"Is Obama an Enlightened Being?"

[jordan179]

Courtesy of Mark Morford, SF Gate columnist, who is not kidding in his article "Is Obama an Enlightened Being?":

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/06/notes060608.DTL

Barack Obama isn't really one of us. Not in the

Comments

[spiffystuff]

*sigh* I was vaguely hopeful Obama was "for real" early on (hey, his website at least sounded *gasp* intelligent on the issues!) but ever since he cinched the nom he sounds like everyone else.

Boo. *crawls back under indie rock*

[rinku]

That article is pretty stupid, I read it months ago. "New Age" is just as much a religion as Christian fundamentalism, and just as stupid a reason for supporting a candidate.

As an aside, I wonder why Churchill, Roosevelt, and Hitler (all highly charismatic) all happened to have power in world powers at around the same time? Were the 30s/40s an era where charisma was particularly important in becoming elected?

[tinymammoth]

I am going to hypothesize that this is the spread of the mass media for the first time - radio and newsreels. Before that most people would only see their candidate in photos or even drawings, and never hear his voice.

[irked_indeed]

I think it's worth distinguishing between having stupid beliefs and it being stupid to apply one's beliefs.

If, for instance, I believe the color blue is lethal, I have a stupid belief. If I never go outside on sunny days because of this belief, I'm actually behaving in a pretty sensible fashion based on what I understand to be true.

Now, most religions say some things that have pretty notable consequences for politics. Suppose, for instance, that my religion teaches all right-handed people are evil- if I really believed that, shouldn't I confine my support to lefties?

The religion itself may be stupid, of course- certainly the First Church of All Righties Are Evil would be. One, both, or neither of fundamentalist Christianity and New Age stuff may be, as well. If accepted, though, they may actually give very good reasons to support or oppose a given candidate.

[jordan179]

As an aside, I wonder why Churchill, Roosevelt, and Hitler (all highly charismatic) all happened to have power in world powers at around the same time? Were the 30s/40s an era where charisma was particularly important in becoming elected?

It was a crisis: the Old Order (liberal democratic capitalism in America and Western Europe; conservative aristocratic imperialism elsewhere) had apparently failed due to the Great War and the Great Depression. In a crisis, people need perceived strong leadership, and will take people from outside the normal bounds of the Establishment if they are sufficiently charismatic.

[banner]

I have seen evil men. My sister once belonged to a cult ran by a very evil (and crazy) man. So I'm pretty immune to charisma, having seen it close up at it's very worse. Obama is a marxist, a rather extreme one. He's also a racist, which is pretty funny when you consider he's half white. And he's also incredibly stupid, for someone in his position. I won't even get into the issues of his being incredibly corrupt, (which is obvious to anyone who looks at all of his business dealings, political dealings, and friends in jail

[jordan179]

Without a doubt, until they clean up written history in the school books and re-educated people like they did with Jimmy Carter, who is without a doubt the worst President this country ever had.

I nominate James Buchanan for that dishonor. The country literally split in two on his watch.

You're right that Jimmy Carter was one of our worst Presidents, though. People who blame the Iranian Hostage Crisis on prior American-Iranian history are missing the point: the important part in terms of rating Carter was not the deep cause of the conflict, but rather how Carter handled it -- which was to freeze like a deer in the headlights. One should take it for granted that a Great Power will have enemies and that enemies will try to hurt that Power: the measure of a leader is how he repels or retaliates against such attacks. Other Presidents dealt with worse threats far more successfully.

Also right about the whitewash. Though I don't know how many people it really fools.

[cutelildrow]

Colin Powell for President!

[eric_hinkle]

If only!

But I hear that his wife would never, ever allow her husband to get involved in the massive snake pit that is modern American politics. Probably (on scodn thought, make that 'definitely') smart of her, but I still think that Powell might make a good president for this country.

[vakkotaur]

I expect you'll find this to be of some interest: First hand account of Obama's visit from boots on the ground.

[sameinanylingo]

Thank you for linking to this. It's very telling and it's stuff like this (the quote below) that helps keep me thinking positively about how things will go in November.

95% of base wanted nothing to do with him. I have met three troops who support him, and literally hundreds who regard him as a buffoon, a charlatan, a hindrance to their mission or a flat out enemy of progress.

[cutelildrow]

that's encouraging...

[vakkotaur]

However, the DNC is great at disallowing the military vote -- remember Indecision 2000?

Revenge for VIETNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM!!!!!!!!

[stokerbramwell]

The cult of Obama is going too far now.

God help us if he's actually aware of the power he holds...

[vakkotaur]

Indeed. Obama himself is most certainly a concern, as I see too much of Carter there, but it's his more rabid followers that really scare me.