I have a question for Obama's supporters.....?

Please keep your facts straight. In the case of Goolsbee, he is an adviser to Obama but certainly wasn't dispatched to deliver a message to the Canadians that Obama didn't mean what he said. When you say that "Obama denied it" you're being imprecise about what he denied. He denied that Goolsbee's remarks were a reflection of his position. Goolsbee is associated with Obama and advises him, but that hardly makes his assessment, based on some unknown mixture of fact and speculation, anything like a statement of the candidate's own opinions. Goolsbee was speculating. His speculation was newsworthy because it showed an Obama adviser apparently not thinking that the candidate was shooting straight. It appropriately did damage to the campaign. But that doesn't mean that Goolsbee was right in his assessment of Obama's views. And if Goolsbee was wrong, then it was right for Obama to set the record straight by denying that Goolsbee's views were correct.

Because I believe in keeping facts straight, I won't comment on the specifics of Obama's alleged stance regarding Hamas. I don't know the specifics. I will note that there is a flaw in your logic. If an enemy of peace and reconciliation such as Hamas prefers one American leader over another, that doesn't mean that said leader would be better for Hamas or that Hamas would achieve its goals through that leader.

Obama has said that we should talk to our enemies. He gets a lot of flack about this from those who seem to feel that the only way to deal with enemies is kill or torture them until there's no fight left in them, or to simply retain the status quo forever. Talking is portrayed as equivalent to granting concessions or appeasing enemies. But this is a portrayal of reality that paints the world as if violent resistance, stonewalling against change, or appeasement were the only choices. The very problem with groups like Hamas is that they think in exactly this way: They think they must destroy Israel or be destroyed themselves.

Talking to polarized enemies doesn't mean you'll succeed in improving the situation. But *not* talking to them ensures that you will never find settlements to violent conflicts other than ultimately debilitating violence upon one side or the other.

To say to Hamas, "We cannot talk until you renounce violence" means that for many understandable reasons, they will never talk. The precondition is one that they cannot meet for entirely understandable reasons. You can't talk an armed resistance into peace by first insisting that it surrender its most significant form of political strength while offering nothing in exchange but just words. Should Israel disarm as a precondition to peace talks? Should the IDF renounce violence? Such a precondition is only a tactic for guaranteeing that the precondition will not be met.

Finally, to return to "political posturing," you're asking people if they feel unsettled by attributions that others are making, apparently in their own imaginations, about the unknowable subjective state of candidate Obama's mind. No, I am not unsettled by what other people make up about the candidate.

Yes, Obama is a phucking-spook...

it amzes me people still follow this guy.vote McCain

He could be a false prophet. That is my only answer about him.