The point is that many Americans are ignorant and think that Muslim=terrorist. If people weren't so ridiculous things like this wouldn't need to be cleared up every other day.

Ooh, Liberty I hope you cover the rumor that McCain may not be eligible to run because he wasn't born in America!

I'm okay with him being a muslim. I sort of have a problem with him constantly comparing himself with Hitler.

I agree with hotstuff. It's an ignorance issue - Americans have been so brainwashed that they hear Muslim and automatically think terrorist.

Raciccarone -- what are you talking about?

The fact is many Americans never encounter Muslims and anything you never see in real life is going to be scary. I had Muslim students in my university class last semester and my parents told me "they should get used to America". Thanks mom and dad, they are actually Americans too.

I do think Obama needs to own up to his name and use it as a teaching moment. Hussein is such a freaking common name in the rest of the world.

I don't think it's just ignorance.

Liberty is the first media outlet to make the statement that backdoor insult to Muslim Americans is not okay.

People working for CNN, MSNBC, FOX NEWS, AP, and so on and so forth are not ignorant - it is a matter of respect and Muslims in our country are being treated like they don't deserve it from our national voices.

It is easy to say ignorance and make excuses for these remarks - its civil rights being ignored and abused.

Thanks a lot Liberty for acknowledging the effect this campaign is having on good Americans that are being unfairly punished for the crimes of some lunatic across the world who is trying to destroy our country and the faith of Islam.

Princess, I agree about the need to take pride in the name Hussein (its actually a very nobel name) but how do you think the world would react if he stood up and said "my middle name is Hussein, it has a noble meaning, and just like the name Joesph isn't linked with Stalin the name Hussein should not be linked to Saddam"

Everyone and their brother would be crying on Obama showing support for terrorism - calling Saddam noble.

I get him not speaking out (YET - AFTER THE CAMPAIGN IS A DIFFERENT STORY) what I don't get is those of us who don't have a presidency at stake, who need to make our voices heard and tell news networks and people in general WE WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS INSULT TO OUR COUNRTY - OUR COUNTRY DOES NOT PROHIBIT PEOPLE FROM BECOMING PRESIDENT BASED ON THEIR RELIGION, OUR COUNTRY IS NOT A COUNTRY OF BIGOTS.

To me, this is an attack on American values more than on Islam or Obama, after Pearl Harbor is was Japanese (all eastern Asians actually), after 9/11 it was the Muslims, and who knows 10yrs down the road it will be Latinos or something else, these attacks insult America and should be denounced by ALL AMERICANS.

In case anyone has forgotten, we are currently at war with an enemy who is predominantly Muslim. I just can't believe that people are so naive and trusting as to think that it's OK to have someone lead this country who has ties to the Islamic religion. It's a total conflict of interest based on the war on terror. Why would anyone take a chance that an Islamic politician would be sympathetic to Muslim terrorists and that sympathy would allow (for lack of a better word) the politician to compromise the security of the US? It doesn't make sense.

Before I get jumped all over - I have no problem with the average, everyday Muslim-American. I just don't feel that it's wise to to have them in our government.

Terrorist do pose a huge risk to our national security. But terrorists are not the same as Muslim Americans. In history, terrorists have also hid behind other religions — think the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and Catholicism.

There are many Americans who were born and raised American, and born and raised faithful Muslim. Terrorism threatens their American way of life. This is their country, too.

I agree with you, Liberty, but the 'war on terror' is being fought against terrorists who are, in fact, Muslim. That's my whole point. If we were fighting a war against terrorists who were Scottish, I would be just as opposed to having a Scottish politician in our government.

Trixie6, you do realize Obama isn't Muslim right?

Hotstuff - Yes. He's a member of a Christian Church in Chicago. He does, however, have relatives who are Muslim. It's the same conflit of interest.

Yeah Trixie, and while we're at it we should get rid of all the Jews and Catholics in politics too.

What time period are you living in?? We've progressed beyond that, I hope! Obviously it is RADICAL islamic extremists that you are talking about, but you are grouping them with all members of the same religion. I believe that Islam is the most predominant religion on the planet, and if they were all extremists then we'd have no hope anyway.

does anyone realize that we have a muslim senator who took his oath on the quran or that the governor of louisana (a republican) immigrated here from india when he was a child? has 9/11 damaged country so much that we now look at someones faith as a criteria for the presidency? sorry guys but i think the terrorists accomplished what they set out to do

The Klan and Nazis used Christianity (and still do) to back up their views - and they do; just ask them. Does that mean this entire country is full of Nazis and Klansmen? No. It means that a lot of assholes use a religion full of beauty and respect to exclude, terrorize and sometimes brutally murder others.

Same thing goes for Muslims. Islam is a religion based on peace and unity. Just because a few Fundamentalist a**holes go around doing the same thing as some 'bad apple' Christians do, doesn't mean that those countries are full of idiots. It means that they, also, are using a religion full of beauty and history to exclude, terrorize, and sometimes brutally murder others.

People need to wake up and realize that people are people, no matter where you go. Some are good, some are bad, and most are somewhere in the middle.

As for Obama, his name doesn't mean anything in terms of his personal religion. He didn't choose his name, it was an aesthetic choice that his parents made. He shouldn't have to change it to make ignorant people happy, and his ambitions and any potential he might have shouldn't be lessened because of it.

And being Muslim outside the US doesn't make you a terrorist either, as I'm sure you all know; but seems like they overlap on an emotional level with many. The terrorist groups causes a lot of harm in their own countries as well. I don't feel Obama has any inappropriate ties with Islam or the Muslim culture.

"What time period are you living in?? We've progressed beyond that, I hope!"

We obviously haven't which is why such ignorance has to be addressed constantly.

WOW! This is 2008, right?

Trixie - why do you assume there is a conflict of interest in fighting terrorist for a Muslim? Is it because when a Muslim American decides to bomb and Al-Qada base he may feel sorry for "his people."

Get your facts straight, the fact of the matter is that even within Muslims, the terrorist groups have a specific sect, people fail to mention that because it is easier to lump all Muslims together and guess what, this terrorist sect think the MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS are traitors and are bigger "infidels" than Americans.

Bin Laden once said beheading a Muslim outside his SMALLLLLL sect is a path to heaven.

So guess what, for MOST Muslims, meaning Bin Laden's sect has about 4% of the islamic population in it (and even among them not all are radicals) the conflict of interest is for freedom and for ANYONE BUT TERRORISTS!

When Timothy Mcveigh bombed the federal building I doubt you wanted all white males removed from office?

Don't assume alliances based on generalizations. Thats how we got concentration camps, remember?

So if anything, AMerican Muslims especially HATE TERRORISM AND BIN LADEN more than your average American, think about it this, terrorist are destroying they country AMerican Muslims love and the religion they love by fighting false battles and defacing the faith for their own political greed.

Hotstuff- It's just hard to admit sometimes. I know we've made progress, but it's never as much progress as I hope for.

In my opinion it wouldn't matter if he was of the Muslim faith. I feel the same way about it if it was a Jewish candidate, in relation with the Israel conflict.

The point I'm trying to make is this: We are battling terrorism against a Muslim enemy. Putting a Muslim or a person with ties to the Muslim community in a position of power within our country, at this time, is not a smart thing to do.

Well - I guess we agree to disagree. I think some of you think I'm being bigoted and that's just not the case. Or that I'm ignorant (thank you, hotstuff) which is not the case, either. At least we have the opportunity to discuss our opinions freely.

Thats not good enough - why is it not smart, because we can't trust Muslims? Even when they are loyal Americans?

If we aren't going to give everyone equal rights and equal treatment and the benefit of "innocent until proven guilty" what the hell does our country stand for?

If tomorrow a some feminist group attacked I guess we'll strip women of their basic civil rights too...

When the USA was founded we were battling the Euro powers - I guess no white European men should have been trusted to value basic human rights as opposed racial preferences.

IMO, people who fear others based to act w/o the notion of right and wrong and solely on race/sex/whatever are those people who would do that themselves and think everyone else will do it.

Well, zeze, it's going to have to be enough because I'm done arguing about it. Like I said, you have your opinion and I have mine. Luckily, I can make mine known in the way I vote.

The thing is, I think we should form our opinions based on more than untrue generalizations - that is how we become a better society by having opinions that make society better.

Like I said, maybe if you research your opinion a little more and focus on trying to understand why your views are so unpopular you might learn something and you might change your mind or not.

As it stands your argument is "its not a smart thing, there is a conflict of interest" but that is an unfounded opinion.

All groups have something to offer and isolating an entire group based generalizations makes us the losers.

Hi everyone. I think talking about this issue is the first step in progressing as a country, and a world. Thank you all for the courage to share your opinions. Keep it coming!

I hear you Trixie. I know a lot of Muslims who are strongly opposed to terrorism not just for America's sake, as their new home, but also for Iraq's sake, their homeland. Ultimately, however, being Muslim could contribute to sympathy for extreme "Islam." It's one of those things that could go either way; either create an extremely DRIVEN leader, or an easily swayed leader. Tricky tricky.

Ignorance. Plain old xenophobia. They're the target of the moment.

It isn't right, what so ever.

why is swearing on the bible okay? i am disgusted by just about all of the remarks here.

i like the way zeze thinks.

Hotstuff-the constitutional requirement for presidents is that they must be born a US citizen. As a child of citizens, McCain is fine, especially as his parents were abroad due to military reasons.

a few days ago CitizenSugar talked about how students these days don' tknow much about history - anyone remember that? Well, aparently, it doesn't matter if people do remember it (memorize, i should say), since no one is learning from it's lessons. I was watching "Elizabeth the Golden Years" the other day and it sort of makes me think of that - is this current situation and way of thinking really so different from the Spanish Armada, Mary Queen of Scots and other Catholic citizens trying to assassinate Queen Elizabeth because she followed different religious practices?! How well did it work to have Japanese people in internment camps during WWII??? Have we really learned nothing at all?

"Hotstuff-the constitutional requirement for presidents is that they must be born a US citizen. As a child of citizens, McCain is fine, especially as his parents were abroad due to military reasons."

jillz, You have to be a "natural born citizen" but he was born in Panama. Having both parents being American doesn't matter. It will be interesting to see how this plays out!

I also meant to say maybe ol Huckabee knew about McCain being born in Panama and that's why he refused to drop out, hmmmm.

I agree with everything foxie had to say. It could be either way, and no matter how much we want to believe it's definitely one way or the other, we won't know unless Obama makes it into office. Some are willing to chance it, and some are not.
I find it interesting though, that so many people are quick to jump to Muslims' defense.

So... wait a minute... why were white, Christian presidents okay then? They have ties to the white, Christian world community that enslaved, colonized, and continue to participate in neo-colonization in much of the world - we should stop elected them!

Oh my gosh, Hillary Clinton has ties to womanhood... that must mean once a month she's going to be a crazy b**ch and ruin the state of our nation!

Come on... "ties to Islam"? 1.6 Billion people in the world have ties to Islam - maybe 12 of them are crazy. If JFK was elected and didn't aid the IRA, then I'm pretty sure we'll be okay with Obama.

And I'm so glad there are people who are "willing" to "be friends with" Muslims - good for you. I have Muslim friends too, so I guess it's okay if I stereotype their religion without bothering to pick up their Qur'an and read about the strict rules of warfare that DO NOT ALLOW FOR CIVILIAN TRAUMA. Learn the difference between extremism and culture - this is not Islam, this is terrorism. Real Muslims, the majority of Muslims, believe in the same 10 commandments Christians do, the same Jesus Christians do, and the same Moses Jews do.

"I find it interesting though, that so many people are quick to jump to Muslims' defense." - Jovian Skies

I find it more "interesting" how little people care about basic American rights!

It's easy to be part of the majority and talk about not taking chances - but I wonder how you would be acting if a group you were affiliated with caused trouble and you were told to sacrifice you rights b/c a small minority in this group did what it did.

I bet the Constitution would be more sacred then! We all talk about the Quran, Bible, Torah, and so on, but what happened to separation of church and state, why don't politicians serving secular positions swear on the constitution and leave religion where it belongs, in our hearts between us and our God.

I'm a bit distressed that so many of us are quick to lay accusations of shallow bigotry.

I don't really disagree with trixie. I'm not paranoid enough to think Obama is a secret terrorist sympathizer, but his heritage may make him less tough on Muslim terrorists than he would be, otherwise.

I know that not all Muslims are terrorists. However, it has been widely (even internationally) noted that moderate Muslims have almost universally failed to criticize the violent extremists. Does this make them silent sympathizers? I wouldn't generalize, but it's distinctly possible.

During WWII, do you think we would have elected a president with a Japanese or German parent? It doesn't mean that they would have been disloyal, but their connections would have made them vulnerable. What if someone threatened to bomb President Obama's father's village unless he ...(fill in the blank).

I don't think it's helpful to oversimplify this discussion, no matter which side you are on.

mina:
1) No white Christian nations have attacked us on our own soil recently (or our overseas embassies or military bases). (I'll exempt the Serbian embassy, for the moment, as that was not really a premeditated and coordinated attack.)
2) If a group of women who shared a common, clearly identified philosophy coordinated a violent domestic attack, I would say we shouldn't elect any members or sympathizers of that group.
3) More than 12 Muslims were involved in the 9/11 attacks, alone.
4) It's common knowledge (I don't have any citations) that American money funded and prolonged the IRA effort. I can't say whether JFK's presidency provided any implicit approval.

Logic over emotion, folks, it will get us further.
Glad to see the discussion, though!

You call them "Muslims" I prefer "terrorists". Nothing these people did has been at all in relation to the words of their faith, nor has it been with the approval of the majority of leaders of their faith. And white Christians have attacked us on our own soil more than any other group of people have, with more casualties - Prez. Johnson pardoned all Confederates after the Civil War, he didn't keep them out of Congress. White Christians were elected to our first offices after the Revolutionary war - they weren't seen as perhaps too lenient on the British.

12 Muslims! Wow! And here that 1.6 billion of the rest must be so happy Obama is being elected so that he can let all the rest do the same, right?

I don't think "leniency on Muslims" is the issue - people are concerned about leniency on terrorism, something which Obama has never iterated. I'm not voting for the man, but I feel that as an American, I have to respect EVERYONES right to pursue their goals, regardless of their race, religion, gender, etc. I think asserting he would be lenient on Muslims is going ten steps backwards in our progression as a people - this is absurd.

Also, our WWII president, FDR, was of Dutch, French, and GERMAN ancenstry. Funny, huh? And he never revealed that to the media - probably due to fear of the same reaction we are seeing here.

I respect your opinions, but they seem shallow to me, honestly. I come from a multi-ethnic, multi-religious nation, and these things were never an issue. I think because Americans are so seperate in many ways, this is why people are scared of silly little things like this.

Lainetm: I have 2 point for you, your notion on Muslims not denouncing the terror attacks is WRONG (see below) and 2) you may say that Muslims must come out and be vocal in renouncing the attacks - to this I say a Muslim has an obligation to denounce the terror attacks as much as anyone else, these muslims were no on the planes, they didn't crash into the towers, they lost friends and family too in these attacks and in attacks overseas by these same terrorist - why should they be required to speak out more than anyone else to prove anything. It is like accusing someone of something they didnt do an expecting an apology for making them think they did it!

(Please see the article its very interesting, we may all learn something in this discussion)

Please read this article: http://au.news.yahoo.com/080227/19/15z7t.html

AND THESE ARE NON-AMERICAN MUSLIMS!!!

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A huge survey of the world's Muslims released Tuesday challenges Western notions that equate Islam with radicalism and violence.

The survey, conducted by the Gallup polling agency over six years and three continents, seeks to dispel the belief held by some in the West that Islam itself is the driving force of radicalism.

It shows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims condemned the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 and other subsequent terrorist attacks, the authors of the study said in Washington.

"Samuel Harris said in the Washington Times (in 2004): 'It is time we admitted that we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam'," Dalia Mogadeh, co-author of the book "Who Speaks for Islam" which grew out of the study, told a news conference here.

"The argument Mr Harris makes is that religion in the primary driver" of radicalism and violence, she said.

"Religion is an important part of life for the overwhelming majority of Muslims, and if it were indeed the driver for radicalisation, this would be a serious issue."

But the study, which Gallup says surveyed a sample equivalent to 90 percent of the world's Muslims, showed that widespread religiosity "does not translate into widespread support for terrorism," said Mogadeh, director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies.

About 93 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates and only seven percent are politically radical, according to the poll, based on more than 50,000 interviews.

In majority Muslim countries, overwhelming majorities said religion was a very important part of their lives -- 99 percent in Indonesia, 98 percent in Egypt, 95 percent in Pakistan.

But only seven percent of the billion Muslims surveyed -- the radicals -- condoned the attacks on the United States in 2001, the poll showed.

Moderate Muslims interviewed for the poll condemned the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington because innocent lives were lost and civilians killed.

"Some actually cited religious justifications for why they were against 9/11, going as far as to quote from the Koran -- for example, the verse that says taking one innocent life is like killing all humanity," she said.

Meanwhile, radical Muslims gave political, not religious, reasons for condoning the attacks, the poll showed.

The survey shows radicals to be neither more religious than their moderate counterparts, nor products of abject poverty or refugee camps.

"The radicals are better educated, have better jobs, and are more hopeful with regard to the future than mainstream Muslims," John Esposito, who co-authored "Who Speaks for Islam", said.

"Ironically, they believe in democracy even more than many of the mainstream moderates do, but they're more cynical about whether they'll ever get it," said Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University in Washington.

Gallup launched the study following 9/11, after which US President George W. Bush asked in a speech, which is quoted in the book: "Why do they hate us?"

"They hate... a democratically elected government," Bush offered as a reason.

"They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

But the poll, which gives ordinary Muslims a voice in the global debate that they have been drawn into by 9/11, showed that most Muslims -- including radicals -- admire the West for its democracy, freedoms and technological prowess.

What they do not want is to have Western ways forced on them, it said.

"Muslims want self-determination, but not an American-imposed and -defined democracy. They don't want secularism or theocracy. What the majority wants is democracy with religious values," said Esposito.

The poll has given voice to Islam's silent majority, said Mogahed.

"A billion Muslims should be the ones that we look to, to understand what they believe, rather than a vocal minority," she told AFP.

Muslims in 40 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East were interviewed for the survey, which is part of Gallup's World Poll that aims to interview 95 percent of the world's population.

When we were fighting Germany in WWII should we have not allowed Christians in our government due to the conflict of interest in fighting other Christians?

I've read the Koran and the Bible form cover to cover, and The Old Testament is far more violent and aggressive than the Muslim scripture. To say Obama will be soft on terrorists because of whatever reason is puzzling to me. Religion can be used in extraordinarily cruel and twisted ways, that has nothing to do with the faith itself but about politics, power and manipulation. We, white Christians and catholics, have done more than our fair share of extremism ourselves. And to label all Muslims terrorist, outside or inside the US is a part of the problem, it is creating distance and pushing young impressionable Muslims to think they need to fight for their rights, faith and heritage.

I see this anti Islam sentiment as the new antisemitism, and it is just as unfair. No one thinks we should be weak on terror, or terrorists or terror networks. But to label them all as potential terrorists are going to do more harm than good. It seems we have a short memory, and I agree with tdamji that this is has happened time and time again; and it's the ugliest side of being human.

It shouldn't have to be - and for some of the posters above talking about how having Muslim relatives is a "conflict of interest" and such things... seriously, how many ways are you trying to hide your prejudice? "We shouldn't have Muslims in our government"? That right there IS saying that you DO have a problem with your average everyday American Muslim, because you believe that they're somehow not good enough to do what American Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc can do. There is not, nor should there be, a religious litmus test for participation in public life.

To be completely honest, I am ashamed of being American at times like these, when I have to spend countless hours trying to defend America (and often failing) to my international friends when stupid things like this take up so much space in our national discourse. This is simply ridiculous.

Sorry I had to step away. Betting ready for work, so must be brief:
mina:
* I was not alive at the time of the Revolution or Civil war. I don't think most people consider them recent history.
* The "12" number was taken from the post to which I was responding.
* I said that his heritage could conceivably make Obama vulnerable, not necessarily biased. Also, it's immediate heritage, not ancestry. How recent were FDR's European roots?

I don't have a problem with Islam as a religion, the point is that the terrorists identify so strongly with it as their reason for their attacks.

qbert: The motivating force for the Germans in WWII was not their religion, it was their nationalism. (To the best of my knowledge) Therefore, your point is invalid.

trejolie: IIRC the violent parts of the Old Testament are more historical report than instructions on how to live. I did not mean to imply that Obama will be soft on terrorists, just that arguments and rationales for attacks or special treatment of Muslims as a group presented to him based on religion may find a more receptive ear than they might with someone else. (Hope that makes sense, I'm rushing here.) I *did* specifically say that one cannot generalize.

bailaoragaditana: It's not a matter of heritage, it's an issue of recent and current personal family relationships in troubled regions.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but currently, nearly all terrorists are Muslim. Forgetting this fact just makes us open to more attacks. Look at the situation in England, with a number of mosques housing terrorists and hiding weapons.

Folks, I don't say this invalidates Obama's campaign, just that it's a potential vulnerability and may affect his perspective. We should not condemn, but should be cautious.

Just wanted to say about McCain being born in another country. He was born on a Military base. There for he is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

I mean, you guys all know that the war on terrorism wasn't started against any country or religion, right? It was started against folks who plan terrible attacks on other countries because the countries disagree with their way of living.

I still don't understand WHY we are at war with Iraq. To me, it seems we went in to get rid of a dictator and now are just warring with the so-called insurgency that presumably believes one faction of Islam is superior to the others. PLEASE don't tell me you think everyone in Iraq is guilty of something. They aren't. Most people (yes, people -- women, children, AND men) are totally innocent and deaths are happening for no reason.

Further, this is theoretically a country where you can practice whatever religion you want. (Though with God on both currency and in the pledge to the flag, that is hard to see.) I don't care what religion Obama is or McCain is or Clinton is or Huckabee is or Nader is or Romney is, so long as they do not try to push their values upon others. (I think that is one of the myriad of problems with the Bush administration: government funding for religious organizations is a little sick to me, for this country at least, no matter if it is Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any other religion you can think of.)

I think the problems with this world come 50% from folks not realizing that others are different than them and being ok with that and 50% from the more advantaged not trying to help the less advantaged. Why are we even debating that first 50%? To me, it should be the easiest problem to fix!

Before someone calls me an Obama lover from this post, I'm not. I'm an equality lover.

Amen cine! I don't support his bid for the Presidency, but that's because of the issues. McCain was born IN the US. If you are born on US property in another country, you are born in the US.

I would also argue that you can be born technically in the US but not be a US citizen. If, for instance, you are born in the Chinese embassy here in the US, you are born in China.

cine; it's totally ridiculous. If John McCain isn't American, then who is?

"It was started against folks who plan terrible attacks on other countries because the countries disagree with their way of living."
These folks are Islamic Fundamentalists, and it is WAY more then just disagreeing with a way of life. They want others eradicated, and they DESPISE America.

"Further, this is theoretically a country where you can practice whatever religion you want. (Though with God on both currency and in the pledge to the flag, that is hard to see)"
I am going to have to disagree with this. It does not say any specific religion, which leaves it open to all religions.

"I don't care what religion Obama is or McCain is or Clinton is or Huckabee is or Nader is or Romney is, so long as they do not try to push their values upon others."
I agree with this statement, although I would personally change VALUES to RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

I personally could not care less what religion my President practices. I am Catholic, so was Kennedy, I am not a fan of Kennedy, and I don't feel he portrayed Catholics in a good light.

"I would also argue that you can be born technically in the US but not be a US citizen. If, for instance, you are born in the Chinese embassy here in the US, you are born in China."
Mandy, I never even thought of that!

Tres it is ridiculous. When are we going to start paying attention to real issues, instead of stupid unfounded reports?

It has been going both ways for the people I talk to about Politics. I actually have had to defend Obama and Hilary. I want people to vote on policies, not on rumors. And I want them to truly understand the implications of the policies in which they believe in. I get so frustrated. If I don't know something, I educate myself on it, but I have come to find out, that is rare.

I'll get off my soap box now.

Here, here, cine. I'm actually happy that the Republican candidate is John McCain just because I think he has a lot of character unchanged by fashion in Washington. To spend time discussing his natural born citizenship is .. infuriating, and I feel it is the same thing when people don't think Obama is American enough. There will only be bad solutions and outcomes if we jump on every wagon to dissect the opposing party, on any ground, just to get your own candidate ahead. Mandy had a good points in her posts.