It's awful how this rumor has spread. And it's even more depressing how many Dems are a bit reluctant to support Obama simply because they fear that such rumors will sink him in the general election when the GOP machine cranks up the volume.

I would hope that all those Dems who at least knows that the rumor isn't true see this as a opportunity to say 'no' to such smear-jobs. After all, the GOP are going after Hillary with everything they've got, it'll be the 90's all over again, and they've already decided Edwards is not only too angry, but also a phony and too effeminete.

It also seems to me (though obviously this is just an assumption based on various circumstances regarding these rumors) that the Obama rumors seem to "originate" (at least within the primary) from the Clinton-campaign, and one would hope that such a tactic would backfire if that was the case. Some may like the fact that one campaign is willing to fight hard, but I think it's a a disgrace if it's stems from a Democratic campaign considering it's just bigoted slander which brings out the worst case of ignorance and irrationality in voters, as well as being aimed at a fellow Democrat, and also that you're running to rid the country of this fear-culture while instead you embrace it to discredit a man you cannot defeat using promises or words.

That woman is a moron...barely sentient.

Finally caught that shoutout below Michael.  Between the analysis here (and I'd agree with a lot of what you've been saying given what I've heard) and the actual events, you and Noam have been doing the usual great job.

That rumor has gone all the way to England.  At a party, a friend of my wife's family said she had to reconsider some of her negative stereotypes about America if we nominated "the muslim guy for president".  I'm sure there was a wry, witty retort to that but I couldn't think of it at the time.

And this is supposed to make me comfortable with Iowa going first?  Sheesh.

Virginia:  "barely sentient."  I wouldn't go that far, because then we'd have to assume that 90 percent of the country falls into the same category.  I cannot believe the things I read/hear.  I went onto this mommy website because my sister told me there was an hilarious (read pathetic) flame war going on.  In any case, one woman said she might not vote for Hillary because Chelsea used to ask for Bill over Hillary when she was sick.  I couldn't resist at this point, so I asked a pro-Edwards  poster ("he just seems so genuine") what she thought of his foreign policy.  "I don't know--I don't really follow politics."

That says everything.  People (including myself) who read this site and/or post live in a bubble.  The rest of the country does not have the time or inclination to seriously consider the candidates--never mind how Bhutto's assassination will affect our foreign policy.  Most people are hanging onto their jobs, trying to pay their bills on time, and getting their kids through the day without too much commotion.  

The Clintons take complete advantage of this situation  They look at the public and gauge what they can get away with.  They are pure cynicism and contempt.  Anyone else would hate themselves for the shit they pull.

Nothing profound or new here.  Just a reminder.  

Signed,

A fellow Obama supporter who's "managing expectations."  In other words, I'm prepared for disappointment.

Wow. If Obama does make it to the general, I'm hoping this thing will get aired and debunked for good. But of course there are still people who think Saddam and Bin Laden were in cahoots. What can you do?

Is that like calling someone a philanderer, or a crook...?  Or is iit worse?

Bemoaning the persistence of the "Muslim smear" without questioning the basic Islamophobia that underpins its existence might be pragmatic, but it's still disappointing. <a href="thisisgadfly.com's why</a>.

Link didn't work in the post above. Here it is:

http://thisisgadfly.com/?p=111

I don't see why anyone's surprised that some people really believe this. The whole *point* of smearing your opponent is that some people will really believe it. And ready-to-be-disappointed-Obama-supporter is right; it doesn't make them morons, it just makes them not political junkies.

hewstino - next time, tell your English friend that, alas, "the muslim guy" won't join the race this time. Al-Gore's too busy with his jihad against global warming.

As to the frustration aired by Obama's supporters, including Mike Crowley, qwitcher bitchin', folks. Obama's got it easy compared to the guy whose faith puts him beyond the pale for over 30% (per Pew) of the electorate. Or the sole female candidate in the race, who every day endures and will endure the usual sh*tstorm of misogynist crap, including whispers about lesbianism, next to which talk of Obama's "muslim" faith is trivial.

Or that fellow Dem who, despite being more competent, insightful and decisive on foreign policy matters than Obama Edwards and HRC combined, has to deal with dismissive, BS journalistic coverage of his smile, his hair plugs, the Neil Kinnock poach that he apologized for and put to rest _decades_ ago.

I'm willing to bet any sum that more Americans would be willing to vote for a muslim candidate than would vote for an atheistic one.

"Most people are hanging onto their jobs, trying to pay their bills on time, and getting their kids through the day without too much commotion."

I'm so tired of this crap. Whether or not you want to put a minimum of effort into doing your civic duty as a citizen of a democracy is not a choice only open to polisci graduates. All you have to do is bother to read a paper and watch the news once in a while. The fact that the vast majority of the population chooses to be political idiots is regrettable and explicable, but it's certainly not excusable. Cynical politicians exploiting the situation is exactly what these voters deserve. Just a pity the rest of us have to live with the results.

Tep, there has been a number of atheists in office but as far as I know only one Muslim has made it to the House. And just how many Buddhists or Hindus have made it to national office? Many People don't care if someone is an atheist, they just don't like people who are obnoxious about it. You can not talk like Hitchens and expect to win elective office.I have a feeling if Bernie Sanders (is he even religious? do not know and do not care) were to say he were an atheist he would still win reelection but if he became a Muslim he would not stand a chance.

I am afraid that the only way a minority or woman will be President is if they are Conservative, but democrats can't always say "lets not risk it, lets go with the safe electable candidate"

blackton,

No candidate for the presidency who identifies as an atheist has any chance, no matter how polite he might be about it.  I doubt that a Muslim would have a better chance, but it is impossible to do worse than an atheist. As we may yet see, Mormonism may be enough to keep a candidate from reaching the White House.  The evangelical right-wing and its Catholic partners-in-crime have rolled back the clock on religious liberty and church-state separation.  

We can blame 9/11 for the anti-Muslim sentiment, but Mormons and atheists would probably agree that the ground John Kennedy gained for religious liberty in 1960 needs to be regained in 2008.  Hence the need for Romney's speech; one indication of how far we have fallen is that Romney dared not make the same principled appeal but instead pandered to the power of prejudice.

Neil    

Aside from Pete Stark, I don't know of anyone in Congress who has admitted to atheism.  Stark, having served in Congress for 36 years, only recently admitted to his non-conformist non-belief, and is therefore hardly proof on our openness to atheists in public office.  

At the state level, there may be some atheists in significant positions, but I know of none.  I do know that seven states have constitutional provisions that would prohibit an atheist from serving as the governor of that state (should a atheist ever manage to get elected, the US Supreme Court would knock down the state prohibition, but it says something about our view of atheist, don't you agree?).

As an atheist, I take comfort from the fact that most believers are only kidding - the evidence of their unbelief being obvious to anyone who observes their actions.    

Neil

If you&#39;re just returning to TNR.com after taking a holiday vacation, welcome back! You&#39;ve missed

Neil the way and atheist can be polite is change the term from Atheist to agnostic.  If there is no God does that change in term really matter beyond mollifying millions of believers out there that you do not stand directly opposed to their own beliefs? If you are going into politics you should be primarily interested in policy positions and not grand philosophical ideas. I would never vote for a militant atheist because their militancy is a disqualifier to me.

Of course Obama is unelectable.  His supporters here, up in arms about what Crowley, in his own smear, calls a smear, remind me of San Francisco gays in the 80s.  As the city began to close bath houses and porn theaters, in response to the promiscuity that was spreading AIDS, gays went on the warpath, screeching about their civil rights.  They paid the price of Pride.  Likewise, Crowley and his ilk screech about the Muslim "smear," as if it's all about the insult and not a reasoned concern.  If the Democratic party follows this line, they too will pay the price of pride -- and of stupidity.

One more time:  The man's name is Barack HUSSEIN Obama.  His father was raised a Muslim.  His step-father was a Muslim.  Obama lived, as a child, in Muslim Indonesia. All right, Obama is a professed Christian, at least since the mid 80s, at the beginning of his political trajectory.  If there was opportunism there, it was not to cover up Muslim roots but rather for an agnostic/atheist to gain Christian credentials amongst a Christian audience.

Obama's handlers say he's not a Muslim, and he says he's Christian.  But it's neither irrational nor malicious to infer from the name -- and the last name is almost Osama, for chrissake! -- and the biography, albeit mistakenly, that the man is Muslim.  Now, this empirical thinking may be poo-poo'ed by true believers, as an insult or a smear, but to those in touch with reality, like the Iowans Crowley smears, this is a big problem.  Not a moral problem, not a philosophical problem, but a problem proper to choosing a nominee.  It's quite simple:  9/11 is still just yesterday.  Americans will not elect a man named Barack Hussein Obama.  For a party matter with any sense (which leaves out the left-wing), this is a legitimate concern. You may not like it, it may seem petty and unworthy of your sophisticated sensibilities, but this election is not about your sensibilites.  

Obama does not have the equipment to be president.  Aside from his kumbaya speeches, about "bringing us together, he has displayed absolutely NO objective qualification for being elected.  His foreign policy pronouncements have been, to put it kindly, artless.  His domestic policy statements -- particularly about healthcare -- have been universally dismissed.  All that's left are the platitudes and the cameras.  Simply put, the Obama fanboys and girls are in love.  And the most dangerous thing a consumer can do -- and you are consumers -- is to fall in love with the product.  

Effete snobs here look down on those who "don't know politics," yet the foundation of their infatuation with their boy is no more substantive.  Their agreement with him on the issues -- if they know what they are, which can't be much, since he has so few -- stems from this infatuation, not independently.

A competent party would acknowledge Obama's achilles heel, say "Thanks, but we'll pass," and move on to a generic Democrat like Biden, who could beat any Repug (Dodd could too, probably).  But instead, the party is about to let itself be captured either by a feelgood "rainbow" candidate or a candidate with visceral negatives.  Again, Dems are responding to a golden opportunity -- broad discontent with Repug misrule -- by becoming lemmings, too busy telling themselves how virtuous they are to notice the cliff.

blackton,

It is not "militant" to admit that one believes in God, nor to admit that one believes that such a God does not exist.  If the only way an atheist can ever be polite about his beliefs is to pretend to be agnostic, then why is it not necessary for believers to do the same? After all, if we are being polite, don't we owe one another the same courtesies, privileges, and exemptions?  

We atheists are a minority in this country, though many who claim to believe show little evidence beyond the claim itself.  As a minority, we tend to be militant only when we feel threatened, as we have felt strongly in the Bush years.  Not threatened personally - I don't complain of any persecution for my beliefs.  What has been threatened instead is the secular civil society in which believers of all faiths and non-believers alike could participate, without the government engaging in the support of one sect or faith tradition.

Some atheists have pushed back, in resistance to an aggressive and over-reaching religious sect and its political wing.  Even some believers - notably John Danforth - have decried the politicization of evangelical christianity and the takeover of the GOP by that sect.  If John Danforth is concerned, why shouldn't we atheists be worried too?

I am not agnostic about God for the same reason most people would not be agnostic about the existence of fairies.  I don't see any difference between fairies and God, so how could I be agnostic?  

I can no more accept that my beliefs be characterized as doubts for the sake of your feelings than you could accept the charcterization of your beliefs as superstitions for mine.  Neither of us would be polite to the other in demanding such a false admission, and neither of us would be militant for refusing to make such an admission.

Neil

I really don't think it's hard to understand why people just assume Obama is a muslim. Like it or not, the truth is that most people get their faith beliefs from their parents and in fact many people find it suspicious or odd if others depart form this norm even if that person coverts to your own brand. If someone asks another what religion the son of their neighbors, whom they know to be Catholics, belongs to it is unlikely that they will respond, "I don't know. I haven't asked him about his personal beliefs." They will just say, "Oh, they're Catholics." Even if the kid's car sports several bumper stickers that might make it seem more likely that he was an agnostic/atheist.

I'm an Obama supporter who frankly doesn't care what religion or lack thereof he believes in but I'm also not naive enough to think this won't be an issue. I hate the assumptions of guilt-by-association and anti-muslim bias that the rumor ties into but for now I don't think Obama can get into a nuanced and historical deconstruction of it but must simply repeat "it's not true" when it comes up and portray it as a smear, which it is.

Unfortunately, whatever he does, this will never go away completely. For the chain-email ditto heads on the right they need an original sin to render Obama illegitimate and animate their outrage and hatred of him from day one. Even they know that the obvious slur to hand cannot be used in public anymore so the Muslim thing acts as a convenient proxy for his "otherness."

I post a link to this post and a blockquote of a conversation on the pro Hillary blog talkleft, and Armando instantly deleted it, and accuses me of being a spammer. He's the same guy who accused me of smearing Sean Wilentz when I exposed him.  I take pride in the fact that he deletes my comments when he finds himself at a total loss for a response.  The guy is supposedly a lawyer, and seemingly can argue his way out of a paper bag.

I'll tell you, this hotly contested election cycle is confirming everything I've suspected about the people whose blogs I've commented on for years. I can't say I'm disillusioned, but I think I liked it better when I had some doubts about their failings.  

I mean Christ these are professional people, lawyers who hold people's lives in the palm of their hand on a daily basis, and their judgment is so frighteningly compromised and distorted that I genuinely fear for their clients.  I keep expecting them to be more mature than myself, with an understanding of world and life that exceeds my own, but I'm constantly disappointed.  Wait a minute what a my say these are lawyers, what the hell did I expect.  :-)

jm_rice

Your prejudiced xenophobic homophobic anti-Islamic views disgust and offend me. Please seek professional help.

I take solace in the knowledge that you're an old dude, and that a portion of the ugliness and ignorance that you carry will pass out of this world, as the numbers of you and your kind dwindle with each passing day, affording you less and less opportunity to pollute the minds of the generations to come, and for that I'm immensely grateful.

Goodbye and good riddance

Neil, thanks but then why is it not necessary for believers to do the same? I absolutely think it is necessary for believers to do the same. I would love it if we can infer candidates values based on their policies and not their religion or lack of it. sadly though, since atheists are in such a minority I still think copping to agnosticism is a small price to pay. And I do not agree with the analogy of faeries and God, the existence of God at least possesses a logical consistency (you know, Prime mover and all that) whereas faeries do not. Hence agnosticism is not a contradiction, but an acknowledgment of ultimate uncertainty and is far more palatable to believers. Of course, you have every right to insist on your views, just do not expect to be President.