Karl Rove's play book is pretty dirty, so if HE thinks that it's too far out of line, the GOP better listen. I don't understand why, on either side of the aisle, some people would rather sink the ship (i.e. the party) and go down fighting instead of compromise and collaborate. They are just hurting themselves in the end.

Sent by JP | 9:41 PM ET | 02-28-2008

This shows how little karl rove thinks of the American people.

Sent by Jody Sol | 9:46 PM ET | 02-28-2008

This surprises no one. The extremist fringe of the Republican Party is bigoted. Their dirty tricks are successfully pitched to poorly informed loyalists. I am counting on our mainline media to help keep the facts straight during this campaign.

Sent by Rod Williamson | 10:00 PM ET | 02-28-2008

Just in case no understands what's going on in the country, it seems rather clear the the hard line rock throwers will be, themselves, thrown out of power. The voice of civility must be restored before we can accomplish anything, at all. (And we all know that's just not going to be coming from the current gang of thugs and bullies.)

Sent by Robert Harmony | 11:42 PM ET | 02-28-2008

Amen to what Robert Harmony said. What surprises me is the number of people whom I know to be republican, who feel the same.

Sent by Nancy Olivero | 6:59 AM ET | 02-29-2008

Karl Rove is a political strategist, not a shock jock. His call is consistent with his background. He's not a Christian, but pandered to the Christians for their vote. So this is no surprise at all. By calling Obama "Hussein" and suggesting he's a Muslim, the only people it will convince are those predisposed to vote Republican anyway. Independents will see the Republicans as bigoted and vote against them. Limbaugh and Coulter want to humiliate 'liberals' but Rove wants to win power. He's conservative but not an idiot. Anyone who could be the architect of the campaign for an incompetant 2-term president knows what he's doing.

Sent by Drew | 8:49 AM ET | 02-29-2008

Did I here Karl say this makes the GOP LOOK like bigots?

Sent by Gil | 9:03 AM ET | 02-29-2008

He should know. Karl Rove IS a bigot.

Sent by Nicholas Martinez | 10:00 AM ET | 02-29-2008

Watch Out! This is the Karl Rove "snake in the grass" play out of his dirty tricks book. Unfortunately, there are many other in his (Rove's) passive aggressive personality.

Sent by Roger | 11:11 AM ET | 02-29-2008

Let's see: Barack Hussein Obama said that Al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein said that Al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq.

Those sort of connections resonant within the minds of the voters.

Those who agree with Barack Hussein Obama that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq, they will vote for Barack Hussein Obama.

Those who say that Saddam Hussein was lying about Al Qaeda in Iraq, they will vote for John McCain.

It's really not that difficult to understand.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 12:11 PM ET | 02-29-2008

Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until we were there. They are on the run now because of the surge AND because the Iraqi Sunni sheiks are fed up with them.

Sent by Mike Fleissner | 5:05 PM ET | 02-29-2008

Thank you Mike...

Is it really hard to believe that Al Qaeda followed us because the knew that they could have legs in a place where they had access to many young people who felt like they were wrongly attacked and confused about why exactly America had invaded there country to begin with.

It really isn't that hard to understand.

Sent by J.A. WILSON | 11:30 PM ET | 02-29-2008

The two opposing points of view of 9/11.

Those who will vote for Barack Obama contend that Al Qaeda was never in Iraq. Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the attack on the World Trade Center and Al Qaeda was not responsible for the deaths of three thousand people.

Those who believe that Al Qaeda is in Iraq, and that Al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of three thousand people at the World Trade Center will undoubtedly vote for John McCain.

Sounds to me like a very uncomplicated set of paramters for the American voters to chose from in November.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 9:15 AM ET | 03-01-2008

Fred,
please get a life. thank you.

Sent by joe k. | 1:22 PM ET | 03-01-2008

That NPR even covers this crap says volumes of how far down the toilet CPB, NPR, PRI, have gone. Why doesn't NPR, as a "news organization", do a story regarding the history of the name Hussein, and make it's own editorial comment, about the lunacy of the right in regards to this type of gutter attack. But no, NPR points out that Karl Rove is cautioning against its use, as if that piece of human waste is somehow showing sensitivity outside the realm of gutter politics.

Sent by Brian Mulkey | 1:53 PM ET | 03-01-2008

Sent by joe k. Fred,please get a life. thank you.

Ah, yes. I think in my next life I want to join the Liberal Utopian New World Order where experience means nothing, and everyone is equal.

Yes, I want to live in the Liberal Utopian Order because Emperical Proof or knowledge will no longer exist, or be required.

An idea that has never been attempted has no proof of failing. Ergo, an idea that has no experience must be a good idea in the Liberal New World Order.

Meanwhile, those Liberals who say that the CIA was behind the 9/11 attacks will undoubtedly vote for Barack Obama. Because there is no proof. And Liberals do not need proof. It only has to sound like a good idea to them.

Wanted: Admiral to Command Pacific Fleet. No experience required.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 3:43 PM ET | 03-01-2008

Karl Rove? Denouncing the use of Obama's middle name in a negative fashion? *faints*

Here, however, is my question: is he rejecting it, too? :)

Sent by Jim L. | 4:56 PM ET | 03-01-2008

OK, these are the people who wouldn't accept a Mormon; who thought Lieberman's observance of the Sabbath would jeopardize our security if he were president ... Obama is not a Muslim but he certainly has more understanding of them than Bush and would not this help the world? A little understanding?

Sent by patricia jordan | 7:00 PM ET | 03-01-2008

Freddy,
I 'm not sure how to actually spell this sound, but here it goes: "YAWN!"

Sent by teh moreon | 10:06 PM ET | 03-01-2008

Why is it wrong to use Obama's middle name? It's his name right?

Sent by Obama Mart | 4:26 AM ET | 03-02-2008

Al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11. They were in Afghanistan at that time and not in Iraq. They cane to Iraq after we got there. They are spreading and need to be fought on many fronts and in many ways. Experienced people like Cheney and Rumsfeld have done very poorly on containing them. I don't take my facts or the parameters of debate from "gasbags for McCain".

Sent by Mike Fleissner | 1:59 PM ET | 03-02-2008

didn't clintons campaign recently use obama's middle name? there are many politicians, democrat and republican that say whatever they think will get them into power. the democratic party is less inclusive than the republican, so please try thinking before posting inane comments.

Sent by mark lawson | 8:38 PM ET | 03-02-2008

Lets see... for the sake of "an informed public," one of the fundamentals of our democracy:
Before invading Iraq, the first reason the Bush administration gave for the move were the (in)famous Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Having found none, they nevertheless pressed on, telling us that Iraq and Saddam Hussein and Iraq had links with Al Qaeda.
There was in fact a struggling terrorist organization at the time of the invasion, but (at that time) it was not Al Qaeda. Only after the invasion, in order to gain recognition, and possibly help, did they ally themselves with Al Qaeda, taking the name "Al Qaeda in Iraq"
The Bush administration, realizing that there was no Al Qaeda when we invaded, proceeded to tell us that the invasion was to free the Iraqi people from Saddam's grip (hence the name "Operation Iraqi Freedom").
Now, normally that would be a good reason, but the Bush administration's absolute lack of planning (so much for "mission accomplished") and hypocrisy turned it into a poor excuse.
If we invade countries to remove dictators and bring democracy to more people:
Why haven't we invaded Burma? (Hundreds of peaceful Buddhist monks were tortured and killed and all we did was send our "condemnation" to the military junta there)
Why haven't we invaded Sudan? (People are raped, maimed and killed over there on a daily basis, and yet the only thing we have done is apply sanctions, complain to China and call the situation a genocide)
Why haven't we invaded Pakistan? (The dictatorship there was classic: rigged elections, weak to nonexistent free media, and incarceration and maybe assassination of political opponents, yet we threw our support Musharraf's way, because he was "a key ally in the war on terror." Only when the people took it upon themselves was change brought about)
I'm not saying by any stretch that we should invade all these countries (there might be other ways to deal crushing blows to dictatorships) but if the Bush administration is going to use dictatorship as a reason to invade a country, at least they should try and be a little less hypocritical

Sent by A.M | 9:08 PM ET | 03-02-2008

It's true that Hussein is Barack Obama's middle name, and using it shouldn't be interpreted as racist or anything of the sort. There is just one little problem: Conservative media have tirelessly tried to establish a connection between Mr. Obama's name (or his past) and a host of other things, from terrorism to Islam. It was the conservative media (through its flagship, Fox News) that started rumors that Mr. Obama had been educated in a madrasah. It was the conservative media that thought it fitting to communicate (ad nauseam) that Mr. Obama's father was a Muslim, perhaps hoping that Americans would not vote for someone with anything Muslim in their lives (by the way, Mr. Obama is a christian). It was the conservative media that first made an issue of Mr. Obama's name, "mistakenly" calling him Osama multiple times. Finally, it was the conservative media that came up with the whole Hussein issue. Mr Cunningham and others like him can pretend that they are only using Hussein because it is Mr. Obama's middle name, but they know what reaction and what thoughts it provokes in the minds of their listeners, because they have worked to fabricate and fine-tune that reaction. For the first time, the American public is aware enough and interested enough to see through and repudiate this tactic, and people like Karl Rove know this. Like other commenters said, it is just a matter of strategy, and Mr. Rove doesn't want the Republicans to lose voters over bigotry perceptions.

Sent by A.M | 9:29 PM ET | 03-02-2008

@Fred:
Liberals do not need proof? That implies a suspension of logic I'm not willing to make, but not all people think highly of logic:
1. "Barack Hussein Obama said that Al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq." (A)
Saddam Hussein said that Al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq."(B)
Those sort of connections resonant within the minds of the voters." (or voters won't vote for Mr. Obama) (C)
We find examples of
Red herring fallacy
Poisoning the well fallacy
Fallacy of weak induction or false analogy (A is just like B, therefore C)

2."Those who say that Saddam Hussein was lying about Al Qaeda in Iraq, they will vote for John McCain."
*We find examples of:
Hasty generalization fallacy
"No true scotsman" fallacy

3."Those who will vote for Barack Obama contend that Al Qaeda was never in Iraq. Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the attack on the World Trade Center and Al Qaeda was not responsible for the deaths of three thousand people."
*We find examples of:
Hasty generalization fallacy
Poisoning the well fallacy

And so on, and so forth...

Sent by A.M | 10:15 PM ET | 03-02-2008

Sent by A.M: "No true scotsman" fallacy

Plato's shadows on the cave walls represent all logic.

All logic is shadows.

Hence, all logic can be seen through.

Brevity is the soul of wit when it comes to speaking logic.

Those who are fans of Michael Moore and are opposed to the war in Iraq will vote for Barack Obama.

Those who are supportive of our troops in Iraq will vote for John McCain.

Pretty much the way the sides were divided in 2004 when John Kerry lost.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 9:26 AM ET | 03-03-2008

Fred. Seriously. "Those who are supportive of our troops in Iraq will vote for John McCain." When did the definition of "supportive" become: stay and die in Iraq for the next 100 years" ?! When will America WAKE UP ? Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 !!!

Sent by K Higginson | 2:36 PM ET | 03-08-2008