In a 1937 Gallup poll, 47 percent of Americans said they would not support a Jewish candidate for President, regardless of a candidate's qualifications. During the past 70 years that number has dropped to a low of 15 percent, even prompting a Vice-Presidential hopeful in 2000 (Joe Lieberman).

The zenith of that anti-Semitic era was the "Red Scare" of 1919-1920. Mitchell Palmer, the US Attorney General of the time, accused Jewish Americans of being "foreign-born" subversives, claiming that in their midst they had 60,000 organized agitators of the Trotsky doctrine (much like today's "Green Scare", which claims that Muslim sleeper cells hide in every mosque).

Leon Trotsky was a Ukrainian-born revolutionary who lived in New York before leaving to lead the Red Army against communist opponents, including American troops.

Two decades later, half of all Americans said that they would never vote for a Jewish president; and in a subsequent poll (1944), one-quarter accused them of being "less patriotic".

So, why rehash this dark chapter in our history? Because, in truth, bigotry never dies, it merely blends in to its chronometric background; like a chameleon stepping from yesterday's narrative into today's, seeking a modern antagonist.

Recent commentaries have lauded the 2008 Presidential Elections as representing great social and political progress, with the first possible female President, African-American, Italian-American, and of course the first possible Mormon (Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney). But while the consensus seems to be that sexism and racism can be overcome, it is considered more or less axiomatic that particular religions and religious ancestry will not so easily prevail.

Already proving a liability for Romney, is his Mormon faith, as indicated by a Feb. 9-11, 2007, Gallup poll, in which twenty-four percent of Americans said they would not vote for a qualified Mormon presidential candidate.

While, the country has no official religious litmus test - Article VI of the Constitution states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office" - at the end of the day, voters can, and do, reject candidates based on preconceived notions and prejudice; a classic example of our Democratic system tainted by our habitually illiberal tendencies.

The response to a theoretical Muslim candidate, however, is far more negative. Though it was scarcely covered by the media, a November 2006 Rasmussen poll found that 61% of likely voters said they would never vote for a Muslim presidential candidate. While no Muslim candidate has yet to announce their candidacy, this is hardly encouraging news for Barak Hussein Obama and the Muslim ancestry that hangs over his head - both his father and step-father come from a Muslim background.

With popular misconceptions of Islam and Muslims, Barak's political opponents hope this will become a major issue in the campaign. Begging the question, what will Obama do?

Although, Obama in his 1994 memoir, Dreams From My Father, paints a profound picture of his trials and appreciation for his Caucasian American mother and Kenyan father, his recent bid for President seems to reflect an increasing fear of scaring off that 61 percent likely bloc of voters, and leading him to increasingly marginalize and qualify his Muslim ancestry.

While Barak acknowledges, for example, that his Kenyan father was a Muslim, he qualifies it with, "but by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist..."; he further acknowledges that his step-father was raised a Muslim in Indonesia, but yet again qualifies it with, but he was "skeptical" about religion and "saw religion as not particularly useful in the practical business of making one's way in the world; and only recently did people learn of his little known middle name, Hussein.

Many worry that Barak's apprehensions may give way to appeasing a cabal of polemicists who seek to ensnare our country in wars that are not in our best interest, such as those who seek a war with Iran. Recently, for example, Obama suggested that the United States might one day have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan.

So, while a Muslim candidate dare not consider a run for President in 2008, can one with an admitted Muslim ancestry - and hopefully before election day, a proud and unapologetic ancestry - get elected to the highest office in the land? Or will they go the way of Jewish Americans, and have to wait 70 years before contemplating the possibility?

Barak is actually the Arabic word "Burak", the flying bird thing. So while Obama Mian's father, the so-called aethiest, while consorting with his "caucausian wife" apparently did'nt think twice about giving his son a wholly Muslim name and ruining the poor sod's chances of becoming the President of the United States, no less. Idiot father, I say.

One things for certain .. Baraks calls for changes in American politics need to be take seriously. He understands how much most Americans voices are marginalised by the democracy that shouldn't. He's an honest and clear speaker and hopefully won't resort to the tactics of his contenders in his race for presidency. Good luck to him. Good luck to the USA and good luck to the rest of the world.

I believe Mitt Romney has experienced more negative reaction to his religion than has Barack Obama, at least in the US. Obama raises more suspicion from Caucasians for his specific statements regarding helping black Americans. This is a race-based appeal for votes. He was more attractive to voters when he talked about changes in government.

Hillary Clinton is disliked for her past actions, especially the illegal ones, far more than her gender.

Polls about hypothetical subjects are as ephemeral as public opinion, which blows with the wind. I'm not a supporter of Barak Obama, but I have no doubt that the US public will support any candidate who has gained their respect by his actions, demeanor, and vision. Polling whether voters would support a faceless candidate only identified as being a Muslim, Pentacostal, Morman, female, oil company executive, or any other stereotyped persona will automatically generate knee-jerk responses. I believe if the right candidate became a visible, known quantity to the public, and his/her priorities and allegiances were appropriate for the office of president, they could be elected. If a poll had been taken long before Reagan's (or Schwartzennegar's) political rise, I expect there would have been a lot of people who would have said "no" to the question "Would you vote for a Hollywood actor for President?"