Not too early is it? 2008 Presidential fun

[Nephythys]

Visible Mojo to Alex- for the most thoughtful reponses on LoT-especially in the Grind.

You make a good grown up- great role model for others.

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I have no doubt that anyone making up Obama stories isn't in the republican camp. If he wins the nomination, sure they'll be digging and even making up dirt. But why do it now? No reason when the dem candidates are going to rip each other apart trying to get it for themselves.

Just for grins, what do you have to base that on?

My best guess is that you were very young during the Watergate era, the very apex of republican trickery, but I'm sure you've done at least some reading on the subject.

Every heard of Donald Segretti?

Ever heard of the Canuck Letter?

Still "have no doubt"?

Ready... Set... Spin!

[Motorboat Cruiser]

The problem I am having here is that, if the theory is that the Clinton Camp was behind this, why on earth would they leak something like this to what amounts to a right-wing political tabloid that no democrat is ever going to believe in the first place. How does that help their cause? With this inept strategy, the only people who are going to believe these unsubstantiated rumors are people who were never going to vote for either of these candidates anyway.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

The problem I am having here is that, if the theory is that the Clinton Camp was behind this, why on earth would they leak something like this to what amounts to a right-wing political tabloid that no democrat is ever going to believe in the first place. How does that help their cause? With this inept strategy, the only people who are going to believe these unsubstantiated rumors are people who were never going to vote for either of these candidates anyway.

Regardless- I gave you the story and the link to the claim made by the magazine.

ahh- this is going to be a fun couple of years.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Regardless- I gave you the story and the link to the claim made by the magazine.

Indeed, you did. It's just that their side of the story makes very little sense and seems far from credible, especially given the background of their publication. Even the Washington Times editor made sure to distance his publication from theirs:

"Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?" asked Insight, the Internet magazine. "This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama."
Wicked stuff, but was it true? Insight, which is owned by the owners of The Washington Times but is absolutely, positively and entirely separate from the newspaper, was denounced by the handlers of both Hillary and Obama. "Trash," said a spokesman for Obama. "A right-wing hit job," said a spokesman for Hillary.
Neither this newspaper nor most others took up the story, which cited no named sources.

[BarTopDancer]

Wait wait wait. I thought that religion of the President wasn't supposed to matter. So who cares what religion Obama is? Or is it not supposed to matter only if the President is Christian?

[Nephythys]

Have you really missed all the attacks on Bush for his faith?

It's been around since 2000- nothing new. So sorry- I don't think you're on to something there.

[BarTopDancer]

My point was that who cares if he is not being upfront about it?

Bush tried to implement his faith into the entire country. If he had been quietly religious no one would have cared. How many presidents before Bush were attacked for being Christian?

[Strangler Lewis]

A president's religion is relevant the same way his stock holdings are relevant. You have to wonder if the level of his commitment would lead him to favor certain policies that might not be good for the country as a whole. Romney's Mormonism is relevant because the Mormon Church is an economic power, plus they have their weird polygamy strand that could play into certain debates about government interference in personal affairs. Lieberman's Judaism and love of Israel are relevant to the extent they fuel his views on war in the middle east. If a Moslem candidate ran, you'd want to know where his head was at as well. We know where Bush's head is.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

My point was that who cares if he is not being upfront about it?

Bush tried to implement his faith into the entire country. If he had been quietly religious no one would have cared. How many presidents before Bush were attacked for being Christian?

That is untrue.

He has made his faith public but he has never forced it into the entire country.

I see- so if a person is quiet about their faith it's ok- but if not they are trying to force it on someone?

That's baseless, untrue and ridiculous.