So religion is responsible for all those wars? Hitler and Stalin were such religious men. Not to mention Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar and also those 300 Spartans.

Here I thought wars were fought over influence and power, ideology, land and other wealth - The so called "spoils of war." I must have missed that class where we were taught how the Spanish just converted the natives to Christianity in Central America and left the gold behind. But wait - wasn't it Maher himself who told us a short time ago that Bush's Iraq war was all about oil, and money for Cheney's buddies? What happened to that?

The fact that religion was used as an excuse for wars, suppression, slavery and other evils in history isn't exactly controversial stuff in the year 2008. Maher is just targetting religion in this way because its an easy mark, will upset a lot of people, and get him a lot of publicity and controversy. I don't buy it that he's doing it because of the "religious idiocy that threatens to deliver America to Sarah Palin.." That's really a non-issue in this election, except for the real fringes.

Maher just wants to drum up publicity and controversy, just like a promoter for a prize fight, or professional wrestling, to help the box office for his movie. And to do so, he's more than willing to insult millions of decent Americans who find something inspirational and of value in their faith. I'm not particularly religious myself, but I know a lot of good people that are. Their churches do a lot of good in my community, things like kitchens, homeless shelters, and free medical clinics. They are the ones acting as the real safety net for many suffering families while our fine government worries about "bailing out" its wealthy friends who caused this mess.

So who cares whether Christian theology is scientific or not? For Maher to just mock religious people, while ignoring the good work many congregations do is outright dishonest and fraudulent. Why is Salon giving him a podium through this article?

The Republicans managed to win the last two presidential elections because economic issues were not really the voters' primary concerns. The "culture wars", and terrorism/security were the overriding issues for many. The white working class voters, particularly, were willing to vote even against their own economic self interest because of the importance they placed on such issues (and have surely been paying financially for doing that for quite a while).

Given the extreme financial crisis we're in at the moment, economic issues have become of overiding importance for almost all voters. So we have Obama and the Democrats starting to pull away toward victory. But don't be fooled - Many voters are still concerned about those other "Republican strength" issues, and they haven't suddenly changed and "seen the light" and become suddenly accepting of the Democratic/liberal postions on such. It's just that the economic concerns have at least temporarily overwhelmed everything else.

McCain/Palin recognize this, and have correctly determined that as the inumbent party there's no way the Republicans will win the trust of the "economic issue" voters or the bailout "blame game." So they are trying to focus voters back on those other issues that were so successful for them in the past. They have decided to undertake various character attacks on Obama, claim he's a dangerous security risk, hates America, has terrorist friends, etc., to get voters to focus again on these other issues.

These attacks may seem "low" to Obama's supporters - I question they're any lower or any stupider some of the attacks I've seen against McCain/Palin right here in Salon, but that's another discussion. But they make perfect sense, and are far from the desperate acts of a sinking campaign as some like to claim. Obama seems vulnerable to such attacks due to some past actions and alliances that might appear questionable, and these claims may get traction with some important swing voters. Should the economic crisis appear to wane somewhat in the next few weeks, Obama's lead could very easily evaporate. So if you're an Obama supporter, don't be complacent and don't start patting youself on the back quite yet. There will surely be some bizzare twists and turns yet to come.

So Palin's husband was a member of a party founded by a nut. Freedom of speech applies to kooks, too. I don't see where Palin's husband actually acted on any of that nonsense the party spouted.

Many of us in college back in the sixties joined something radical (SDS, etc.), had demonstrations chanting about Ho Chi Minh, and talked big and imagined ourselves as real revolutionaries like Che Guevera. But eventually, most of us went on to pretty traditional careers and lives, and look back with mixed feelings about those times, and how wonderfully idealistic and terribly niave we were.

Ayers, however, didn't just talk. He bombed. And bombed. And that's different. There is no freedom of violence and murder for political purposes enshrined in our constitution. That's just terrorism. And while one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, that's a real dangerous slippery slope to get on. It slides you right to Osama Bin Laden and his followers real quick.

From what I've seen, Ayers and his wife continue to believe their actions back then were totally justifiable and even commendable. Given what our generation has learned about the world since, that's frightening. Obama should disavow any connection to Ayers really quickly if these Republican attacks are to be deflected.