Lieberman: Hamas Endorsement Shows Difference With McCain

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 4:00 PM on May 12, 2008.

Shortly after promising not to engage in these kinds of attacks, John McCain went after Barack Obama a few weeks ago over an ostensible "endorsement" from a Hamas spokesperson. It was a cheap and ridiculous move -- especially given the fact that McCain and Obama have the same position on Hamas -- which Time's Joe Klein accurately described as "gutter crap."

It was therefore not surprising at all to see Joe Lieberman repeat and legitimize the bogus line yesterday on CNN.

Lieberman began by complaining about Obama's "lost his bearings" comment, insisting, "[T]o say he lost his bearings suggests something more fundamental and personal." (It really wasn't.)

But when Wolf Blitzer noted that McCain and Obama have the same position, Lieberman conceded that this was true and acknowledged that Obama “clearly doesn’t support any of the values and goals of Hamas.”

But then he had to add: “But the fact that the spokesperson for Hamas would say they would welcome the election of Senator Obama really does raise the question, ‘Why?’ And it suggests the difference between these two candidates.”

I’ve come to expect very little from Lieberman, especially in his new-found role as a Republican surrogate, but this is just wildly unnecessary and more than a little inappropriate.

Back when McCain was making similar comments, Andrew Sullivan explained why the entire Hamas attack is a mistake.

My response is simply that honorable campaigns do not allow foreign agents, especially terrorist organizations, to insert themselves into American presidential politics. No respectable foreign governments do such a thing; and the gambits of al Qaeda, Hamas, or any other grouping to play one candidate against another should in general be ignored, not exploited.

It is, of course, a perfectly legitimate campaign issue to fight over what US policy should be toward Hamas. Are there circumstances in which we should negotiate with them? How coherent is American foreign policy when it rests on a belief that democracy should spread in the Arab world, but refuses to recognize one of the very few governments that does have some democratic legitimacy? Are we right to see Hamas as an extension of Iranian power? Etc. But you can make these arguments and talk about these issues without resorting to canards such as “the terrorists want my opponent to win.” It’s a lame and cheap shot. And beneath McCain.

I’m not sure if it’s beneath Lieberman, but the sentiment clearly applies.

It’s not complicated: if terrorists try to intervene in a U.S. election, and exploit American political divisions, honorable people don’t legitimize their efforts. McCain and Lieberman used to understand that, but I’m afraid both have clearly lost their bearings together.

By the way, as long as we're talking about Lieberman, he was on CNN again this morning to talk about Iraq, and mentioned that Iraqis "obviously" do not want U.S. troops to stay in Iraq "forever." He added that McCain realizes this and it's reflected in his policy.

I guess it depends on the meaning of “forever,” doesn’t it? As far as McCain is concerned, U.S. troops should stay in Iraq to fight a war for the indefinite future. Once the war is over, McCain believes U.S. troops should then be prepared to stay in Iraq for 100 years, if not longer.

But McCain and Lieberman realize Iraqis don’t want us there “forever.” What a relief.

Tagged as: joe lieberman, barack obama, john mccain, hamas