by digby
It doesn't matter if it's true or not. It's
"out there": Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him
In his speeches and often on the Internet, the part of Sen. Barack Obama's biography that gets the most attention is not his race but his connections to the Muslim world.
Since declaring his candidacy for president in February, Obama, a member of a congregation of the United Church of Christ in Chicago, has had to address assertions that he is a Muslim or that he had received training in Islam in Indonesia, where he lived from ages 6 to 10. While his father was an atheist and his mother did not practice religion, Obama's stepfather did occasionally attend services at a mosque there.
Despite his denials, rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet continue to allege that Obama (D-Ill.) is a Muslim, a "Muslim plant" in a conspiracy against America, and that, if elected president, he would take the oath of office using a Koran, rather than a Bible, as did Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the only Muslim in Congress, when he was sworn in earlier this year.
No, those aren't the opening paragraphs of a Townhall hit piece. That's the
Washington Post recycling anonymous wingnut email trash and calling it "rumors." I guess we should be grateful that the paper allowed Obama to "dispute" and "deny" the "charge" but considering that he
isn't a Muslim, it might have been a teensy bit more responsible if they'd simply written that it's a lie and let it go at that. Instead, it blandly suggests this will hurt him more than the Romney since the polls show that even more people won't vote for a Muslim than a Mormon --- failing to note that while Romney
is actually a Mormon and thus could be expected to suffer from these prejudices more than someone who
isn't actually a Muslim!
According to the
Washington Post "Republicans say Barack Obama is a Muslim and Obama says he isn't" is a legitimate story. Modern campaign journalism in all it glory.
More blog posts on the current WaPo front-page article:
Our doomed nation, part IIWashington Post: The New Drudge? Washington Post Recycles False Obama Muslim Rumors On Front PageThe media did the same thing in 2004. The liars held one press conference in May, which was ignored because the Kerry campaign presented the facts to the MSM immediately. The liars ran three ads in August. The campaign responded to the ads in several ways. This is what the Kerry campaign did to
counter the actual SBVT lies, which amounted to three ads. The problem was
the more than 400 hundreds news segments in the span of a month, which amounted to free advertising for Bush/Cheney and their surrogates, the Swift Liars. That was an intentional ambush and not easily countered, especially when they were being challenged by the Kerry campaign and continued to do it anyway. The campaign also filed an FEC complaint.
Boston Globe Editorial
August 27, 2004:
Here we have a group of bitter veterans who detest Kerry's leadership in opposing the war 30 years ago and are willing to say almost anything -- frequently contradicting their own earlier statements -- to hurt Kerry's candidacy. They turn to Bush's top political lawyer for advice on campaign finance laws and then to one of Bush's top campaign contributors to fund their attack ads.
MSM August 2004:
By the time the Swift Boat story had played out,
CNN, chasing after ratings leader Fox News, found time to mention the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth–hereafter, Swifties–in nearly
300 separate news segments, while
more than one hundred New York Times articles and columns made mention of the Swifties. And during
one overheated 12-day span in late August, the Washington Post mentioned the Swifties in page-one stories on Aug. 19, 20, 21 (two separate articles), 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. It was a media monsoon that washed away Kerry’s momentum coming out of the Democratic convention.
moreYet Giuliani's
corrupt background escaped reporting. Instead, he's lauded as America's Mayor.
edited to add third blog posts, fix typos.