James Rubin argues that it's McCain who's really soft on Hamas:
I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?" McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
'One way or another' could be interpreted in a lot of different ways. Rubin interprets it as meaning that McCain would recognize and negotiate with Hamas, but all the other statements McCain made around that time would indicate otherwise. Knowing what we do about McCain, and reading his other statements from the time, it's pretty hard to imagine he was arguing here for unconditional talks with the group. It's rather easier to imagine he's offering talks contingent on a bunch of things Hamas will never do (one way), or allowing the Israelis to do as they please (or another). Rubin also says that, "By charging recently that Hamas is rooting for an Obama victory, McCain tried to use guilt by association to suggest that Obama is weak on national security and won't stand up to terrorist organizations, or that, as Richard Nixon might have put it, Obama is soft on Israel." Actually, Hamas said they're rooting for Obama. McCain didn't suggest this out of nowhere--he didn't suggest it at all. It's a fact. Hamas is voting Obama way. As for the suggestion that Obama is weak on national security and soft on Israel, it isn't just coming from McCain--it's coming from all quarters, including the Clinton camp. In contrast, nobody except James Rubin thinks that McCain is soft on Israel--and it's quite clear that even he doesn't really believe that. This piece did prompt Marc Ambinder to write:
To preserve the standard of intellectual honesty, for starters, McCain needs to explain the difference between Hamas and Iran and why he is open to accepting the legitimacy of the one, but not the other; or he must explain why he did not say what it appears he had said...
Shouldn't Obama be the one to explain the difference between Hamas and Iran? Even if one were to assume that McCain was pushing for unconditional diplomatic relations with the Hamas in this 2006 quote (and that's obviously not the case), it is Obama who accepts the legitimacy of one and not the other. Obama would meet with A'jad and not Hamas, but no one can explain why--and Obama has never tried. If Hamas takes over the PA by force, will Obama meet with its leaders? Or if Hezbollah takes over Lebanon, will Obama meet with that group's leaders leaders? We don't know, but because Obama is willing to sit down with any regime, no matter how odious, we must assume the answer is yes. But these are questions Ambinder and the rest seem to have little interest in answering. Instead they want McCain to explain why he's soft on Israel.