James Rubin argues that it’s McCain who’s really soft on Hamas:

‘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: