear?" The ability of the Jewish media enterprise to masquerade as regular American media? The fact that Jews can always get away with slandering Arabs as "terrorists" on Jewish media? The fact that 7 out of 10 Billionaires worldwide are Jewish, yet only 1 out 25000 people worldwide are Jewish? The fact that the U.S. Military does whatever Israel commands them to do? The fact that Jewish families in America are rich beyond belief largely because of 400 years of profit from the African slave trade?

You think it's wrong to bash Israel? Do you have any clue how many billions of our dollars go there? Do you have any clue about the Israeli spies involved in 9-11? Did you know 9-11 was an inside job with the help of Israeli MOSSAD? How about when Rachel Corrie got run over by the IDF while protesting the Zionist settlements in the West Bank? How about when Israel attempted to invade Lebanon in 2006 and dropped bombs on ambulances?

Hey troofer - you better hope I don't see you walking around in your "9/11 was an inside job" shirt, or you'll be visiting dentists for the next six months.

Stupid on the level you troofers exhibit it needs to be weeded out of the gene pool before it spreads.