Would you believe that Barack Obama is the anti-christ?
And here I just thought he was an over-hyped, ineffectual politician with a gift for speech-making. Maybe I should vote for him for President of the World after all.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Yeah, that just about sums Obama up. I’ve never understood his appeal or why so many Democrats think he would make such a great Presidential candidate.
Well, he’s a first-termer without a lot of pull in DC, so maybe the “ineffectual” bit could be sorted out after another term or two. I’ll agree with “over-hyped”, though.
I think all the hype has come from misguided Democrats who felt that the key to winning back the White House (eventually) would be to put up the most charismatic fellow they could find, regardless of how underwhelming his career was. After all, if it worked for Gee Dubya…
Just goes to show that the Democratic Party can always manage to learn absolutely the wrong lesson in every setback, thus ensuring perpetual failure.
Actually, W. isn’t exactly the most charismatic guy. A far better example of putting up the most charismatic character a party could find, regardless of how underwhelming his pre-Presidential career was, would be Bill Clinton.
Are you kidding? His focus group scores were astronomical among the unintelligensia – that just-folks grin and “I’m confused but deeply sincere” test very highly.
He’s the guy everyone wants to drink a beer with, remember.
Of course, I agree that probably the same could be said of Bubba Clinton. At the same time, though, Clinton was incredibly smart…something that can’t be said of Bush.
This must be coming from his announcement that he officially is “considering” a run.
I think it’s the charisma, too. A few Republicans in my family are crazy about him.
I’m with minimalist’s take on ineffectual and over-hyped. I’m hoping he manages to live up to the latter. Not the anti-christ bit, though. ;) Indeed, the one thing that worries me about him are the religious ideas PZ has discussed previously.
Don’t you people speak “Bible-Belt Cant”?
It’s all just harmless code for “don’t vote for Obama”.
Even they don’t think he’s the harbinger of THE END. The bible thumpers are doing their normal campaigning!
If he is the anti-christ maybe we will finally get a balanced budget and health care for everyone.
It would have to be an antichrist, not the :)
Obama’s appeal, I think, is that he’s a black man who doesn’t speak rapper patois, and the uptight white liberal cadre of the Dems are trying to show how racist they aren’t.
(That’s not all Democrats; it’s just one faction — I think the same faction that drives SUVs, has carefully manicured lawns, buys non-GMO foods at the co-op and adds “a little something extra” to the pay envelope for their housekeeping staff around the holidays.)
I suppose he’s considered the PC choice to run against Clinton: “Look, we aren’t really being prejudiced in suggesting a woman has no chance of taking the WH in ’08; we like this here sorta-black guy, that’s all…”
I know how that reads. I know how cynical and outrageous the idea seems. What really saddens me is I honestly think it’s true, and I don’t know what the hell the Dems are thinking, presenting these equally-improbable options with a straight face. They must be committed to the idea of losing the presidential election in 2008.
The chances, in the United States of Redneck America, of a black man getting into the WH are the same as the chances of a white woman (or a gay ANYTHING) getting in: Zero. Even in this, the 21st century.
This nation is nowhere near enlightened enough for a choice like that to be viable.
I’m not happy about that, but at this point we have to make a kind of triage decision (which is why I’ll be voting a straight Dem ticket in a couple weeks, regardless of how much I might like some of the independents out there). Saving the nation from the Repubs is much more important than using my vote to make a statement this time around.
Or maybe, just maybe their Obama=antichrist fear is just thinly vieled racism.
Well, obviously.
Opponent denies calling Clinton ugly
Nothing against the guy, but other than Obama, his staff and the talk-show circuit, does anyone particularly give a damn about his campaign? Hell, maybe not even him–all he said was that he wasn’t ruling it out. Not exactly a ringing display of enthusiasm.
Overhyped? No. Obama’s the real deal, or has the potential to be. He and Durbin form quite a good senate team for my humble home state.
I hope Obama runs in ’08, though I was pushing for a Kerry / Obama ticket a few months ago. I think it could work.
You guys are all on crack.
Not liking Obama is one thing, but not understanding his appeal is another. A charismatic, young, handsome, reasonably intelligent, reasonably liberal, black man? Yeah, none of that adds up to a candidate with potential broad appeal.
As for the god talk, I think you’re all forgetting that Al Gore is an evangelical and that Bubba often had to talk the talk as well. Take what you can get.
Though I’d still like some of your crack.
jbark, it’s the inexperience that bothers me the most. There’s no way I’d vote for an unknown quantity for the highest office in the land, no matter how well-spoken, intelligent, and well-intentioned he is (or seems to be). I’d much rather see a decently long record of how he’s shaped policy, where he appears to actually stand on issues (as opposed to where he says he is), and how well he can work with allies and opponents to craft good policy.
That’s why I find him unappealing at the moment, though that may change after a decade or two more of experience.
Plus there’s the fact that senators just do not fare well in Presidential elections; the last one to be elected was Kennedy, so draw whatever conclusions you will from that. People may just prefer executive over legislative experience for the presidency, and that’s understandable. Plus it’s way too easy for an opponent to beat a senator over the head with his voting record, which can very easily be twisted.
That’s a great reply Minimalist. Thanks.
Given what’s happened in the past couple of elections though, I just no longer think that actual records or anything matter. You need someone who can play a part the public wants to see played.
I’m not huge on Obama or anything, but he seems promising enough to me in that regard.
Now, about that crack?
I want Obama to run for president and lose in the primary, so he get his head deflated, so he can remember it’s not about image and it’s not about suckling at the DLC teat or running scared from and rolling over for Bush and the religious nuts.
People say “Obama” in the same tone they say “McCain,” hushed reverence for the ‘principled’ centers while ignoring that McCain has rolled over in every instance of his manufactured ‘opposition’ to the throne.
My parents live in Illinois and one reason they like Obama is *because* of his lack of experience. They think it means he hasn’t been corrupted by the system, yet.
Obama does not have a lot of experience. That is a real issue. After all we have now had for 6 years one of the most experienced and intelligent presidents ever…
Obama has not had time to prove himself; I don’t think he’s ready for a Presidential run. Besides which, senators who run for president are generally fooling themselves anyway — if he wants a real shot at it he should leave the Senate and become the governor of Illinois.
You crack heads forget that most presidents assume the office with minimal relevant experience. To tick off those of the last 80 or so years, think Harding, Hoover, Eisenhower (yes, he had experience but as a military commander and a university president, neither of which prepare one for the White House), Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43. None has any significant track record or experience in a comparable executive job. And only Nixon had any significant political experience at the national level. And consider Lincoln, a country lawyer, who served a few terms in the Illinois legislature in the 1830’s to ’40’s but otherwise never held a political office until being elected president in 1860. By the benchmarks offered here, he’d not qualify to run.
Obama may or may not make a good president, but the man has an uncommon background that offers the potential, largely borne out by his public behavior so far, to bridge the divides in this country and even between this country and the rest of the world. He was also elected head of the law review at Harvard, which says something about both his political skills with his peers and his intellectual acumen. I think it’s too early to judge the man like the idiots who think he’s the (or an) anti-christ. Let him campaign nor not and see what gives. Certainly the other prospects, Republican or Democrat, on the horizon offer no more promise or experience
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, Keanus.
None has any significant track record or experience in a comparable executive job.
Nixon and Reagan were governors of California, Clinton was governor of Arkansas, Bush43 was governor of Texas. If those don’t count, what comparable executive job are you thinking of?
only Nixon had any significant political experience at the national level
Umm, Bush 41?
Obama is the Anti-Christ now. Geez, what happened to Prince Charles? I thought he was the Anti-Christ.
It’s gotten so difficult to keep up with Anti-Christs. Geez.
Bush 41 had “minimal relevant experience”? Eight years as veep? Director of the CIA? Ambassador to the UN?
I was starting to wonder whether my standards might be a touch too high, but you topped even me…
I really like Obama, a lot. I think the ability to articulate cannot be overstated, and that’s where Obama shines. But many in America will be afraid of his paint job, which is really ludicrous. Intelligence matters.
He’s also doomed on another account: His last name is too similar to a famous terrorist’s first name. I guarantee you, that’ll freak out at least 10% of our population right there. He’s automatically down 10% in the polls because people believe in stupid signs, and his last name will be taken as one of those stupid signs.
Reading the blog entries you pointed us to emphasizes that point for me. People can just FEEL prophecies are about the be filled? Great. Remember, you share workspaces and freeways and grocery stores with people who can FEEL prophecies about to be filled. That’s discouraging.
I have to contend that Obama neither has a good message nor good delivery. Not yet, anyway. He might be able to find one or the other eventually.
Nixon and Reagan were governors of California, Clinton was governor of Arkansas, Bush43 was governor of Texas. If those don’t count, what comparable executive job are you thinking of?
When was Nixon ever governor of California? He lost in ’62, and became Pres. in ’68. Reagan won the California race in ’66.
As much as people try to handicap the presidential pool in the two years preceding an election, sometimes the candidate comes out of nowhere, a la Clinton and Carter. There may be somebody trudging through Iowa that is getting NO press but building an organization that will help him or her take Iowa, and then the rest of us get swept into the hope that this will be “the one.” So, Barak talking to Oprah doesn’t necessarily make her the Kingmaker that she wants to be, and we just have to sit on our hands and wait for two years.
Sigh.
Postmaster General?
Apostropher observed
The governor’s office in both Texas and Arkansas are considered weak, with little power. Neither provides a crucible in which to test anything other than running around the state and making people like you. California’s governor’s office, however, is considered strong, but like all governors jobs, the issues are pretty mundane with nothing approaching the complexity of foreign affairs.
Nixon never held the California governorship, having failed when he did run. (After losing, if you remember, he petulantly told the press “You won’t have me to kick around any more” and departed for a law partnership in NYC. I know because I was managed a Fifth Avenue bookshop 1964-1966 that he patronized several times a week. Despite his grim public visage, he was among the nicest customers I ever had. Bobby Kennedy by comparison, who patronized the same shop, was an egotistical ass***e. I used to enjoy chatting about politics with Nixon, but Kennedy wouldn’t deign to speak with anyone as lowly as a clerk other than to imperiously order them about.)
As for Bush 41, he was briefly a congressman, if I remember correctly, but then ran through a raft of jobs-Republican party chair, Ambassador to China, head of the CIA, and a couple of others I’ve forgotten–never spending more than 24 months in any one. That’s the resumé from hell for an executive. Oh, and he ran an oil exploration company, financed by his father and father-in-law. That’s also not what I’d call executive experience. His life, just like Dubyas, was an exercise in sucking up and working his family contacts, which is important in any enterprise, but far from an indicator of executive skill.
Apostropher observed
The governor’s office in both Texas and Arkansas are considered weak, with little power. Neither provides a crucible in which to test anything other than running around the state and making people like you. California’s governor’s office, however, is considered strong, but like all governors jobs, the issues are pretty mundane with nothing approaching the complexity of foreign affairs.
Nixon never held the California governorship, having failed when he did run. (After losing, if you remember, he petulantly told the press “You won’t have me to kick around any more” and departed for a law partnership in NYC. I know because I was managed a Fifth Avenue bookshop 1964-1966 that he patronized several times a week. Despite his grim public visage, he was among the nicest customers I ever had. Bobby Kennedy by comparison, who patronized the same shop, was an egotistical ass***e. I used to enjoy chatting about politics with Nixon, but Kennedy wouldn’t deign to speak with anyone as lowly as a clerk other than to imperiously order them about.)
As for Bush 41, he was briefly a congressman, if I remember correctly, but then ran through a raft of jobs-Republican party chair, Ambassador to China, head of the CIA, and a couple of others I’ve forgotten–never spending more than 24 months in any one. That’s the resumé from hell for an executive. Oh, and he ran an oil exploration company, financed by his father and father-in-law. That’s also not what I’d call executive experience. His life, just like Dubyas, was an exercise in sucking up and working his family contacts, which is important in any enterprise, but far from an indicator of executive skill.
Sorry about the double post. The Pharyngule window sat there for almost ten minutes so I hit it again. Then it accepted both hits!! Lousy software.
Don’t you people speak “Bible-Belt Cant”?
Oh, yes. “Antichrist” is just Christo-speak for “hot.”
“You’re looking very antichrist today.” “Why, thank you, so are you!” This can be a pejorative, as in the case of Clinton. In his case, it meant “hot-ssss-keep away!” or alternately, “Not so hot, Don Juan.” Unless it’s aimed at someone like Gorbachev. Then it means “make fun of his birthmark!”
Naming someone as the antichrist is a popular pastime, having more to do with fashion than theology. There’s a new antichrist for each season. Christians ask “What Would Jesus Do?” but what they never tell you is, they want to wear what the antichrist is wearing.
What I love is that there are always at least three antichrists circulating at any one time. Market forces come into play here, as well as deadlines, the headache of hiring models to model antichrist fashions, scheduling of shows, (or in the case of Obama, book signings) ah, such a hassle.
Keanus wrote: “His life, just like Dubyas, was an exercise in sucking up and working his family contacts, which is important in any enterprise, but far from an indicator of executive skill.”
But Bush 41 did have a broad range of experiences. Wikipedia: “Prior to his presidency, Bush had been the 43rd Vice President of the United States under President Ronald Reagan. He was also a U.S. Congressman from Texas (1967-1971), United States Ambassador to the United Nations (1971-1973), Republican National Committee Chairman (1973-1974), Chief of the U.S. Liaison Office in the People’s Republic of China (1974-1976), and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (1976-1977).”
And Bush 41 was a combat pilot in WWII, flying an TBM Avenger torpedo plane in the Pacific. I won’t post the entire Wikipedia text about his service here because it’s too long, but it’s worth the read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H.W._Bush
That’s not to say that I thought Bush 41 was the best president, but he was certainly better prepared than most.
Doesn’t declaring Barak Obama the Antichrist contradict the Reverend Jerry Fallwell’s gut-premonition/prediction/knowledge that the Antichrist is actually a disaffected Jewish man with evil, magical powers?
Obama would be great as a VP, sort of like assassination insurance.
Nixon never held the California governorship
Gah. Sorry about that.
Nixon was Ike’s VP, and had six years of Congressional experience before that. So, do we want more Presidents like Nixon and Bush I?
Though apart from Watergate Nixon was arguably a fairly liberal President. Or, imperial President, under whom a lot of liberal policies happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon