Unless you were living in a cave over the past couple of decades, you will recognize this title as a take-off on the old Seinfeld episode where Jerry and George are mistakenly pegged as being gay by a reporter and their subsequent unsuccessful attempts to correct this misconception. The back-story to that episode is that Seinfeld and his writers wanted to do a show on this subject, but couldn’t think of a way to do it without being seen as anti-gay. That is until they added in the famous catch-phrase, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that!” It worked – making the denial both harmless and funny – and resulting in one of the most memorable Seinfeld episodes.
So with that in mind it seems the perfect way to discuss Obama’s “Muslim” issue. It’s been floating around for some time now. You know. That rumor that he is secretly a Muslim. Or was a Muslim at some time in his life. Buzzing around like an annoying gnat along with other small gnats in the form of photos of him in ethnic Somali – read Muslim – garb, his controversial middle name of Hussein, and slightly larger gnats in the form of his support from the racist Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and Obama’s own minister who allegedly holds similar beliefs as Farrakhan.
So these gnats keep floating around him, none particularly important by itself, but as they grow in number becoming a constant distraction that could keep him from talking about the important things like his specific policies and plans for America.
Oh yes, he doesn’t really have any of those.
But I digress.
And it is a problem, make no mistake.
Now, I don’t believe Obama was officially a Muslim at any time in his life. And I don’t believe he is one now. Not that there would be anything wrong with that if he was.
But what I find interesting is why he feels he has to deny it at all if there is nothing wrong with being Muslim. If America and the rest of the western world has nothing to fear from Islam, then why does he or anyone else feel the need to deny that belief at all. Now, I know the answer to that question. You do as well. We are not at war with Islam of course, but we are definately at war with an extremely large violent subset of that religion. Radical Islam. Islamic Fascism. Whatever you want to call it.
And because we are at war with these people, Obama, a man with a strong personal connection to that religion whether he acknowledges it or not, has some special baggage he must deal with, if not in quest for the Democratic nomination, certainly in the general election.
Now, his likely opponent in that election, John McCain, is not going to bring up this baggage. In fact, McCain has already taken the high-road on one recent incident of the “politics of personal destruction” and kudos to him for doing so. But it’s going to brought up by someone. McCain can only control himself and his own campaign, not all the people who want Obama to lose and who see this as a weakness to be taken advantage of.
So Obama has to figure out a way to fight this avenue of attack while at the same time not becoming obsessed with it.
Tricky, but doable. If the gnats down grow in number, that is.
As an aside, have you noticed the high-road that McCain and the vast majority of Republicans are taking concerning this issue. It’s admirable, and no doubt a sincere attempt by an honorable man, McCain, to keep the election about issues and not gnats.
Now, I mentioned in just a paragraph or so earlier that McCain was taking the high-road over this Muslim stuff. As well he should. But while I was writing this I noticed over at Althouse they are discussing the connection between McCain and John Hagee, a nutty Catholic-hating Christian minister. The thrust of the conversation is that McCain should be ashamed for accepting the endorsement of this bigot, especially in light of how Obama rejected the support of another bigot, Louis Farrakhan.
It’s hard to argue with that really. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and if it’s wrong for Obama to accept the support of nuts like Farrakhan, then it is certainly wrong for McCain to do the same with nuts like Hagee.
The difference, politically anyway, is Hagee is little known and Farrakhan is pretty much a national brand for radical racist Islam here in the USA. One is bigger news than the other.
What’s more important though is that this connection is being discussed. And if you read the comments, those on the left are making a big deal out of it, saying it shows McCain is a bigot, too.
So does that mean the gloves are off now? If the left can slam McCain for accepting the endorsement of an anti-Catholic protestant minister can the right slam Obama for his so-so rejection of Farrakhan? Can we point out his own minister’s radical views?
Without being called bigots, that is.
The ruling on that PC question is still out.
UPDATE:
Great Washington Post article about Obama’s opponents having to walk on eggshells because of his race. Yep, the ruling is still out alright.
