What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Obama campaign publishes rumor-mongering Atlantic writer; Senator Obama condemns rumor-mongering

I've been wondering recently if the Obama campaign wants the rumor-mongering Atlantic writer, who coined the slur "Christianist" for those with whom he disagrees theologically, to be known as the Senator Obama's chief literary apologist for his presidency. For that writer seems to have become that advocate by virtue of his well-written Gospel of St. Andrew to the Americans, "Why Obama Matters," published in the December 2007 issue of the Atlantic.

But while sleuthing last night I discovered that the Obama campaign seems to be more than happy to publicly accept the Atlantic writer's support. His work (a March 18, 2008 blog entry) is published by Senator Obama's campaign on its site. The piece praises an Obama speech that the Atlantic writer believes shows the senator's authentic Christian faith. The essay has been up on barackobama.com for nearly six months, and still remains there over a week since that same writer began his irresponsible rumor-mongering about Gov. Palin. Even though Senator Obama wisely and strongly condemned the rumor-mongering, his campaign seems to promote the rumor-mongerer's judgment on the authenticity of Senator Obama's Christian faith in the "in the news" section of its website.

Can one imagine what would happen if the McCain campaign published the work of the unreliable Jerome Corsi? Unfortunately, there are blogs on the McCain site that mention Corsi's book, though they are not all favorable. On the other hand, these blogs, like the ones on the Obama site, are authored by a wide variety of citizens and not the campaign. Nevertheless, the point is that the McCain campaign does not seem to be highlighting to its website visitors the works of venom-spewing moon bat conspiracy theorists who make all sorts of outrageous claims about Obama (e.g., he's a Muslim, he's wasn't born in the U.S., etc.). Why the Obama campaign wants to hitch its wagon to that Atlantic writer's falling star is beyond my understanding.

Comments (15)

Jeez, relax.

I think that Andrew Sullivan has gone over the top lately, but the fact remains that he is influential and widely-respected, as a writer, and the former editor of The New Republic.

Nevertheless, he is not remotely in the same class as Corsi. The hysterics, it seems, are taking place on the right, not the left. There is undoubtedly a media feeding frenzy about Ms. Palin, but to construe a conspiracy between the "liberals" and the "media" is a paranoid fantasy.

Scrooge: Please send your thoughts to the Obama campaign and encourage them to have their candidate offer the defense you're suggesting. It's very clever and wise, since most people can appreciate and grasp the subtle distinction between an author with a great reputation among media and academic elites who in the present is engaging in salacious and irresponsible rumor-mongering about Gov. Sarah Palin's family and personal life.

I can easily imagine people in the American Heartland thinking to themselves, "Why, of course, that makes sense. I can understand why Senator Obama can condemn rumor-mongering while using space on his campaign's website to publish the work of an otherwise well-respected and influential rumor-mongering writer along with the name of his blog that contains the rumor-mongering. That clears things up."

Please, I beg you, do this!

The Left has been the wings beneath Palin's wings.

Kevin said:

The Left has been the wings beneath Palin's wings.

I am sure Kevin meant to say "The Left has been the wind beneath Palin's wings."

In any case, it's been windy lately.

Thanks Oenugus! You're right on all counts.

Sullivan giveth, and Obama taketh away.
Then Obama giveth again.

You're not supposed to notice.

Hysterics on the right? Passion maybe.

There's no conspiracy between the Dems/the left and the media. It's all out in the open. I doubt that they coordinate behind closed doors, but it's no secret that members of the media lean Dem/left in the US.

There's no conspiracy between the Dems/the left and the media. It's all out in the open.

Beat me too it. It ain't a conspiracy if it's running naked through the streets blowing a trumpet.

Not to be a pedant (ok, to be a pedant), but if you use the term 'conspiracy' (sounds like 'to breathe together/with') in the older more original sense, it wouldn't have to imply secretiveness. But nowadays I agree it usually connotes some sort of underground activity. I rather like to think of the Catholic Church as a conspiracy, an open plot, if you will. Sometimes I wish we'd conspire a little mo' better, if you get my meaning.

Palin's answers below regarding abortion may not dampen the Left's hate, but it should serve as a cold shower for our side;

"Smith said the important thing about Palin's abortion views is that she wouldn't be proposing new anti-abortion legislation, and that while her views on the subject are firm, she's not running for office to advocate for them." http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/101906/sta_20061019031.shtml

"QUESTION: If Roe v. Wade were overturned and states could once again prohibit abortion, in your view, to what extent should abortion be prohibited in Alaska?

PALIN: Under this hypothetical scenario, it would not be up to the governor to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values." http://corner.nationalreview.com/


Why do you see that as cold water? It's obvious that a strict abortion law will be impossible without the support of the populace.

In a post-Roe world, at least, we can more accurately judge that support and make the detailed case for such laws in the state legislature and the press. At present such arguments are too theoretical.

The Palin quote actually reassures me that she does not possess the levels of principled but unelectable impracticality equal to Alan Keyes.

Kevin (NOT Jones):

I don't agree. I think it's incredibly shrewd given the dogmatic posture of the Democratic party on this matter. (I know this is pre-2008, but I think we can extrapolate). All she is saying is that we should have a conversation on the issue, which is what Roe v. Wade short-circuited. That's consistent with a prolife movement whose arguments were aborted (pardon the pun) before they could come to maturity in the public's consciousness.

Think about how clever her response is: I'm for dialogue, discussion, debate, and respectful disagreement; my opponent is for shutting that down and to win by judicial fiat. Packed into this reasoning is about a dozen conservative arguments for life and judicial restraint. I am actually jealous of her. I wish I had thought of it. :-)


A key to winning "the support of the populace" is through moral suasion. And that entails making a case beyond nods and winks, the use of code words and letting a candidate's life-story be the sum total of the argument. We need a persuasive advocate, not an attractive icon. She's a natural in her chosen vocation and can make the case without falling into a Keyes-like caricature. Time to put her talents to good use. Assuming of course, she has the courage to do so.

Had Palin said what you just said: "my opponent is for shutting that down and to win by judicial fiat", I would be in total agreement. If she replaces Scully with you, I'd feel a lot better.

Why the Obama campaign wants to hitch its wagon to that Atlantic writer's falling star is beyond my understanding.

Incompetence and narcissism. If they had any competence, they would have know that McCain would never have gone for "another white guy," but would have pulled one of his infamous maverick stunts in choosing a VP; correspondingly, they would have chosen Hillary for VP to create a powerhouse ticket before McCain. That is a symptom of the greater disease of incompetence. The narcissism manifests itself in failing to realize that few people take Sully seriously anymore, and that his flattering opinions don't represent the mainstream of Christian or conservative thought about Obama, thus making them useless to his campaign.

Post a comment

Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.