Hamas Endorses Obama; Campaign Flattered
April 17th, 2008 at 10:39pm Matt Margolis
I wouldn’t call it a good thing when your candidacy is endorsed by a terrorist organization… but it’s even worse that Obama’s campaign is apparently flattered by the endorsement.
In the spin room following the debate, I asked Barack Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, to respond to a report that a top Hamas official had endorsed Obama.
“I have no idea about that, I have not heard that,” Axelrod replied.
I told him that the words were spoken by Ahmed Yousef, and offered to read him the quote, which I I proceeded to do from my Blackberry: “we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle…”
Axelrod focused on the Kennedy portion of the quote, and was “flattered” by the comparison.
“I like John Kennedy too,” Axelrod said. “That’s about the only thing we have in common with this gentleman from Hamas. We all agree that John Kennedy was a great president, and it’s flattering when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his footsteps.”
Michael Goldfarb says it all:
Note the slipperiness. Axelrod first distances himself from the “gentleman from Hamas,” but in the next breath he embraces the gentleman/terrorists’ comparison to Kennedy, pronouncing it “flattering.” Only recently Obama declared that “nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti-Semitism than I have.” Apparently there’s an exception for when anti-Semites compare Obama to Kennedy. Then all bets are off!
Perhaps the Obama campaign would be equally flattered by an endorsement from Osama bin Laden if the endorsement compared Obama to MLK.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
41 Comments
1. Joe | April 17th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Good grief you people are too funny.
First off, not sure if it is true or not that Hamas “endorsed” Obama or not. Just just like all other endorsements… so the hell what?
If your faux outrage is over your opinion that he is “flattered”…. read the article again. You even say… Axelrod ignored the “endorsement” since it doesn’t mean anything. He focused more on comparing Obama to Kennedy.
So what.
hey Matt… I heard Obama wasn’t wearing a lapel flag pin today.
2. JD | April 17th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Sounds like Karl Rove…
3. neocon | April 18th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Frederick,
That plan ought to go over well.
4. Darva Conger | April 18th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Deleted - off topic.
5. Timothy Horrigan | April 18th, 2008 at 1:25 am
Darva is obfuscating a key point: Hamas are the Bad Guys. Netanyahu is one of the Good Guys!
6. Kahn | April 18th, 2008 at 1:26 am
OK Joe, what were Kennedy’s accomplishments again?
Created Peace Corps.
Created Army Special Forces (Green Berets).
Created Navy Seals.
Cut taxes to stimulate the economy.
Russians thought so weak they built the Berlin Wall.
Allowed the Cuban anti-Castro forces to get slaughtered at the Bay of Pigs.
Russians thought so weak they tried to install medium range nuclear missiles in Cuba which brought the world to the very brink of nuclear annihilation.
Installed his younger brother with little to no trial experience as Attorney General of the United States.
Slept with any woman that walked by, one was later proven to be an East German spy.
OK, so what do you like and not like about the list above and what did I miss?
7. Kahn | April 18th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Of course Hamas like Obama and wants him to be president. His isolationist views will pull us out of the region and lessen support for Israel. And his socialist agenda will destroy the economy and fabric of the nation making it virtually impossible for us to ever influence the area again.
I’d imagine that Hamas is not the ONLY group of thugs out there pulling for Obama.
8. Darva Conger | April 18th, 2008 at 1:34 am
Deleted - off topic.
9. Freedom1 | April 18th, 2008 at 3:00 am
7. Kahn | April 18th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Kahn, excellent comment! I agree.
Kahn: “I’d imagine that Hamas is not the ONLY group of thugs out there pulling for Obama.”
You’re right. Obama has a disturbing number of ties to terrorists. For example - domestic terrorist William Ayres of the Weather Underground. Also, anti-Israel Columbia University professor Rhashid Khalidi:
“Obama’s Terror Ties” - IBD
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=293065863736140
10. Kurt | April 18th, 2008 at 3:35 am
Question: What do Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden have in common?
Answer: They both have a friend that bombed the Pentagon.
Sorry, heard it today and just had to share it.
11. Freedom1 | April 18th, 2008 at 3:36 am
Barack Hussein Obama’s childhood mentor was a Communist and wrote poems praising the Soviet Red Army and wrote poems attacking traditional Christianity.
Obama has no business being a US Senator, let alone the US President.
Obama’s Red Mentor Praised Red Army
- Accuracy In Media, by Cliff Kincaid
12. Freedom1 | April 18th, 2008 at 3:39 am
Kurt,
That was great. It’s true!
13. Freedom1 | April 18th, 2008 at 5:09 am
From the Hamas Charter:
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
Hamas is a Muslim terrorist organization. Obama’s campaign should not feel “flattered” by these genocidal murderers. Update on GWOT: What other Islamic terrorists are perpetrating -
1) 4/16/2008 (Pattani, Thailand) - The manager of a shrimp farm is kidnapped and beheaded by Muslim extremists.
2) Man has Hands, Foot Chopped Off over Adultery… - Daily Times
3) Dutch Imam: Muslims Called to Hate All Infidels… - Islam in Europe
14. TiredofLibBullShit | April 18th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Wow,
As usual, Joe chimes in with his “so what”. If the KKK endorsed any Republican, he would be screeching at the top of his lungs.
How brainless can he get? Can you say, mindless puppet?!?
Well, I cannot expect less from the USEFUL IDIOTS, especially Joe. He tries…………………
Democrat - one who panders to the ignorant masses.
15. Joe | April 18th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Kahn, to answer your question…
Created Peace Corps.
– Is that a bad thing in your mind?
Created Army Special Forces (Green Berets).
– Is that bad?
Created Navy Seals.
– Is that bad?
Cut taxes to stimulate the economy.
– Isn’t cutting taxes what you squeal about constantly? I don’t think anyone is against cutting taxes. It is cutting them to help everyone that is the issue of the day. In 1960, they cut the top tax rate from an insane 91% to a crazy 70% (1964), then in 1965 cut that down to a more respectable but still crazy 48%. There also was not the massive chasm that currently exists between the top 1% and the other 99%.
So tax cuts are good if done correctly.
Russians thought so weak they built the Berlin Wall.
— So weak that Kennedy stood them down during the Cuban Missile Crisis. So weak that a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed.
Allowed the Cuban anti-Castro forces to get slaughtered at the Bay of Pigs.
— “Allowed” them to get slaughtered? How about the plan was awful. The plan was also in place from the Eisenhower Administration. But bottom line this was a mess that Kennedy was ultimately responsible for. (although not nearly the mess of the Iraq War).
Russians thought so weak they tried to install medium range nuclear missiles in Cuba which brought the world to the very brink of nuclear annihilation.
— See my comment above about this.
Installed his younger brother with little to no trial experience as Attorney General of the United States.
— Oh my! Not cronyism!!!!! Good grief.
Slept with any woman that walked by, one was later proven to be an East German spy.
— You started out your list so good Kahn. Then you fall into the… but, but, but… he slept with others. Get over it man.
You left off a minor thing that Kennedy accomplished called Civil Rights. But hey, maybe you are against that.
If that is what you call being a failure of a President, then it would be flattering to be compared to him.
TiredofLib, Thanks for tossing in that USEFUL IDIOT comment. I’ve been missing your typical response to everyone with that. My “so what” comment is exactly what it is. If the KKK backed McCain, I wouldn’t care either. But since you people bring these up all the time, then we would have to bring up any KKK endorsement. Just like you people hooted and hollered about Farrakan, we brought up Hagee. In my opinion, neither amount to a whole lot of anything.
Freedom1, you never fail to impress with the amount of anti-Muslim posts and that you are still tying Obama to terrorists. Keep it up man. Maybe one day you will see how foolish you look.
16. Kahn | April 18th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Joe, Did I claim good or bad? I just listed his accomplishments. I was being fair and balanced and named them all.
JFK almost destroyed the world. His weakness led to the Berlin Wall and the Cuban missile crisis. The result of the Cuban missile crisis (when he almost destroyed the world) was that the USSR when full tilt to build ICBM’s and started to build up their nuclear inventory in earnest.
And yes, he allowed the Cuban anti-Castro forces to be butchered. He allowed it to happen, and he could have prevented it.
17. Joe | April 18th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Kahn,
If you liked those things that JFK did, then why would someone not be “flattered” by being compared to him? Even if it does come from an enemy?
The subject of the post makes it sound like Obama was flattered to get an endorsement from Hamas. That isn’t it at all. That is Matt just flat out lying.
Regarding the Berlin Wall… it was going up one way or the other. In 1952 Stalin ordered them to gaurd the line at all costs. Barbed wire was up at that point. He also said they should “introduce a system of passes for visits of West Berlin residents to the territory of East Berlin [so as to stop] free movement of Western agents” in the GDR. Stalin agreed, calling the situation “intolerable”. He advised the East Germans to build up their border defenses, telling them that “The demarcation line between East and West Germany should be considered a border – and not just any border, but a dangerous one”.
I wasn’t around then, so I don’t know all there is about it, but hey… less of a chance of conflict with a full wall than just barbed wire.
I admitted the Bay of Pigs was a mess and JFK was responsible.
You claim a couple times that JFK “almost destroyed the world”. Couldn’t it be said that he stopped the world from getting destroyed as well by facing down the Soviets in the Naval blockade? Couldn’t it also be said that he saved the world by signing the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty?
18. Sunny | April 18th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
“You claim a couple times that JFK “almost destroyed the world”. Couldn’t it be said that he stopped the world from getting destroyed as well by facing down the Soviets in the Naval blockade? Couldn’t it also be said that he saved the world by signing the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty?” Joe
That claim would only be made if the president happened to by a Republican, you silly man. If it had been President Reagan (who I liked a lot), he would have been the greatest hero by facing down the Soviets. After all, he made Germany “tear down that wall.”
19. TiredofLiBullShit | April 18th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Joe says….
“If the KKK backed McCain, I wouldn’t care either.”
That statement ranks among :
“I tried it but I didn’t inhale.”
“I did not have sex with that women.”
“I took the initiative in creating the internet.”
Whatever your lib masters tell you to say you will willingly and unthinkably regurgitate it as evidenced by your brainless posts on this blog.
Sorry, Joe sell crazy somewhere else. USEFUL IDIOT applies, you just have trouble with reality.
20. Joe | April 18th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Apparently any “endorsement” really carries a lot of weight with you. Perhaps you should start to think on your own once in a while.
Dems only brought up Hagee because you people were making such a hissy fit over Farakan and Wright. Otherwise, why do people care?
Only clowns like you really care what groups endorse who.
You really need to start adding a trademark subscript after that USEFUL IDIOT comment. I crack up every time I see that in your post!
21. searp | April 18th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
The insinuation seems to be that Barack Obama is a Communist jihadi. I’d say that is internally inconsistent, and on the whole disconnected from reality.
22. Sunny | April 18th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Matt, maybe you need to take a remedial reading class so you can grasp basic, elementary comprehension of the words used. Your credibility deteriorates with each post you make as totally inane. At no time did Axelrod state that the campaign was flattered by the endorsement of the terrorist group, (now pay attention), he said that any comparison to John F. Kennedy was flattering. I think just about any Democratic candidate would be flattered to be compared to President Kennedy. As to endorsements, explain how one prevents such organizations from endorsements? And how should John McCain react to an endorsement that would be somewhat embarassing or uncomfortable. I have no doubt that Barack Obama would much prefer not to be endorsed by this organization and most assuredly did not seek it. Do you agree?
23. Kahn | April 18th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Sunny, No. He had shown weakness to the USSR which precipitated the crisis. One example of this weakness was the Bay of Pigs.
Later, the fact that we did get so close to war caused the USSR to conclude that they needed to be able to defeat us, which lead to the massive military build up in the ’60’s and ’70’s including the construction of many submarines armed with nuclear missiles. Our determination to match this build up, especially under Reagan led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
It is times like this the gap in historical and military knowledge on the left really shows. We can’t be expected to educate you on every aspect of our history. Try reading more. Or join the service like so many of us did.
24. Joe | April 18th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
kahn, with all due respect, f-you! Republicans are not the only people that have ever joined the military. Thank you for your service, but don’t claim the repubs have cornered the market on military service.
We’ve had a decent discussion going, don’t ruin it by looking down on those that didn’t serve. Hell… Dick Cheney didn’t serve. Do you need to educate him on the ways of war? How about Rush and his anal cyst?
Like I said… yes, JFK f’d up the bay of pigs fiasco. Did that lead to the near destruction of the planet? I have to say it was not this one thing that did it. It was building up from the end of WWII and thru Korea. This certainly didn’t help, but this was not the sole cause.
25. Some Assembly Required | April 18th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Hey Matt, just thinking out loud here, but Normally a terrorist would not attack anyone that they ‘endorse’.
All spin aside, this is meaningless, UNLESS Obama went to Hama’s and specifically pleaded to be endorsed by the terrorist organization. This is NOT the case so your point is preposterous to anyone with above a sixth grade education.
I read an article recently saying that Canadians and Mexicans favor Obama over Hilary and both over McCain. Does this mean McCain is angry with Mexicans and Canadians?
Kahn, Kennedy’s hands were tied at the bay of pigs. The failure here falls flat on the CIA. If Kennedy had ‘gone in’ with a US ground force, Russia would have retaliated as if it was an attack on Russian soil. I assume your familiar with escalation. I’m curious, since you seem to be an expert, what would you have done against a hardline communist superpower that only seemed to be getting stronger? If you invaded Cuba and the Russians retaliate with a strike on a US base in Europe, then what? The simple fact JFK avoided nuclear war during the Cuban Missile crisis is not due to weakness sir, but due to strength of character and understanding that the enemy are capable or being rational. Something which seems to be lost now a days.
Just because someone has not set foot on a battlefield or has never served in the military does not mean they cannot be versed in the ways of the world. Or that they are clueless to military actions. Say this only proves your ignorance.
26. Rich | April 18th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
“Just because someone has not set foot on a battlefield or has never served in the military does not mean they cannot be versed in the ways of the world. Or that they are clueless to military actions.”
Very good point SAR. I hope you will reiterate it when people throw the chickenhawk comment around so freely on this blog.
To be fair, Kahn clearly stated “try reading more”.
27. Some Assembly Required | April 18th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Rich, no worries there. I disagree with anyone who jumps into war for any other reason then defending themselves. Whether they served or not is irrelevant. In fact, sometimes I think someone who doesn’t serve may sometimes be the best person to make a call to go into war. Where they can remain objective from military thinking. IMO.
28. ViralNexus | April 18th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Kahn- The Soviet Union collapsed because “of our buildup of military forces”. Are you kidding me? How about the Soviet Union was running an empire that spanned the globe, started a war that they could not win in Afghanistan, and went bankrupt… wait, that sounds familiar. This idea that we caused the fall of the fall of the USSR is rediculous. They collapsed under their own weight and it would be who of the US to learn from that event. They thought they were invinsible as well you know.
And Joe is right. Conservatives DO NOT own the market in military service. I would be one of those “useful idiots” that Tired moronically refers to yet I have served my country and I have fought in this particular war. So if anything you, and the rest of the “useful idiots” here that have not served in this particular war, aren’t really qualified to make assertions/assumptions about something you have no experience in.
29. Kahn | April 18th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Joe, I gave you two alternatives -READ- or -JOIN THE MILITARY-
Now I think you’re just stupid. You could just read, you know. What an idiot.
It is EXACTLY this kind of hatred an unwillingness to debate that makes the left so dangerous. And it exactly this kind of ignorance and refusal to serve by the liberal elite that makes them unfit to lead.
Obama - just what ARE his plans for our foreign policy? In Ohio, he claimed he would renegotiate NAFTA. He wants us out of Iraq NOW and damn the consequences. Hey, here’s an idea. Instead of ME naming what some consequences might be - how about YOU list some? Come on liberals, what do YOU think will result if “President” Obama just freakin’ pulls out of Iraq like he says he will?
Oh, and as to your “F-you” comment. Not now, I’m with your mother. Tit-4-tat, OK?
30. Kahn | April 18th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Viral, WRONG. They were out of Afghanistan and it didn’t cost that much. They spent a huge portion of their GDP building up. Then, Reagan pulled SDI out of his hat.
Nice try re-writing history to meet your current political agenda. But you are wrong. Read up on it, OK?
Oh - and Democrat participation in the military has been steadily falling. Currently, about 16% of the ENTIRE military claim to be Democrat. I have no proof, but I would suspect that that number is lower in the Army in Marine Corps and lower still in the officer corps. Universities and colleges with known liberal leanings have contributed only 10’s of officers for the last several years. Newsweek (I think it was Newsweek ) did and article on that a year or two ago. Hard to find now, of course. News contrary to liberal views is expunged from the search engines fairly quickly.
31. Kahn | April 18th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Still looking for that Newsweek article - but this is interesting:
http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/06/update_ii_milit.html
32. Some Assembly Required | April 18th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Kahn, I do not think renegotiating NAFTA is a bad idea. Free trade has had it’s advantages but there really need to be stricter guidelines which need to be enforced. I’m not entirely sure what Obama plans to negotiate for though so I cannot comment on that.
As for pulling out of Iraq ‘now’. This is a statement taken out of context, much like McCain’s ‘100 years’ statement. What he plans is a phased withdrawl starting about a year after he becomes president. The US pulled out of Vietnam, why not use that as a model? Sure the first few years were hard, but the country has recovered. Much the same would happen with Iraq. Regardless of when the US pulls out there will be a few hard years. Unless of course the US stays for the next 20 plus years to achieve a ‘diplomatic’ Iraq which coincides with the US Agenda.
The build-up attributed to Russia’s downfall, yes… but it was just one of many many factors. How about work force motivation? Alcoholism? The Beatles? Corruption? Afghanistan? The list continues…
Though I support Obama and do not agree with you on Iraq and your assessment of JFK and the fall of communism, I respect that you hold issue with Obama because of his policies and not because of his lapel pin.
33. Kahn | April 18th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
SAR, how many people died because we pulled out of (not just Viet Nam) South East Asia. Three million, wasn’t it. Big number. Hard to fathom. Think of it this way, in all your life all the people see with your own eyes will not come close to three million. Think of it, everyone you’ve ever seen - dead.
How many do YOU think will die if we pull out? What will happen. Come on now, think about it and be honest.
Oh - on JFK. Well, I listed everything I could think of. Did I miss anything? Were you alive during the crisis? i was young, but remember the panic as people scrambled for batteries and food to store in their homes. Yep, great job. Read up on it.
On the USSR, there were other reasons. Yes. The fact they were a communist totalitarian state had a LOT to do with it. But the arms race and the threat of SDI made the difference.
Lapel pins, funny. Why WON’T he wear one though? I wonder. Think his dragging the country into socialism and raising taxes 25% to pay for it will help the economy without causeing massive disruptions? Really, just listen to what he says and apply your mind to the task of figuring out what his proposals will do to the country. THAT is what is impoirtant, right?
34. js | April 19th, 2008 at 12:02 am
just a notice, hamas and carter getting buddy buddy just might reap some benefits…
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7314
35. js | April 19th, 2008 at 12:13 am
thats not the only ones who endorse earbama
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/group-funds-terrorism-gives-obama-money
his cash flow is coming from anywhere and everywhere…..
and then….elton john does a concert benefit for contributions to hillary and billary clinton….yup, good ole ‘cranky elton, the brittish citizen….
36. Some Assembly Required | April 19th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Kahn, close to 1 million iraqi’s dead already and climbing. 1 million are refugees from their own country, think about it. The US stays another 20 years or so and that toll only goes up along with American deaths.
The US went in, Colossal mistake. What was bigger, was invading without a proper exit strategy. Anyway, moving on…
I’ve read a fair bit on JFK, like for instance he was going to abolish the CIA… I admit I was not born during this period, but I can read. I’m not excusing JFK’s faults but I just have one hypothetical question to put to you. What do you think would have happened if GWB was president instead of JFK?
I’m not denying the arms race and SDI did not play a significant role in the Russian collapse. Reagan did a lot, and a lot I don’t agree with as well (Take for example his work on lessoning anti-trust laws so corporations could grow into the global, multi-national entities they are today). I’m just simply stating it’s not that simple. The people were going hungry and cold. They were being slaughtered for speaking out against the government. Any ‘rule’ no matter how large WILL fail if it does not have the support of it’s people. It’s just a matter of time until the people get fed up. In Russia’s case, it was a bit of both. Trying to compete with America while keeping it’s people in check.
I’d also like to note with interest that Reagan raised the retirement age, payroll tax and taxed the benefits of high income people for the first time. He managed to save billions, but in doing so, he passed the buck onto future presidents where it was just a short term solution to a major social security problem.
37. Kahn | April 19th, 2008 at 12:56 am
SAR, stopped reading your post at the dicredited 1 million dead Iraqi part. Find a source that doesn’t trace back to the same discredited source and try again.
But, well I’m assuming you refused to think and look ahead eh? OK. Is that “change”?
38. Some Assembly Required | April 19th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Kahn, 1 million dead was an exaggeration… 259,394.086 dead, how’s that?
I’m assuming you can’t see past acutal words and grasp the point of the post eh? Thats Ok, it just the Status Quo.
39. Kahn | April 19th, 2008 at 2:02 am
I see that you and your kind are pulling numbers out of your butt. I see that you either refuse to think about the consequences or are unwilling to state what you think they might be.
How’s that?
The socialism thing is OK then?
40. Kahn | April 19th, 2008 at 2:25 am
This is interesting. I think it refers to the article I can’t find…
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geul.kjwlI0FEA_0ZrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGlxBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg–/SIG=149ga24du/EXP=1208672548/**http%3a//www.columbia.edu/cu/siwps/images/newsletter5/Citizenship%2520and%2520Military%2520Service%25202%2520Report.doc
41. Kahn | April 19th, 2008 at 2:34 am
Well the above is messed up. Sorry. It’s an article about the book “AWOL” by KATHY ROTH-DOQUET AND FRANK SCHAEFER.