Posted By Vince, Phoenix AZ : December 18, 2007 6:43 pm

his mother is not christian. she's an atheist (not that atheists are bad people). and his step father was a radical muslim and he lived in indonesia with them, so he does have a muslim background.

You are DUMB on so many levels! Just because his first and last name say he's Muslim doesn't mean he is. And quite frankly, I've been Muslim my entire life and have never heard of the name Barak Obama. My last name is a Catholic, but I'm still Muslim. Name have nothing to do with it. A friend of mine has an Arabic last name, this doesn't automatically make her Muslim, she is Christian. It's SO sad to see how ignorant some people are.

Posted By b. moore johnson city tn. : December 18, 2007 2:12 pm

The main thing I'm worried about is devout idiots like you, moore. Do us all a favor and keep your ignorant ass home on election day.

Thanks for pointing out Obama's muslim root though, although Obama has been trying hard to hide it, like not using his middle name "hussein".

Now that reminds me Obama didnt pledge his allegiance to the american flag....

Shame on you, CNN, for repeating the lie!

Posted By Bethany, St. Louis MO : December 18, 2007 10:33 am
_________________________________________

another pothead in complete denial of Obama's muslim roots. Can't change how he was raised.

She's got so much help. Ex senators, Big Daddy Bush, Ex President and husband Bill Clinton.

So much help and this is the best her campaign can do? Not only that. These tactics are old. didn't we tell her we want new and change, not smear and same?

Posted By Peggy McGilligan, Washington, DC

Peggy,

This endorsement came from Bob Kerrey, NOT John Kerry. Unlike the Senator from Massahussetts, Sen. Kerrey is a former Navy SEAL and true war hero. This is coming from a conservative that is not used to complimenting liberals.

However, I also think that the Clinton campaign sees the possibility to inovke fear and prejudice among voters. I don't think she is necessarily prejudiced herself but I do think she would exploit anything she thought would help her win.

You apparently haven't been looking at any news source other than CNN.

USA Today just reported today that Barack Obama polls better in battleground states than Hillary Clinton does.

In Iowa, which is 97% white and predominantly rural, Obama is currently favored to win the caucus and also win that state in the general.

First they push the drug thing out there, now applauding his Muslim roots. Hmmmm.

Maybe I am wrong, but I HONESTLY DON'T think I am.

Read this and tell me it is either poorly thought out or flat out RACIST:

"The former senator, who has endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton, also said that “as an African-American,” Obama “can speak in an authentic way to underperforming black youth who I think will follow his example.”

the real story is about how Obama has never been vetted and will get clobbered in the electoral college for the states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Florida

" I think Hillary would be an excellent spokesperson for women whose husbands have cheated on them many times. You see, Bill had many affairs before and during his presidency most noteably a White House Intern. But now Bill has reconciled with his wife and is making things good again by fully supporting Hillary with her career as a politician. I think the Clinton's are an excellent model of how to stick through it in tough times. Hillary has really shown through all the adultery that she is able to take it all in stride and raise a great family, a quality that would be great if Hillary wins the White House.

Such a shame that this organization is bent on exploiting (the often race-oriented) cultural fears, instead of focusing on bringing folks together under her banner.

Have you no shame Senator?

This is race-baiting and playing on people's fears and distrust. If people liked Karl Rove, they should be loving the Clintons right now.

Some "change agent."

Thank you Senators Clinton and Kerrey, you have sealed my vote for Senator Obama.

There is nothing lower than a smear that combines: (1) name calling; (2) religious baiting; (3) racial/ethnic code language; and (4) plausible deniability.

Hillary Clinton knew he would say this; she knew her husband would say what he said on Charlie Rose; and she knew that her top staff (Penn & Shaheen) would ridicule Obama as well.

This pattern is more than merely negative. It has the earmarks of sinister.

Even if one assumes it is not orchestrated, then the incompetence of the campaign reflects just as poorly on this flawed, imploding Clinton campaign.

Obama (D) 51, Giuliani (R) 45
Obama (D) 53, Huckabee (R) 42
Obama (D) 57, Romney (R) 39

Obama is more electable than Clinton.
Don't lose this election to the republicans, vote for Obama.

The real question is– Will America see through this backhanded compliment? Or will they be fooled just like in 2004.

The Clinton's true colors are shining through. I want the Clintons to continue to promote the smear through other persons, essentially alienating her base. If you really think Obama and Edwards' supporters will rally behind her if she gets the nomination, I think you're mistaken.

This one, most certainly will not.

The real question is– Will America see through this backhanded compliment? Or will they be fooled just like in 2004.

The Clinton's true colors are shining through. I want the Clintons to continue to promote the smear through other persons, essentially alienating her base. If you really think Obama and Edwards' supporters will rally behind her if she gets the nomination, I think you're mistaken.

This one, most certainly will not.

Wallace

It was a compliment, and a well-sighted one at that. If he makes it, it will show the world that we really are a free-thinking nation that does not rule according to a religious sect.

Some people just can't say anything right, though.

". . . the test to see whether this was underhanded or not is simple. People are claiming that Kerrey's words don't amount to smear because (a) they're true; (b) Obama himself hasn't disavowed his mixed race heritage; and (c) they were framed in the form of a compliment.

Suppose instead that someone from Obama's camp had expressed the hope that Hilary's experience as the wife of a cheating husband be "used in some way." It's all true, right? Hilary hasn't disavowed the fact, and like millions of women around America and the world, she nobly stuck by Bill despite his marital indiscretions. She could connect with this wronged segment of society by presenting women with the example of a wife who succeeds in her career despite the waywardness of a philandering spouse. As Kerrey says: that experience would be "a substantial strength."

Such a remark would be little more than an attempt to smear Hilary with feigned praise. It's not about ignoring the facts; it's about using them to draw meaningful distinctions. And it's telling that you don't find Obama or anyone on his payroll stooping so low."

It’s a sad day in politics when we have to question the motivation behind every thing said about an opponent by anyone connected with a rival campaign but the Clinton team has clearly shown over the past few weeks that they will do and say anything to get her elected. Muslim e-mails, drug dealer implications, “rolling the dice”, I could go on.

It’s interesting that three months ago when everyone was telling Obama he had to go negative he refused and insisted his campaign focus on the issues. Now when people started suggesting to Clinton that she go negative she either supported it (does any one really believe that Shaheen was acting on his own) or has lost control over a number of people on her campaign team. I ask you; who has shown the leadership and judgment you want in your next President?