The Great Ohio Debate: Russert doing AIPAC's bidding

[TomClash]

Asking Barack inane questions about two lame clergymen who make doltish comments. Did they think he was going to say that he agreed with these comments? Then there is the Aquinas-like argument about the difference between "denouncing" and "rejecting" Louis Farrakhan's support. Please make it stop.

No, the purpose was to try to force Barack to take the AIPAC position on all matters concerning Israel. Hillary long ago abandoned a more nuanced position, supporting Israel no matter what. Did someone at AIPAC feed Russert that question? It's not exactly an obvious one to ask and the country isn't exactly pining to know the obvious answer. In Cleveland, Barack recently made the intellectually honest distinction between being pro-Israel and pro-Likud and perhaps that was too much freedom, too much thinking for the neo-con and Israel uber alles set.

The Great Fraud was Hillary's "political sacrifice" when she denounced and rejected Independence Party candidate Leonora Fulani's bizarre and occasionally antisemitic comments. Since New York has millions of Jewish voters no one can seriously call it a sacrifice to reject a minor third party official's rantings. What a joke.

So why didn't Russert ask the candidates whether they support Israel's continuous and unabating expansion of settlements? Since it has long been contrary to US policy in the region, he could have asked what would each do about it.

[cali]

1. stupid gotcha stuff and it would be great to have seen

a substantive question about settlement expansion and/or Gaza. Sigh. Not going to happen.

[TomClash]

2. Or he could have asked about negotiating with Hamas

Or several other ME topics.