Newspapers Print Crazies On Semi-Regular Basis To Stop Them Calling The Office Every Day is too long and unfunny for an Onion headline, but is completely accurate.
At Notre Dame, though? Dear me. The ‘we Papists laugh at the idea of the Antichrist, and that’s how he’ll RULE THE WORLD’ is the kind of crazy you don’t expect.
C’mon now, be fair. Right smack in the middle of the op-ed ruminating about whether Barack Obama might be the Antichrist, the author says flat-out, “I don’t believe Barack’s the Antichrist.” Just like Jonah has consistently pointed out that just because he wrote a 400-page book comparing today’s liberals to Nazis, he doesn’t really think liberals are Nazis. But that kind of nuance is too subtle for the feeble liberal mind.
Anyway, as America’s premier right-wing daily cartoonist helpfully points out, the real burning issue isn’t whether Barack Obama is the Antichrist, but whether his wife is Adolf Hitler.
To be fair, reading “most of his support, aside from black voters, was coming from the highly-educated” as “black voters and the highly-educated are mutually exclusive groups” seems extremely uncharitable. It seems pretty clear that the claim is that black voters of all levels of education support Obama, while mostly only the highly-educated segment of the non-black voting population do. Which is not to say, of course, that the original column is anything but a steaming pile of bullshit. But still, that reading of that line really detracted (at least for me) from what was otherwise a well-written letter.
Senator Obama is not the Antichrist . . . as far as I know. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that.
My normally intelligent Republican friend, apparently after drinking too much FoxNews, thinks that Obama is “Farrakhan,” which down here in Mississippi is close enough to the Antichrist — amongst the white folks, anyway.
@ 19
Boehlert himself is being a bit absurd there. Boehlert has some valid points – the initial “of course not” is rarely quoted, and the “take him at his word” is apparetnly from the interviewer, not from Clinton – but Boehlert lso takes it too far when he says that Clinton did the damage only when flailing to explain why Obama was not a Muslim after repeatedly being asked the same question. The very first blockquote in Boehlert’s own transcript is
CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that’s–you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that.
It is true that “as far as I know”, which is easily the slimiest part of Clinton’s responses, is not until a later exchange; but not much later; it is in fact two responses and fifteen words later.
The “I take him at his word … as far as I know” meme is not a perfectly fair adaptation of what Clinton said, but it’s not especially unfair, either. The reason people accuse Clinton of inserting doubt and quualification into her own denial of Obama being a Muslim is because that is how the transcript – yes, the whole transcript – reads.
which is easily the slimiest part of Clinton’s responses,
Which clause is easily the slimiest part of your comment.
because that is how the transcript – yes, the whole transcript – reads.
Ok fine, but then really include the whole transcript including her further clarifying unequivocal statement and the absolute asshattery of the questioning. And further yet, watch a clip and see what is really going on. Look I am in support of Obama and think that Hillary has gone a bit of the deep end, but this one is pretty much total fucking bullshit.
As apostropher’s thread suggests, a couple of years ago this “barack obama is the antichrist” thing sort of spontaneously generated from cranks’ heads. These days, it seems to be bubbling up from more and more places. Ridiculous as it is, I’m starting to fear that it’s some sort of barmy whisper campaign.
Re: Comment 10:
To be fair, reading “most of his support, aside from black voters, was coming from the highly-educated†as “black voters and the highly-educated are mutually exclusive groups†seems extremely uncharitable. It seems pretty clear that the claim is that black voters of all levels of education support Obama, while mostly only the highly-educated segment of the non-black voting population do.
Except it doesn’t hold true for Latino voters who tend to support Clinton at all education levels. (I also think that is true of Asian voters but am less sure of that.) By leaving the word white unstated it treats white as normative, which is, well, racist.
Actually, I agree that that item of pro-Obama/Antichrist outrage is a tad, shall we say, manufactured. But JP, I thought you told me the Internets were invented for the “clever but unfair” genre of comment snark.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 39 comments }
dsquared 03.24.08 at 6:29 pm
the Notre Dame Observer? That rings a bell.
Maurice Meilleur 03.24.08 at 6:30 pm
I wonder if the headline writer is hoping for a job at the AP. Or Fox.
abb1 03.24.08 at 6:51 pm
But an AP headline wouldn’t have the “the” in it, like this: Obama Most Likely Not Antichrist
Delicious Pundit 03.24.08 at 7:08 pm
Views Of Shape Of Antichrist Differ
nick s 03.24.08 at 7:13 pm
Newspapers Print Crazies On Semi-Regular Basis To Stop Them Calling The Office Every Day is too long and unfunny for an Onion headline, but is completely accurate.
At Notre Dame, though? Dear me. The ‘we Papists laugh at the idea of the Antichrist, and that’s how he’ll RULE THE WORLD’ is the kind of crazy you don’t expect.
CJColucci 03.24.08 at 7:52 pm
Barack Obama is probably not the Antichrist –but nobody has ever said that about ME! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Nick 03.24.08 at 7:57 pm
Oh dear. You mean Mr Yatarola’s not actually being bitingly satirical in that article . . .? Good grief. The screens, nurse, the screens . . .
Uncle Kvetch 03.24.08 at 7:57 pm
C’mon now, be fair. Right smack in the middle of the op-ed ruminating about whether Barack Obama might be the Antichrist, the author says flat-out, “I don’t believe Barack’s the Antichrist.” Just like Jonah has consistently pointed out that just because he wrote a 400-page book comparing today’s liberals to Nazis, he doesn’t really think liberals are Nazis. But that kind of nuance is too subtle for the feeble liberal mind.
Anyway, as America’s premier right-wing daily cartoonist helpfully points out, the real burning issue isn’t whether Barack Obama is the Antichrist, but whether his wife is Adolf Hitler.
Matt 03.24.08 at 7:59 pm
Given that I’m objectively pro-antichrist I might well have to re-think my support of Obama
Eric 03.24.08 at 8:09 pm
To be fair, reading “most of his support, aside from black voters, was coming from the highly-educated” as “black voters and the highly-educated are mutually exclusive groups” seems extremely uncharitable. It seems pretty clear that the claim is that black voters of all levels of education support Obama, while mostly only the highly-educated segment of the non-black voting population do. Which is not to say, of course, that the original column is anything but a steaming pile of bullshit. But still, that reading of that line really detracted (at least for me) from what was otherwise a well-written letter.
tom s. 03.24.08 at 8:17 pm
“‘the Notre Dame Observer? That rings a bell.”
I have a hunch they’re writing claptrap.
dominic 03.24.08 at 9:03 pm
That possible move to South Bend must be looking awfully attractive.
Kieran Healy 03.24.08 at 9:07 pm
That possible move to South Bend must be looking awfully attractive.
We have some doozies out here, too, so it’s unlikely to be a decisive consideration.
Cala 03.24.08 at 9:44 pm
On the upside, the kid that schooled the 99 grad is a freshman, so maybe there’s hope.
John Emerson 03.24.08 at 10:01 pm
I happen to be an expert on “the On-Eagle’s-Wings-ification of the Church”. It’s all at my URL, and I learned it all from Google!
Abstract: “On Eagles’ Wings” is a new-style Lutheran / Catholic hymn which is thought by traditionalists to be too New-Agey.
engels 03.24.08 at 10:17 pm
I have a hunch they’re writing claptrap.
Typical of this kind of quasi-informed opinion writing imo…
Michael Bérubé 03.24.08 at 10:30 pm
Senator Obama is not the Antichrist . . . as far as I know. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that.
Anderson 03.24.08 at 10:41 pm
My normally intelligent Republican friend, apparently after drinking too much FoxNews, thinks that Obama is “Farrakhan,” which down here in Mississippi is close enough to the Antichrist — amongst the white folks, anyway.
JP Stormcrow 03.24.08 at 10:46 pm
as far as I know.
Clever, Michael, but rather unfair.
JP Stormcrow 03.24.08 at 10:53 pm
Typical of this kind of quasi-informed opinion writing imo…
Well let’s make sure that Obama is the victor and put an end to this nonsense.
John Emerson 03.24.08 at 11:06 pm
A thorough discussion of the question: at my URL.
Obama is the AntiChrist
Uncle Kvetch 03.24.08 at 11:33 pm
Typical of this kind of quasi-informed opinion writing imo…
Well let’s make sure that Obama is the victor and put an end to this nonsense.
You go first.
Oh, and hey, did anybody check out Modo’s latest column?
OK, I’ll stop now.
Warren Terra 03.25.08 at 12:02 am
@ 19
Boehlert himself is being a bit absurd there. Boehlert has some valid points – the initial “of course not” is rarely quoted, and the “take him at his word” is apparetnly from the interviewer, not from Clinton – but Boehlert lso takes it too far when he says that Clinton did the damage only when flailing to explain why Obama was not a Muslim after repeatedly being asked the same question. The very first blockquote in Boehlert’s own transcript is
It is true that “as far as I know”, which is easily the slimiest part of Clinton’s responses, is not until a later exchange; but not much later; it is in fact two responses and fifteen words later.
The “I take him at his word … as far as I know” meme is not a perfectly fair adaptation of what Clinton said, but it’s not especially unfair, either. The reason people accuse Clinton of inserting doubt and quualification into her own denial of Obama being a Muslim is because that is how the transcript – yes, the whole transcript – reads.
terence 03.25.08 at 12:49 am
Obama Campaign Denies Charges that Candidate is the Antichrist
terence 03.25.08 at 12:56 am
John Emerson:
Did you really just set those two sites up. That must of been some work*.
________________________________________
*Please, please tell me they’re not real…
John Emerson 03.25.08 at 1:04 am
Both are real. The one at my URL is a humor site, but many of the 1000+ commenters are serious.
JP Stormcrow 03.25.08 at 2:20 am
which is easily the slimiest part of Clinton’s responses,
Which clause is easily the slimiest part of your comment.
because that is how the transcript – yes, the whole transcript – reads.
Ok fine, but then really include the whole transcript including her further clarifying unequivocal statement and the absolute asshattery of the questioning. And further yet, watch a clip and see what is really going on. Look I am in support of Obama and think that Hillary has gone a bit of the deep end, but this one is pretty much total fucking bullshit.
JP Stormcrow 03.25.08 at 2:21 am
OK, I’ll stop now.
Don’t worry, I’ve got your back.
lemuel pitkin 03.25.08 at 2:51 am
Nearly 30 comments and no one has yet linked to the definitive discussion of the Obama-antichrist connection?
(Not to mention, one of the all-time great comments threads. Three and half years old and still going strong.)
Jackmormon 03.25.08 at 3:22 am
As apostropher’s thread suggests, a couple of years ago this “barack obama is the antichrist” thing sort of spontaneously generated from cranks’ heads. These days, it seems to be bubbling up from more and more places. Ridiculous as it is, I’m starting to fear that it’s some sort of barmy whisper campaign.
JP Stormcrow 03.25.08 at 3:56 am
Yep, there goes the hexakosioihexekontahexaphobe vote.
Righteous Bubba 03.25.08 at 4:08 am
Can the Antichrist beat McCain?
Kieran Healy 03.25.08 at 4:26 am
The Antichrist faces an electability issue, but has high name recognition amongst likely voters.
terence 03.25.08 at 5:18 am
“but many of the 1000+ commenters are serious”
Ohhh…kaay. Can we please stop the planet now? I wanna get off. Things are starting to get scary…
MFB 03.25.08 at 6:42 am
Surely we cannot be certain who is the Antichrist until we know who the Democratic nominee is.
And, by the way, I thought Hillary was the Antichrist already!
Maybe Barack Obama is the antipope of the Antichrist!
And if he is the Antichrist, is he also anti-semitic?
I fear my head is going to explode. On, on, boats against the current, backwards into the future with the Angel of Internet History.
e julius drivingstorm 03.25.08 at 7:28 am
If there were no antiChrist, man would have found it necessary to invent one. (sorry, Neitzsche)
abb1 03.25.08 at 9:46 am
Some Say Antichrist Controversy To Distract Public From More Damning Is Obama Satan Question
Western Dave 03.26.08 at 4:06 pm
Re: Comment 10:
To be fair, reading “most of his support, aside from black voters, was coming from the highly-educated†as “black voters and the highly-educated are mutually exclusive groups†seems extremely uncharitable. It seems pretty clear that the claim is that black voters of all levels of education support Obama, while mostly only the highly-educated segment of the non-black voting population do.
Except it doesn’t hold true for Latino voters who tend to support Clinton at all education levels. (I also think that is true of Asian voters but am less sure of that.) By leaving the word white unstated it treats white as normative, which is, well, racist.
Michael Bérubé 03.27.08 at 4:05 pm
Clever, Michael, but rather unfair.
Actually, I agree that that item of pro-Obama/Antichrist outrage is a tad, shall we say, manufactured. But JP, I thought you told me the Internets were invented for the “clever but unfair” genre of comment snark.
Comments on this entry are closed.