That strategy consists of redefining all political terms that might reflect negatively on their main man. Thus we are now in the redefining mode of the word appeasement. Talking is not appeasement. Yet the parallels between Neville Chamberlain and what Barak Obama has said he will do are remarkable and they beg to be compared.

Neville Chamberlain went to Hitler and negotiated with him personally.

From Barak Obama's website……….Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

and

Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table

Appeasement is the act of concession for the sake of an agreement. Barak Obama will govern to his base.

His base wants out of Iraq and so we will leave Iraq. His base wants to negotiate with everyone in sight and so Barak Obama as his website says that he will personally TAKE CHARGE and sit down and negotiate with everyone in sight.

Look to the base. The base defines the President. Presidents govern to their base. Barak Obama said that he intends to MAKE the Republicans see things his way. He has no intention of governing to those who do not see things his way.

So it is the base. The base is what will define Barak Obama as president. If you want to see what kind of president he will be, just look to his base.

That strategy consists of redefining all political terms that might reflect negatively on their main man. Thus we are now in the redefining mode of the word appeasement. Talking is not appeasement. Yet the parallels between Neville Chamberlain and what Barak Obama has said he will do are remarkable and they beg to be compared.

Neville Chamberlain went to Hitler and negotiated with him personally.

From Barak Obama's website……….Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

and

Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table

Appeasement is the act of concession for the sake of an agreement. Barak Obama will govern to his base.

His base wants out of Iraq and so we will leave Iraq. His base wants to negotiate with everyone in sight and so Barak Obama as his website says that he will personally TAKE CHARGE and sit down and negotiate with everyone in sight.

Look to the base. The base defines the President. Presidents govern to their base. Barak Obama said that he intends to MAKE the Republicans see things his way. He has no intention of governing to those who do not see things his way.

So it is the base. The base is what will define Barak Obama as president. If you want to see what kind of president he will be, just look to his base.

Nce of you to advise Democrats on strategy.
How did that approach work out for Kerry?

Assuming that Carter was the prime target in the speech, Tt doesn't make his insertion of US politics into Israel's anniversary any more palatable.
An American president swiping at other Ameicans in a foreign country is ugly. it besmirches the face of America abroad.

By using words like appeasemen while bringing up Hitler's ghost, he also put another nail in the coffin of the peace negotiations.

His legacy, indeed.!
More violence in Israeli territories and more divisiveness at home.
All in the name of the Nov. election, I have no doubt.

Nce of you to advise Democrats on strategy.
How did that approach work out for Kerry?

Assuming that Carter was the prime target in the speech, Tt doesn't make his insertion of US politics into Israel's anniversary any more palatable.
An American president swiping at other Ameicans in a foreign country is ugly. it besmirches the face of America abroad.

By using words like appeasemen while bringing up Hitler's ghost, he also put another nail in the coffin of the peace negotiations.

His legacy, indeed.!
More violence in Israeli territories and more divisiveness at home.
All in the name of the Nov. election, I have no doubt.

Personal insluts are the alat resort when logical reasoning fails.

We differ(as has been true across many topics) , on basic philosophical grounds..

You want to take a snippet in time, a few phrases, to either condemn a person (Wright) or to exhonorate a person (MCain).

I think that ithis approach distorts reality, in the same way that looking at only the nose distorts understanding of the face.

I don't see how that context, whatever your feelings on it, affect whether or not McCain's actual words about Hamas should be distorted. For all the context you see about how the GOP plays the game, I see the same from the opposite side- that a liberal columnist twists McCain's words and then Obama picks up the ball and runs with it. What I find particularly bold is to do so at the same time while he's criticizing McCain for hypocrisy about honest campaign tactics.

Bush has a long history of characterizing Dems as the appeasers, the traitors, the friends of terrorism, especially during election times.
He makes a speech now without naming Obama, although several staffers are reported (on both CNN and MNBC) to have said this was thw unspolen intent.

Although Bush doesn't speak the name Obama, McCain immediately picks up the ball and does so loud and clear. It was, and continues to be be,a lovely double play, but the ball is clearly visible as it flies back and forth between Bush and the not-Bush candidate.

Hitler has already been injected in the rhetoric, so we have 9/11 to look forward to.in the near future.

The experience of Bush's presidency, with his political maneuvers is as much a part of this indiviual event as anything currently said or not said.
Context, you know.

Have you even followed what McCain has been saying?

Long before Bush went to Israel, McCain has been shopping around the Hamas=Obama line.

Twisting, spinning and misrerepresentation was the core of McCain's campaign against Romney. It's what he has done and what he is doing, all the while claiming he is the straight shooter.

While he is not alone in playing smear politics, neither does he deserve special dispensation, or consideration..

Bush's rhetoric is the same old scare tactics that the GOP has used for the last 8 years. It is becoming less and less effective on the voting public. The more McCain chooses to agree with Bush, the easier it will be for the Democrats to tie them together in the fall.

It would probably help people figure out if Bush was referring to him in his criticism if we actually knew what Obama's position on negotiations really is. Since I've asked about seven different times and haven't gotten a response, I still don't know what his position is or what his supporters think his position is.

He called the attacks “dishonest and divisive” and accused McCain of “hypocrisy” for going after him despite having advocated talking to foes himself.

This part is actually breathtakingly ballsy- as the accusation aimed at McCain is based on a misrepresentation of what McCain said, and in the same sentence that Obama repeats that disingenuous attack on McCain he's using the same to say that McCain is hypocritical about claiming to run a clean campaign. Incredible, really.