Washington Post Condemns McCain's "Increasingly Reckless Ad Hominem Attacks"

Washington Post:

WITH THE presidential campaign clock ticking down, Sen. John McCain has suddenly discovered a new boogeyman to link to Sen. Barack Obama: a sometimes controversial but widely respected Middle East scholar named Rashid Khalidi. In the past couple of days, Mr. McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, have likened Mr. Khalidi, the director of a Middle East institute at Columbia University, to neo-Nazis; called him "a PLO spokesman"; and suggested that the Los Angeles Times is hiding something sinister by refusing to release a videotape of a 2003 dinner in honor of Mr. Khalidi at which Mr. Obama spoke. Mr. McCain even threw former Weatherman Bill Ayers into the mix, suggesting that the tape might reveal that Mr. Ayers -- a terrorist-turned-professor who also has been an Obama acquaintance -- was at the dinner.

For the record, Mr. Khalidi is an American born in New York who graduated from Yale a couple of years after George W. Bush. For much of his long academic career, he taught at the University of Chicago, where he and his wife became friends with Barack and Michelle Obama. In the early 1990s, he worked as an adviser to the Palestinian delegation at peace talks in Madrid and Washington sponsored by the first Bush administration. We don't agree with a lot of what Mr. Khalidi has had to say about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the years, and Mr. Obama has made clear that he doesn't, either. But to compare the professor to neo-Nazis -- or even to Mr. Ayers -- is a vile smear.

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[JLJL]

McCain conviniently forgot to say that he has donated almost half a million dollars to Mr. Khalidi's organization and that until last few days he was ok with him. McCain forgets that in this internet age people will uncover his lies moments after he spews them out. From a "quality of campaign" standpoint this has been the worst election ever. McCain will also see this as worst election ever but for a different reason, on Nov 5th.

[SoontobeBlueVirginia]

Let's try this again..if you want a GREAT ROTFLMAO time...got the Washington Post website and see the true title of this Op-Ed piece...it­'s truly priceless.

[bbridges1962]

Yes...and rightfully titled !!

[Jules1]

McCain and Ayers both donated money to this man, McCain over $400,000, Ayers a lot less, check it out with CNN and Keith Olbermann.­..........­......... Obama went to a dinner, professors do that Senator McCain, they have hundreds of friends from all walks of life. Unlike McCain most of his friends are underground hoods and lobbyists.

[lmt27]

This information is relevant unfortunetly, the only people listening to mccain say these stupid things are the people who want to hear what they want to hear; they don't care about the facts. They want to hear half truths, lies and innuendos because they don't have the capacity to think for themselves and they would much rather continue to live in fear.
Anytime a tax evading 'Joe the Plumber' can be the headline for your campaign and your supporters are actually asking him for advice on foriegn policy --well, you are not dealing with people playing with a full deck of cards. Mccain is unstable and the people willing to listen to and believe his fear touting rhetoric are unstable and dangerous. God Bless America and let there be enough people with common sense to elect Barack Obama into office.

[CintiBlue]

I hope if this ends with an Obama/Biden win we don't have to go back to referring to McCain as a great, country first American.

We've seen the real McCain and no way should he be able to say, "oh, it was just a heated political race."

Obama/Biden/YES WE CAN MOVE TO DECENCY

[roshni]

Every time Obama says McCain is a hero, I cringe! It's not true. Heros don't behave this way.

[Plank]

Yup, Vile:
According to dictionay.com:
1. wretchedly bad: a vile humor. CHECK
2. highly offensive, unpleasant, or objectionable: CHECK.
3. repulsive or disgusting, as to the senses or feelings: a vile odor. CHECK
4. morally debased, depraved, or despicable: vile deeds. CHECK
5. foul; filthy: vile language. CHECK
6. poor; wretched: vile workmanship. CHECK
7. of mean or low condition: a vile beggar. CHECK
8. menial; lowly: vile tasks. CHECK
9. degraded; ignominious: vile servitude.
10. of little value or account; paltry: a vile recompense.

[Joblogger]

(With credit to Niemöller)
When the Republicans came for communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the socialists, I remained silent; I was not a socialist.
When they came for Muslims, I did not speak out; I was not Muslim.
When they came for gays, I did not speak out; I was not gay.
When they came for Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for Blacks, I remained silent; I wasn't Black.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
Time for all to speak out! - Vote!

[Blue in NH]

True--and frightening.

[roshni]

No more silence.

[TotobiAyokoh23]

Is there a casual relationship b/n insanity and a maverick?

[harriscrl3]

Anyone watch Keith Olbermann last night? Because he showed why in logical thought out details why the McCain campaign is a JOKE.

He should have stuck to the people he had running his camapign in the beginning insteady he brought on Rovian IDIOTS which is sort of an oxymoron

Carol

[boing007]

A vile smear? That's what they do best.

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

[Blue in NH]

But the DO know what they do. And it is unforgiveable. McCain and Palin have debased themselves and the country. We deserve MUCH better than those two.

[Lemeritus]

Here's the sad story of McCain's campaign.

It is not simply a difference in philosophy -- I hesitate to use the word ideology because, in the Republican camp, that word has taken on the most awful connotations. There will always be contention between liberal and conservative ideas -- always has been and always will be. One need not be made a pariah or considered an ideologue to say there have been good people and policy on both sides.

So, it is not simply philosophy that has crippled McCain -- it is his spittle-flecked exhortations, his wild-eyed but blind ambition to continue tearing the country apart for his own lust for office. Where in his campaign have we heard a call for comity? When did he exhibit a real conviction in "Country First"? Certainly not as he narrowed (or allowed to be narrowed) the definition of "real Americans" to the lowest common denominator.

The sad story of McCain's campaign is ultimately the revulsion most Americans, on both sides of the political spectrum, have come to feel for the brutal last grasps for power at any cost.

[Spesabsquemetu]

The half-truth that only renders half the information - Part II

If John McCain and William Ayers were both contributors to Rashid Khalidi’s Palistinian Research and Studies initiative, why is the WP not questioning Sen. McCain – concerning his hypocrisy of his own use of false equivalency, and therefore, his fraudulent attempts to denigrate through false innuendo Sen. Obama, while the WP fails to address McCain's own associations and shared interests with both Khalidi and Ayers that concern significant financial contributions by McCain and Ayers to Khalidi? Is this not worthy of public discussion? Is this not information that the public has a right to know so that they can make informed decisions - which should be at the core to the WP's mission?

While the WP should be commended for it’s search for the truth, it needs to do a re-check on whether it is truly concerned about the McCain stench of dishonesty blowing on for four more days, while WP fails in raising serious questions that challenge the integrity and credibility of John McCain.

[nomorebologney]

they did write about this:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/john_mccains_trick_or_treat.html?hpid=topnews

"The Obama campaign was quick to point out that an organization co-founded by Khalidi has received large sums of grant money from the International Republican Institute, chaired by McCain since 1993. One such grant was for $448,873 in 1998 to assist the Center for Palestine Research and Studies in its work in the West Bank."

[Spesabsquemetu]

The half-truth, that renders half-the information. Part I

It is commendable that the Washington Post confronts what appears as fraudulent intimations that the WP mercifully casts as idiocy, being foisted by the McCain-Palin ticket concerning Rashid Khalidi and false innuendo concerning Sen. Obama.

While the WP raises as being fair – questions regarding Obama listening to views that Obama opposes, and attributing this to Obama’s intellectual curiosity, the WP fails to raise equivalent relevant, fair questions regarding McCain’s credibility concerning the fraudulent claims McCain and Palin are making concerning Sen. Obama, particularly since McCain apparently shares sentiments with the man McCain accuses of being a terrorist – William Ayers, as both McCain and Ayers contributed to Mr. Khalidi’s Center for Palistine Research and Studies, something the WP failed to include in their article.

Why would the WP go only so far in search of the truth, as to condemn McCain’s false assertions that fan false innuendo concerning Obama, while failing to question McCain’s credibility given the hypocrisy of McCain's unpublicized relations with Mr. Khalidi and his shared sentiments with William Ayers, that go directly to questioning McCain’s integrity and sense of ethics?

[Vienna Jack]

Why does the Post not go the one NECESSARY step farther and point out that the organization that McCain chaired contributed nearly $500,000 to Khalidi's organization? In essence, the Post criticizes the statement for being inaccurate without bothering to point out that McCain has funded the very man he is now trying to use to condemn Obama. The Post seems to still be in love with McCain and unfairly pulling its punches, even though it endorsed Obama.

[Spesabsquemetu]

Exactly. Why?

It sure makes you question what you are reading, right?
Same thing with questions concerning CNN:

- WHY, when CNN promotes itself as being concerned with truth, and the best political news...

WHY - did CNN reject airing the 30 minute segment by Sen. Obama, while then promoting a follow-up by John McCain on Larry King, that afforded McCain free air time to refute Obama, while not affording Obama the 30 minutes to promote his view points?

Why - did CNN afford the fake-plumber ten minutes of free uninterrupted air time, during the fake-plumber's so-called 'undecided' phase, only then to alot more air-time to the fake-plumber to air his anti-Obama views, while again, not affording 30 minutes of air-time to Obama so that the American people could hear what he had to say?

That should make you pause and wonder what you are listening to...

Why did CNN deem the Fake-Plumber as being more critical for the American people to be listening to - than the democratic presidential candidate - himself?

Why did the WP only go so far, as to state the facts, and provide the critical questions that excellence in journalism calls for?

[Mekarri]

I have always said that CNN,MSNBC (minus rachael, keith and matthews at times) NBC,ABC and CBS in the bag for mcpalin. I see more media on mcpalin rallies than Obama.

[nunzia]

7 out of 7 undecided voters (translate: idiots) don't know what "ad hominem" means, and certainly have no idea whatsoever what's at stake in this election.

[2bad]

Don't you think it may be a good idea to get people who don't no such things to actually seek out the information and, I don't know maybe, LEARN something!

[old lady]

JSM has crafted his campaign on 2 principles

A. McLuhan 's " the media is the message.An­ything put out on/in the media has to be so
B. Machiavelli's " the end justifies the means"

I have voted. I will be praying all weekend that come Tuesday the vote will show
Rational Thinking Americans out-number the Zombie Credo-heads who fall into rank no matter waht drivel is dished out to them as the "truth du jour"

We have a clear choice = Hope vs Big Brother

[Takae]

Machiavelli didn't create that. He modernised it. The creator was Ovid. Besides, his quotation is widely misunderstood. Just wanted to say.