After Edward Luttwak's "wacky" Op-Ed yesterday, President Apostate, I was hoping that people who understood Islam better than Luttwak would write in to correct the record.  And oh, did they!

There are terrific letters today that provide perfect ammunition for us if we're ever confronted with Luttwak's preposterous argument that Obama would be seen by the Muslim world as an apostate (a crime punishable by death, Luttwak says) for leaving the Muslim religion.

Follow me below the fold.

I'm sitting at the airport waiting to catch my flight back to reality. I'm a Chicagoan and have just spent the weekend with my Southern cousin and her husband, Ernie.

They live in Augusta, Georgia.  I always thought Georgia was part of the same country I'm from.  Tonight, I feel like I was on a different planet.

This is a land where they sincerely believe that "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here," that G. W. Bush has "kept us safe" for 6 1/2 years," that black people are lazy, that Rush Limbaugh is smart, and on and on.   Head exploding.

Please follow me below the fold.  I'm asking for your help.

"Earmarks" -- a dirty word?  Not Obama's.  They're  clean and green.  No "bridges to nowhere" for Obama.  He's creating bridges to a cleaner environment.

Follow me below the fold.

I'm watching the live Los Angeles event, and Michelle Obama has just introduced a surprise speaker--the first lady of California, Maria Shriver!

I was hoping she would endorse, and now she has!

As Michelle said in her introduction (after giving a knockout speech that we thought was the end of the rally) Maria was there not because someone asked her to be there, but because she felt it was the right thing to do.

Maria just said, "I was not on the schedule, but I woke up this morning thinking that this is where I should be today."

Not much of a diary, but just wanted to get the word out.

I think that America is finally ready to elect a black or a woman president.  But not a Muslim.  In fact, in a Pew survey, a full 45% said they would be less likely to vote for a Muslim candidate.
This makes the scurrilous lies about Obama being circulated by chain email a real threat.  Not only do they claim he is a Muslim, but scarier yet, that he is a "secret" Muslim planning to destroy America from within.  Most Americans don't really "know" Obama yet, other than that he gives inspiring speeches, and many people may be susceptible to the lies.

Some Democrats have argued that we should not nominate him because he is too vulnerable to swiftboating on this issue.  I disagree, but believe it is essential to develop a counter strategy ASAP.
This diary represents the humble beginnings of a counter strategy.  Please read it and contribute your ideas to improve and strengthen it.  

Whether you're currently an Obama supporter or not, the fact remains that he could become our nominee, and the better prepared we are to deal with this, the better for all of us.

Please follow me below the fold.

To many, the support for Barack Obama is puzzling.  He's only been in Washington for two years, has no executive experience in government, he's not even rich (lowest net worth of all candidates at $1.3 million) and yet he's a top contender for President of the United States.

Is it his charisma, his ability to give a rousing speech, his unique biography--his Oprah endorsement?

What makes his enthusiastic followers so convinced that he will be one of he best presidents since Abraham Lincoln?

Strangely enough, NYT columnist David Brooks has captured some of Obama's distinctive character in today's column, The Obama-Clinton Issue

I'm not going to include any contrasts with Hillary in this diary.  It is not about Hillary.  It is about Barack.  Please follow me below the fold.

I was surpised to log in to DailyKos this morning and see a very short diary at the top of the rec list begging Obama to stop "pushing bogus republican talking points on Social Security."  The diary was very short on links as well as overall substance. Where is all of this Obama drum-beating about social security being a huge crisis appearing?  The only link she has is to a Krugman column chastising Obama for using the word in an interview with the little known The National Journal  November 3.  Yes, if you go to that transcript Obama does use the words "Social Security crisis" in a passing reference, but this is hardly representative of any big message or positioning of social security.  I love Paul Krugman, but he is really stretching here.  His larger point is that SS is not in crisis, fine, but in tying his message to Obama, he is misrepresenting Obama's position, using the flimsiest of evidence.  And Krugman, as well as every well-read person, does understand that something needs to be done to keep SS healthy for years to come.

So what is Obama's position on SS?  Follow me below the fold.

In his new book, The Second Civil War,  reviewed in today's NYT, Ronald Brownstein decries the hyperpartisanship of American politics today. This polarization wipes out the ability to deal effectively with the big social issues of the day like healthcare and immigration.  
Although hyperpartisanship was raised to a high art form under Bush, it did not originate with him and will not necessarily end with him either, unless we respect those who disagree with us and stop believing that 50 percent plus one is all we need to govern.  

I believe the best way to end this divisive and ineffective form of politics is to elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States.  More below the fold.

The Bush administration's cozy relationship with the oil and gas industry is hamstringing the government's ability to collect all of the royalties due for allowing drilling on federal land.  According to the New York Times this morning, an independent audit has revealed gross mismanagement that is bleeding revenue.  More below the fold.New York Times

I just watched Rudy on C-SPAN at an event in NH.  Of everything he said, the absolute worst was his talk about fighting terrorism.  I couldn't find a transcript, but roughly he argued, "We're winning now because we're going on the offense.  In the '90's we suffered attack after attack but reacted defensively, treating it as crime.  We're safer now because George Bush went on the offense, and I'll keep us on the offense."

He claimed "Do the math! We haven't had another al Qaeda attack in 6 years since we've been on the offense!  Just do the math!"

Yes, let's do the math.  Please follow me below the fold.

Right now, California's 55 electoral votes are the biggest prize in the nation, and they have been 'Blue' in the last four elections.  But Republicans have a new ballot initiative to turn the state "purple" by allocating electoral votes by the winner in each congressional district.  That change could give Republicans a new source of electors equal to the state of Ohio!  If it goes through, that could change the election!

If you're looking for a really good, crisp deconstruction of Bush's totally misbegotton War on Terror, you should read Harvard Professor Samantha Power's review of four new books in today's New York Times Book Review.  She clearly shows how the United States is less safe "as a result of the Bush administration's rhetoric, conduct and strategy" in the War on Terror and she highlights some positive strategies to address the real threat of terrorism that we face.

review

More below the fold.