What is being done to Obama is disgusting...and to be expected. Though I personally dislike his candidacy on many levels and hope he does not get far, I am sorry--but not surprised--that this level of smear has begun.

The right does it again. So what if he was raised as a Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu, etc., as long as he can do the job and be effective for our country. He's sure to be a hell of a lot better than what we have now. The current state of our country sucks. Since the White, Christian males (for the most part) have gotten us here, why not try something new and not just "stay the course."

Diane--

What's the beef with Obama? I know some think Obama is underqualified, and others think it's Hillary's turn, but few who dislike his candidacy on "many levels."

How beneficial would it be for our country to elect someone president who, while not a Muslim, understands the religion and has a background being around Muslims? It would seem to me that this could open a door to actual negotiation with some of the people we don't get along with, and might actually lessen the likelihood of terrorism (at least from radical Muslims).

The right can rattle this all they'd like, but I count that as a tremendous advantage.

Tom, Obama is packaged as standing for something fresh and different, but he has as many corporate ties as the next candidate--same old, same old. Check his voting record. I also think he is a super-product with little experience who should not be running for this office. And I am against his opposition to gay marriage (yes, he is for "civil unions," but all marriages in this country are civil unions, and--like Sen. Clinton and others--Obama, instead of clarifying this rhetorical magic trick, hides behind his relgion and joins in the obfuscation).

Diane --

I agree that Obama is underqualified, but the guy who is super qualified, Bill Richardson, doesn't have the right combination of other factors.

I guess the issue comes down to whether the point is to win or to run the person who is best suited for the job. Republicans ran Bush in 2000 because he would do and say all the right things for Republicans and give them a chance to win, not because he was qualified. I would argue he was less qualified than Obama is now. Obama has a solid family life, charisma, the ability to connect with people, a certain air of authenticity.... all of these things enable him to win the general if he wins the nomination. Does that trump all other concerns? In my mind, it kind of does.

And if gay marriage is the primary objection, who do you support? Are any of the Democratic candidates openly in favor of gay marriage?

I am not a Democrat, Tom, because the Democratic Party does not share many of my values, and they tend to remain silent on the ones they do share. I will consider voting for a Democrat under certain conditions, though.

I'm not saying that the gay marriage issue is my primary one, though it is certainly major. Obama makes me think of JFK, a so-called charismatic young senator who is probably not qualified to be president. (I would hardly use Bush as an example, though. Everyone knew he wasn't qualified, but his supporters paid millions to buy him. If anything, that should teach us to stay away from unqualified candidates.)

When an African-American Harvard educated civil rights lawyer preaches righteous sermons about respecting the doctrine of separation of church and state but then offers only a religious rationale for denying 'fundamental' civil rights the cognitive dissonance should assail the ears of anyone with even a mere thimble full of legal knowledge. Enough is enough. This sham and travesty have gone too far.

"If a civil rights lawyer walked into court and argued that fundamental civil rights should be denied solely for metaphysical reasons one could fairly wonder if he were a charlatan who found his law degree in a box of Cracker Jack. Legally, Obama's position on civil marriage is intellectual rubbish. Audacity indeed!"

To read the entire article see "Untangling Barack Obama's audacious mumbo jumbo," by John P. Mortimer, Bay Area Reporter 11/16/2006 at http://ebar.com/common/inc/article_print.php?sec=guest_op&article=73

The discussion of marriage here misses the forest for the trees. Obama, this so called "civil rights lawyer" is the ONLY Democratic candidate who has opposed marriage equality for purely religious reasons. And notice that not one lawyer/lawmaker has provided one LEGAL reason for denying this civil right. Is it really asking too much of lawyers and lawmakers to provide LEGAL reasons for denying civil rights? It's not so much about "marriage" as it is about punching a big hole in the wall that separates Church and State.

Aside from his religious rubbish the only other reason Obama has proffered for denying this civil right is Aside from his "deep faith," his "church history" and the "religious connotations to marriage" the only other reason Obama has given for denying gays the civil right to marry is that (as he stated on Larry King Live) America "is not ready" for this kind of equality. Coming from an African-American Harvard educated "civil rights" lawyer this statement is astounding and rather telling:

(1) If he or his mixed-race parents had to wait till American was "ready" to respect their civil rights we can pretty well guess how their lives might have wound up.

(2) We all know how "ready" America was to give up Jim Crow segregation in public schools in 1954. The vast majority of Americans were against Brown v. Board of Education.

(3) As the sickening photos of the battered and bloody Freedom Rider John Lewis (D. Ga.) and the infamous photos of burning Greyhound busses testify to, we all know how "ready" America was to allow equal access to public accommodations.

(4) We all know how "ready" American was to respect interracial marriage when the Supreme Court struck down all state anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. The vast tyrannous majority of America was appalled and there were serious movements to amend the Constitution and impeach Chief Justice Earl Warren. In fact, 40 years after the Supreme Court had to step in to protect Obama's parents from criminal prosecution in 17 states, 40% of Americans still believe inter-racial marriage is wrong. "Not Ready"? The notion that American was "not ready" for equality was partly what prompted Dr. King to write his poignant book, Why We Can't Wait. Now senator Obama tells Lesbian and Gay families that America is "not ready" to respect them as equal.

(5) While Mr. "Humble beginnings" (gimmie a break!) was enjoying the privileges of attending the finest prep-schools and private universities America could possibly offer, gay men and lesbian women were spilling their warm blood on the cold streets of Alabama so that he and his parents could enjoy their civil rights unmolested. But now that he has his rights he tells them America is "not ready." "How sharper than a serpent's tooth is it to have a thankless child!!"

Finally, in the words of a true Freedom Rider whose legacy Obama denigrates and whose wisdom he audaciously abjures, "I've heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they STINK of the same FEAR, HATRED, and INTOLERANCE, I have known in racism and in BIGOTRY." (Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), (Boston Globe, 11/25/03.) (Emphasis added.)

Francoise,

You sound like the Right smearing Obama. Your points are stretched from a fictional starting proposition to your own righteous indignation. Mr. Obama is not in your argument.

Please cite your source that Obama "has opposed marriage equality" for whatever reason. I've been studying this man almost every day since the Keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Party Convention - I haven't seen him oppose marriage equality.

Can anybody show where he has?