I am a secular humanist, and had hoped for better from Obama.

He drew a circle that shut me out —
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in.

Edwin Markham

He has the capability to do this, I just hope he has the wisdom and the courage.

Excellent Steve!

As I wrote earlier today in a comment, Obama currently doesn`t
even try to provide the illusion of a "balanced view on the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict".

If his recent move "towards the center", to please the mainstream,
also implies firing a Muslim advisor, this is very depressing.

Who is John McCain's Muslim Outreach coordinator?

Dan -- I will try and find out.

Steve

I think the Obama team faces the threat of jeopardizing the collective and hopeful spirit they built over the course of the campaign. It saddens steve, myself and many Americans to see them back down after the prejudiced pundits unleashed their criticism of Mazen Asbahi. Instead of turning their backs and allowing him to resign, the Obama camp should reach out to Asbahi - and take the opportunity to reach out to all Muslims in the united states and let them know they are part of the message of hope and unity.

Obama should listen up because as steve pointed out, the stakes are greater than the Muslim-American vote.

This reads like a Swift-boat attack on valiant Obama. "Slimy," I call it. Everybody knows that Obama can do no wrong and is our only hope.

Seriously, in case somebody missed it, the US is now in three (3) wars against Muslims (including the proxy I/P one), and threatening one or two more. Muslims are being commonly discriminated against and harassed in the US.

Any peep from any politician about fairness to Palestinians, in particular, means instant political death. (Just ask Cynthia McKinney.) In short, there is NO WAY that there will be any fairness toward Muslims, or any "Muslim advisor" worth his or her salt. Forget it.

Dan Kervick: The informal Muslim outreach advisor for Senator McCain is Majida Mourad, who is at the Abraham Group. I don't know if she has a formal title or not -- but she's the McCain's team go-to person on Muslim Americans. I hear that she is impressive.

What is sadder, Obama's backing down, or the possibility that he had to back down in order to avoid the Republican attack machine and the open and clear and even socially acceptable anti-Muslim feeling in this country?

With the Repubs on the warpath, how can any dem afford to be broadminded and open in good ways? Obama would never survive an ad campaign that noted that this guy participated in a Muslim investment fund -- sounds shady til you realize that these funds are designed to avoid interest payments because earning money on money (usury anyone?) is considered unacceptable.

You know the ad would suggest that the money went to terrorists. There's no way to fight this stuff. The spirit of Lee Atwater lives on and slowly eats away at the nation.

I agree it's disgusting.
Obama keeps going down and down in my opinion.

Some people have the opinion that Obama has to do this pandering to some segments and demonizing another group in order to win the WH and that once elected he will go back to his pre general election self.
I doubt this because once in the WH the goal becomes a second term and the pandering and /or demonizing continues.

The real question in America is, do actions like this by Obama reflect what Americans really feel or want? Or do actions like Obama's reflect only the tactics politicans use in playing the percentages in the niche and fanatic voters?

I think most people, both dems and repubs, had high hopes for this election and now it turns out to be just more of the same. I am convinced the majority of this country WAS ready for change...but it's not being delivered.

Guess I will still be using my BWTTGASO slogan even after this election unless there is some miracle.

Barraq Hussein Obama is distancing himself from his muslim brothers, but WE KNOW THE TRUTH. BHO is a stealth muslim!

Steve,

I guess I am confused. McCain has an "informal outreach advisor" but who is his "formal advisor"?

Was Asbani a formal or informal advisor?

You are easily outraged. Since you think you know the whole story, why don't you tell the whole story.

Or maybe you don't.

Majida Mourad is indeed Senator McCain's go to person on Muslim outreach. This is her biography.

"Majida Mourad joined The Abraham Group, as vice president and partner, after serving as Senior Advisor to Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham from January 2001 until February 2005. As Senior Advisor to the Secretary, she was a lead Department representative on international energy matters. In particular she focused on United States Department of Energy work with the nations of the Middle East, Australia, Russia and various other European as well as Asian countries. She also performed key assignments with respect to such multilateral organizations as the International Energy Agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the International Energy Forum

In addition, Ms. Mourad also traveled extensively on behalf of the Department in conjunction with such matters as the North American Initiative, the Western Hemispheric and US-African Energy Ministerial conferences and several of other Department of Energy initiatives. She also was one of the Department's senior officials charged with responsibilities in conjunction with the Liquefied Natural Gas Summit, the International Partnership for a Hydrogen Economy and the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum.

Prior to joining the Department of Energy, Ms. Mourad served as a member of President Bush's Transition Team Staff, assisting Spencer Abraham during his confirmation process as Secretary of Energy.

Ms. Mourad first served then-Senator Spencer Abraham as Special Assistant in 1999. She began her public policy career in 1996, working for Congressman Sonny Bono, and later for Congresswoman Mary Bono."

Majida Mourad is indeed impressive, but she is a Christian and not a Muslim. Who is the highest-ranking Muslim on the McCain campaign? On the Obama campaign?

How does either campaign feel about having Muslims serving in its prospective administration?

Whatever people say of Bush, he has two Muslims serving in high profile positions (Khalilzad at the UN and Zerhouni at NIH). Would these two show as much openness?

You can please all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

The perfect can be the enemy of the good.

All politics is compromise.

I smell an absolutist conviction, here. Can we please get pragmatic--or do you hope for the destruction of America from within?

I'm pretty sure that McCain's formal Muslim Advisor is King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud.

This is dreadfully sad. So many have wanted to believe that Obama meant a chance in direction for this country. But this is a terrible illustration of the wrong direction we wanted to change -- as was Obama's FISA vote. It is not at all encouraging to begin to see a pattern of wrong turns on issues that involve stereotyping and mindlessly profiling groups of individuals.

"The informal Muslim outreach advisor for Senator McCain is Majida Mourad, who is at the Abraham Group. I don't know if she has a formal title or not -- but she's the McCain's team go-to person on Muslim Americans. I hear that she is impressive."

Yeah, well, she also has the luxury of not being attacked by the Democratic machine. I agree with your outrage, but I'm really not sure I want Obama spending a week explaining to Americans that they need to be tolerant of Muslims while the GOP blasts Obama for consorting with "terrorists" and "anti-Israeli" people (and god knows what else). Republicans have time and time again chosen to feed off of xenophobia and just plain fear.

That is also the answer to those of you who compliment Bush's outreach to Muslims--he has that luxury because Democrats aren't going to make an issue out of it.

Steve, you are tone-deaf to this election cycle. If you think a man with a funny name, funny color, and funny background can win if tied to "being Muslim", than you have no idea what Joe SixPack thinks.

"What is sadder, Obama's backing down, or the possibility that he had to back down in order to avoid the Republican attack machine"

"With the Repubs on the warpath, how can any dem afford to be broadminded and open in good ways?"

Stop accepting such weakness in your candidates. Have the nerve to stand up for what you believe and demand the same from your candidates.

If you lose then accept the fact that you may be in the minority and adapt. If you win then you will know you did the right thing.

Anyone, left or right, willing to sell out just to win doesn't deserve to win anything. Anyone who accepts that behavior from a candidate is backing a hypocrite.

This is stupid. Do we have an example of a campaign adviser who resigns to spare the campaign embarrassment for reasons real or perceived, only to have that resignation not accepted. What is the precedent?

Is there evidence that this person was told to resign or are we playing by new campaign rules that any adviser who gets unwarranted atention just bows out. How many times has this happened on both sides so far. You embarass the cnadidate for any reason, or beocme and object of attention, you get lost.

Do you suspect that this position will go unfilled, or that Obama will fill it with someone who is not Muslim. NO he'll just have another Muslim outreach coordinator.

I'm sorry if Muslim's feel aggrieved by Obama, I'm sure they get a great reception from McCain.

I'm really starting to buy David Sirota's thesis that people like MoveOn need to push issues, not candidates, and be just as ruthless on Obama as anyone else. DC is like the Borg collective and gobbles up all and any who enter the beast. Obama isn't moving to the Center, but Washington. He's abandoning the center for DC, when he COULD be a game changer who alters the paradigm.

We don't need to be playing by whatever rules the GOP and punditocracy place on us. That means not caving to engineered GOP hissy-fits as he did with Wesley Clark, not caving on FISA, a bill that only Washington DC favors, and not obeying the narrative that wants to make this a war on Islam rather than terrorism.

We need groups willing to twist his arm as much as any oil company, for the real center - meaning, what voters who give Obama his small donations care about.

At least WSJ reporter Amy Chozick has moved up from wondering if Obama is too skinny to be President.

"Barack Obama needs to make a statement loudly, clearly, and with passion that he embraces Muslims..."

Really? This may be what you want them to do, but I suspect Team Obama feels differently.

You're right, Obama should immediately reinstate this man and surround himself with Muslims at every photo opportunity.

Because it is more important to make a small point than to win an election that will shape the course of our country.

how is the wall in Israel/Palestine an ulcer? because it protects Israelis so they can't be slaughtered? your fine points are diminished by the inclusion of the wall.

So what kind of President would Barack Obama be?

That's the question we need to be thinking about, and it's one with much broader implications than whether his campaign is making the right gestures toward Muslims in this country or elsewhere. There can't be any question that Sen. Obama is a product of the permanent campaign; if he's not a master of campaign tradecraft he is very close, and so far he's adhered closely to most permanent campaign conventions. One of these is that advisors and associates who become controversial must be kept far away from the candidate, the reason for this being the need to keep extraneous stories from interfering with the campaign's message and taking over a news cycle.

If this didn't work in campaign politics no one would do it. Obama is exceptional among national politicians only in that the circle of associates from whom he will not immediately distance himself if they get into trouble seems to be smaller than most. His is certainly smaller than John McCain's.

Here's the problem, though: what works in a campaign won't work in the White House. A President simply cannot operate the way Obama has, cutting ties instantly with subordinates who threaten his place in a news cycle. It would destroy morale in his administration; his subordinates would respond either with obsessive secrecy or excessive caution, out of an instinct for self-preservation.

In the White House, accountability means you lose your job if you screw up, not if you become the subject of some bad press stories. In the campaign, the relationship of staff to the candidate is all one-way; staff is there to protect the candidate, period. Government requires a two-way street; a President has to find ways to stick up for his people, even when they become controversial. The Samantha Power episode a few months ago first made me wonder if Barack Obama gets this. I'm still wondering.

People persist in thinking that Obama is something other than a standard Democratic Party hack. Why?

Which is not to say that he's not a zillion times better than a standard Republican Party hack. Altho on Israel/Palestine, Presidential lawbreaking/warrantless wiretapping, the drug war, the gun violence epidemic, the incarceration crisis, and defense spending, he's exactly the same.

Here is Mr. Asbahi's email to the campaign, copied from The Page site. So why, Mr. Clemons, do you conclude he was "thrown under the bus?"

In 2000, I agreed to serve as a member of the board of trustees of the Dow Jones Islamic Index Fund. I served on that board for only a few weeks before resigning as soon as I became aware of public allegations against another member of the board.

Since concerns have been raised about that brief time, I am stepping down from the volunteer role I recently agreed to take on with the Obama campaign as Arab American and Muslim American outreach coordinator in order to avoid distracting from Barack Obama’s message of change.

Sincerely,

Mazen Asbahi

Steve, if this surprises you then you haven't been paying attention. It's getting mighty crowded under the Obama Bus, with all the folks he throws under it.

Just ask Rev. Wright, Fr. Pflager, and Obama's grandmother.

Couldn't agree more with every word!

Frankly, I've had a pretty low opinion about Obama, from the very beginning, and this behavior doesn't surprise me in the least.

Still, McCain makes me very, very, VERY nervous, so I wish young Barack the absolute best in his current campaign.

What ????
What is wrong??
An adviser left a campaign.
So where is the quote from the guy that left?
What is the journalistic HOW in this piece written by a baby crying?
Waaa Waaa Obama is not perfect Whaaa waaaaaaa
This is a -Hard Core secularists- expert opinion.

Good to know..

Hi,

You must be new around here. Welcome to American Presidential politics. There are two candidates in the race. One is exponentially better on pretty much every issue than the other.

Obama's number one responsibility is to win the general election. Period. Keeping around a minor campaign flack to the detriment of the campaign in general is idiotic.

Cue responses to the effect that "we can count on the wisdom of the noble American electorate to come to the right decision."

Frankly, I'd prefer to see Obama make a stand about Muslim rights in the US AFTER he gets elected, than see him do it now and lose in November.

Additionally, where are all those photos of McCain posing with Muslim Americans?

Steve,

Great post. I'm a strong Obama supporter and just last week I was
out canvassing. While I was doing it I encountered a few Arab
American homes and I used the opportunity to tell them why I
thought Obama was the best candidate for the Arab American
community. I still think he is by far. However, this is a silly thing
that isn't necessary and it makes it harder to sell him to the
community. This kind of stuff is not worthy of the kind of
candidacy we've been told Senator Obama represents.

I find this very dissapointing; but it could be worse - Lieberman could be endorsing Barack rather than McCain.

More seriously, Barack needs to get elected first before he can do anything and with our current US media bias toward any criticism of Israel, or support for any of the positions of any groups that have been a threat to Israel, as 'anti-semitic' there isn't much else Obama can do.

Once he gets elected he needs to get more daring early in his administration in trying to respect and listen to reasonable offers of compromise from representatives of all religions and religious states.

One reason I dropped my subscription to the WSJ and switched to the Financial Times (besides NewsCorp owning the WSJ now) was the the Finanacial Times criticizes economic corruption and violations of human rights by all sides in the Middle East... This cannot be said of any traditional corporate media news outlet I am familiar with in the US.

Chris Brown -- The advisor who resigned was asked to resign. He did not want to, but that said -- he does not want to publicly repudiate the Obama camapaign or to become an issue of distraction for Obama. He's selfless in this -- and in my view, blameless. But suffice it to say that if he had just jumped on his own without strong pushing, I would not have written this piece. best, Steve Clemons

I disagree. I think that even a hint that radical islam and this guy were linked would be used over and over again by a McCain campaign that is content with running a campaign based on sleazy character destruction rather than real issues. They would use this as a distraction from the real debate and the "liberal" media would happily draw it out into an alltogether bigger deal than it is. I'm thinking Asbahi is smart enough to know that and decided it wasn't worth it to become a pawn in that type of game.

I'm happy to see you pushing Obama on this, Steve.

Regards,

Toss another log on the "distractions" campfire.

This is just a "distraction" -- it's the "okie-doke"! You're being "hoodwinked" & "bamboozled"!

http://cartoonbox.slate.com/hottopic/?image=10&topicid=114

http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/e4ea4bf0-1b32-43a2-80ad-72be7ad8eb4d.html

http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/de13d436-3c31-40bc-a3ee-44a00d0e1b11.html

http://caglepost.com/cartoon/Daryl+Cagle/52926/Where+Obama+Stands+Color.html

"I want fairness, balance, no zero sum between some Americans and others. Any of you who think that that is what it takes to win ought to be fighting for something better."

And if in fact the only way to win is to be unfair to some people at some time what then? Is anyone here so self-absorbed as to believe that losing with honor intact will be worth anything after the trumpets sound? We are not talking about an individual's victory or defeat here, where one can please oneself; we are talking about a movement and the historical trajectory of a nation.

As far as I can tell McCain doesn't 'do' balance in any case, I suspect he thinks it makes you look funny, and I'll wager he doesn't have anything like a Muslim Outreach Coordinator either. What he almost certainly does have in abundance is a genuine passion for becoming the POTUS and if people are shocked at the nature of his attacks against the only one he sees standing in his way now then they may wish to avert their gaze, stop their ears and load up on Dramamine for the next few months because they have absolutely, truly seen and heard nothing yet.

The notion that it is somehow hypocritical to adapt beforehand in order to win rather than later after you lose is arguable even if confined to deontological ethics and as a consequentialist ethic it leaves a great deal to be desired if one in fact considers the outcome of a contest important; i.e., it defers victory into infinity in all but an idealized universe where "the good" (as some see it) wins over all.

Frankly while it would be interesting to see if the Left's self-indulgence and lack of discipline might once again facilitate a progressive's defeat, or a Democrat's if it comes to that, I don't think the country can really afford another 8 years like the 8 we've just experienced so I'll take a pass if you don't mind even at the cost of being unable to publicly scratch my outrage itch as often as I might like. YMMD

Here's the bottom line:

Vote for Obama and America *might* have a chance to get its dignity back.

Vote for Buffalo Chip McCain (or not vote) and count the days to Armageddon.

I wish he would throw Cass Sunstein under the bus.

You write: "But Obama is silent in Israel when it is the wall dividing Israelis and Palestinians that is becoming an increasingly worse and impactful global ulcer."
That wall is there because nothing else that was tried could stop Palestinians from walking into restaurants and buses or any other public place and blowing up themselves and countless innocent people. So what you are really saying is how dare those Jews not lay down and allow themselves to be slaughtered and mutilated AGAIN.
Yes, there are wrongs committed by both sides in this endless conflict. But only the Palestinians refuse to abide by past agreements or negotiate meaningful new agreements. The Israelis unilaterally pulled out of Gaza leaving the Palestinians with exactly what they had claimed they desired and all they got was more violence. The Palestinians have transformed Gaza into a living hell for their own people through their own self destructive actions. They have yet to realize that Israel cannot be destroyed with terrorism.
Peaceful negotiations are the only possible solution. Half a century of senseless killing on both sides proves that neither side will back down in the face of more killing. More violence is senseless and will accomplish absolutely nothing. Yet they continue.
In the meantime that wall is the only barrier protecting many innocents. Where is the "global ulcer" in that? If the Palestinians are hurting because of it they only need to stop the killing and make real peace. Will it be easy? No, but if you have another suggestion please make it.

Steve, very proud of you for writing this. It's clear that you support Obama but also clear that you are trying to influence his direction. Good on you. That's what we should all be trying to do. Balance is key, but so is getting these kinds of things right.

I still support Obama. I hope he listens to Steve and others like him.

Sen. I Am

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/he_is_who_he_is.html

Lee Atwater attacks definitely are working, on this blog at least, to help McCain. Every Democrat who does not vote, votes for McCain or Nader will help McCain win. See Chris Brown's comment above that I am assuming is accurate statement from Asbahi. He, as Samantha Powers, both resigned immediately because they want Obama to win and realized that their affiliations or statements could and would be used to hurt his campaign. Nobody threw them under any bus.

There is little differentiation in any of the above defining clearly being Arab-American (and that involves as many countries as being Hispanic-American)to designate one's or one's ancestors' country of origin vs. being Muslim, i.e., practicing that religion. So McCain's Muslim outreach person is Christian. So are many Arab-Americans. It's negative campaigning, and it works.

Are we to believe and laud that Bush has Zalmay Khalilzad in his administration as an Afghan-American Muslim and that is a wonderful thing? It was only in the mid-1990s that Khalilzad was a consultant for Unocal meeting with the Taliban about a pipeline across Afghanistan and signing PNAC letters to Clinton urging the invasion of Iraq. Those letters also were signed by Rumsfeld and many other Christians and Wolfowitz who is Jewish. They all were wrong in their politics and actions and got us into this mess.

The election is about real issues and not these side issues. Which of the candidates will get us out of Iraq, restore our reputation in the world, nominate good Supreme Court justices, promote nuclear disarmament, reverse the worst parts of the Bush tax cuts, reform health care, etc.? So the choice really is doubts about Obama vs. certainty about McCain.

Under the bus? Surely you are being dramatic.

Why did Asbahi resign? He resigned from hounding of people who think Obama is a muslim, a covert muslim, and Asbahi, being a muslim, is unAmerican.

Who is Amy Chozick of WSJ that hounded Asbahi, Obama, and fed the hounds?

The same Amy that trolls Yahoo message boards until she found a quote and then proceeded to write a news story (not opinion, not satire, but actually news) that question whether Obama is fit to be President because he is too.. fit?
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/10322.html

How did you know that Obama himself did not demand from Asbahi that he not resign? Did you go aggressively after the likes of Chozick and the hounds?
You have been had

Ken -- sometimes I do get spun -- or get had as you put it. Not this time.

The wall between Israel and Palestine is nothing like the Berlin Wall. Where it is on the 'Green Line', it is more like the walls along the US-Canada border (there are many walls near urban areas and the border crossings). There are plenty of walls along portions of borders in the world.

Where the Israel-Palestine wall veers into territory across the Green Line is a real issue, but not the wall itself.

Sure, that part of Obama's Berlin speech didn't make much sense, but walls along borders often do.

It seems that no American politician will/can treat the Palestinians fairly. Republicans tilt toward the Israelis because it will hasten the second coming, and Democrats tilt toward the Israelis because of the Jewish vote. In any case, Israel can do no wrong. They can use US weapons illegally and there will be no problem. They can always add another settlement while continuing to augment the existing settlements. They will still get their billions of dollars of direct and military aid. And if they run our of bombs while destroying, say, Lebanon, we will re-supply them. I am not supporting suicide bombers or unguided missiles, I'm just saying that we are not treating the two sides evenly.

All those who say.. "play the political game" to win are perpetuating the "game".

You like what the "gaming" has produced so far for America?

Maybe you think you are being "realistic" but you are being "had"..trapped by the usual lesser of two evils choice ...the dems or the repubs.

And what does Joe Bow really think on Arabs and Muslims?

Maybe this:

ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32604 - 64k

Published on Thursday, March 23, 2006 by Inter Press Service

by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - The analysis, much of which is based on findings of a major poll carried out last summer by the Pew Research Centre for the People & the Press, found that a strong plurality of 50 percent of white evangelical Protestants believe that Islam "is more likely than others to encourage violence among its believers.

While only about a third of mainline Protestants and Catholics accepted that view. "

Do we really need Evangelicals in the US?

Hagee: "Muslims are programed to kill Christians and Jews"

Do we really need nutcase zionist in the US?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jewish-lobby-threatens-candy-brothers-us-deal-874861.html
Jewish lobby threatens Candy brothers' US deal

By Robert Verkaik and Fionn Shiner
Wednesday, 23 July 2008

They are the feted brothers of London's luxury property market whose services are courted by film stars and Russian oligarchs alike. In just 12 years, the Candy brothers' brand of bespoke opulence for the super rich has brought them wealth and kudos in Britain. But in striving to secure a place at the top table among the movers and shakers of California, the brothers, both in their 30s, are facing a serious problem.

Christian and Nick Candy, who with a £6,000 loan from their grandmother built a property design business worth an estimated £9bn, are now trying to allay the fears of members of the influential Jewish community in Beverly Hills over their associations with Middle Eastern financial backers.

At the heart of the controversy is a prime eight-acre £250m development in Beverly Hills, California, which the brothers are using as a first foothold in Hollywood's high-end property market.

According to the influential Beverly Hills Blog, local councillors, egged on by angry Jewish residents, have challenged the brothers to declare their links with the wealthy Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani, the Prime Minister of Qatar and part owner of a Middle Eastern newspaper that the Californians accuse of being anti-Semitic and anti-American. The sheikh and the Qatari government have bankrolled a number of the brothers' developments in London, including the £900m acquisition of the Chelsea Barracks.

While the brothers' Middle Eastern links are of little concern in London, any suggestion that the sheikh is connected to 9900 Wilshire, the name given to the Candy brothers' LA development, is a different matter. The Beverly Hills Jewish community is sensitive about doing business with some Middle Eastern states and investors. J A Mirisch, the Hollywood film distributor behind the Beverly Hills Blog, says: "Are we really so desperate that we need to welcome into our community people who incite to further hatred against Jews and Americans, or, for that matter, people who see fit do business with such anti-Semites and America-haters?"

The brothers are well aware of the potential damage to their American dream and have tried to kill off the rumours. In March, Chris Candy, the older and more bullish of the brothers, flew to Los Angeles to try to reassure residents of the source of the investment for the luxury apartments. He made a similiar visit last year.

It was reported that tJimmy Delshad, who was Beverly Hills mayor, demanded to know who was really behind the project. Mr Candy, 34, told the city council there was no Qatari involvement and the only financiers for 9900 were the Candys' own Guernsey-based private-equity company, CPC Investments, and the Kaupthing Bank from Iceland.

Nick Candy said the project had caused them some problems but he claimed Mr Delshad was a friend: "We sent 9,000 letters to the people of Beverly Hills and have had 18 meetings with the planners. And I can tell you 200 per cent that Sheikh Hamad is not involved in this project. But having said that I think people can be very narrow-minded on this. I know [the sheikh] is a friend of America who is close to the American President and Arnold Schwarzenegger [the Governor of California]. The US Air Force even has a base in Qatar. We love the people of Beverly Hills but I think it's fair to say that this has been a lot harder than we thought."

Neither the evangelicals nor the Zionist jewish community represent the majority of Americans on Muslims or Arabs.
If Obama wants to continue to pander to the basest segments of the US population than he is just another political hack using religious and racial division and fear mongering. And his appeal to Americans to be the better people they are was just your typical come on crapola.

Let the games continue. But don't act surprised and whine about the house always winning if you play their game.

Obama deserves to be raked over the coals for his bait and switch politics.

Anyone who thinks Obama's "revising" as a presidential candidate will come to a screeching halt once he's in the Oval Office can ride their unicorns all the way to Invesco.

As I suspected, John McCain has no Muslim outreach coordinator whatsoever, formal or otherwise. He has an informal "Arab-American outreach director", who is a non-Muslim Arab-American providing strategic consulting for players in the global energy biz.

Right on, Steve.

For someone who earlier this summer said, "I don't do cowering," Obama sure has let himself be buffeted around by Republican attacks or the anticipation thereof, on FISA, on offshore drilling, and now on this (yes, it's a smaller scale; no, it's not much more reassuring).

Who could have expected that someone chosen to be a Muslim outreach liaison might have ties to "various Islamic groups"? Who the hell *should* the campaign have doing Muslim outreach, Larry the f***ing Cable Guy?

Sorry, let's get elected

I agree with everything you have said. Although I have supported Obama, I am beginning to wonder about his backbone. I am 58 years old. The racism against Muslims in this country is more blatant than anything I have ever seen.

Also, I think it is time for Politicians, the media, and especially American Jews, to speak out against the humiliation and killing of the Palestinian People. It is Ethnic Cleansing - not Apartheid.

At first I thought Obama was going to be different but I was wrong…Even though I’m not a Muslim, I am appalled by the way he is distancing himself from the Muslim American community although he himself is half Muslim whether he wants to admit it or not. He’s not only offending the Muslim community but also the African American community in what he has been doing lately. I think he is already forgetting who got him here in the first place.

Frequently there is a heated debate at TWN, and suddenly
TahoeEditor interupts it with one of his usual Obama-bashing
posts. As so often before, there is no evident link this time
either between the issue (Obama sacking Mazen Asbah) and
Tahoe`s cryptic comment: "Sen. I Am".

But this time I took the time to click on his link, and ended up at
a conservative blog where a certain Tony Blankley (author of the
book "The West’s Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of
Civilizations?"), had an article about Obamas alleged self
important style and lack of humor.
I must admit that I found the title of Mr. Blankelys book a bit
alarming – in contrast to his article, that contained the usual
Obama Bashing. Nothing seemed related to the issue at this
post. Curious about this Blankley figure, I clicked on links to
other articles written by him and published at the same blog.
Who was this guy that Tahoe quoted as a kind of brother in
arms agains Obama?

Then I found an article with the title: "Was Iraq worth it?"

Here is a quote from that article:

"It has been fashionable -- indeed, de rigueur in political and
media circles -- to view contemptuously President Bush's
assertion that we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we
wouldn't have to fight them here. (...)
And yet the undeniable facts certainly would justify a debate -
- if not yet a consensus of agreement -- on President Bush's
assertions. Regarding killing Islamist terrorists in Iraq rather
than New York City, consider the numbers: According to USA
Today in September 2007, more than 19,000 insurgents had
been killed by coalition forces since 2003. (...)
Of course, most of those 19,000 killed insurgents were not
foreign terrorists, but local Iraqis moved to action by our
occupation. However, according to studies by the Center for
Strategic and International Studies and by the Defense
Intelligence Agency, foreign-born jihadists in Iraq are believed
to number between 4 and10 percent of the total insurgent
strength. So it is reasonable to assume that we have killed -- as
of nine months ago -- between 800 and 1,900 non-Iraqi
terrorists who otherwise would have been plying their trade
elsewhere. It only took a couple of dozen to commit the
atrocities of Sept. 11."

This is what we call collateral damage, isn´t it? You kill 19.000
people who are mostly "moved to action by our occupation." But
then there may be ("according to studies "...) between 800 and
1,900 non-Iraqi terrorists who otherwise would have been
"plying their trade elsewhere, if the Americans had not killed
those 19.000 insurgents". This, I repeat, according to certain
studies. But perhaps not in accordance with other studies. And
the total amount of dead insurgents as well as innocent civilians
(700 000? one million? more?) as well as the millions of
refugees, not to mention the thousands of killed American
soldiers, are not accounted for here.

But who knows? Perhaps those studies are correct, and some
800 to 1900 non- Iraqi terrorists were killed thanks to the
occupation of Iraq. Was Iraq worth it? For Mr Blankley this is
obviously a rhetorical question, as long as several hundred
terrorists "are believed to" be killed.

Sorry for this interruption. I just wanted to give the readers a
little taste of the world behind those links Tahoe provides us
with while he is spamming The Washington Note.

Here's a thought that any of us who will be voting for Obama
come November better get used to, Obama is going to do a lot
of things that piss us off, outrage and disappoint us. It's
Obama. It's not something he's doing in the name of the
campaign, it's Obama. You only have to have cursory contact
with the Obama campaign to see inside a campaign that is
disciplined and frankly, a bit republican in its feel.

Make no mistake, Obama is the only sane choice this fall. No
dount about it.

But don't be deluded into thinking that Obama is the
progressive the left has waited for. He's not. If we're lucky, he's
just the man that might help push the wingnut beast a little
further back underground. If that's what we want then we're all
going to take the bad with the good here.

ice weasel,

I agree 100% that anyone who is reconsidering their vote on this
issue alone -- well, other than Mazen Asbahi, I'd give him a free
pass -- is really being unrealistic. I am very disappointed that
the Obama campaign has pursued this issue as Steve has laid
out in his original post and further details in the comments, and
they should be called out on it. I'm glad that Steve has brought
this to light because I think that it needs to be discussed and
the Obama campaign needs to know there are people out there,
who may support them, but are not part of the widely-
portrayed cult of personality so many would like to think exist.

Episodes like this are the sort of difference that voting for in
November and sending money to in September are made of.
They need to not forget that. I contributed in the primaries but
am increasingly feeling like I'll keep my wallet shut in the
general election, but I will vote for him in November.

Obama is not "half Muslim" Michelle. Islam is a religion, not a nationality. It doesn't come in halves and quarters.

Unfortunately, it's the prevalence of these kinds of myths and falsehoods about Obama - in this case that he is a secret Muslim or halfway Muslim, who won't "admit it" - that forces Obama to be specially politically alert in this area.

I want so much to believe in and support Barak Obama's campaign. I want so much to believe that he has the ability to understand, engage and win over those who we've shunned in the past. I want so much to hear again form the man who spoke of inclusion.

Most importatly, I want, just for once to support an individual whose courage stands in the face of hate, intimidation and slander.

I don't see this in Barak Obama any longer. I'm dismayed.

I want the old Barak Obama back but fear that he's gone the way of so many before him and we'll only hear from him again when he no longer aspires to elected office.

When will Obama stop this nonsense. I am hoping Obama would get rid of this 'team' of his. He is alienating the Muslim and Arab community if not enough damage has not been done.

Thank you Steve for trying to correct this man and his 'team' wrongs. I wish you would be an adviser of his.

David, Punchy, Alan and Shinobi get to the heart of this
exasperating issue.

Obama should be defiant here, but can he really afford to be?
Are we to believe that, like w/FISA,he'll revert to his liberal-
within once elected?
Or, how much more of this before we start asking whether his
"change" theme is just a schtick?

I, too, think it's O's election to lose. I BELIEVE that he has
mishandled the campaign, compromised his message, and
empowered McCain through his many calculated moves to the
center. But sadly, I could be wrong. Maybe i'm just not cynical
enough.

So: Has anyone written something smart imagining what a more
strong, ballsy, defiant Obama campaign would look like? (as
opposed to cowering to the perceived needs, fears, and
prejudices of "the center" and the right) I'd like to read it. The
big hypothetical for me this election is how the right would react
to actually being put on the defensive on these issues!

(My hunch is they'd shut the eff up, but then that's impossible,
because they'd have to campaign on McC's positive traits.)

The ideal version of Obama would have complemented his "black
church" speech with a speech defending his Muslim advisor and
the rampant US prejudice against them, and condemning those
who use gutter fear politics in general. It would be the single
best way to reassert the campaign's basic theme.

Instead, O is getting caught up in a massive game of cover-his-
ass, and he's letting an almost laughably weak opponent dictate
the terms of the election to him.

Turn it around before it's too late, O!!!

ice weasel says:
"But don't be deluded into thinking that Obama is the progressive the left has waited for. He's not."

I agree, and would caution Steve and all the others expressing umbrage that the aforementioned progressives before him lost their elections. McGovern, Kucinich, etc. are all home watching from the sidelines because they didn't grasp the depth of paranoia within the electorate or the capacity of the Republicans to agitate an issue such as this.

I have difficulty understanding the mindset of those who would change their vote because of this matter. Go ahead and challenge the candidate, but he must win. Don't help McCain prevent that from happening.

O's religion problem is that any time it bubbles up he's reminded of the 20 years he spent riding the Trinity Train to victory in Chicago. Leaving Trinity because his pastor called him a politician instead of leaving because his pastor said the U.S. government created HIV to exterminate black people doesn't leave much wiggle room. He should have listened to the other "O" much earlier.

I'm not naive nor a wishful thinker about Obama's progressivism and I'm a strong supporter of human rights.

Yet I feel controlling the message is critical this year. Which can be hard to do when you're trying to break for an overdue vacation.

The story said they're seeking a replacement. Is there info to contradict that?

Do you think Mazen Abahi's continued presence with his scantiest of connections to a fundie would NOT draw attention, questions and concerns from voters? Would NOT be a distraction?

I don't consider extraordinary campaign caution to be a surrender on a human rights issue. Obama does need to take a clear stand, but I think the proper timing of doing so has to be considered carefully.

Steve,
Perhaps it would be better diplomacy if you didn't bring up the Ayers crap in your critique. Politically you're in the know, and have great instincts, but perhaps your emotions (hint: "wrong" in all caps, three times?) got in the way. You're an expert in Japanese diplomacy aren't you? How does this letter invite the Obama team in to listen, when they have 16 (or whatever) percent of people claiming Obama is a Muslim-trained jihadist to deal with?

Yes, the Ayers "crap" -- I suppose calling it "crap" somehow makes it disappear into the smoke & mirrors "distraction" machine as well.

Obama launched his political career in the living room of two known, unrepentant terrorists. Discounting it as "crap" only draws attention to how much it stinks.

McCains muslim outreach coordinator is a team comprising
menachem begin and golda meir.

obama is responding to his puppeteer.

it is really a shame that the u.s has at its heart a dogmatic
desire to get every other nation to succumb to its way of doing
things.

pakistan here we come.

It seems to me that it comes down to this. We have an energetic, eloquent, and inexperienced candidate who’s right on the issues but devoid of character running against a tired old man whose time has past, is wrong on the issues but has a strong character. Our only choice is to pick our poison.

The evidence of Senator Obama’s character flaws are almost too numerous to mention. His flip flops on FISA, the second amendment, campaign funding, the number of debates and off shore drilling are not merely tactical retreats made for purposes of campaign strategy, they are evidence of a man who doesn’t believe in anything.

His dealings with Tony Rezko are not in and of themselves so bad; all politicians associate with sleazy characters sometimes. But the fact that so many Obama political patrons in Chicago were slumlords tells us a lot about the type of person Obama is.

When Obama got caught in a politically sticky situation because his spiritual advisor said some controversial things, his first instinct was to deliver a speech and explain to America why it was all our fault. The fact that the press thought his race speech was stunningly good instead of the crass and cynical political act that it was, tells us everything we need to know about the press. Of course, in the same speech Senator Obama didn’t hesitate to ridicule his own grandmother, quite an act of character that was.

Obama told us he would never distance himself from his beloved spiritual advisor, Reverend Wright. But Tahoe Editor is correct, as soon as the good Revered stated the obvious, that Obama talks like a politician, Reverend Wright became persona non grata. Just Obama’s character on display again.

Dan Kervick is only half right when he says that Obama is not a Muslim. Of course he's not, he’s a practicing Christian. But his father was a Muslim. Most of us would be proud of that, but not Senator Obama. He does everything he can to hide his father’s faith as if he his ashamed of it. Why not? He threw his own grandmother under the bus, why not his father too? The bottom line is that there is no evidence that Senator Obama has ever done anything courageous in his public life. It’s hard to think of another politician who has hewed closer to the politically expedient path in everything he says.

On the character question, compared to McCain, Obama is literally pathetic. McCain’s bravery has been exemplary (even if it has been slightly embellished) and he has made it a habit of taking politically unpopular positions that he thought were right. While most of us disagree with his position on the war, his willingness to support it and to advocate for additional troops just when this position was becoming very unpopular with the American public was brave. His willingness to buck his party on campaign finance reform, stem cell research and global warming shows much more political courage than Obama ever showed.

The problem with McCain is that you don’t need to be particularly astute to see that time has past him by and that he is aging very fast.

And of course on policy issues, Obama is right on almost everything and McCain is wrong on almost everything.

Mazen Asbahi may be under the bus, but he’s there with a lot of company, some good, some bad.

The choice we have this year is awful. But actually, it’s not Obama’s fault. And it's not the fault of people who will reluctantly vote for Obama because McCain's policy positions are too terible to contemplate. The fault lies squarely with his wide eyed, narcissistic supporters who refused to face the truth about the junior Senator from Illinois during the primary and caucus season when it could have made a difference.

I don't think it's right, but what's right obviously doesn't win elections. See: The 21st Century, American Elections held during.

And I'd prefer for Obama to win the election...

Re: WigWag Aug 06, 9:06PM

I agreed with every word you wrote.

Wow, this sure fired up some passions, didn't it? Brought more than a few jackasses out from underneath their rocks too.

I find it hardly suprising that Obama flushed a Muslim. After all, look how quickly he backpeddled on his "plight of the Palestinians" commentary. And ask Wright how loyal Obama is to politically damaging alliances, never mind the prior closeness of the relationship.

But hey, we might be better served by looking at who remains in both camps. Should Ross weasel his way into Obama's camp, that is perhaps as telling, and in concert with, the dismissal (or "resignation") of Asbahi.

And look at McCain's foreign policy advisor, Scheunemann. Doesn't his presence on McCain's team tell us just a much as the firing of a Muslim would? Geez, he's one of these geniuses that buried his head six miles up Chalabi's ass. I guess McCain likes to reward idiocy with high position.

But yeah, Islamophobia is alive and well in the U.S., with Israel, and the wackjob far right evangelists making sure to constantly remind us exactly who the "evil doers" are. Why heck, even our good buddy WigWag has gone out of his way to make sure that we fully understand that the Iranians are "lunatics". Factor in the ass-hole-ish ruminations of these "great Americans" like Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, and Coulter, and you have a whole brain dead segment of ignorant Americans who are convinced the poor Suffi tending his garden in Topanga is looking for any excuse to cash in on his promised virgins.

Welcome to Bushworld.

Yes Arthur, his post was a good one, albiet quite oily. Too bad it was from a contrived platform. Make no mistake, Wigwag is actively campaigning for McCain.

And it was quite ludicrous placing McCain's "character" above Obama's. "Character" is not what propels a modern day politician to the Oval Office. In fact, "character" is a fatal flaw in today's Washington. Ask Ron Paul how far conviction and character get you.

POA,

"albeit oily"? caw mon...be fair...

And don't all of the candidates for President have contrived platforms - even the idealistic and admirable ones with no hope of winning?

This time I'm sticking with: "I agreed with every word you wrote." I'm not sweating WigWag's peculiar Other opinions. This is an issue by issue thing, doanchanoe! And I agree with her 'peculiar' opinions in this thread. lol

I agree with most of WigWag's post, but I don't think the issues debate is quite so clear cut. Obama floats policy positions like Tiger Woods tosses blades of grass in the air.

http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/76d5b106-4894-414a-909f-cb55295a8cef.html

And now I’m going to spoil it all by pissing WigWag off bigga time, and NOT just to make up for agreeing so whole-heartedly with her earlier post:

Posted by Eli Strums: “That wall”, (referring to the towering, threatening Juggernaut now destructively weaving it’s way through the West Bank, stealing even more property and resources from the rightful owners of Palestine. [ad]), “is there because nothing else that was tried could stop Palestinians from walking into restaurants and buses or any other public place and blowing up themselves and countless innocent people. So what you are really saying is how dare those Jews not lay down and allow themselves to be slaughtered and mutilated AGAIN.
Yes, there are wrongs committed by both sides in this endless conflict. But only the Palestinians refuse to abide by past agreements or negotiate meaningful new agreements...”

I got this far Eli, before I started snorting derisively at your embarrassing and appalling, though in all likelihood, WILLFUL ignorance of the Facts in regards to the ever-escalating conflict between Israel and their supporters - those members of the wider Jewish Diaspora and the avenging arm of the wacky Evangelical movement that enthusiastically support the criminal acts directed at the Palestinians’ property and personal, professional and social security by the Jewish state), and those self-same Palestinians who fight back against this modern, savage Israel with weapons made from plumbing pipe, fireworks and duct tape, along with the apprehensive, timid and conditional support of their much-more modestly-sized and uninfluential Western State supporters. (Because many decent, westernized people, of the kind that want to support the Palestinians in their struggle against who they see as their brutal oppressors, are both embarrassed and repulsed by even the idea of violence, no matter how well-justified or strategically directed, aren’t they?)

Have I mentioned the too-numerous-to-remember UN resolutions that have been contemptuously ignored by both Israel AND the United States, regarding the internationally recognized, illegal acts of the Israelis against almost ALL of their neighbours.…?...!...?

You’re a boob, Eli – definitely Jerusalem Post comments section material…

Haven't read all of the comments. I am hopeful that he is doing what he must to get elected.

Its a shame that Israel so dominates our countries policies, and now elections.

The state of Obama's campaign is disheartening at best, and the track record of our nation's electorate is to blame. It's not the swiftboaters themselves, but the voters who lap up the consistent stream of disinformation they are fed. Based on history, I can't honestly say that I believe Obama would have a chance in November if he maintained his integrity.

Mr. Clemons, it surprises me that a person of your intellect and insight still thinks Obama is some sort of unique politician who will do the right thing (even if it is unpopular and politically not expedient) on some of these issues. He has time and again shown us that he is a regular politician and in fact, one without principles or convictions. What is with you all? Is it that hard to save your face and admit that your judgment has been wrong? So some of you are rationalizing it by saying he is doing this to get elected -- like applauding him for fooling you yet again but to win. Is this all real?

As a Muslim American, I find all the above listed disheartening, but we keep hearing over and over to be patient because he is doing what he can to be elected and then will show a more balanced approach. However the 30+ hours in Israel, and 45 minutes in Palestine spoke volumes as well. The fact that he has given no disapproval to Israel's desire for a military campaign towards Iran is also alarming. Thanks Steve for seeing things from a different point of view. It is truly a shame that the political climate of this country has become so Islamophobic and that it is not only tolerated but promoted in order to win. It is truly a shame that one cannot even defend someone on principle and truth. In my opinion, being on the board with numerous members, one of which happened to have a suspected but unconfirmed link, may be bad luck but does not implicate him. We have come to the point where a conclusion is predetermined , ie any Muslim link must be associated with terrorism in some way, or form, and then a link is 'produced/created'. If you make far- reaching and loose associations, you can prove anything you want.

Posted by zoltan Aug 06, 6:40PM - Link

So: Has anyone written something smart imagining what a more
strong, ballsy, defiant Obama campaign would look like? (as
opposed to cowering to the perceived needs, fears, and
prejudices of "the center" and the right) I'd like to read it. The
big hypothetical for me this election is how the right would react
to actually being put on the defensive on these issues!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If they have I haven't seen it.
But I believe a strong, ballsy, defiant candidate is what Americans crave.
Look how far a imposter like McCain got on his "Mavrick" image.

I don't think I am alone in this opinion judging by some other posters.

Let's face it, most people aren't leaders or terribly independent thinkers, they are followers and joiners who can be led. A leader can appeal to the best or worse aspects of human nature and set the tone for the country.

I am imagining the applause from the audience if Hagel had been in that dem debate when Hillary made Obama embrace Israel and dennounce others and Hagel had delivered his famous line..."I am a AMERICAN senator, not an Israeli senator, my duty is to America and to the constitution". The roar of approval would have brought the house down.

Imagine if a candidate instead of cowtowing to the religious fanatics and niche groups told them their personal religon had nothing to do with governing or making laws for this nation and it was " NOT" their right to demand others follower their beliefs or rules unless they also agreed that others had a right to impose their religious beliefs on them? Imagine if a candidate said to the religous fanatics ilke Hagee that if that was kind of country they wanted they should create their own religious republic country like the ones they complain about in the ME somewhere else besides America.
You think that your typical "don't trample on MY rights" american wouldn't get or like that straight talk?

Personally I think you can shame the fanatics politicans pander too if you are the right person and in some cases shame them into admitting they are wrong. You can marginalize them at least and make their extremes unacceptable to the majority society.

This example of Obama caving is a prime example of
making it "acceptable" for the public to discriminate against a Muslim ( or insert Jew or black or gay).

He just lowered the bar for American society and democracy by throwing a Muslim under the bus for no justifable reason other then "he can't handle the job" of telling the American voter the truth and calling out everyone who engages in this shit.

He is not the speaker everyone thinks he is if he can't rouse the better angels in the typical american against this sort of thing.

The only benefit of a doubt I can give him on this and a few other things is that he might be dependent on certain money groups in this general election and is towing their line and throwing out anything or anyone offensive to them, thinking dem voters don't have any choice but him anyway...which is a whole other problem in this country.

It's the same thing I said about Hillary and her moral hypocrisy on foreign policy...if she will throw the Palestine occupation and ethnic cleansing under the bus why wouldn't she throw Americans under the bus too for her own ambition?

There is no such thing as selective morality..believe it or not.

I think we've learned that Obama is a smart, capable politician whose moral compass is pure, unadulterated opportunism. That's the common denominator of all decisions he has taken since his primary win. And it's confirmed by Ryan Lizza's piece in the 8/21 New Yorker on Obama's political formation in Chicago. So those of us who supported him on the basis that we thought we knew he was basically and viscerally a liberal can just recalibrate our antennae and hope for the best. He's still better than the alternative, whatever he may turn out to be. By how much is truly an open question.

I have a lot of respect for American Muslims (and moderate Muslims everywhere). That said, I can't believe people are surprised that the Obama campaign is being very, very careful about any perceived connections to radical Islam. Where have you been for the last 8 years?

When the young lawyer in Michigan got mad about Obama volunteers not choosing people in headresses for the featured section behind Obama, I wanted to say "AND THIS IS WHY LIBERALS ALWAYS LOSE ELECTIONS!" Is there some Constitutional right that people who belong to controversial groups be chosen for photo ops? And there's a reason that most other Obama surrogates don't have any ties to controversial investment groups that may or may not fund Islamic terror - in politics, you kind of have to think about how things look to everyone else.

When I hear liberals and/or Democrats complain about this, I want to ask "do you really not understand how most Americans look at Islam??" I don't say that to defend the average American's perception of Islam - but I don't see why Barack Obama is being asked to be THEIR Jackie Robinson as well as Black America's Jackie Robinson.

If Muslim Americans want to vote for the GOP again (for some bizarre reason, the majority voted for Bush in 2000, despite his party's longstanding, absolute hatred of Muslims, and whose administration ordered things like random detention of Muslims, and Rumsfeld's torture memo which exploited the "Arab fear of dogs") . . . that's their choice.

In fact, I would ask any Muslim who is angry about not being featured in a special Obama photo op to go test the waters on the other side of the aisle. Show up at any GOP event, and see how you're treated there.

The repeated suggestion that Obama 'threw his grandmother under the bus' in his speech on racism is a repeated and in my opinion truly insidious republican narrative.
For Obama to acknowledge that his grandmother used some racist framings is simply acknowledging reality, just as my grandparents used some racist framings despite working against racial discrimination, and I in a similar way benefit from white privilege. He didn't say he didn't love her, that she wasn't an amazing woman, that she wasn't a staunch advocate for racial reconciliation-he just admitted that she wasn't perfect. Why is this controversial? personally, I was impressed that he was willing to confront the racist frames of our culture head on, and recognize them in the people who are closest to him.

I am always surprised that Steve and his readers, who seem to pride themselves so much on their political realism, suddenly turn into the Born Yesterday Club, and start moaning and stamping their feet about their dismay and disappointment, whenever one of these Obama/Muslim issues pop up.

I guess many would prefer that Obama should go down and out in a blaze of heroic glory defending Palestinians and Muslims everywhere, like Rachel Corrie perhaps, nobly bulldozed under the ground by history's winners.

The Obama campaign is purportedly run according to two iron rules: "No leaks" and "No drama." Yes, it is disconcerting to see the campaign quickly detach from people who are likely to cause them trouble, and generate bad, distracting press, whether through their own misjudged actions or through no fault of their own. But the alternative is to see the campaign detach themselves from these individuals only after a week or two of getting beat up in the press over it.

It looks like they prefer to bring down the curtain on the drama before the opening act even gets started. It's ruthless; but ruthlessly necessary. Obama simply can't afford a couple of weeks of cable news stories filled with the words "Obama", "Muslims", "Muslim Brotherhood", "Obama", "Muslims", "Muslim Brotherhood" - repeated over and over and over.

Of course, maybe Obama doesn't need to win. We could go for that old maverick John McCain, who in his senescence has become an uber-neo-neocon, and wants to take a flamethrower to every irritant in the Middle East, and Russia to boot. That'll show that poop Obama! How dare he disappoint us!

The McCain campiagn, and the entire fucking Republican Party for that matter, has done zero for Muslims in America or elsewhere. Nothing. Squat. Doughnut. Instead, they are the party that has defended locking them up, water boarding them, brutalizing them and throwing away the key. And that's when they are not dropping bombs and burning phosphorus on Muslims and their children. Almost the only people fighting against this in Steve's putrid city have been Democrats. Yet where are those angry and hysterical "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!" posts about the true cretins, thugs and butchers in our little national drama?

And why, oh why, can't Obama be more like that perfect God-man, the Adonis Chuck Hagel, the one who stays loyally attached to an entire party built on bigotry, fear, hatred and xenophobia? Why is Steve never "disappointed" in good old Chuck? If Chuck is so damned awesome, why doesn't he quit his party of ignorant troglodytes, torturers, racists and haters? People who pose as mavericks or doubters, but lack the guts to quit the Republican Party, are profiles in courage in Steve's book. People who have the sense and decency to be Democrats to begin with get pilloried for not being more perfect.

The "Well, I expect better of the Democrats" excuse doesn't cut it. To me, it looks like 90% of the media and the punditry are just scared stiff of Republicans, and so they take out their frustrations on the nicer and less vindictive Democrats. If Steve spent even one third as much time working to defeat the really nasty bad guys, instead of kissing their asses, taking their money and being their fanboy, as he does taking the easy shots at their imperfect and half-good rivals, maybe we would get somewhere is this country.

It's also a bit too conveniently easy for Steve to be a friend of Muslims when the Saudi Arabians are paying for his hotel stays, panel discussions and buffets. But Obama has to run for president of a country filled with people who are the products of Republican fear-mongering, and still can't get over the fact that "Obama" rhymes with "Osama."

I'm sick of seeing my party get beaten up by sunshine friends, who tsk tsk the embarrassing Democratic submissions to political reality, but have no problem palling around with the very people who work every day to create that political reality, while they are wringing their bread from other men's brows. While Barack Obama was trying to help poor folk in Chicago get ahead, Washington's high and mighty, that whole big ultra-white, townhouse-living, pseudo-intellectual, sinecured gang of "terrorism experts" and "policy entrepreneurs" and "shrewd bureaucratic infighters" with their fatuous "skill sets" that consist mainly in parroting back the prejudices of the patrons who are helping them get ahead, were busy with nothing but their self-satisfied, bigoted circle jerk, and with plotting the next scam for getting less privileged American lads to spill their blood to secure the property rights and burgeoning fortunes of global robber barons and their parasitic "strategic consultants" and think tankers. Oh excuse me, I mean they plotted to get them to spill their blood to secure the "national interest".

Steve hasn't earned the right to be disappointed with Obama.

And one last thing: I guess I'm a hater too. Because I absolutely hate Washington - passionately.

Coming late to the discussion as usual, and I scrolled down to comment after about halfway (though I noted arthurdecco going after wigwag near the end, surely even with arthur's wit that will prove more tiresome than entertaining to investigate.

People's reactions to this latest Obama keffluffle, on top of all the previous Obama kerfluffles of centrism, says much more about each individual's personal background and character than about Obama, and I am sure that the good and bad sides of various character types are evenly distributed among all factions of the debate.

The situation is pre-determined by the suffocating embrace of the conventional media and the two-party antagonism of American politics, made noxious by the cancer of secret government machinations that have thick in the background, and growing cancerously, since at least Nov. 22 1963 -- the first big overt crime against Constitutional government (no matter what the truth eventually turns out to be, there was _something_ going on and a cover-up effort).

The interests of the (would-be) monopoly media providers intersects with the worst interests of the two political parties, to create the narrative of eternal ideological conflict and constant campaign tension, that obscures a the corrupt bargains that both sides make to allow various economic interests to continue their merry ways of legal favoritism, overt and covert subsidies, graft and corruption to empower political machines, etc, etc. The ideological instincts of the population grow out in every direction, in an ever-expanding "sphere of diversity;" our either-or election systems and brain-dead media types attempt to channel this diversity into 2 opposed two-dimensional lines (and could be easily cured by Instant runoff voting, parliamentary systems, or other deep election reforms, with a more diverse media -- that we are hopefully in the midst of creating by ourselves).

So everyone who is not a brain-dead hard-right Christian Republican empire-builder is urged to put aside their own interesting mix of ideas and ideals, and put their shoulder to the wheel of the Democratic political two-dimensional line, in order to prevent the greater disaster of the Republican political two-dimensional line, and for the hope that the Democratic centrist candidate will be able make significant reforms after the election.

And sometimes they do, though mostly they don't.

So for those of us with great resources of intellectual imagination and diversity of character, it's always a difficult test. I've been around and around on this since the 1968 election; I worked for the Green Party in 2000 and for the Democratic Party in 2004 and 2006, and neither experience has been satisfactory. Though I worked for the Greens in 2000, I fully expected and wished for the Democrats to win, and I believe both sides were guilty of severely under-estimating the Bush crowd's intention of stealing it (and I still don't understand why mainstream Democrats aren't MORE radical on honest elections than Bev Harris, it only sinks of even worse conspiracies afoot).

Nevertheless, intellect and spirit conspire to make me an eternal optimist: the work is necessary, even if it never pays off in our lifetimes, even as we are constantly betrayed by those with more power in conventional media and political terms. Yet reality is plastic, malleable, the power of our small groups working in obscurity while we power the "glaciers" and "climate changes" of popular attitude that shift civilizations IS the power we must cultivate.

So: oppose Obama all you want up til Nov. 3rd, criticize him, hold him up to higher standards, advocate for the revolution you'd like to see, and call out the Democrats for the cowardly leeches that most of them are. But hold your nose to make sure you vote for him on Nov. 4th (or earlier if you can vote by mail), and get all your friends to vote for him, and get all your friends to make sure the Republicans don't steal it again. then on Nov. 5th you can go back to being disappointed in Obama, and in pressuring him and criticizing him with all your might to guide him towards your vision of utopia.

And one final note. Much of the cancerous problem here is caused by "our" (the general public's) concentration on Presidential elections, and our tendency to look at possible Presidents as putative Messiahs rather than as prospective job applicants who will have to OBEY US after their selection, not us obey them. I've been door-to-door in several areas in several decades. Nobody cares about dogcatcher or city councilman; everyone cares about the President. The media help create this and use it against us. We need to get over it. Say it over and over again: In a democracy, the politicians are here to serve us, not us to serve them.

William, this goes far deeper than Obama's people trying to pose politically photogenic backdrops. We are seeing a pattern emerge here, and it seems to strongly imply a lack of conviction and political courage.

I certainly am no McCain fan, and if waterboarded would probably fess up to putting Obama on top of McCain. Preferably in Monaco or Tahiti. And while they're sampling that private diversion, I'd be out tryin' to find us a REAL president.

Wow! Can I agree unreservedly with your post too, Dan Kervick? Does that mean I've had too much wine - or just enough?

"The repeated suggestion that Obama 'threw his grandmother under the bus' in his speech on racism is a repeated and in my opinion truly insidious republican narrative"

Yes it is. Thats why WigWag used it.

I posted a comment earlier but had not read any of the others -- I just skimmed through them. You all have my sympathies. This is what the liberal left intellectuals look like in this country? I am pretty serious minded myself with a PhD and so forth but can recognize a fraud when I see one. You all got hoodwinked by Obama. He is a regular politician and a pretty weak one at that. He does not know what he stands for; if he did, he would be fighting for it but then again, he lacks courage and conviction. He is Axelrod's marketing phenomenon you all fell for. How gullible can you be? Funny, I never thought his teleprompter speeches were all that inspiring in the first place -- grab a line from other speeches, here and there and make it sound pretty. If it sounds too good to be true, it perhaps is. You have screwed the country yet again because he will not win.

Wow Kervick, just when I thought levity was the only hope for this thread, you made some serious sense. Guess I'll go to bed n