Senator Obama was not making a statement of fact as was Senator McCain. What McCain was saying, essentially, was "Jerusalem is not divided, but it may become divided if Israel allows it to be".

That's not what Senator Obama was saying. He made an imperative statement. His two statements contradicted themselves because of that imperative. What he said, basically, was "Jerusalem has to stay undivided but it can be divided".

Only one of his statments can be true using our present laws of physics.

Having it both ways until the 2 sides work out the details. Supporting the concept of a unified J'lem, while also supporting the reality of Arab access to their holy sites and maybe neighborhoods.

Here's McCain's equally muddy take:

“The point is Jerusalem is undivided. Jerusalem is the capital… The subject of Jerusalem itself will be addressed in negotiations by the Israeli government and people.”

This might be of interest, too:

Dennis Ross, a diplomat who was involved in Middle East peace talks for the administrations of the first President Bush and President Bill Clinton, expressed similar views. Mr. Ross said he saw “no calibration” in Mr. Obama’s stance, which he said “does not contradict in any way, shape or form what our policy has historically been.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/us/politics/07o…

"Then perhaps he should shut up about it, shouldn’t he?"

Should he? I'll let him know you important views on this topic.

"3) Wait..what? “Jerusalem must never be divided” is the same as “Jerusalem can be divided”?"

In essence, he's saying that Israel must continue to have the upper hand. Today they hold J'lem militarily. If they choose to negotiate that downward, O is fine with that.

"4) He reversed his position after Hamas, which has already endorsed him, condemned him. That’s my problem with it."

He reversed nothing. And it certainly didn't sound like that "endorsement" was still in effect when they condemned him and said he was the exact same as McCain!

"Alternately, you could read my post with a dictionary handy to look up the difficult words. I’m guessing you might have had problems with a couple of them."

I made a mistake with the chronlogy. Yes, they condemned his initial remark, not the follow-up.

We may not agree on many things, but I do respect and enjoy your vocabulary use, so that's not the issue.

2) Okay. Then perhaps he should shut up about it, shouldn't he?

3) Wait..what? "Jerusalem must never be divided" is the same as "Jerusalem can be divided"? What's the color of the sky in your world, spoots?

4) He reversed his position after Hamas, which has already endorsed him, condemned him. That's my problem with it. Alternately, you could read my post with a dictionary handy to look up the difficult words. I'm guessing you might have had problems with a couple of them.

Second, J'lem is a "final status" issue that will only be decided by the 2 parties involved, not the US.

Third, his 2nd statement does not contradict his 1st.

4thly, he hasn't backed down from or pandered to any Islamist. Hamas "condemned" his statement and said it's par for-the-course US policy– WTF's your problem with that?!

Oh yes, Hope and Change. I have to say that I'm really tired of those two words. It seems to me that he's sucked all the meaning out of them in the past few months.

Being unprepared isn't necessarily a portent of doom; a President could do reasonably well just on an ability to select, and delegate to, a talented Cabinet. So far, Senator Obama hasn't really shown himself to be an exceptional judge of character, but I suppose we can Hope he'll Change?

I don't think anyone on his team really knows the true scope of the job. Maybe he thinks it's just like being back home in Chicago, only with a bigger office.