LBM

Hillary was the first to defend Obama on this. posted 05/16/2008 at 16:48:07

The case for Israel was made centuries before World War II. The Jewish people were the majority population in Jerusalem at the time that the UN gave Israel its independence. My great great great great great grandfather had founded the Jewish community of Hebron in 1813. In 1929, the Palestinians slaughtered every Jewish man, woman and child there. To use history to say that one or the other were the true residents of the area, won't help. There is archealogical evidence that the Jewish people were there for thousands of years. Please read the declaration of independence to understand the true argument for Israel's existence:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Declaration+of+Establishment+of+State+of+Israel.htm posted 05/16/2008 at 22:58:03

Read Human Rights Watch:
http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/isrlpa17596.htm

In 2007, for the first time since Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, more Palestinians died as a result of internal Palestinian fighting than from Israeli attacks. Palestinian armed groups, rival security forces, and powerful clans continue armed attacks on one another. At this writing, 318 Palestinians, including many civilians, had died in such fighting in 2007, most of them in Gaza.

By far the worst round of fighting broke out in June 2007 and left 161 Palestinians dead, including 41 civilians. By the end of the eight-day battle, Hamas had taken full control of the Gaza Strip. Both sides engaged in serious violations of international humanitarian law, such as torturing and summarily executing captured and incapacitated fighters, including inside hospitals; unnecessarily endangering civilians by deploying in populated areas during the fighting; and blocking the access of medical teams to injured persons. posted 05/16/2008 at 23:03:38

Obama has been endorsed by pro-life supporters such as Sen. Bob Casey Jr, he is an unknown. When asked in the Compassion Forum if he believes life begins at conception, Obama answered that he doesn't know, that he felt there is something extraordinarily powerful about the potential of life and that has a moral weight to it. The link is below. Hillary has been a steadfast supporter of women's rights throughout her career. We would love whichever democrat we get as our nominee to be strong on women's rights, but endorsing the one who is less strong at this point in the campaign sends the wrong message.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=n3iHr1IYWUk&feature=related posted 05/16/2008 at 14:57:28

As a Hillary supporter, I totally agree with you. NARAL made a huge mistake here. It is on them completely and not the candidates. posted 05/16/2008 at 12:36:25

Maybe if Hillary keeps getting press like this the Obama supporters will finally start to see what the rest of us see in Hillary. She is a leader of our party and should have the admiration of democrats across the board. posted 05/14/2008 at 21:02:25

He was talking about the appeal of the tough new Hillary image, not specifically bombing Iran. posted 05/14/2008 at 21:04:35

So do you think that Israel does not have a right to exist? What do you call that? I call that evil. Look at what the Palestinians are doing to the Palestinians, read the Human Rights Watch report:

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/isrlpa17596.htm posted 05/16/2008 at 14:47:49

I am just curious why you believe that AIPAC is based on an assumption of inherent Jewish moral superiority over Islam? I can't see anything like that on their website and I don't see a problem with their accomplishments. There is so much anti-AIPAC bashing here, I really just want to understand what you are seeing that I'm missing. posted 05/14/2008 at 21:49:12

Using the term Zionist only means someone who believes that Israel has a right to exist. It is not the negative term that you seem to want to use it as. Zionist is the same as Jewish to many Jewish people. When you attack Zionists, many Jewish people see that as a code-word to attack Judaism. There are some Jews who don't believe that Israel has a right to exist, but they are in the minority. There is a difference between people who support Israel's right to exist, and those extremists who don't believe that the Palistinians deserve their own state also. Most Israelis and most American Jews, who would think of themselves as Zionists, believe in the two state solution. posted 05/14/2008 at 21:44:20

Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. They don't want a 2 state solution, they want their state only.

Read the Human Rights Watch report on the situation. This is not one-sided Hamas bashing, this is the reality:

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/isrlpa17596.htm posted 05/14/2008 at 21:31:58

The Arab citizens of Israel have equal rights to the Jewish citizens. The Israeli majority in control of the government supports the two state solution to live in peace next to the Palestinian state. Justice in the Middle East will happen when the terrorists stop attacking Israel and decide that they want to live in peace with their own state. In Israel's Declaration of Independence, it states:

WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

http://www.israel.org/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Declaration%20of%20Establishment%20of%20State%20of%20Israel posted 05/14/2008 at 21:22:12

There is a reason why countries have allies. Israel is our strongest ally in the middle east. Allies are nations that have joined together in an association for mutual benefit or to achieve some common goal or purpose. Israel is our partner in creating peace, freedom and democracy in the middle east. That is essential for our future security as well as theirs. The Palestinians get support and funding through Iran and other Arab nations. They do not share a common purpose with us. They want to destroy Israel, not live in peace with it. At least that is what Hamas wants. posted 05/14/2008 at 21:13:34

The majority party in Israel is Kadima, a centrist-left party that supports the two state solution. People in the Jewish community speak continually against Likud, but that is only one of many political parties in Israel, equal to the far right here. Israel is our ally, not one particular political party. They are our ally because they are a strong democracy with a declaration of independence guaranteeing equal rights to all, very similar to our own. posted 05/14/2008 at 17:37:51

Yikes! Telling them to channel Nixon is worse than a Pandora's box. He was the most outspoken anti-semite I can ever remember in political office.

I am also a Jewish Hillary supporter, but I will be voting for Obama if he gets the nomination. Most of my family and friends are the same. A small minority are strong Hillary supporters who will not vote for Obama due to Jewish concerns There are others who are strong Obama supporters and are not at all concerned about any of the Jewish issues. I know other Jewish Republicans who feel that they have the best interest of the Jewish voters on their side and that McCain will be good for them, they are a very small minority. The likelihood is that whatever democrat gets the nomination will have the majority of the Jewish vote if you have to slice and dice us up this way. posted 05/14/2008 at 17:25:54

This is why articles like this are intended only to divide and stir up hate. The Jewish vote is not one entity. We are all individuals voting the issues that are important to us. What happens to Israel is personal to many American Jews, so many of us do vote for people we know support Israel's efforts to live in peace. That doesn't mean the same thing to every Jewish person. There are doves and hawks, there are right and left and centrist. We are not blindly loyal, we know the facts of the situation and know that Israel stands for liberty and values life, while the difficulties taking place in the occupied territories and with defensive measures concern us all. We know that Israel is surrounded by enemies and is the recipient of continual attack and they need to be able to protect themselves. It's a complicated situation, and many outside of Israel have very strong emotional feelings about what they feel should be done which has nothing at all to do with the reality there. if peace were easy, it would've taken place thousands of years ago. posted 05/14/2008 at 17:08:48

I am female. posted 05/14/2008 at 16:48:46

Where do you get that AIPAC doesn't represent majority Jewish opinion? It is a bi-partisan group who is dedicated to peace in the middle east. The current government in Israel is a centrist-left government, the Kadima party, who also is working towards the road map of two states living side by side in peace. Israel destroyed and evacuated all of its Israeli settlements in Gaza and left that territory as requested in the road map. Hamas has violently taken over that territory and fires rockets daily onto innocent Israeli women and children. If you want to speak the truth about the situation, read the Human Rights Watch report:

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/isrlpa17596.htm posted 05/14/2008 at 14:46:16

Heh. I guess you don't know too many Jewish voters! :) The polls say that Hillary is the preferred candidate, but he isn't that far behind. McCain will probably pick up a record number of Jewish supporters this election though if Obama is the nominee due to concerns in the Jewish community. The democrats will still get the majority of the democratic vote though since many Jewish voters are pro-choice, anti-gun and anti-war and are very committed to freedom of religion and separation of church and state. posted 05/14/2008 at 14:42:32

The democratic party is quickly becoming the party of division and hate. You are so against racism that you want to rally around anti-semitism? It's very sad. posted 05/14/2008 at 14:28:45

Well said. posted 05/14/2008 at 14:25:39

The Kadima party is the majority party in Israel right now. They are a centrist-left party supporting the road map to peace. They have pulled out of Gaza, and have gotten attacked daily in return. Israel is committed to living in peace with safe and secure borders. They don't need an American President to force them into it, they need a partner in the peace process and support to accomplish the goals of peace. We don't expect our allies to tell us who to vote for or what platforms are important for us, we expect their support whether a republican is in the white house or a democrat. posted 05/14/2008 at 14:23:26

So true. Articles like this one only divides us and brings out the hate and intolerance in people. This should not be the way the democratic party behaves. posted 05/14/2008 at 14:18:56

You do not have an objective understanding of what is happening or has happened in Israel. Read the Human Rights Watch report on the country:

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/isrlpa17596.htm

In 2007, for the first time since Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, more Palestinians died as a result of internal Palestinian fighting than from Israeli attacks. Palestinian armed groups, rival security forces, and powerful clans continue armed attacks on one another. At this writing, 318 Palestinians, including many civilians, had died in such fighting in 2007, most of them in Gaza.

By far the worst round of fighting broke out in June 2007 and left 161 Palestinians dead, including 41 civilians. By the end of the eight-day battle, Hamas had taken full control of the Gaza Strip. Both sides engaged in serious violations of international humanitarian law, such as torturing and summarily executing captured and incapacitated fighters, including inside hospitals; unnecessarily endangering civilians by deploying in populated areas during the fighting; and blocking the access of medical teams to injured persons. posted 05/14/2008 at 14:17:07

Wow, not sure where to start with this post. You do realize that there are only 2.5% Jewish people in the US, right? But you think that somehow with this extremely low minority representation, we have all the power? This is called anti-semitism, even if you don't recognize it. Read up on the Human Rights Abuses in Israel:

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/isrlpa17596.htm

Hamas is a terrorist organization who is murdering not only Israelis but many Palestinians as well. Where is the moral outrage over the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, Burma, Russia, the US? Why is it that you want to single out the only Jewish state in the world with one of the smallest populations? Did you know that Israel is smaller than New Jersey, and yet it is such a huge threat to it's massive Arab neighbors? The United States protects the minorities and helps the underdogs, that is why the US is such a great nation. posted 05/14/2008 at 14:12:14

Huckabee got 10% of the Republican vote and Ron Paul got 5%. It just shows that all three of these non-candidates have a small but devoted following still and they wanted their chance to vote for their candidate. posted 05/14/2008 at 11:41:23

She actually is winning Texas, it's not over yet and won't be over until the convention in June. This is because, not only does TX use delegates from the primary and delegates from the Caucus, but it also has its own state super delegates which Hillary is winning 65 to 58. So she got 65 to his 61 in the primary, and he got 36 to her 30 in the caucus, Hillary will have the most delegates and the most popular vote at the convention in June to give her a full win for Texas with a total count of Hillary 160 to Obama 155 at the convention. Here is the explanation:

http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4877 posted 05/14/2008 at 13:57:13

You are so out of touch with half of the democratic party, it amazes me that you think that you supporters can unify the country. You can't even understand half of your own party. posted 05/14/2008 at 13:44:21

She just thinks she would be a better President, not that Obama wouldn't be a good one. He hasn't won the nomination yet, and the race is still on. She can still win fair and square. posted 05/14/2008 at 13:43:27

She won every demographic in West Virginia including the young, and both men and women. posted 05/14/2008 at 13:42:17

I didn't mean transfer her debt, I meant transfer the $20M she's raised for the general election. posted 05/14/2008 at 12:42:56

I was just telling my daughter last night how I felt for the first time in my life that my party is abandoning me. The far left is taking over and I used to be one of them, but now it seems full of intolerance and hate, not idealism and hope like it used to be. Now I see Hillary as my beacon of hope and inspiration and I'm hoping that the upcoming states all see it as clearly as West Virginia did. If you don't keep posting here, then they will think the entire world agrees with them. posted 05/14/2008 at 12:40:55

It's not stealing to win votes. It's called a democratic election. She is the most worthy woman in this country to be President and half of the democratic party is behind her. It doesn't help the party or women for the other half to disparage her. posted 05/14/2008 at 12:37:53

Some of the most racist people I know are voting for Obama. I think your theory is flawed. posted 05/14/2008 at 12:34:54

Hmmm...ask Bush posted 05/14/2008 at 12:33:03

Obama will not secure the nomination with pledged delegates either. posted 05/14/2008 at 12:32:44

A win of 41% over Obama, a net of 12 pledged delegates, a net of 147,328 in popular vote, and a beautiful speech. This isn't desperation, this is pride in our candidate. posted 05/14/2008 at 12:31:45

I think you're missing the real reasons:

1. She is winning some huge victories over Obama even as he is supposed to be the nominee
2. Her supporters love her and want her to stay in so they can vote for her in the upcoming races
3. She could very well win the popular vote when the votes are all in which gives her a foundation to ask for the super delegate votes
4. She is committed to seating the delegations from Fl and MI in a fair way to make those states feel that they are represented in the convention and will not take their anger against the democratic party in November
5. She actually cares about the future of this country and our party posted 05/14/2008 at 12:25:59

Seriously? The goal post in every primary is the convention. Who moved it? posted 05/14/2008 at 12:23:09

He knows that his endorsement wouldn't matter and his wife would endorse Hillary, so why make her mad? There's no need for Edwards to say anything other than what he's been saying. He needs to talk about the issues that matter to him and who has the best plan, which he has said is Hillary for health care. posted 05/14/2008 at 12:22:15

Hillary just needs to win the rest of the states like this and they'll get it soon enough! posted 05/14/2008 at 12:20:28

You do know that you just mentioned a long line of democrats who didn't win the Presidency, right? posted 05/14/2008 at 12:18:15

She's doing this because this is what her supporters want her to do. She has been urged to stay in so that they can vote for her in the remaining states. Why do you see that as so sinister? Her supporters are passionate about her and want her to win, just like Obama supporters are about him. She is being positive, she is bringing out record numbers of voters and she's inspiring people to come out and vote for a democrat. These are all good things. posted 05/14/2008 at 12:16:50

No, you read the exit poll wrong. If Hillary won the nomination 74% say they'd vote for Hillary in Nov, 18% for McCain, 6% would not vote. Or if Obama won the nomination 49% would vote for Obama, 29% for McCain, and 19% would not vote. posted 05/14/2008 at 11:54:57

She wasn't offering him the position, she was saying that she believes in the unity ticket that she would need to have Obama as VP to bring the party together. Haven't heard anything like that from Obama. I wish I would, I'd be much happier. posted 05/14/2008 at 11:51:39

Same with Puerto Rico! posted 05/14/2008 at 11:48:39

Did you notice that the exit polls shows that the majority of voters think Obama is not honest and trustworthy...and they actually like her gas tax holiday by 2 to 1. I think that it's pretty evident that she's making history, not that she is history. posted 05/14/2008 at 11:48:23

I have never heard something so outrageous suggesting that the candidate who just won a victory with 3 out of 4 voters voting against the presumed candidate, saying the winner should concede. Come on. This victory shows that there is quite a bit of America who wants Hillary to stay in the race. They want their chance to let their voices be heard and their votes are just as important as yours.

You may not have noticed that last night there was also a primary in Nebraska. A state that Obama had a landslide victory against Hillary in an earlier caucus, and guess what happened, he squeeked out a narrow victory. This either means that Hillary's argument that caucuses don't represent the real vote or that the bitter and Wright controversies have hurt Obama so much that doing over votes in several states would show that he may not win so easily after all. He is not the same candidate that he was on Super Tuesday. Hillary needs to stay in the race. posted 05/14/2008 at 11:35:46

I know this huge win it tough on you Obama supporters. Just give us Hillary supporters a little celebration time. Come on, where's your good loser role modeling? Let's hear some... go hillary, way to go hill, we're with you sister, woo hoo. I'll start you off..

Way to Go Hillary!! Take it all the way to the white house!!!! posted 05/13/2008 at 23:06:41

Since when is winning votes equivalent to stealing? She won fair and square. posted 05/13/2008 at 22:18:35

McCain can't even win 80% of his own party's votes when no one else is running. He is never going to win and he's not at all happy about it. posted 05/13/2008 at 22:13:45

How are you defining the majority of the voters? Hillary is well on the way to having the majority of popular votes. That was enough for democrats to believe that Gore should've won the presidency. Popular vote is the majority of voters. posted 05/13/2008 at 22:12:57

He's actually losing by 42% at this point because Edwards got 7% of the vote too. posted 05/13/2008 at 22:11:18

Heh. Now that's seeing the glass half full. posted 05/13/2008 at 22:09:08

Hillary delivered a perfect speech for the situation with her incredible win today. Does she get any respect for this win? Huffington won't even make it a headline. She still has a path to the nomination, but the press, the pundits, the Obama supporters have just turned off their minds and want to shut her down. People are still out there who strongly support Hillary and want to vote. She has every right to keep going, she's winning the races, it's not over until someone gets the nomination. I am proud of my candidate, especially since the tone has gotten much more positive. Now I hope she keeps winning these contests, and better yet wins over the hearts and minds of the whole democratic party as they see her strength and determination. posted 05/13/2008 at 22:07:57

If you are going to make hate filled assertions, I suggest you need to read up on the truth of the situation. Read the Human Rights Watch report:

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/isrlpa17596.htm

Now read about other Middle Eastern allies of ours such as Saudi Arabia where it is still illegal to practice Judaism and the law discriminates against women. Is that a wound festering on Mother Earth? posted 05/14/2008 at 14:02:03

There is an interesting article in the Jewish Forward about Carter and his peace dealings, and what has worked and what lessons have been learned. The conclusion is that American policy "is most effective when it is reactive and not preconceived, when it is pragmatic rather than idealistic. Henry Kissinger taking advantage of the Yom Kippur War in 1973 to negotiate force-separation agreements " which were the real beginning of the Israeli-Arab peace process " and ease the Soviets out of the region is a positive example of this dynamic. President Bush"s attempt to restructure the Middle East and impose democracy in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks is a negative one.

Carter"s most recent forays into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based as they are on ideology and ignorance, are reminiscent of his misguided attempt in 1977 to thwart Sadat"s peace initiative, rather than the exemplary statesmanship he exhibited the following year at Camp David."
http://www.forward.com/articles/13212/ posted 05/14/2008 at 13:36:40

All citizens of Israel including Arab citizens of Israel possess the same citizen rights since the fact is that Israel is a liberal democracy, guaranteeing civil, religious and social equality to all its citizens -- including Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druze and Baha'is. Israel's Arab citizens have the right to vote, and are represented by three Arab political parties in Israel's parliament (the Knesset), representing a gamut of views from communism to Islamic fundamentalism. Several newspapers freely represent the views of Arab citizens in a far freer manner than is permitted among the media of Israel's neighbours. Unlike the situation in South Africa during Apartheid, Arab citizens of Israel are guaranteed the right to vote, can (and do) serve in government, and are protected equally by the Israeli court system. It is political slander intended to malign Israel by singling it out from all other countries whose human rights records are called into question, possibly because of its status as the world's only Jewish State. 53 faculty members from Stanford university have stated: "The apartheid analogy is false and breeds conflict", as for the analogy itself they conclude: "The State of Israel has nothing in common with apartheid". You can read the truth about the Human Rights Record here:

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/isrlpa17596.htm posted 05/14/2008 at 13:26:58

That's ridiculous. Israel just celebrated it's 60th anniversary of independence and it has existed with Arab enemy neighbors for thousands of years. Do you think the wars just started since 1948? This was not an experiment, and it has not failed. My great-great-great-great-great grandfather founded the Jewish community of Hebron in the 1700's. In 1929, the Palestinians slaughtered every Jewish man, woman and child in the community. You can't use history to solve this crisis, and you can't give in to terror. This has been the Jewish homeland for thousands of years, and it will remain that for thousands of years to come. posted 05/14/2008 at 13:22:29

Israel is based on their Declaration of Independence which insures equal rights for all citizens regardless of their race or religion. They have a 20% Arab population that has all the same rights as the Jewish population, they even have seats in the Knesset. Maybe you should read the Declaration:

http://www.israel.org/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Declaration%20of%20Establishment%20of%20State%20of%20Israel

Unlike the situation in South Africa during Apartheid, Arab citizens of Israel are guaranteed the right to vote, can and do serve in government, and are protected equally by the Israeli court system. It is political slander intended to malign Israel by singling it out from all other countries whose human rights records are called into question, possibly because of its status as the world's only Jewish State.

53 faculty members from Stanford university have stated: "The apartheid analogy is false and breeds conflict", as for the analogy itself they conclude: "The State of Israel has nothing in common with apartheid".

Read up on the Human Rights Record of Israel and other countries:

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/isrlpa17596.htm posted 05/14/2008 at 13:16:21

Are you saying that Jewish people are immoral? Where do you come up with that anti-semitic assertion? Israel is a country that is our strongest ally in the middle east. Who were Americans dying for in the first Gulf War, the World Wars, Bosnia? How about all the other countries that the US has stepped in to help over the years? Israel is a democracy that has equal rights for all its citizens including the 20% Arab minority who also has seats in the Knesset. Their human rights record is miles above other countries in the area, and even better than the US, Russia, China and many other countries. Look at the Human Rights Watch report on Israel, and then look at these other countries and ask why Israel is singled out:

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/isrlpa17596.htm posted 05/14/2008 at 13:08:56

I have to disagree on one point, the terrorists may not have the support of the Palestinian population. Hamas has killed more Palestinians in 2007 than the Israeli forces did for the first time since 1967 due to their armed takeover of Gaza. They are terrorists, but they are not the same as the innocent among the Palestinian people who are also their targets. Read the Human Rights Watch overview of the conflict:

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/isrlpa17596.htm posted 05/14/2008 at 12:59:15

They never stopped talking. They asked Egypt to talk to Hamas, and they are starting talks with Syria although Bush is trying to stop that. Israel has been in this position since 1947, why would time be running out all of a sudden now? Oh, because Bush is leaving office? I don't think so. posted 05/14/2008 at 12:55:51

Israel is the strongest ally that we have in the middle east. It is a full democracy with equal rights for all its citizens and is as close as any other country in the world to America. Do you believe that the US doesn't need allies? The situation is much more complex than you seem to think. It is in our country's best interests to have peace in the middle east. Israel is our partner towards that end. Would you rather we only depend on Saudi Arabia where their law and policies discriminate against women, foreign workers, and religious minorities. It is still illegal there to practice Judaism. posted 05/13/2008 at 23:00:02

I don't think you understand that Israel is based on their Declaration of Independence which insures equal rights for all citizens regardless of their race. They have a 20% Arab population that has all the same rights as the Jewish population, they even have seats in the Knesset. Maybe you should read the Declaration:

http://www.israel.org/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Declaration%20of%20Establishment%20of%20State%20of%20Israel

Israel does not question whether it is a Jewish state, it was formed with that intention and to be a democracy with equal rights for all. posted 05/13/2008 at 22:52:37

I think it's pretty obvious what the problem is. Israel is surrounded by enemies who want to wipe it off the face of the earth. I suggest you read the truth about the human rights abuses in the area, instead of relying on biased reporting:

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/isrlpa17596.htm

What would you suggest that Israel do that they are not doing in order to live in safe and secure borders? If you have a solution that would be feasible, there are many who would be grateful. posted 05/13/2008 at 22:49:11

Are you talking about Israel? I think you are a little confused about the actual human rights abuses going on in Israel and the Palestinian territories. I suggest you read the Human Rights Watch report:

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/isrlpa17596.htm posted 05/13/2008 at 22:40:51

I'm not sure where you have been but the Israeli regime that you are so against has been out of power for a while. The Kadima party is in power now, that is a centrist party who supports the road map to peace. They have pulled out of Gaza, destroyed and evacuated all the Israeli settlements there. What they got in return is constant rocket attacks over the border and a violent takeover of the territory by the terrorist organization Hamas who has killed more Palestinians there in 2007 than Israeli forces have for the first time since 1967. How do you think America could keep its allies if they all criticized who we put in power? Would it be ok for them to say they're not our allies any more because we elected a republican? We support Israel and their efforts to live in peace. If you want a better understanding of the situation, please read the Human Rights Watch report:

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/isrlpa17596.htm posted 05/13/2008 at 22:34:16

"JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America"s reputation overseas?"

"BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable."

I think that it can be misinterpreted due to the way he put it and the question he answered. He's the one who complains that we only see things as black and white. There is nuance here. posted 05/13/2008 at 22:29:00

I have to say that I think Obama has a problem with putting together sentences and paragraphs in ways that can't be twisted and interpreted in fairly negative ways. This is the same as the bitter remarks. I think it just shows his inexperience in politics. He needs to think before putting his foot in his mouth. I'm not saying that I believe he thinks Israel is an open sore, but that statement can be misinterpreted and obviously has. Instead of attacking the Republicans for taking advantage of his difficulty in communicating well, he should take this as another lesson to better prepare for questions like this with statements that are clear and to the point. posted 05/13/2008 at 19:02:59

The other half sees her as inspirational, strong, decisive and a great leader. Just because you're on one side, doesn't mean the other side isn't just as passionate about their choice. You are only seeing negatives. You can say exactly the same negative things about Obama or a number of other ones. There are two sides to every coin. posted 05/13/2008 at 14:39:08

You can truly care about Hillary being the next President without racism or lack of education involved. She is a wonderful candidate and for you to put down the 16 million plus people who have voted for her is inexcusable. West Virginians, Kentuckians and Puerto Ricans are not all uneducated racists, they want Hillary to win the nomination, they don't necessarily want Obama to lose it. posted 05/13/2008 at 12:19:31

What he is saying is that Muslims may view him as Muslim due solely to his birth and rejecting his conversion. He is only talking about how the Muslims will view him and react to him and how that will play into foreign relations. I don't think it's a problem for people to point out the issue. He was born to a Muslim father. Do any of you know Muslim customs from other countries and know if what he's saying isn't true? posted 05/13/2008 at 12:30:32

Your hatred and bias is very distressing. I urge you to read the truth about the situation and the armed takeover that Hamas incurred on Gaza and the Palestinian people from Human Rights Watch:

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/isrlpa17596.htm

Palestinian armed groups, rival security forces, and powerful clans continue armed attacks on one another. At this writing, 318 Palestinians, including many civilians, had died in such fighting in 2007, most of them in Gaza.

By far the worst round of fighting broke out in June 2007 and left 161 Palestinians dead, including 41 civilians. By the end of the eight-day battle, Hamas had taken full control of the Gaza Strip. Both sides engaged in serious violations of international humanitarian law, such as torturing and summarily executing captured and incapacitated fighters, including inside hospitals; unnecessarily endangering civilians by deploying in populated areas during the fighting; and blocking the access of medical teams to injured persons. posted 05/13/2008 at 15:32:15

Obama's statement and your post just shows how you don't understand the situation. Likud is not the majority party in Israel. Most Israelis support the two state solution and that's why the Kadima party is in the majority in the Knesset and Olmert is from that party. It is a centrist party that believes in the two state solution. No one is saying Likud is the only way to support Israel. posted 05/13/2008 at 15:28:11

You are very mistaken. Israel has freedom of speech and there are many competing parties represented in the Knesset. They have continual debates about how to handle the situation. Arabs are represented in the government as well. Likud is only one party in Israel. Kadima is the party that is currently in the majority of the government. They are working towards the road map for peace. They are centrist, not right. Why do you have a problem supporting a centrist Israeli government who is working towards a 2 state solution? posted 05/13/2008 at 15:24:24

What is inexcusable is to call Israel on its human rights abuses without acknowledging the abuses of the other parties involved. Read Human Rights Watch on the Israel/Palestinian situation:

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/isrlpa17596.htm

Now, take a look at other country reports, like the US, Burma, Saudi Arabia, and tell me why Israel is being singled out. It is defending itself against an enemy that wants to wipe it off the face of the earth. It doesn't attack without provocation. I doesn't try to target innocent lives like the terrorists do. It is taking defensive measures to secure its borders. posted 05/13/2008 at 15:20:37

You are looking at this backwards. No one has to swear loyalty to any other country. A leader is required to understand the difference between a terrorist organization and a legitimate government. We support Israel as our strongest ally in the region. We don't swear loyalty to them, we support them in their quest for peace with their neighbors. posted 05/13/2008 at 15:14:42

Likud is not the majority party in Israel, Kadima is, the centrist party who believe in the road map to peace. About 700,000 Palestinians left due to urging of their leaders when the Arab war was begun in 1948. Israel's declaration of independence states:

"...in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East."

The response was the Arab war of 1948 intended to destroy Israel. There are now about 4 million descendants of the Palestinians who left Israel. They live all over the world, some still in Gaza and the West Bank, some already in Israel. There are only about 7 million people living in Israel and 20% of those are Arabs. It's inconceivable to insist that Israel allows 4 million more people into an area that is smaller than New Jersey. New Jersey has a population just over 8 million people. posted 05/13/2008 at 15:11:08

Actually democratic Jewish voters support Hillary over Obama, but he is not terribly far behind. posted 05/13/2008 at 14:47:29

Israel did retreat from the Gaza strip as their step towards the road map to peace. They destroyed and evacuated all the Israeli settlements much to the distress of many Israelis. They pulled out and allowed the Palestinians to govern their own territories. Now they are attacked daily with random rocket fire from Gaza and Hamas has violently taken over the territory. The people are suffering terribly there due to the actions of Hamas. It's not as easy as just pulling out, similar to the situation we would find in Iraq. Once the IRA got their land, did they continue setting off bombs against innocent people? posted 05/12/2008 at 20:48:44

You may not know the truth of the situation in Gaza, this is from Human Rights Watch:

Palestinian armed groups, rival security forces, and powerful clans continue armed attacks on one another. At this writing, 318 Palestinians, including many civilians, had died in such fighting in 2007, most of them in Gaza. By far the worst round of fighting broke out in June 2007 and left 161 Palestinians dead, including 41 civilians. By the end of the eight-day battle, Hamas had taken full control of the Gaza Strip. Both sides engaged in serious violations of international humanitarian law, such as torturing and summarily executing captured and incapacitated fighters, including inside hospitals; unnecessarily endangering civilians by deploying in populated areas during the fighting; and blocking the access of medical teams to injured persons.

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/isrlpa17596.htm posted 05/12/2008 at 20:41:36

This was done by a terrorist organization, not a government: There was a warning given before the bombing telling them to evacuate, they didn't intend casualties.

"A warning message was delivered to the telephone operator of the King David Hotel before the attack and also delivered to the French consulate and the Palestine Post newspaper. According to Irgun sources, the message read "I am speaking on behalf of the Hebrew underground. We have placed an explosive device in the hotel. Evacuate it at once - you have been warned.""

If you look at the history of terrorist organizations, you'll see that very few of them were ever associated with the Jewish religion. Out of 309 organizations, only 6 have a Jewish affiliation with only 1 still active, which is the party by Kahane which is illegal in Israel. 201 terrorist organizations are Christian, with 26 still active. There are 54 Moslem terrorist organizations, with 29 still active, 12 represent Palistinians. See the data below:

http://dev.laits.utexas.edu/movabletype/blogs/tiger/tgww_20070805.xls posted 05/12/2008 at 20:32:30

You have to know that the Israelis aren't targeting children, they don't rejoice over the deaths of innocents. That's the difference between Israel and the terrorists. The terrorists rejoice at the death of innocent lives, the rest of the world including Israel weeps. These deaths wouldn't happen if the terrorists would stop attacking, then there would be no need for defense measures. posted 05/12/2008 at 20:14:17

Read the Human Rights Watch overview of the region:

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/isrlpa17596.htm posted 05/12/2008 at 20:06:54

You can't compare the two. It's like saying that Al Queda is equal to the US. One is a terrorist organization that took over territory with an armed assault to insure an election of their own government without the support of the people of that territory. The other is a democratic government which is our strongest ally in the middle east. You can't have peace talks with officials that have no say in how the people will accept an agreement. Olmert has a problem now in Israel and he may be out soon, so we don't even know who to speak with on that end. But the Palestiinian side is much more complex. There are the elected officials of the PA in the West Bank who we'd like to deal with, Abbas. But there are about 16 terrorist organizations also. No one has much influence over anyone else. Abbas can make a deal but no one may listen, same with Hamas. They weren't even the ones who kidnapped Shalit. Maybe this is why they can't do a prisoner exchange, they have no influence. posted 05/12/2008 at 19:26:01

He was the one instrumental in pulling Israel out of the Gaza occupation, that wasn't all bad. It shows a commitment towards the peace process. He's in a coma now anyway. Not much more he can do. posted 05/12/2008 at 19:16:51

Hamas was not "democratically elected" in the way that you think. They had a military takeover of Gaza by killing the opposition. They have killed more Palistinians in Gaza than the Israelis in 2007 for the first time since 1967. They are terrorists to the Palistinian people as well as to Israel. posted 05/12/2008 at 19:10:33

Read the report from Human Rights Watch:

http://hrw.org/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/isrlpa17596.htm

Hamas targets civilians to kill and injure as many people as possible with the use of rockets, kidnapping and suicide attacks. Israel acts in defense of itself and targets those who commit acts of terror against them. The innocent victims of these attacks are not the intended recipients and their deaths and injuries upset just as many Israelis as others in the world. No one in Israel rejoices when innocent lives are taken. Hamas is intent on destroying Israel, that objective is in its charter, and they rejoice when Israelis and Americans are killed by terrorism. Israel only wants to live in peace with its neighbors, with secure and safe borders. Israel is a democratic society with equal rights for all its citizens including the Arab minority. posted 05/12/2008 at 19:05:29

Currently Likud is not in control of Israel. Olmert is in the Kadima party and so is the majority in the Knesset. This is a centrist party. They believe in the roadmap for peace and the west bank barrier. This party was formed by Sharon. posted 05/12/2008 at 18:51:30

There has never been a war on Israel that was only one small faction against Israel. When the neighbors decide they want to attack, they all get together and support each other against Israel. In 1967, it was a combined effort of Jordan, Egypt, Syria with contributions from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Algeria. In 1948, it was Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Egypt who attacked. Hamas is funded by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Palestinian expatriates, and private benefactors in other Arab states. They are not alone. posted 05/12/2008 at 18:43:58

Israel pulled out of Gaza and removed all its settlements just as their agreement stated. And to what result? They are bombarded daily by rocket fire. Gaza has been militarily taken over in an armed assault by the terrorist organization Hamas, this was not an "election", they murdered their opposition. All of this due to Israel abiding by their end of the deal and pulling out of the territory. There is a reason why Israelis are hesitant to pull out of occupied territories, this is what happens. posted 05/12/2008 at 18:31:03

Hamas killed more Palestinians in 2007 than Israel did. Check Human Rights Watch. posted 05/12/2008 at 18:26:04

Are you aware of how Hamas got "elected" in Gaza? Did you know that they murdered the people in the Fatah party running against them? Did you know that according to Human Rights Watch, 2007 is the first year since 1967 when Israel began the occupation that more Palestinians died as a result of internal Palestinian fighting than from Israeli attacks, due mainly to Hamas and their "armed takeover" of Gaza. There is very little that most Americans understand about the complexity of the Israeli situation and to think that Hamas is a hero to the Palestinians is very much misstating the reality of Gaza. posted 05/12/2008 at 18:24:03

For some reason, the system isn't allowing me to reply to the replies. I looked up the "sore loser" laws and found that John Anderson established the precedent in most states that "sore loser" laws do not apply to presidential candidates. John Anderson ran in two-thirds of the 1980 Republican presidential primaries, and he also won a place on the November 1980 ballots as an independent candidate in all 50 states. In some of the states in which Anderson happened not to run in the 1980 Republican presidential primary, there is still a precedent that "sore loser" laws don"t apply to president, because others set such precedents. These include Lyndon LaRouche (who ran in Democratic primaries and then as an independent in 1984, 1988 and 1992) and David Duke (who ran in Democratic presidential primaries in 1988 and then ran in November 1988 as the Populist Party nominee). posted 05/12/2008 at 18:00:42

Hillary has said multiple times that she would offer the VP slot to Obama, I am absolutely confident that she would do that out of respect for half of the party who voted for him. It's the right thing to do. posted 05/12/2008 at 15:37:15

Don't be so sure, many of Obama's votes would change due to his bitter comments and the Wright controversy. My guess is that if all that happened before Super Tuesday then Hillary would've been our nominee long ago. posted 05/12/2008 at 15:35:57

Where do you see that? Lieberman did it. posted 05/12/2008 at 15:34:26

If Obama doesn't show Hillary the respect she deserves after winning over 16 million votes from devoted followers, and ask her to be his running mate, than she has every right to run as an independent and win that way. If he can disrespect half of our party that way, then he won't have my support. posted 05/12/2008 at 15:18:36

This is great news for the democrats, now we just need Huckabee to run too. posted 05/12/2008 at 15:09:42