So the continued parsing is what puzzles me- there's nothing left to parse! And yet you, and runa, seem to be saying, “well, if only we know what he really meant.” That's like looking at one speech where one paragraph speaks in generalities and then goes on to give the specifics, and you guys are looking at the one general one and saying “well, he could have meant X” even though the following two paragraphs specifically say, “In the preceding paragraph, Y is my specific view on that, not X”.

Huh?

Which part do you not understand?

We could seemingly parse these statements forever. There seem to be two questions. 1) What is the best practical way to deal with Hamas and Iran? Can negotiations play any useful role and at what level should they occur? 2) Has McCain illegitimately criticized Obama for making statements similar to one he previously made himself, which is entirely a political discussion? If we are only debating topic 2, McCain seems at political fault if he is criticizing Obama for suggesting any diplomacy at all since he seems to have considered it an unfortunate necessity a couple years back. McCain seems to have a political out still if the criticism is only of diplomacy at a presidential level. I do hope that if the topic comes up in debates in the future that it concentrates on topic 1 and not topic 2.

What i said in my comment.
Can he grasp the complexities (democratic elecitons+terrorism) when he's not towing the administration line?

The statement being parsed to death seems to indicate that he can. Subsequent statements and the arguments in his defense smother that possibility.
That leaves his intellectual abilities in the face of complexities very much under muddy waters.

It's about whether or not they are agents that we can engage in negotiations toward peace in the region if they haven't renounced terrorism.

Seems more than a little unrealistic to require peace as a precursor to negotiations for peace. A cease-fire would be different.

For the record, I don't mind McCain changing his mind either. I do mind assaulting others however as idiotic for an idea you once thought had potential merit before you gained further information.

He is defending current talks with Iran, but opposed to them if a Dem is doing the talking? So, its not the talking but who does the talking?
Okay, what then if Obama adds Republicans to the talking ranks?
Obama has made it clear that he intends to include Republicans in the administrative areas of Government, so that's a very realistic scenario.

Basically, all I can gather from the confused arguments, is that they are based on an irrational, visceral assertion that Obama is not a responsible man and will hand the world over to Iran and Hamas the minute he arrives in the WH.

Since that is not an argument based on policy, principle or historical evidence , there is nowhere to go with it.

I'm not professionally qualified to talk anyone out of their phobias.

I agree on one thing, and one thing only: that context does matter.
What the exhaustive context (other statemtns by McCain and the official US position) that you provide amounts to is a mixed bag. of alternative interpretaions.

The bottom line problem for the US, at the time, was the need to reconcile US and Israeli animosity to Hamas and the fact that Hamas was democratically elected.
That is precisely why this paritcular statement is important. in the context of McCain's candidacy.

Is he capable of recognizing the complexity of real life situations before switching over to a purely political position? If the answer is yes, that could actually speak in his favor, especially as he is running as the not-Bush candidate.

Far from clarifying McCain's thinking, the arguments defending him further muddy the waters through which everyone is trying to get a clear picture of him.

Let me try to outline what you said:
. It's okay to talk to radicals behind closed doors
. Obama wants to flee the Middle East
. It's not okay to talk to radicals if we're sitting down
. Obama is an elitist
. The Middle East has been screwed up for 2000 years

Huh?

Not directly but thru third party negotiators so that we make it clear we are not willing to give them much of anything. IN other words we are not going to appease them for the sake of an agreement. This seems to be an acceptable route for you. Which is exactly what the GOP has been doing for the last 30 years. Now suddenly its okay to do it this way if we can just somehow skirt around Obama's sincere desire to flee the middle east.

Dealing with them does not mean sitting down and talking to people whose sole goal in life is to rid the world of Israel and the United States.

“If only I could have talked to them.” Famous last words. Barak Obama foreign policy consists of “I, me, the head honcho, numero uno, the big cheese, your daddy, the man with the plan, know it all, elitist” I have the answers. When 2000 years of failures have rolled thru the centuries.

I< ME has the answers

So we have Rubin taking a vague quote about 'dealing with Hamas' and making a definitive assertion that McCain meant that to mean negotiation without precondition, up against two clear statements by McCain that he wouldn't advocate that.

Game over, I'd say. Will you consider an update, Elrod?

“Taking both sides of an issue and instinctively defending culprits and mass-murderers is one of those Democrat bad habits that Bush & McCain should keep pointing out.”

Indeed, the obscessive insistence on avoiding confrontation and any necessary use of force, by us and the West, and defending the other side, is creepily similar to the US-Western-disarmament, pro-Soviet leftist and liberal activism in the 1980s.

Same song, different decade. It's nihilistically self-destructive and self-loathing (for no legitimate reason) and perverse given the evil other side is defended.

A friendlier, richer growth medium for those organisms is definitely more favorable.

And clearly Hamas didn't get the message that you and Rubin read into his statements there- but they have read into Obama's stated policies that he'd take a different approach than what Bush and Israel have insisted on and they find that more favorable, of course, to their own ambitions.

Also, note that McCain does not mention any conditions for talks with Hamas either. The easy and official point he could have said was, “We will only meet with Hamas diplomatically when they recognize Israel and renounce terrorism.” Even Obama said that about Hamas. The Bush Administration asserted that point RIGHT AFTER HAMAS WAS ELECTED.

If there is something untrue, that's a legitimate complaint., but that's not the case here.
Your mention of the time frame of McCain's remarks has borderline significance.
It counts for something, but given that foreign policy is the centerpiece of his candidacy, nothing related can be totally off-limits..

Runasim, I agree with you that this was the main area where Dave had a point, but expressed himself in a way that will probably lead to many people missing the point- so let me attempt to state it in a more calm manner.

The point is twofold really:
First, the context of time- right after the elections, everyone (most particularly the Bush administration, I think) was taken aback by Hamas' win and it was a difficult position to not call into question the legitimacy of the election but to still express our dissatisfaction with Hamas as a govt since it's almost impossible to reconcile a group's stated charter which does not allow for the existence of two states in the region but is supposed to be in negotiations for that two state solution. As the weeks went by and Hamas repeatedly refused to change its charter and recognize Israel's right to exist, it became much clearer that this would be a stumbling block to negotiations (that Jimmy Carter's postulate about putting terrorist groups in positions of authority would make them rise to the occasion was once again proving untrue.)

That backdrop, that this conversation took place during the time period when Hamas was still being assessed for its real intentions, is important.

And even more salient is that McCain's words are being misrepresented, as his words did not specifically say that he'd favor negotiations without precondition- it's a far cry from “We will have to deal with them, one way or the other,' to, “We should be holding diplomatic talks with Hamas at this moment in time.” As it is, McCain's words there are not necessarily inconsistent with his current position at all- it's only because he's pointing out NOW that Hamas does see more room for them to make strategic gains under an Obama administration than they do under a McCain administration, that makes Rubin wish to pretend that Hamas would have read McCain's statement then as a show of support for them.