Wow, your evidence by way of the video is possibly the most unbiased piece of journalism I've seen since the Horton Ads in 1988.
So, because Obama and Khalidi both used the word 'sore' to describe the problems in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, that necessarily means that Khalidi is influencing Obama? Couldn't be a mere coincidence, could it?
Well, McCain has used the word 'terrorist' to describe certain extremist, radical groups throughout the word. And, low and behold, Obama has used the same word to describe them. This of course shows that McCain is influencing Obama's campaign.
But why stop there? Several times different individuals have used the same word to describe the same situation. Let's apply their philosophies to every single person who has also used the same word to describe the same situation.
You yourself said that 'Hamas Loves Obama'. Well, according to an article in
YNetNews.com , Ahmed Yusuf, a spokesperson for Hamas states that "Hamas Loves Obama", too. You both used the exact same rhetoric to describe the exact same person. You must believe the exact same things as Ahmed.
Isn't logic fun?
Besides, is it any coincidence that Hamas would support the candidate that wants to end the American Occupancy of the Middle East? Do you have any evidence that demonstrates that Obama does in fact truly support extremist activities, other than factions supporting him that he himself does not support? If the KKK were to support McCain, even though McCain doesn't support the KKK, does that mean that McCain must then also be racist? In the world of logic, we call that the Bad Company Fallacy.
Here's an example. Hitler supported conservation movements. Hitler was a bad person, therefore, anyone who also supports conservation movements are also bad people. McCain supports conservation movements, therefore, McCain must also be a bad person.