Editor's Letter
Analysts credit everything from fundraising prowess to President Bush for Barack Obama’s victory. But if you spent the campaign traveling the far-out fringe of the Internet—and what else was there to do at 3 a.m. when those lazy bloggers quit work?—you might have stumbled upon a more sinister explanation. It sounds crazy, I know. But you can’t completely rule out the possibility that Barack Obama is the Antichrist.
First, as I smartly pointed out at that cocktail party back in 2006, it was impossible for Obama to win in 2008. Not just unlikely. Impossible. There’s your supernatural premise, right there. Next, presidential campaigns are long, miserable slogs through muck and quicksand. Yet at every crucial juncture, a glide path materialized beneath Obama’s (cloven?) feet. When Obama faced Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries, her unpopular support of the Iraq war was highlighted by mayhem in Baghdad. Yet by the time Obama emerged to face the war hero John McCain, the fighting seemed curiously pacified, muting concerns about Obama’s foreign policy credentials in the process. Then the McCain campaign, a band of hardened pros who had been granted a luxurious six months for the task, became the first since 1972 to fail to vet a vice presidential pick. As public debate raged over Sarah Palin’s competence, a hellish financial crisis detonated on cue, just weeks before Election Day. Bush all but nationalized the banks as his party attacked Obama as a … socialist. Isn’t all this devilishly strange? Of course, it was probably mere happenstance—beginner’s luck. But just the same, I’ll be watching the next president’s oversize ears for hints of pointiness. And keeping an eye out for a tail, too.
Francis Wilkinson
Comment on this article
Recent comments | 32 total
So original Only 1, 600,000 ( according to google ) got there before you.
This Editor's Letter is one that should have gone missing in the mail. I assume Francis Wilkinson was writing tongue-in-cheek. (If not, I worry about Mr. Wilkinson's qualifications.) At any rate, the Letter is too cute by half. The humor falls flat because there are actually people in America that piously believe the nonsense Wilkinson re-warms here (check Google). Certain far-right religious demagogues have frightened their less discerning followers with the same (ludicrous) end-time, apocalyptic scenario -- A story so conveniently designed to poison the opportunity America now has. This Editor's Letter, however intentioned, is not helpful, nor is it funny. Leave the subtle comedy to others, Mr. Wilkinson; or, if you are serious: you need a reality check.
The only cloven hooves and pointy ears I see are coming out of the head of George Bush. The Republican Party and their supporters have damaged America's reputation around the world because they only know how to demonize their opponents. Try reading the Gospels more than Revelations. You may actually learn something.
To give The Week and the author an exceptionally generous benefit of the doubt, I will assume this is Mr Wilkinson’s feeble attempt at satire. Even were Mr Wilkinson a quarter as clever as he imagines himself, his words could very well feed into the delusions of those who hold precisely the views he apparently attempts to mock; such views are most regrettably not limited to “the far-out fringe of the Internet,” as Mr Wilkinson no doubt knows, and some who hold those views are violent. This letter is as irresponsible as it is inept. It is also an offense to those who hold religious sensibilities, to those who vote, to those who think, to those with more than the most stunted sense of humor, and to those who were paying attention during this hard-fought campaign. It is also, most obviously, an affront to President-Elect Obama and his exceptional talents, even were one to bracket Mr Wilkinson’s central and deeply disturbing claim. Obama’s speech on race and reconciliation in the wake of the Wright media feeding-frenzy, for example, was no mere “glide path” that miraculously materialized under his feet, nor can his success be attributed to the ridiculously narrow and hollow allowance of “everything from fundraising prowess to President Bush.” His historic victory is not merely “beginner’s luck,” but the culmination of a career that spans more than two decades of public service and a lifetime of honoring his words with action. Those who voted for him were not beguiled into doing so, as Mr Wilkinson (even at his less insulting moments) suggests; their vote was the result of deep reflection on Mr Obama’s record, his character, his accomplishments, and his vision, as well as on those of his opponents; his opponents were found sorely lacking on their own merits, and Mr Obama outstanding on his. I have subscribed to The Week for about five years. I request that The Week clarify whether or not this was a sophomoric attempt at satire that regrettably fell flat, repudiate the views proferred by Mr Wilkinson, and apologize for publishing such an ill-informed, irresponsible, and offensive editorial. Should The Week fail to take appropriate actions, I am confident that its subscribers, including myself, shall.
Well said, Medhbh -- I agree, my subscription renewal in December is riding on The Week's response to Medhbh's demand for an explanation/retraction.
digg del.icio.us stumbleUpon newsvine reddit furl