8 Comments

1. Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com says:

   March 1, 2008 at 11:14 am

   Hagee also has a money scandal, paying himself over $1 million annually from his ministries. To get info, Google search for “pastor hagee money scandal petition”.
2. Buffalo Girl says:

   March 1, 2008 at 12:55 pm

   I am an Obama supporter, a big one, but I always thought and said that if Hill won, I would be perfectly fine with that. As a democrat I will support the nomminee and I never really thought Hillary was that bad, and I loved Bill, until this. Her commerical is right out of the GWB and republican play book, and it makes me sick to my stomach. If Hillary wins the nom, she will not be getting my vote.
3. Jaquandor says:

   March 1, 2008 at 7:39 pm

   “Straight talk express”, my ass. I can’t wait until the public starts getting a look at this new, pandering-like-there’s-no-tomorrow John McCain.
4. eac says:

   March 1, 2008 at 9:04 pm

   from the generally odious NYT:

   The candidate’s Israel advisers are three former staff members to President Bill Clinton: Dennis Ross, a top Mideast adviser; Anthony Lake, national security adviser and Susan Rice, assistant secretary of state. Other advisers on Israeli and Mideast matters are Mr. Wexler; Dan Shapiro, formerly of the Clinton national security council, and Eric Lynn, a former Congressional aide. (All but Ms. Rice are Jewish.)

   Change you can totally believe in! A better run campaign? whatevs.
5. Buffalopundit says:

   March 2, 2008 at 7:38 am

   Why are those people bad Israel advisors? Do they not know anything about Israel? Are they not experienced enough about Israel to be advising Obama? Who are Hillary Clinton’s Israel advisors? Why is it bad, and a “ha ha” for your cynicism, for Obama to enlist the help of former Clinton aides? I don’t get it. Should have have retained complete newbies? Whom should he have retained?

   Sorry for believing in a candidate and hoping that he’ll change the way Washington is run. It’s just that it’s been a really really bad 7 years with Bush, so I’m kind of hoping the next guy can change things up a bit.

   It’s easy to do the Hudson thing and point and laugh at Obama and the people who support him. I’m personally excited to have someone replace Bush, and I’m even more excited about someone with actual intelligence and leadership skills doing it.
6. LC Scotty says:

   March 2, 2008 at 8:12 am

   I guess I don’t understand why this is called “fearmongering”. I mean, the probability is that on the next president’s watch that the “phone will ring” and we do need someone who can deal. To my mind, electing someone with the chops to deal with likely crises sounds more like prudence and less like pant-shitting hysteria.

   How you decide who that is is your business.
7. Ethan Cox says:

   March 2, 2008 at 1:53 pm

   I’m not saying that they are either good or bad; I’m saying they’re the same as we’ve already had. And you don’t get how that’s not exactly new, or “change?” Really?

   The rest of your queries are interesting, but unrelated. I’ll answer them, since you asked, but once again for the record: if you think Obama will “change the way Washington is run,” but he’s getting elected the same old way (corporate cash, lobbyists in tow), and is bringing back people (the usual gang of Democratic advisors) who were already there, what part of “change” is left? If all you mean is change from Bush, well hey: great, but that’s not discriminative for any of the three candidates still getting press coverage; my cat would be a better president than him, so what? Don’t compare your candidate to the worst he could be, compare him to the best.

   So, “why are those people bad Israel advisors?” In the main because they are supremely biased in a pro-Israel way. What would constitute CHANGE would be to get some non-AIPAC-approved advisors who might conceivably consider the Palestinian’s interests even a little. Obviously, someone overtly pro-Palistinian would be as bad a choice as Obama’s made.

   “Do they not know anything about Israel?” Obviously they do; the better question is “how biased are they in their thinking about Israel, Palestine and the US” and I believe the answer is “very much so, demonstrably against Palestinian interests.”

   “Are they not experienced enough?” Again, dumb question: We know they have experience in a previous Clinton administration, during which no amicable solution to the Israel/Palistine problem was brokered, in the end. So to that extent, their experience shows them to have had their shot; maybe it’s time for some, em, CHANGE.

   “Who are Hillary’s Israel advisors?” They are essentially the same people with different names.

   “Should he have retained newbies?” Depends on what sense of newbie you mean- people with no experience or background in the subject? Um, yeah, do I need to answer that? Maybe he should bring on-board people who have the relevant background but haven’t already failed to solve the problem.

   “Whom?” I like Juan Cole, I think he’d make an excellent advisor. He’s a lot more even-handed in his thinking, I feel. Norm Finklestein would also be a good choice. I could generate others, if you’d like. It is possible to find people out there who view the problem and the solution in broader terms than simply American self-interest.