Obama and Islam rumors: Obama isn't helping

What a gaffe.

Yow. Seems pretty clear that Obama was trying to say that McCain hasn't called him a Muslim. But, damn, the wording does leave something to be desired. It'll be interesting to watch this play out, since it will seem to confirm what so many people want to believe. Hope he hasn't tanked his entire candidacy in three little words...

Wait. Does that mean no one should care about what his pastor says any more?

Anyone know why Palin's not going to give interviews? What's she hiding? One of the dangers of being constantly available to the press is that there are some statements that can be mis-interpreted or taken out of context. Like Bob, I read this as him saying, well, McCain hasn't called me a Muslim, and George reads it differently.

On reflection, though, I doubt much will come of it. It's only going to be a big deal to people who would never vote for Obama, anyway. Even half-intelligent undecideds will, I expect, see this for what it is: an embarassing slip of the tongue that reveals nothing of significance.

I think what he meant to refer to was a combination of "my (falsely) alleged Muslim faith" and "my part-Muslim family background".

Otherwise, we must believe that twenty-five years ago he decided to masquerade as a Christian in order to ... what?

This whole thing is ridiculous.

The Obama-as-Muslim meme seems to have gained some traction with some. His gaffe will probably just add fuel to the fire, another data point which points to the truth. Really, it's no different than those who believe Michael Chertoff blew up the Pentagon or those who believe Trig is actually Bristol's child.

Anyone know why Palin's not going to give interviews?

Not strictly true... The Wall Street Journal ran a piece yesterday (previewed here) where she discusses her "unusual fitness and workout routine."

The Washington Post reports that ABC has landed the first Palin interview (to be conducted by Charles Gibson). Details here.

I'm expecting that the gaff will be in ~some~ political ad before Tuesday.

"Really, it's no different than those who believe Michael Chertoff blew up the Pentagon or those who believe Trig is actually Bristol's child."

-- cody

Exactly. It's another moronic untruth cynically exploited by assholes.

Oh, wow, I am really interested in Palin's unusual fitness and workout routine. WTF? Who cares? Why? Let's hear George Stephanopolis interview Palin. I agree Obama's use of "Muslim faith" will give those who already believe he is a Muslim more fuel for their little camp fire. Oh, I am getting tired of all this. I may have to go back to reading and posting in the Green Dragon, only.

If this is true, it will definitely hurt Obama. But am I the only one to think the linked website is a bit odd? I mean, check the articles they have linked in the sidebars. They are obsessing about Obama's birth certificate and other issues that have been disproved by Snopes. And the claim that Obama is reaching out for Jewish support because his poll numbers are tanking?

Oh no, Maggie! If you do that, then the terrorists have won!

>11 oregonobsessionz: - That video can be on the New York Times website and the effect would be the same. His gaffe matters, not the content of the site which posted the video.

Just say "no" to reading the trash. Toss it into the recycling, be gone with it.

Maggie, you shouldn't leave. I'm not done converting you over to my view of things.

>13 codyed:

What video? The Israeli site you linked has a still photo, with the caption "Obama moments after his fateful remark".

What browser are you using? The page I linked to has a Youtube video embed of Obama discussing politics with Stephanopoulus.

IE6

Here's the video.

OK, codyed, I'll give you a little bit more of my time and attention. But I am leaving for France on Wednesday.

Nope. Site is blocked. I will have to wait until it hits a non-blocked site.

5
That was my impression. If it's gotten to the point that we have to parse words at this level, god help us all.

Blocked by who? It's YouTube. If it's blocked at work surely you could see it at home.

>23 jjwilson61:
I am in my office, trying to finish up a report, so I am using corporate network. YouTube and a lot of other things are blocked. I have very slow dialup at home.

Does the Republican National Convention directly send you money Codyed or do they run it through another organization :).

All kidding aside, are we to judge someone by their gaffes. Suddenly Freud is back in style when attacking Obama. First he's not ready to lead when he accidently calls Biden "the next president of the USA" instead of vice-president. Now, secretly, he reveals his true Muslim roots. Let's not talk about real issues but concentrate on this crap, which shows nothing except Obama is mortal and makes small mistakes when speaking. Is this all there is: False rumors, gaffes, and ridiculous insinuations? How disappointing. I hope there is more substance and genuine words in the debates.

(BTW, the site loaded fine the first time, but then when I clicked again, Google chrome said it contained malware, so now I really think codyed is sent as a saboteur to drive Obama supporters mad by wrecking their computers, and thus keep us from voting in November, it’s slow and subtle but totally undetectable...till now.)

>25 Madcow299:

...now I really think codyed is sent as a saboteur to drive Obama supporters mad by wrecking their computers...

You know, there may be something to that...I wouldn't call myself an Obama "supporter" (although I will vote for him in preference to McCain), but when I went back to my report the Word document suddenly "exploded" to an infinite number of pages, and began scrolling frantically all by itself. Now I have to go back and reconstruct several hours of work.

"All kidding aside, are we to judge someone by their gaffes. Let's not talk about real issues but concentrate on this crap, which shows nothing except Obama is mortal and makes small mistakes when speaking. Is this all there is: False rumors, gaffes, and ridiculous insinuations? How disappointing. I hope there is more substance and genuine words in the debates."

-- jjwilson61

Oh, come on. I'm an Obama supporter, a die hard liberal Democrat, and an inveterate Bush hater. You've got to admit that we've had TONS of fun raking Dubya over the coals over the last 8 years for similar gaffes. Turnabout is fair play.

Re: wrecking computers...it took me about 5 tries to get my computer to print one little ole email this evening. I guess computers are human too and I'll try not to judge too harshly on its gaffs and mis-directed directives.

Bob - it is such a scary election season I can understand some people worrying about paying too much attention to the faux pas and stumbles on the campaign trail. I'm with you tho, I think some humor and good natured teasing is always appropriate.

My Jewish handlers paid me 100 shekels to post the above link of Obama making a gaffe so that they could surreptitiously plant tracking devices on unwitting liberals' computers.

A hundred!!!! Those cheapskate shysters !!! Everything Hizbollah says about them is true!!! (I was offered fifty, tops!!!)

Perhaps all the candidates should refuse to do on-the-spot interviews.

You might be a very good candidate for the job, and yet be the sort of person who gets flustered by a hostile interrogator with an unexpected question.

And some "questions" are just pure demagogy, which force the candidate to respond with some sort of stupid demagogic-appeasing bs in return.

In different ways, both Obama and McCain have (or had) a certain appeal, in that they seemed to be somewhat immune from this sort of stuff, and willing to say things that were not idiot-appeasing knee-jerk responses.

In fact, since we are dealing with issues that could mean life or death for tens of millions, I think I would want a President who can say "Well... I don't know much about that situation yet, and thus I cannot tell you how I would respond in the circumstances you describe. You'll have to come back in a couple of weeks after I have read a bit about it and discussed it with my advisors." But this would no doubt look wishy-washy to a lot of people.

So ... how about written questions only, submitted a week ahead of time.

OK, I was not clear enough and that's my fault. In my head, I wanted to say that both sides at this point seem to be concentrated on gaffes, false rumors, etc, and this latest Obama thing was an example of that. That didn't come out so well on the post, which just showed my obvious penchant for Obama :).

My point is/was, I think, that I hope that in the debates we hear a little more about "Why you should vote me," or "This is how I'll work to fix the economy" or "This is how we'll work to end the war in Iraq" or some other statement of substance instead of the national inquirer headlines: secret muslim faith, who's baby that really is, and the seemingly endless battle over who is the real agent of "change."

But in the meantime, fair is fair, rake away.

ETA: #27: By the way, Bob, I said that not jjwilson61, don't blame him for my bad statements.

And "this is how I'll work to defeat the Islamist terrorists".

NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE who doesn't like Obama has come up with a clear, concise reason. However, here are some of the reasons I've heard, told to me quite seriously (and this makes me wonder about a benevolent dictatorship being the best form of government):

my computer man: "He's a Muslim backed by the Chicago Mafia."

A Christian friend: "He is the one mentioned in the Book of Revelations as coming from the East and who will govern the whole world."

From (a former) friend: "What do you think the Devil's going to look like, Andy? You think he's going to have horns and a tail? He will look as unassuming, poised, and handsome as Obama, with a continuous affective smile.:

And I've saved the last for the best. This is from a blogger who I will never know who says: "Osama has been named after two of his family's heroes who have propelled him into this position as a winning candidate -- Osama ben Laudin and Saddlem Hussein."

Give me a break. Obama rules!

andyray, you need to find some new acquaintences, friends, and associates. These people who you have quoted will hurt your future.

Doug, you may want to watch last Thursday's interview of Obama on the O'Reilly Factor on Fox. The interview is basically on that question and O'Reilly's follow ups.

I will forego the pleasure, but thanks. What did O'Reilly say?

Some spam just hit my mailbox spreading the "Obama as muslim" meme.

I think that a big "Bradley" effect is the only plausible mechanism for Democratic loss of the presidential election, given the unpopularity of the incumbent, the state of the economy and all the other "fundamental" bits I've mentioned elsewhere.

If the polls said earlier that 10% of the national voters and 20% or rural ones think Obama is Moslem, what will the numbers be like on election day?

Clearly, somebody is trying to boost the Bradley effect.

I wonder if it will work?

From (a former) friend: "What do you think the Devil's going to look like, Andy? You think he's going to have horns and a tail? He will look as unassuming, poised, and handsome as Obama, with a continuous affective smile."

Your friend is quoting the movie Broadcast News:

"What do you think the Devil is going to look like if he's around? Nobody is going to be taken in if he has a long, red, pointy tail. No. I'm semi-serious here. He will look attractive and he will be nice and helpful and he will get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation and he will never do an evil thing... he will just bit by little bit lower standards where they are important. Just coax along flash over substance... Just a tiny bit. And he will talk about all of us really being salesmen. And he'll get all the great women. "

The long and short of the O'Reilly interview was that Obama would prioritize Afghanistan and Pakistan as battlegrounds, that he would not take any options off the table on Iran but would include diplomatic initiatives, and that O'Reilly raised a skeptical eyelid at every answer without disagreeing with a thing.

Oh ... not so bad as I feared. I thought O'Reilly would be taunting him by daring him to spit on a Koran, or something.

I would like some of the avid Obama supporters to explain why his supposedly superior political sense and management ability has allowed him to do all of the following within one week:

1) The way-over-the-top acceptance speech in a huge arena, with fake columns and all. Phil Bredesen, Governor of Tennessee, was quoted on Politico:
We already know he is a rock star, we already know he can bring 85,000 people together in a stadium. He has done it multiple times. He needs to talk to people who haven’t made up their minds yet.

Exactly. If Obama wants to have any chance at all, he needs to be out talking to middle income people in small groups, where they can get some sense of getting to know him. He is doing that now, but he has less than 60 days left, and now he will be fighting uphill against the impressions created by his Cecil B. DeMille production.

2) The flag thing. The McCain camp and Fox News claim that 12,000 American flags were thrown away (or at least abandoned) after Obama's big speech. Obama's camp says no, they were collected and were going to be distributed elsewhere. If that is true, why did Obama's team not keep very tight custody over those flags, and raise a huge stink the moment they discovered the flags had been taken?

Personally it is no big deal to me, but there is a significant group in the US population (nearly 100% of the WWII generation, but by no means limited to them) that will go totally ape$&*! over any implied or imagined disrespect to the American flag. They may wear the flag on their underwear, on a greasy baseball cap, or as a patch on the seat of their bluejeans, but they will absolutely demonize anyone who dares to adopt a casual attitude toward that flag. Now, most of these people were never going to vote for Obama in any case, but this story may have turned off some who were on the fence. The internet was already awash with rumors over the stupid lapel pin; this story will just confirm the suspicions of those who care about this type of thing.

3) The muslim thing.

I can't resist saying that, for all the mistakes she did make in managing her campaign, I can not imagine Hillary Clinton doing any of these things.

Why do so many of you jump at codyed's bait. this is BS, you know it, I know it and hopefully (although I wouldn't swear to it, after all he is a Republican) codyed knows it.

So what if he is/was Muslim. the Constitution strictly prohibits religious tests for holding office.

No this is just more Republican fantasyland creation. Ignore it.

I can't believe this has generated 43 responses so far (44 with this). Those who wish to believe he is Muslim will do so with or without real world evidence. The rest of us should let it go.

Why do we jump at codyed's regular trolls? If there was something to discuss about this, that would be one thing, but there is nothing to discuss, aside from maybe how stupid the Republicans are for living in Fantasyland.

At least Lunar discusses, you know, like, issues. this guy is just a shill for the Republic Shit Machine (I'm sorry I can't do it. When these dipshits show me some respect I might think about showing them some. Until then, well I tried.)

You know that the Constitution only forbids religious tests by the gov't for holding office. The people can and will use whatever damn fool test they want.

No matter who they plan to vote for, I don't think anyone posting here cares whether Obama is a Muslim or not. But a significant percentage of the voting population cares passionately about that issue, Constitution be damned. The Muslim "issue" is one of the top Obama rumors on Snopes.

>45 oregonobsessionz:

If Obama were a muslim, and had been lying about it, that would be quite an issue. But it's not Obama but his opponents who are doing the lying!

Name one thing, just one, that the Republics have told the truth about. Lying is second nature to them.

They live in fantasyland and want to drag us all in there with them.

Remember, we can't handle the truth. If we knew the truth it would blow their cover and everyone would know how stupid they are.

Do you think this is some special institutional thing that being a Republican entails, or some way they mask themselves to themselves, or do you really think that half of American politics is composed of knowing, deliberate liars, and the other half is composed of those who see the lies and tell none of their own?

Follow-up question: Do you think any Democratic politicians believe this about Republicans? If so, who?

No, I don't believe that about Republicans at all. I'm talking about the Republics, a particular subset of Republicans. They are the Karl Rove/Tom DeLay wing of the party. the ones running it. They represent some twenty odd percent of the American people and they do. Part of their strategy with the base is o put out memes like "Obama is a Muslim" and letting it run. It doesn't matter who or how many times the Republics deny this, they know their base will believe anything they are told. They are incredibly cynical. Most of the stuff is so stupid I can't believe that even moderately aware people can believe it. Indeed, intelligence is demonized by these people because they recognize the truth as their enemy. I know many of them, I'm surrounded by them.

As far as Democrats, of course there are dishonest Democrats, just not as many and not nearly as cynical. The difference is they may lie to me, but I don't believe they are lying to themselves. Republics lie to themselves.

I don't know any Democratic politicians currently serving, so I can't speak for them, but my guess is if you got one in a candid moment they would say much the same thing I am saying. Being politicians though they would say it smoother and with less obvious rancor. A skill I haven't mastered.

Where does this "Republics" meme come from? How can you tell the difference between a Republic and a True Republican? (Nictitating membranes? Halitosis? Webbed Toes?) And what's the equivalent word for a cynical, evil, full-of-shit Democrat? A Democ?

oops: sp

Its that guy behind the curtain again....

Republics comes from the same place as Democrat for Democratic. BushCo is full of Republics. Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe are Republicans, James Inhofe and John Cornyn are Republics. John McCain used to be a Republican until he sold his soul to fill his rightful place as President.

I tried to stop using it for a while, but found myself strapped by not being able to separate cynical, evil, full of shit Republics from the loyal opposition, the Republicans. The "Republican" Party is made up of both fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republicans and fiscally liberal, governmentally destructive, social conservatives, with overtones of fascism, and eat up with a severe case of the dumb-ass Republics. I have no respect for the latter at all. To me, they are indeed the enemy of pretty much everything this country stands for in my eyes. I despise them immensely. And don't tell me that they are doing what they think is best, just as the Democrats are doing the same. It isn't so. There is a very cynical attempt under way by the Republics to bleed this country dry and I will not allow that quietly. I absolutely despise them for this. We used to live in the greatest nation on earth. Beginning with Ronald Reagan this country has become a candy store for hustlers, cynics, and criminals. I want it to stop,.

Of course the fact that they are the same people the Prophets railed against doesn't help their case with me.

If I have blind spots as a result of this, please, tell me. It won'ty matter. I am as irrational in my way as the Republics are in theirs.

Republics comes from the same place as Democrat for Democratic. BushCo is full of Republics. Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe are Republicans, James Inhofe and John Cornyn are Republics. John McCain used to be a Republican until he sold his soul to fill his rightful place as President.

I tried to stop using it for a while, but found myself strapped by not being able to separate cynical, evil, full of shit Republics from the loyal opposition, the Republicans. The "Republican" Party is made up of both fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republicans and fiscally liberal, governmentally destructive, social conservatives, with overtones of fascism, and eat up with a severe case of the dumb-ass Republics. I have no respect for the latter at all. To me, they are indeed the enemy of pretty much everything this country stands for in my eyes. I despise them immensely. And don't tell me that they are doing what they think is best, just as the Democrats are doing the same. It isn't so. There is a very cynical attempt under way by the Republics to bleed this country dry and I will not allow that quietly. I absolutely despise them for this. We used to live in the greatest nation on earth. Beginning with Ronald Reagan this country has become a candy store for hustlers, cynics, and criminals. I want it to stop,.

Of course the fact that they are the same people the Prophets railed against doesn't help their case with me and raises the level of despair I have for my country.

If I have blind spots as a result of this, please, tell me. It won't matter. I am as irrational in my way as the Republics are in theirs.

I'm sincerely sorry I asked.

#54
BobStandard, you are a mean, evil person. Not for the question you asked, someone had to, but for not warning us about the nictitating membrane thing. I am now having to clean up the Dr. Pepper I sprayed on my monitor. I enjoyed that one :). Now I just need to find out how to clean out my keyboard, so that my keys don't stickkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

the nictitating membrane ????????????

I have been following along pretty well up till now - have we moved over to the Green Dragon group and we are now discussing SciFi/Fanatasy plots and artifacts?

what is "nictitating"?

OK, I am a book person after all, and I looked it up.

Nevermind....

54
If I recall correctly, the "Republic" thing is something geneg formulated as his response to the Bush references to the "Democrat" Party.

Kind of like New Coke, it just never caught on...

The "Democrat" for "Democratic" goes back to the 1950s, at least.

They are Republicans who belong the Republican party.

They are Democrats who belong to the Democratic party.

"Democrat party" was a sneering snub on Dubya's part.

And "Republics" is just silly.

58
That's as may be, but it's Bush's more recent manglings that have gotten some Dems so p.o.'d.

It's not something I really care about at all.

"Democrat party" was a sneering snub on Dubya's part.

Really, this isn't a new coinage. See the Wikipedia page (http://tinyurl.com/ydlhhf).

The origin of the phrase is, obviously, to question the "democratic" nature of the Democratic. "Republics" is silly because "republicanism" has almost no current meaning. Is geneg questioning Republicans dedication to the United States as a "republic"? In favor of what, monarchy? Democracy? And what exactly is his opinion on the Equites?

Anyone notice interesting similarities between this Electoral College map on RealClearPolitics.com, and this map of Democratic primaries and caucuses on electoral-vote.com?

Obama picked up most of his delegates in states that are so red (or in a few cases, so blue) that they don't factor into the general election at all. Quite a few of those states had caucuses (where a few enthusiastic volunteers can easily leverage a win) or open primaries (where Republicans could cross over and vote for the weaker candidate).

Except for Virginia (which Obama won), Florida and Michigan (which Clinton would have won, had the primaries been contested and the delegates counted at full strength), Clinton won every one of the states which are now rated too close to call. Of course, when Clinton tried to make the case that she would have a better chance in the general election, she was accused of racism.

So far Obama is holding his own in electoral college projections, in the face of McCain's post-convention bounce, but several states are going to be very close, in a year when the Dems should have been looking for a landslide. If McCain somehow squeaks through with a win, Republicans will be very grateful to the Democrats for once again finding a creative way to shoot themselves (and the country) in the foot.

ETA: Republican primary map for comparison purposes.

Apparently I am not the only one looking at those maps I mentioned in post #62. Here is Fred Barnes at the Daily Standard on The Consequences of Rejecting Hillary.

No Palin
No Biden
Party unity
Ohio and Pennsylvania
Arkansas
Vice Presidential debate
Republican women

Yes, Obama could have chosen Hilary as his VP, but then he would have either had to hire a taster, or do the Mithridates thing.

The modern referent isn't Mithridates, it's Iocane powder! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes)