Well, I think McCain did all right, but he could have done better.

But one thing that utterly set my teeth on edge was Obama’s continually calling Senator McCain, “John.” You know, show some respect and give the man his title. He gave you yours.

Overall, though, I loved the format. I want to see a knockdown, drag-out like that. More and better next time.

Update: See, I wasn’t alone in being annoyed.

More than one person noticed that Obama repeatedly referred to McCain as “John.” It seems that Obama has picked up this bad habit from his running mate.

During the primaries the RNC did research and found that Hillary gained sympathy from listeners when her opponent called her by her first name instead of “Senator Clinton.” They heard it a sign of disrespect. Biden regularly refers to McCain as “John” often following the words, “my friend.” (With friends like these…)

It’s a small, but noticeable, tick and it sounds patronizing when Biden does it. “Folks” (to use another favorite politician’s tick) noticed that Obama now does it, too.

via Solomonia.
CAIR is fighting the distribution of Obsession by filing a complaint with the FEC, which leads Robert Spencer to observe:
This is a very revealing action for CAIR to take. It reveals in particular two key aspects of CAIR’s mindset:

1. It shows that CAIR is fully aware that the jihad against Israel is an integral part of the global jihad, and is not just a struggle to recover Palestinian “stolen land.” Thus a film that reveals the nature and goals of that global jihad — Obsession — benefits Israel.
2. It also shows that CAIR believes that John McCain will fight against the global jihad in a way that Barack Obama will not — and that it believes therefore the distribution of an anti-jihad film, which in a sane world would be welcomed by both the Left and the Right since the global jihad wishes to destroy and remake the West utterly, must be some partisan plot.

CAIR’s complaint echoed here is that the video is encouraging people to support McCain. (via memeorandum)

If it does, it’s clearly not doing it openly. However Seth Leibsohn makes a point about the bipartisanship shown on “Obsession.”

But not all newspapers are accepting the advertisement. And in the quest to keep the DVD out of the hands of too many Americans, some journalists are betraying their own ignorance. Take Keith Olbermann of MSNBC. Olbermann recently said Obsession is “neocon pornography.” I can only imagine what Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz must have thought of this comment, he being one of the most prominently featured experts in the documentary. Professor Alan Dershowitz, a supporter of Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama, and an opponent of the Iraq war, would be just about the last person to think of himself as a neoconservative.

Maybe ask Dershowitz if he thinks this is campaigning? My guess is that if he thought it was, he’d have objected up front.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Mad Mahmoud told his dinner of religious fools leaders yesterday that Zionism—the establishment and maintenance of a state for the Jewish people—has nothing to do with the Jewish people.

Ahmadinejad rejected accusations he was anti-Semitic, saying his criticism was aimed at the “Zionist regime” for its oppression of the Palestinians rather than at Jews.

“As soon as anyone objects to the behavior of the Zionist regime, they’re accused of being anti-Semitic, whereas the Jewish people are not Zionists,” Ahmadinejad said. “Zionism is a political party that has nothing to do with Jewish people.”

This would be a surprise to Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism, who said that the establishment of a Jewish state was necessary for the survival of the Jewish people.

This would be a surprise to all Jews but the ones who repudiate Israel’s ties to Judaism.

But that’s getting sidetracked. Ahmadinejad is trying to get the world to agree with him that Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism. If he can accomplish that goal, then he has accomplished his goal of utterly separating Jews from the State of Israel, thereby achieving his goal—the “de-Judaization” of Israel. And if he achieves that goal, then Israel cannot exist in the eyes of Mad Mahmoud and his allies. And his allies are legion. They are the ones who sat through his anti-Semitic speech to the UN on Tuesday, and who applauded the man who blamed “Zionists” for all the evils of the world. Even Reuters can’t stomach the naked anti-Semitism, and has come up with this boilerplate for his speech:

On Tuesday the Iranian leader railed against “Zionist murderers” in a speech at the UN General Assembly, dwelling on what he described as Zionist control of international finance, echoing the libel that blamed a world Jewish conspiracy for all the world’s troubles.

But of course, that isn’t enough to get Reuters to, say, quote a Jewish leader in response to Mad Mahmoud’s anti-Semitism.

And the Iranian mission continues. Did the religious leaders object to his trying to separate Jews from Zionism?

I’m betting not.