Slight differences:

1) These allegations against her (among others concerning potential abuse of power and corruption) existed well before this election, but Palin was a nobody and they weren’t exactly the forefront of debate. The concept of Obama being a fundie muslim was a blind item only recently introduced with any seriousness by pundits who cater to people…like you, apparently.

2) Let’s say both allegations are true, jut for shits and giggles. Obama won’t be able to do a thing, because he won’t be filling his cabinet or any other offices with closet fundie muslims. You seem to think that he would be ensconced in some cabalisic shell and make all of his decisions from that, impervious to the scorn of the legislative branch, from the state department, or even from the public. In other words, Obama would be a dead man if he tried for a second to sell America out to fundamental muslims, so its absolutely ludicrous to suggest that he is part of some big conspiracy to sell us out from inside. Palin, on the other hand, could very well clamp down further on freedom of information to the public while decreasing executive accountability just as this administration has. In terms of future security for Americans, he’s far more dangerous than Obama could ever be if these allegations are true.

3) Which allegations are more in keeping with the character that the candidates have portrayed on other issues? Obama, the relatively accepting community leader with his allegations of being a closet islamic theocrat? Or Palin, the woman who believes that dinosaurs and humans chilled together 4000 years ago, and tries to pray our gay “choice” away, limits education (in effect, bans informaion) about sex to abstinence only, and would ban reproductive rights?

Hmmm…ya know. I think I’ll have to go with the book-banning allegations.

And ya know…if ever a conspiratorial fundamentalist muslim were capable of becoming president and successfully hide it even while committing subterfuge against the whole country, they’d be using the Republicans’ playbook and they’d be relying on the policies enacted by the Bush camp to limit public access to information and put us under greater scrutiny than the president himself…and Palin shows every sign of wanting to expand those abuses of power. I’ll say it again: Palin is far, far, far more dangerous to our lasting freedom than Obama could ever be, even if he were a fundamentalist muslim.

If Ms. Palin must prove that she’s not a book banner, Mr. Obama must prove he’s not a fundamentalist Muslim, right?

After all, there are partisans on the other side who claim that Mr. Obama has made the claim.

And since the issues (especially gay issues) are obviously not important to many partisans on both sides, we might as well hold them to each other’s standards.

That way, those of us who see through both the Demopublicans and the Republicrats can at least have a good, hearty laugh — even as those two groups turn their savage personal attacks from candidates on “the other side” to observers like myself (see the post above this one for a prime example).

Muslim Fundamentalist Obama versus Book-Burner Palin — who’s the better choice for America?!?

LOL, it’s so insipid that it might just work.

Way to stay current, BM. Can I call you BM? Thanks!

It has nothing to do with gay politics.

Makes sense to me!