Posts tagged with Barack Obama
Historian Tim Stanley in the "London Telegraph" suggests "The Fast and Furious scandal is turning into President Obama's Watergate". Stanley reminds everybody that President Richard Nixon was hurt by the ill advised cover up of the operation rather than by the second rate burglary itself. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100166854/the-fast-and-furious-scandal-is-turning-into-president-obamas-watergate/
A better comparison to a past scandal might be what is called the "Iran Contra" scandal. Both Iran Contra and Fast and Furious involved the United States helping groups in Latin American countries obtain weapons without the approval of the government of that country. In both cases drug money was used to purchase the weapons. The United States helped the Nicaraguan Contras obtain weapons to help the group overthrow what the Reagan Administration considered to be a communist government. http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm
So far there is no evidence the United States wants the Mexican drug cartels it helped obtain weapons to overthrow the Mexican government. However, in the past U.S. policy was to restrict the ability of rebel groups from obtaining assistance if the U.S. supported a Latin America government and to allow or even encourage rebel groups to obtain assistance if the U.S. opposed that government. The 2,020 weapons purchased during Fast and Furious would have been enough to equip four battalions of troops. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunw...
The drug cartels continue to pose a major threat to the Mexican government. Obama's rifles continue to kill people.
Fast and Furious was conducted more like an operation to provide weapons to insurgents in another country than an operation to catch criminals. If the Obama administration had wanted to catch criminals it would have tried to keep the weapons under surveillance such as by implanting tracking devices and would have coordinated the operation with the Mexican government like the Bush administration had done in Operation Wide Receiver.
The U.S. Congress is currently investigating Fast and Furious. An international investigation by the Organization of American States or United Nations is needed because the operation involved the U.S. illegally aiding a criminal element in another country. Did the U.S. have an ulterior motive in helping the group? Were any of the U.S. officials involved taking money from the drug cartels obtaining the weapons? Did any U.S. official take an action that should be prosecuted before the World Court?
Watergate happened as I was beginning graduate school. I thought about doing a Master's Thesis on the subject until my adviser convinced me it wasn't practical to do a history thesis about an event that was still happening. One thing I remember from my research was that there was virtually no change in public opinion polls regarding how deeply people thought Nixon was involved in Watergate from early 1973 to early 1974 with most believing he was involved in some way. However, there was a change in how serious people thought Nixon's actions were.
Nixon's decision to invoke executive privilege to keep his White House tapes secret insured that some conversations would be interpreted as indicating involvement in Watergate. For example, a conversation with John Dean was interpreted as indicating Nixon's approval of Watergate even though the conversation didn't specifically refer to any such operation.
President Barack Obama's claim of executive privilege in the Fast and Furious operation strongly implies that he was directly involved in it. Obama is committing a major blunder if he is trying to protect Attorney General Eric Holder. If Holder has any loyalty to Obama, he should be willing to figuratively "fall on his sword" for his boss. Holder should have already taken personal responsibility for the misguided operation and resigned because as Attorney General he is responsible for what happens in his department. At the very least Fast and Furious indicates Holder failed to adequately supervise the department.
The timing of Obama's announcement of amnesty for children who grew up in the United States after being brought here illegally is suspicious. Obama's amnesty could be an attempt to distract people from the fact Obama's rifles continue to kill Mexican citizens. The decision could be an admission of guilt by Obama who wants to prevent children raised in the United States from being killed by Obama's rifles.
Marriage is a biological function, not something created by government to discriminate against homosexuals.
Regardless of how government may artificially define marriage in legal terms, marriage is really the union of the two different types of human beings -- males and females. Two members of the same sex cannot have a marriage relationship regardless of what ignorant politicians like President Barack Obama say.
Marriage unites members of the different sexes to form a unit that has all the human characteristics. Two men or two women cannot form such a unit. They are like two left shoes or two right shoes. A man and a woman fit together like two puzzle pieces. Two people of the same sex are just mirror images.
Males and females not only have anatomical differences, they have different biochemistries, including different skin PH ( http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_pH_in_the_human_skin ) . Men's and women's brains function differently. ( http://www.mastersofhealthcare.com/blog/2009/10-big-differences-between-mens-and-womens-brains/ )
Males produce chemicals called pheromones that are beneficial to females. ( http://www.athenainstitute.com/discovery.html ) ( http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro03/web2/kshiner.html ) The research on how males might benefit from pheromones women produce is less clear because most research on female pheromones deals with how they attract men. Research does indicate that men benefit from marriage and the benefits may involve biochemistry. ( http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mens_Health_Watch/2010/July/marriage-and-mens-health http://www.themedguru.com/20110128/newsfeature/marriage-good-mens-physical-womens-mental-health-86143466.html
The fact that men's and women's brains function differently complicates relationships, but provides the couple with the benefit of viewing the problems faced from two different perspectives. This difference stimulates the relationship and makes the opposite sex more intriguing. A member of the opposite sex is more likely to respond "unexpectedly" to a situation than a member of one's own sex.
The brain differences can potentially allow an opposite sex partner to provide a type of support that someone with the same type of brain cannot. However, some people may be psychologically unable to provide or accept support from others.
Having sex with a member of the opposite sex allows an individual to experience the physical sexuality of the opposite sex. Having sex with a member of one's own sex provides no such benefit.
To women, men are strength. To men, women are energy.
In many cultures a man will refer to his wife as his "better half". A woman may call her husband her "other half". A husband or a wife is half of a unit. Both together are a complete unit. http://originalwavelength.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-does-man-call-his-spouse-his-better.html
When a man calls his partner a wife he is indicating she is his female half. For a woman, a husband is her male half.
A woman who calls her partner a "wife" is implying the partner, rather than her, is the female part of the unit making her the "male". A woman who calls her partner a "wife" and expects her partner to have any children is acting like a man and is very likely a transsexual rather than a homosexual. She may call herself a lesbian because she fails to understand that she is attracted to other women because she has the brain of a man.
Some male homosexuals claim that they look at other men the same way men look at women. However, scientific research by Dr. Ivanka Savic of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, indicates that in their brains, homosexual men "look at" other men the way women look at men. This tendency could indicate that these homosexual men have female brains and are thus transsexuals. They call their partners "husbands" because subconsciously they think of themselves as women. http://www.naturalattraction.com/research/nytimes_2.html
A study by of lesbians by Dr. Savic indicates their brains responded to certain chemicals that might be pheromones in the same way as the brains of heterosexual men rather than in the way that heterosexual women's brains responded. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9125-clue-to-sexual-attraction-found-in-lesbian-brain.html
Homosexuals don't understand that the characteristics of the human body only determine how the body can engage in sexual activity. Human sexuality is determined by the sexual identity of the brain. A female brain is attracted to a male body. A male brain is attracted to a female body. A person attracted to someone with the same type of body most likely has a brain of the other sex.
A study of brain structure by Dr. Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström, of the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, indicates that homosexual men and heterosexual women have similar brains and that homosexual women and heterosexual men have similar brains.
Heterosexuals desire a marriage relationship to gain a feeling of completeness by being part of a unit that contains a member of each sex. Homosexuals cannot become complete by having a relationship with a member of their own sex, even though they may think that calling a relationship a marriage gives them what heterosexuals have in a marriage. Homosexuals who want to call their relationship a "marriage" are implying they are dissatisfied with being homosexuals and want what they believe heterosexuals have by being married.
Homosexuals don't understand sex. They don't understand marriage. They don't understand their own medical condition.
In 1980 President Jimmy Carter was in trouble with voters because of economic conditions and the capture of the American embassy in Iran by students. Democrats decided to renominate him in spite of efforts by Sen. Ted Kennedy and Gov. Jerry Brown to replace him as the Democratic presidential candidate. Gov. Ronald Reagan buried Carter in a landslide. Republicans also gained control of the Senate and picked up 34 House seats.
Democratic incumbent President Lyndon Johnson was in trouble in 1968 because of his handling of the Vietnam War. Johnson wisely decided to drop out of the race after a strong showing in the New Hampshire primary by Sen. Eugene McCarthy and the entry of Sen. Robert Kennedy into the race. Although the assassination of Kennedy robbed Democrats of their best candidate, they nearly won anyway in a close popular vote. They retained control of the House and Senate.
Obama may be an even weaker candidate than Carter was. Unemployment in the Carter administration was only 7.5% compared to over 9% under Obama. Many voters are very upset about Obama's health care program. As in 1968 there are widespread student protests about a national policy.
Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush were all voted out of office with unemployment around 7.5%. President Ronald Reagan is the only post Depression president to win reelection with unemployment over 6%, but Reagan had gotten unemployment down to 7.4% from 10%. If Obama is the Democratic candidate, the Republican candidate will likely suggest voters ask themselves Reagan's question in 1980: "are you better off than you were four years ago."
Republicans have already taken control of the House under Obama and will likely take over the Senate if GOP candidates can run against Obama. Replacing Obama as the presidential candidate would free Democrats challenging Republican incumbents in the House of the need to support Obama's policies. Democrats could suggest that voters needed to change the House of Representatives as well as the White House.
Democrats who think the Republican candidates have too many problems need to review the 1992 election. Their candidate in 1992, Gov. Bill Clinton, won in spite of questions about how he avoided military service and possible involvement in the White Water savings and loan scandal that eventually led to his impeachment.
Changes in filing deadlines mean those wanting to challenge Obama cannot wait as long to decide as Bobby Kennedy did in 1968. A few Democrats must decide quickly whether to challenge Obama or risk sitting by and watching Republicans choose the next president.
Standard and Poor's decision to downgrade the U.S. debt rating appears justified because of the inadequacy of the U.S. response to the debt issue. Allowing the U.S. to keep the top rating would falsely indicate the U.S. is doing the best it can to correct its debt problem. American voters are choosing politicians who lack the ability or willingness to deal realistically with the U.S. debt problem.
I waited to write about Standard and Poor's decision to downgrade the U.S. debt rating because I wanted to think about it for awhile instead of taking a knee jerk reaction.
Dealing with a major crisis requires a strong experienced president. Unfortunately, Barack Obama is the weakest president since Gerald Ford. Obama's only apparent skill is an ability to read a teleprompter.
A smart president would have recognized he couldn't change the minds of House members and ended the debate early so he could prepare for a return match later.
Obama won the election because neither the voters nor the media understand the qualifications for an effective president. The President is the chief executive officer of the most powerful country in the world. Electing an president without executive experience makes no more sense then asking a high school quarterback to play quarterback in the Super Bowl.
Too many voters will support someone who promises to do "this, that and the other thing" even though the candidate has never demonstrated an ability to deliver on his promises. It's easy to make promises, but delivering on those promises can be difficult. Any quarterback can say he will win the Super Bowl, but very few are capable of doing so.
Unfortunately, many Republicans want to make the same mistake the Democrats did. These Republicans support Michele Bachmann who is just as inexperienced and unprepared for the presidency as Obama was.
The deficit debate was what we used to call the game of chicken. Two cars would approach each other in the same lane. The driver who veered off first was "chicken". Both sides seemed more interested in scoring political points than in conducting a serious discussion of the issue. They reminded me of the old beer commercials in which one side yelled "less filling" and the other side yelled "great taste".
One editorial cartoonist suggested the old Looney Tunes cartoon debate in which Daffy Duck says "Rabbit Season" and Bugs Bunny says "Duck Season". Bugs eventually gets Daffy to say "Duck Season", but Obama doesn't have Bugs Bunny's ability.
Too many members of Congress are either incapable of understanding the nature of the deficit crisis or don't care about dealing with the deficit in a realistic manner. Fixing the deficit will require an increase in revenue, preferably a tax on those with surplus income.
Cutting spending won't reduce the deficit as much as some expect because the federal government gets a kickback in the form of Social Security and income taxes from those it employs or from businesses government, and its employees, purchases from. Money given to welfare recipients goes to those they purchase goods and services from who in turn pay taxes.
If unemployment increases due to spending cuts, the next Congress may feel it needs to spend even more borrowed money to stimulate the economy.
Republicans and their supporters seem incapable of understanding the fact that it is not the amount of money someone has, but the financial status of the United States that is important. The financial health of the U.S. determines what its money is worth. For the rich, taxes are an investment in the financial health of the United States. Reducing the deficit would improve the financial health of the U.S. and make the money the rich have worth more.
There is a danger if the "rich" have too much money. Money can be addictive. As people obtain a certain amount of money they start wanting more and more. Like alcoholics they need more and more money to be satisfied.
When the "rich" obtain too much money a boom psychology can develop in which investors ignore the possibility of risk. They don't think they can lose money. They may think the stock market can only go up as many believed in the 20's.
The crisis of 2008 occurred because the rich had too much money and had bid stock prices up too high because too many expected everything to go up "forever". Many invested money in garbage like mortgage derivatives or gave it to crooks like Bernie Madoff who promised to make them even richer. If they had invested it in taxes, the country's financial health would be better today and many of them wouldn't have lost so much.
Talk about defaulting on debts incurred in the past raises concerns that the U.S. might default on newer debts. Those who started working 40 some years ago were told the Social Security taxes they were paying were for a pension program. They were loaning money to the federal government in return for a promise to provide them with retirement income. Congress may have handled Social Security funds like the program was a Ponzi scheme, but "investors" (Social Security taxpayers) were told they were investing in a pension plan.
Social Security and Medicare are debts, not entitlements. Benefits go to those who have paid in advance for them.
If the current Congress decides to default on the promise of Social Security payments to those who will be retiring in the next few years because the program was poorly administered by previous Congresses, how can those who purchase U.S. government securities today be sure that a future Congress won't decide to default on that debt because Congress in 2011 was not borrowing responsibly.
President Barack Obama suffers from the delusion that there must have been some massive conspiracy to hide Osama bin Laden from the U.S.
President Barack Obama apparently thinks that the fact that he needed an army of attorneys to keep his stupid birth certificate secret means that bin Laden must have had a large group helping him stay hidden. Or, maybe Obama doesn't believe that an Arab could be smart enough to hide from the U.S. without help, even an Arab smart enough to be responsible for the 9/11 attack. .
Obama should know better because the CIA has already said that the most any of the al Qaeda members they captured knew was that there was some mysterious courier who might have direct access to bin Laden. If bin Laden didn't trust members of his own organization with his hiding place, why would he trust Pakistani government agencies which he certainly was aware could have been infiltrated by agents working for the CIA or other intelligence agencies particularly Mossad (Israel) and MI6 (Britain) .
There is a claim that India's RAW and Mossad have combined efforts to infiltrate Pakistan government agencies. Even if a foreign agent didn't learn where he was hiding, someone in the government might have found the $25 million reward too tempting to pass up.
Any ability al Qaeda might have to obtain inside information from Pakistani agencies would not be the same as those agencies helping al Qaeda anymore than an ability to obtain inside information from American agencies would indicate those agencies were helping al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda likely has agents planted in governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as on some NATO bases in Afghanistan, much like the Viet Cong had agents planted in the South Vietnamese government and on American bases during the Vietnam War. If al Queda/Taliban can plant potential suicide bombers on American base they can plant spies. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong often had radios capable of eavesdropping on American radio traffic.
The Wikileaks situation demonstrates that the Obama administration has poor information security. The administration has alleged that an army PFC in Iraq was able to place documents on the web he should not have been able to access. The leaking of the fact that the U.S. was attempting to track bin Laden's cell phone in 2001 came from Americans rather than Pakistanis.
If Pakistani agencies were supposedly helping bin Laden stay hidden what were they doing while the SEALS were at his compound. Military or intelligence officials would have been aware of the possibility of Americans coming in by helicopter.
Why wasn't the compound surrounded by command detonated mines in case that happened? Why wasn't someone in a protected position with a weapon capable of disabling a helicopter? Why, in a military area well inside Pakistan, didn't his "protectors" call for a force to keep the Americans from leaving?
The ease with which the SEALS got in and out indicates that bin Laden had no support from individuals in the Pakistan government. If Pakistan's forces were involved their role was to allow the Americans to leave without interference while pretending to be unaware of what was happening.
Obama cannot understand the obvious fact that the best way to keep something secret is to limit the number of people who know the secret. If you had a $25 million buried treasure that you didn't want someone else to dig up, you wouldn't tell anyone you had any doubts about, particularly strangers in a government agency.
Many fiction writers recognize that keeping locations secret involves limiting who knows the location. On the old "Batman" tv series even Batgirl and the police commissioner didn't know the location of the bat cave. Limiting who knows a secret hideout reduces the chances of someone inadvertently revealing the location or revealing the location under torture. One way to get someone to reveal a hideout is to trick him into going to the hideout while he's being followed.
Bin Laden's choice of a hiding place was brilliant. The last place anyone would expect to find him would be in an area away from his supporters. Living in a mansion sized compound would create the impression that the occupant was wealthy, possibly with a fear of being robbed or kidnapped, or someone involved with drugs or smuggling.
The presence of cannabis plants in the area would be consistent with a drug dealer as the resident of the compound. The media have referred to the plants as marijuana, but they were more likely being grown for production of hashish which has been used in the Middle East for centuries. Marco Polo and others suggested it was used by members of the Medieval Order of Assassins from which al Qaeda is descended.
Osama bin Laden probably wasn't familiar with American masked avengers but his choice of accommodations is similar to Batman and Zorro. When Batman wasn't running around catching criminals he was the liberal wealthy philanthropist Bruce Wayne. When Zorro wasn't riding around carving a "Z" with his sword he was wealthy foppish Don Diego de la Vega.
Barack Obama who ran on a platform of ending his predecessor's wars has apparently decided he wants his own war. As candidate Obama, he felt Congress should have a role in such decisions. As President O'Bomber, he thinks he can ignore Congress.
Like his predecessors O'Bomber is starting out with a bombing campaign. He hasn't said whether he will send Marines back to the shores of Tripoli if the bombing campaign fails to cause a surrender. Bombing didn't produce a surrender in Vietnam and Iraq. Muammar Gaddafi doesn't seem any more likely to relinquish power because of a bombing campaign than Saddam Hussein was.
Barack O'Bomber claims he is acting because the Libyan government has attacked those protesting the government, but Libya isn't the only government to use violence to put down protests.
Syria has been accused of using violence against protesters. Will O'Bomber also attack Syria? It would be easy considering we already have troops in neighboring Iraq. They could be moved out of Iraq and into Syria.
Will O'Bomber attack Iran which reportedly has been putting down mass protests? He could use it as an excuse to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Prior to the election O'Bomber said he considered Iran a "tiny country" even though it's the 17th most populous nation in the world with a population is 78% that of Nazi Germany, a country which conquered Europe. from the Atlantic's to near Moscow.
China has killed protesters before. Does that mean the U.S. should consider attacking China?
I'm worried that if Gaddafi does give in to the bombing campaign, O'Bomber and the other Western Imperialists will think they can do the same thing in any country with a form of government they disapprove of. That is if they are really motivated by Gaddafi's treatment of his subjects rather than his oil.
If NATO is really concerned about injustice, why didn't it intervene in Darfur?
If O'Bomber succeeds in destroying the Libyan military will he or the Europeans spend years reestablishing order setting up a new government? Or will they let it become a lawless country like Somalia"
The most disturbing aspect of O'Bomber's action is his failure to consult Congress like Lyndon Johnson did before bombing North Vietnam and George W. Bush did before bombing Saddam Hussein. Both of those presidents took the lead in getting the U.S. involved in a war. O'Bomber seems to be following the orders of the European governments who get their oil from Libya.
Regardless of whether or not Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or not, he was born a British subject because his father was a British subject. Unless he formally renounced that citizenship he may still be a British subject and may be following the orders of his Queen in determining how to respond to Libya.
Those who like to protest America involvement in foreign wars need to start protesting now instead of waiting until the Marines land in Tripoli.
They told me in 2008 that if I voted for Sen. John McCain we would get the third Bush administration. They were right. I voted for McCain and now we have the third Bush administration under Barack Obama.
Obama continued bailouts, stimulus payments, high deficits and presidential vacations. He convinced Congress to continue all the Bush tax cuts.
Obama is carrying on Bush's efforts to weaken the Social Security system by reducing Social Security taxes in spite of the fact that many have had to delay retirement because the economic collapse damaged their private pension programs. If Obama were a real Democrat, he would want to strengthen Social Security.
The health care program Obama conned the Democratic Congress into approving apparently originated in the administration of the first President Bush. Republican Gov. Mitt Romney enacted a similar program in Massachusetts.
Some Republicans refer to other Republicans as "RINOs" for Republicans In Name Only. It appears that President Barack Obama could be a "DINO" or a Democrat In Name Only.
Maybe it's time for Democrats to ask for that birth certificate
Critics of the Tea Party movement suffer from the delusion that the lack of specific complaints means there isn't really anything wrong.
Have you ever had a craving for something, but couldn't decide exactly what you wanted to eat? Perhaps you remember the Star Trek episode in which Mr. Spock was temporarily in command and Scotty was complaining that the ship "didn't feel right" even though he couldn't say what specifically was wrong.
Do you sometimes feel sick, but have trouble describing exactly what is wrong with your body?
Many of the Tea Party participants are in such a situation. They believe something is wrong with the country, but aren't sure what it is.
We shouldn't expect them to have analyzed our society and government to determine what is actually wrong. Most are average citizens rather than political scientists or sociologists who devote their time to studying government and society.
Political scientists often use the term "alienated" to describe a situation in which average voters aren't connected to government officials or government in general.
Some may be reacting to the way government or politicians have treated them or just concerned about government becoming too intrusive. Perhaps they know someone whom government has mistreated. They may feel that government services aren't worth what it is costing them in taxes, particularly local taxes such as sales taxes and property taxes.
Some may be upset by overly aggressive government efforts to control personal behavior such as seat belt laws or excessive taxes on tobacco. Even many of us who have never smoked recognize that smokers don't threaten our safety the way drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs do.
Elected officials are often isolated from voters. The media encourages this isolation by hiring reporters, editors and news anchors who act as if they have a duty to serve politicians rather than the general public.
Many journalists are like the emperor's supporters in the story of the Emperor's New Clothes who refuse to consider that the reason they can't see his new clothes is because he doesn't have any. Instead of trying to keep their party "honest": by looking for flaws in its policies, they blindly support those policies. Journalists refuse to consider the possibility that "Emperor" Obama has no clothes on.
For example, Obama and his media slaves continue to ignore the obvious con involved in claims about global warming. Even those who don't know enough science to know that the theory behind greenhouse gases was disproved a century ago, recognize that claims that humans can control the temperature of the air isn't believable.
Investment cons are often recognizable because they sound too good to be true. Political cons sound too bad to be true like the claim that the polar ice caps will all melt or Saddam Hussein was about to give Weapons of Mass Destruction to al Qaeda.
Media critics complain about Tea Party supporters turning to Republicans like Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck. What choice do people have? The only choices provided by the media are the Democrats and the people at Fox.
If alternative views exist, the media are ignoring them. If media critics don't like the choice Tea Party members are making, they should look for other alternatives to the rejected ideas of the Democrats.
Discussions about a recent Pew Research poll have asked why so many people believe President Barack Obama is a Muslim even though he claims to be a Christian. The individuals asking this question apparently believe we are supposed to be like "Good Germans" and accept statements by our nation's leader without question. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1701/poll-obama-muslim-christian-church-out-of-politics-political-leaders-religious
These individuals also apparently have forgotten that President Bill Clinton falsely said that he didn't have a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Many apparently believe that Obama is telling similar lies about his religious beliefs.
I don't know what religion Obama really believes, or if he really cares about religion. Many political leaders in the U.S. and other nations are religious chameleons who claim to belong to whatever religion provides them the most political benefits.
Those who believe Obama is a Muslim may remember what he said in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC prior to the 2008 election.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You mention your Christian faith. Yesterday you took off after the Republicans for suggesting you have Muslim connections. Just a few minutes ago, Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager, said they've never done that. This is a false and cynical attempt to play victim.
OBAMA: You know what? I mean, these guys love to throw a rock and hide their hand. The...
STEPHANOPOULOS: The McCain campaign has never suggested you have Muslim connections. OBAMA: No, no, no. But the -- I don't think that when you look at what is being promulgated on Fox News, let's say, and Republican commentators who are closely allied to these folks-- STEPHANOPOULOS: But John McCain said that's wrong. OBAMA: Now, well, look. Listen. You and I both know that the minute that Governor Palin was forced to talk about her daughter, I immediately said that's off limits. And-- STEPHANOPOULOS: But John McCain said the same thing about questioning your faith. OBAMA: And what was the first thing the McCain?s campaign went out and did? They said, look, these liberal blogs that support Obama are out there attacking Governor Palin. Let's not play games. What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you're absolutely right that that has not come-- STEPHANOPOULOS: Christian faith. OBAMA: -- my Christian faith.
At the time Israelinsider suggested that Obama really meant what he said. "In one of the most astonishing gaffes in American political history, in a national televised interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulus, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama referred to 'my Muslim faith,' confirming what researchers and political opponents have been claiming. While Stephanopoulus several seconds later tried to correct him, saying 'Christian faith,' it was too late. The damage was done. Obama clearly did not mean his Christian faith, since he was admitting that 'John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.' The term 'Christian faith' would not make sense in that context." http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13078.htm
Israelinsider correctly pointed out that merely replacing the word "Muslim" with "Christian" wouldn't make sense. If Obama misspoke, it is the entire sentence that is wrong not just the word "Muslim". There would be no reason for Obama to talk about McCain making an issue of his Christian faith.
Considering that Obama had a degree from Harvard we would expect that if didn't mean he was a Muslim he would have said something like "McCain hasn't suggested I'm a Muslim." Too bad Stephanopoulos interrupted Obama in the middle of a sentence that might have provided a better indication of what point Obama was attempting to make. We'll never know if Stephanopoulos rescued Obama from any even bigger blunder or kept him from clarifying his statement.
The main point is that Obama's own words indicated he could be a Muslim even though he claims to be a Christian. Many Democrats in the media believe that Obama is a Christian because that is what he claims most of the time. Those who believe Obama is a Muslim think he would only have used the phrase "my Muslim faith" if he were a Muslim.