Here's the story out of Philly:  Barack Obama today (Wednesday) criticized former President Jimmy Carter for meeting with leaders of the Islamic terrorist group Hamas. Obama was clearly trying to reassure Jewish voters not to worry about his candidacy or his support for Israel.

    And that's fine, it's what politicians do, find something objectionable or potentially objectionable and make hay of it for political benefit.

    GOP presumptive nominee John McCain earlier called for Obama to speak out against the meeting.

    And, again, that's fine, because that's what politicians do, play word games and gotcha and who said a popular thing first.

   So Obama said he had a “fundamental disagreement” with Carter, who had angered Israeli leaders by taking the meeting this week.

  “We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements.”

 But isn't Obama all about getting to the table with these people, no matter how distasteful? We can be as offended as we like by the tactics of Hamas. But they've got a very real, and very political backing in the Palestinian territories. True, they are not a state actor. But it is hard to imagine a lasting peace agreement that ignores them. they simply have too much support in the region.

 It's not a one-off situaiton, either: A study out this week notes that Nasrallah, the head of Lebanese Hezbollah, is the most respected Arab leader on Earth at this moment. Hezbollah and Hamas are not that far apart, and are frequently linked, at least by Israel. Can the continuing Israel/Hezbollah animosity be solved without the invovlement of Hezbollah? No. 

   I'm not saying they're not both terrorist groups. From our perspective, and Israel's perspective, certainly they are. Now, does this mean that Obama as a US president should sit down with them? No. Not sure that should be done.

But should he necessarily be critical of a former president who does?

  That's not such an easy answer. Politics in the Middle East are tricky. but the fact is, there aren't many folks an American president can meet with that won't raise the ire of someone. Certainly meeting with Israeli leaders angers much of the Islamic world. This fact would never be a reason not to meet with those leaders. As Obama has noted, diplomacy can insist on an American leader sitting down with folks seen as strong enemies of the US. That is no reason not to meet with them. In fact, it's an argument for why we should meet with them.

Similarly, is causing Israeli outrage a good enough reason not to sit down and talk with others? Certainly not. An American president will undoubtably respect Israel, but should never allow it to set our agenda.

So, in a sense, Carter's meeting serves this country, and the region. It's a way to get to the table with people we can't really otherwise talk with.

But if that's not the case, if meeting with such folks is simply wrong, bad, and betrayal of trust, then isn't Obama's whole view of diplomacy a bit naive?

as been working to reassure Jewish voters nervous about his candidacy after publicity about anti-Israel sentiments expressed by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and criticism from Hillary Rodham Clinton during a February debate that he hadn’t immediately rejected an endorsement from black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan. Obama responded that he already denounced Farrakhan, but would reject his support as well.