Wanting a lot of people dead is only wrong if you discriminate in whom you choose to die. Hagee wants the Apocalypse, so he wants everyone to die. No discrimination there.

I'm not holding my breath for the media to get into this since McCain is their golden boy.

Get used to the double standard. I've seen this in every election since I've started paying attention (1988, when I was 10).

And it doesn't stop with Hagee v. Farrakhan. Look at the media's response to McCain's FEC problem vs. it's reporting of Obama's "pledge" to use public financing.

And, trust me, it will continue and continue. We must stop it.

"This is a job for ... the blogosphere."

Another opportunity for TPM to do a public service by shining a light on ugliness, as it did with the attorney firing scandal, where the old media fear to tread ... Remind the McCain independents what they're getting for their money and give them some much needed buyer's remorse.

damned liberal media at it again.

Eric:

Be careful with this argument. I agree with you 100 percent that the focus, any focus, on Obama's relationship with Farrakhan is off base, and full disclosure for the umpteenth time, I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton. I have written on here and will reiterate that I thought both Russert and my candidate were off base on Tuesday night on this issue.

The trap you're falling into, however, is that you do not want to start criticizing McCain for the clergy he hangs out with, because then you get into the quagmire of Senator Obama's relationship with the Reverand Wright. I don't care what church Obama attends and who among the clergy support him, but then again I don't really give a hoot if McCain, like many GOPers before him, get support from right-wing clergy or attend controversial churches.

My advice to my Obama friends: don't step into the clergy trap because there are many Americans who won't take too kindly to the good Reverand Wright and his relationship with Farrakhan, among other things. I can see it now--in 1969 Senator McCain at the Hanoi Hilton and 15 years later Senator Obama's mentor, Reverand Wright was a guest of Qadaffi on a trip to Libya with Minister Farrakhan. Blah Blah, but it scores.

I ain't blowin' smoke here. Obama knows all of this and that's why the Reverend Wright was disinvited to be with the Senator when he first announced his candidacy for the presidency.

Don't take my word for it; I'm tolerant and understanding and I will be more understanding in the event that the Senator from Illinois is chosen to be the Democratic standard bearer. But there's a general election out there in them woods, and take my advice: don't go to battle on whose clergy is more icky than the others. It's a battle Obama doesn't need.

FWIW.

Not to be accused of "playing the race card," but consider that Farrakhan is bound up with a black nationalist agenda (or however you'd like to describe it), while Hagee is not. For that reason, I believe, Hagee's repugnant views may be seen as less threatening than Farrakhan's repugnant views by most white Americans and the MSM.

bslev is right on this one. The less attention paid to Obama's pastor the better, and I do about his choice of pastor.

willraleigh s also right. There was a legitimate reason for Russert to pose the question to Obama given the growing smear campaign underground. I was actually relieved he did. I thought he was doing Obama a favor (like he did all night by being so hard on Clinton), by giving him a national forum to officially end the speculation and smear campaign. Russert did Obama another favor by encouraging him to say more on the subject, and he gave him tons of time - all the time Obama wanted in fact - to address the issue.

Some may so that in addressing it, Russert gave it more attention and legitimacy than it deserves, but I think not. It was already getting more attention and legitimacy than it deserved and Obama simply answering a debate question as opposed to holding a press conference or initiating some other address enabled Obama to remain the guy who thinks the whole thing is silly, and addresses the silliness only when asked.

frankly0 and bslev have good remarks here.

1. Attacking McCain on Hagee will only draw further attention to Obama's relationship with Wright.

2. Farrakhan's anti-Semitism is more *explicit* that Hagee's. Farrakhan calls them a "gutter religion" while Hagee just says they didn't follow their own religion to its conclusion. (This is offensive, yes, but more subtle.)

3. Calling the Catholic Church the "whore of Babylon" does not have the same media purchase as being an out-an-out anti-Semite, for a whole slew of reasons.

Now, all this said, I DO think that many independents would find Hagee's support of McCain more disturbing, if for no other reason than Farrakahn is clearly a marginal figure (and Obama has stated that he views him as a marginal figure, not worthy taking seriously), while Hagee leads occasional lobbying retreats to Washington, where he and his crazy flock seek to influence foreign policy. It IS amazing that they are taken seriously; which shows that more crazy votes come from the right than the left.

Why isn't anybody talking about Hillary's main supporter? Bill Clinton destroyed American, destroyed DC, and destroyed men. And women. And puppies. Why isn't anybody pointing out that this evil, twisted madman is supporting this evil dog woman?

Can we please stop drawing attention to all the Ayatollahs of Irrational Superstitions. Let us just ignore them.

Pat Robertson is one of those Ayatollahs. He endorsed Rudi, and then Rudi sank like a rock. The media attention puffs up all those false prophets, and makes look like they really do have a lot of sway with voters. They do not, so just ignore the entire spectrum of metaphysical shake down artists.

obviously you can't be crazy if your Christian...You just don't "get it," for every jew killed, an angel gets its wings.

i sent emails to Meet the Press, WaPo, NBC (general) and Brian Williams asking for Sen. McCain to be questioned about this. i'm not holding my breath for it to come up in Sen McCain's next presser

While you are at it, demand that they ask McCain why he wants to stay in Iraq for a hundred years, and he never comments on how Afghanistan, where the 9/11 attack came from, is close to failing. That is according to the USA's own Intelligence estimate.

You can cite this article to them.

http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=Auza0MWrgM8N42_iZ5_k5BvcNXwV;_ylu=X3oDMTFmaGg5aTBvBGlpZAM2NDY2NDk3MTYyMDU4OTE3MDg4BG5vaAM1BHBvcwMxBHJpZAMyNTY0MDI1/SIG=14mk4l3ej/**http%3A//us.lrd.yahoo.com/SIG=136aqvind/**http%253A//www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/afghanistan.terrorism%253Fgusrc=rss%2526feed=networkfront

This article appeared in the Guardian on Friday February 29 2008 on p1 of the Top stories section. It was last updated at 00:08 on February 29 2008.

After six years of US-led military support and billions of pounds in aid, security in Afghanistan is "deteriorating" and President Hamid Karzai's government controls less than a third of the country, America's top intelligence official has admitted.

Mike McConnell testified in Washington that Karzai controls about 30% of Afghanistan and the Taliban 10%, and the remainder is under tribal control.

The Afghan government angrily denied the US director of national intelligence's assessment yesterday, insisting it controlled "over 360" of the country's 365 districts. "This is far from the facts and we completely deny it," said the defence ministry.

But the gloomy comments echoed even more strongly worded recent reports by thinktanks, including one headed by the former Nato commander General James Jones, which concluded that "urgent changes" were required now to "prevent Afghanistan becoming a failed state".

Although Nato forces have killed thousands of insurgents, including several commanders, an unrelenting drip of violence has eroded Karzai's grip in the provinces, providing fuel to critics who deride him as "the mayor of Kabul".

A suicide bomb at a dog fight near Kandahar last week killed more than 80 people. Yesterday fighting erupted in neighbouring Helmand when the Taliban ambushed a police patrol. The interior ministry said 25 militants were killed; a Taliban spokesman said they lost one.

A day earlier, the Asian Rural Life Development Foundation aid agency said it feared that Cyd Mizell, an American employee kidnapped in Kandahar last month, had been killed in captivity.

A big injection of foreign troops has failed to bring stability. The US has almost 50,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and - twice as many as in 2004 - while the UK has 7,700, mostly in Helmand. Another 2,200 US marines are due to arrive next month to combat an expected Taliban surge.

Nato commanders paint the suicide bombs and ambushes as signs of a disheartened enemy. Yesterday, Brigadier Andrew Mackay, commander of the British contingent in southern Afghanistan, said the Taliban were "worn down", running low on fighters, and being ostracised by local communities. "Logistically they are also challenged. The cumulative effect of all of this is that they are having to change their modus operandi, and that is why we are seeing more asymmetric attacks and suicide bombings in places such as Kandahar," he said.

But analysts believe the Taliban is successfully adapting the brutal guerrilla tactics that have served Iraqi insurgents so well. The six British soldiers killed in Helmand over the past three months were victims of roadside bombs. The drugs trade is swelling the Taliban coffers - according to the highest estimates, 40% of profits, or tens of millions of pounds, go to the insurgency. Attacks have made the main road from Kandahar to Kabul too dangerous for foreigners. Afghan truck drivers travel with armed escort.

The insecurity has penetrated the capital. Since an assault on Kabul's Serena Hotel last January, westerners have disappeared from the streets of Kabul. This week Taliban commanders threatened to step up the campaign with more bombs.

The key to the Taliban's success, McConnell said, "is the opportunity for safe haven in Pakistan". Meanwhile the surge in violence has placed a big strain on Nato. The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has agreed to deploy a battalion near Kabul after America has criticised European states for refusing to join the fight in the south and Canada threatened to withdraw its troops from Kandahar next year if reinforcements do not arrive.

An Oxfam report yesterday said international and national security forces, as well as warlords, criminals and the Taliban, were perceived by ordinary Afghans as posing security threats.

I agree with Dawson
though prophecy /ex eventu/ is such a charming style;
life forgets it, and the worst feed with passionate intensity on frozen words.
Naturally, it focuses on the moment of crisis.

The Religious: +1 style
-AnB

Hagee is a member of the Left Behind nutjobs who want to see the world end. I hope he can go ahead and get raptured the hell out of here. Kind of like old Jerry Falwell did. Oh, wait... Jerry didn't get raptured did he? I wonder what went wrong there? He just fell over dead at his desk. Hmmm.

You have made it very clear that Obama's supporters don't know much about him. Right after Obama tried to answer Russert's question by stammering, stuttering and double talking before Hillary got him to reject and denounce Farrakhan, I knew Obama was in a lot of trouble. He was very lucky that Russert dropped it and didn't press him on why he has continued to support the Rev. Wright for the last twenty years. Obama may be a Christian but not just any christian he is a Reverand Wright type of Christian. The Democrats won't have to worry about swiftboaters this fall. They'll be facing battleships.

I've been told there's no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole, so I guess it shouldn't surprise me to find so many Hillary-backers suddenly finding "religion" in the waning days of her campaign. It's bad enough dealing with the McCain trolls, not we've got an in-house problem too?

BTW, I emailed McCain's senate office asking him to denounce Hagee. Maybe if enough people do so, we can put him in a bind

Hagee forsees an Apocalypse in which the vast majority of Jews would be exterminated and the rest converted to Christianity. Despite Hagee's so-called "Christian Zionism", that's what he ultimately believes. And his advocacy of a nuclear preemptive strike on Iran to trigger this Apocalypse makes him not only insane, but FAR more dangerous that Farrakhan.

It looks like McCain is going to ride his "Bush 2.0" strategy to the bitter end. Lest we forget, it was Bush who, in the 2000 election, made his pilgrimage to Bob Jones University and gave a big warm bear hug to Bob Jones, himself. This, of course, is Bob Jones, the "university," that does not admit Catholics as students and Bob Jones, the "person," who, among other things, called the Catholic Church "the whore of Babylon" and who – like John Hagee – also said the Pope was the anti-Christ. Either religious right wingnuts have a thing for whores and anti-Christs or they're all working from the same script when they're defaming the Catholic Church.

Any Roman Catholic who supports the Republican Presidential ticket is an ecclesiastical Uncle Tom.

Please don't refer to Pastor Hagee as a "Christian Zionist." Zionism was and remains the movement for Jewish national self-determination. Christians like Hagee are Chrstian triumphalists, but they are certainly no Zionists in the genuine meaning of the term.

Hagee is right on all counts , especially the romish catholic "cult" being anti-christ.

Just look at the anti-christ "marian" dogmas. The prove that is is anti-christ, by denying that Christ "is come in the flesh".

They say that mary was "herself created without sin", that they call the "immaculate conception".

If Mary was indeed created without sin, then how could she TRULY have passed on the "seed of David" to Jesus ?

She could not, therefore, they deny that Jesus "Is come in the flesh", and prove that it is anti-christ.

see I Jn 4:3 for Biblical reference

peace in Christ,

j

Hagee's white. Any other questions?