Obama Is Muslim?

JAMES TARANTO
WSJ

Back in March, CBS's Steve Kroft interviewed Hillary Clinton for "60 Minutes." Something Mrs. Clinton said upset supporters of Barack Obama, including Bob Herbert1 of the New York Times:
Mr. Kroft asked Senator Clinton if she believed that Senator Obama is a Muslim. In one of the sleaziest moments of the campaign to date, Senator Clinton replied: "No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know."
As far as I know. If she had been asked if she thought President Bush was a Muslim, would her response have included the caveat "as far as I know"? What about Senator McCain? Why, then, with Senator Obama?

Did Herbert really ask a series of rhetorical questions? Why would he do that? Didn't it occur to him that someone might try to answer them? And indeed, we read this in Herbert's own paper2 this week:
As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother's Christian background is irrelevant.
Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.
His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is "irtidad" or "ridda," usually translated from the Arabic as "apostasy," but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim's family may choose to forgive).

After Mrs. Clinton's "60 Minutes" appearance, the Times's Nicholas Kristof3 also weighed in:
When Mrs. Clinton was asked in a television interview a week ago whether Mr. Obama is a Muslim, she denied it firmly--but then added, most unfortunately, "as far as I know." To his credit, Mr. McCain scolded a radio host who repeatedly referred to "Barack Hussein Obama" and later called him a Manchurian candidate.

Well, good for McCain, anyway. Even if some Times writers think Obama is a Muslim, that's no excuse for calling him "Barack Hussein Obama." How would Mrs. Clinton like it if people started calling her "Hillary Ruhollah Khomeini"?

You Probably Think This Speech Is About You4
President Bush spoke before Israel's Knesset yesterday. According to Barack Obama, Bush's speech was a "political attack" on Barack Obama, as the Jerusalem Post reports:
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," [Obama] said in a statement. "Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power--including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy--to pressure countries like Iran and Syria."
Obama added that Bush was aware that the candidate had never supported talking to terrorists, "and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

Other Democrats backed Obama and bashed Bush. Politico5 quotes this statesmanlike pronouncement from Sen. Joe Biden: "This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset . . . and make this kind of ridiculous statement."

Fox News6 reports that "even Hillary Clinton . . . piled on":
"President Bush's comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous, on the face of it and especially in light of his failures in foreign policy," she said. "This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced."

So, what exactly did President Bush say? Here's the relevant passage from his speech7:
There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is--the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it.

Note what is absent from the speech: any reference to Barack Obama, to any other Democrat or to the Democratic Party. As we noted in 20068, when a speech by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld prompted a similar response from Sen. Harry Reid, the unnamed U.S. senator to whom the president alludes is William Borah9 of Idaho, who was elected in 1907 and served until his death in 1940. Borah was a Republican.

So what are we to make of the prickly defensiveness of Obama and his fellow Democrats in the face of the president's speech?

The cynical interpretation is that Democrats have concluded Bush is so unpopular that opposing any position he takes will redound to their political benefit. By this logic, if Bush says "God bless America," voters can be expected to rally behind the fellow who says "God damn America."

But it's also possible that Obama & Co. are sincere--that when they hear the president talking about countenancing hatred, appeasing terrorists and breaking ties with Israel, they think: He's talking about us!

If Obama agrees with Bush that terrorists can't be appeased, he could say so, or refrain from saying anything. If he disagrees, he could put forward an argument to the contrary. Instead he whines about an imaginary Bush "attack" on him. Maybe--maybe--this is politically expedient. Certainly it is deeply unserious.

The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations10
"Dukakis: Obama Better Prepared for GOP Assault Than I Was"--headline, CNN.com, May 15

The Can-churian Candidate?11
How many states are there? Barack Obama seems not to know, as the Los Angeles Times reported last week:
"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon," Obama said. "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."
The Times' conscientious Robin Abcarian thought she heard something different there. She checked her tape recorder. It had captured what he had actually said--57 states now. A new Louisiana Purchase that's gone unannounced so far?

Believe it or not, there are people who don't know how many states there are. We encountered one when we were young--someone who, like Obama, held a degree from an Ivy League institution. We started asking other people and found that quite a few either could not say how many states there are or got it wrong.

But we don't remember anyone ever saying there were 57 states, and we got to thinking: What if this isn't an innocent mistake but a "Kinsley gaffe12"?

Consider: Canada has seven states (sometimes called "provinces" because everyone in Canada is required to speak French). We've already seen reports13 of Obama's playing to anti-Canadian sentiment on the campaign trail while giving private assurances to Canadian officials. Could it be that Obama accidentally let slip a plan to allow America to be absorbed by our neighbor to the north, creating a Greater Canada with hegemony from the Florida Keys to the Aleutians?

No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as we know.

Accountability Journalism14
"Amazing it was" when Barack Obama won the South Carolina primary in January, the Associated Press's Charles Babington reports. Hard-hitting it is:
Maybe the toughest question is this:
Is Obama, with his incandescent smile and silky oratory, a once-in-a-century phenomenon who will blast open doors only to see them quickly close on less extraordinary blacks?
Or is he the lucky and well-timed beneficiary of racial dynamics that have changed faster than most people realized, a trend that presumably will soon yield more black governors, senators, mayors and council members?
Presidential campaigns have destroyed many bright and capable politicians. But there's ample evidence that Obama is something special, a man who makes difficult tasks look easy, who seems to touch millions of diverse people with a message of hope that somehow doesn't sound Pollyannaish.