Let's be clear: what we are electing this November, is not just a political figure, we are electing a figurehead, a semi-mythological American demi-god who we as a country determine best fits the current ideal of who we as a nation want to be. I agree with Mr. Hitchens about the inconsistencies and absurdities of Mr. Obama's supporters (and his own messianic speech references), and how logically they make no sense. And I understand the points that Mr. Dickenson makes when covering Ms. Clinton's post-Iowa attacks (and the points that Ms. Clinton makes herself).

That being said, the reason there's such blind support for Obama, is because he represents what a very large proportion of American liberal voters believe in. They see in his public image, an ideal that they can believe and trust in, that they can aspire to. Logic and reason take a back seat here in this campaign; what we're looking for is the ur-American.

For evidence, I'll point to JFK. A logical analysis of his presidency reveals a very smart, arrogant, cocky man who was a mediocre president policy-wise. But because he was young, athletic, handsome, with a beautiful wife, America united behind him and idolized him. Another example would be George W Bush. We elected him because after Clinton's Monica debacle, we wanted someone in the office that we could have a beer with, someone who was All-American, decent, not too smart, a genuinely nice guy who wasn't Clinton (remember that we were frequently reminded that Clinton was a world-traveling Rhodes Scholar and a heavy policy wonk).

To summarize, this election is, on a higher level, a war of competing mythos. We are electing a figurehead, someone who the majority of Americans believes (and this is an issue of faith, not reason or logic) reflects this nation as a whole. Obama's got the messianic appeal, something Clinton cannot generate. We're seeing no one with that same ability on the Republican side (Huckabee comes close, but not quite). Therefore I believe Mr. Hitchens, Mr. Dickenson, Ms. Clinton, and most everyone else misses the point when they analyze this election from a basis of logic and reason. We're not looking for the candidate that makes logical sense, we're looking for a candidate we can put our faith in. And that makes all the difference in the world.

nauseating but true

Still, I'm sure Mr. Hitchens is perfectly aware of the illogic at work, but what should he do...throw in the towel and go to a tea party?

I'd pay money to see that, actually... that tea party would never be the same afterward.

I see your point... Mr. Hitchens, and the rest, have no real choice other than to keep doing what they're doing. I suppose that what I'd prefer to see is at least some acknowledgement that this election and campaign is more about faith and ideals than it is about logic and reason.

good post. If we wanted the most experienced candidate, then the frontrunners wouldnt have been able to kiss Joe Biden's ass in the earlier debates.

agreed on both points....and Biden is even a likeable guy. I'd have a beer (or a cup of tea) with him.

It wouldn't be so bad if only voters had enough sense to look at the people behind the figurehead and see if they're sane, or if they're Dick Cheney.

In response to the original article.

Who is "obsessed with Obama's Race"?

The entire article is based on a concept that doesn't exist. While I'm sure someones obsessed, I'd characterize both my personal experience and media coverage more as an electoral horse race interesting fact.

When discussing the said candidates viability among casual observers people are more likely to bring up his funny name.

We're already over it. Now please remove this silly article (with a great title, kudos to the editors) from the front page.

PS... And what does religion have to do with the nut graph here anyway??

I gotta say though, the original poster has a point. We put the president on some sort of pedestal: Everything they say and do is analyzed and over-analyzed by the media and us, almost religiously. We praise lovingly their every accomplishment - but oh boy they better not screw up! We'll rip them to shreds - that is, until the latest celebrity scandal is uncovered in Hollywood and we forget completely. But that's beside the point.

Okay, lots of sweeping generalizations that obviously don't apply to all the public: But still, the basic point remains: we often idolize the President as if he (hopefully someday she) were larger than life: And that scares the sh - er, I mean, crap - out of me. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but the idea of the President having that much influence over us bothers me. We have checks and balances (like the supreme court, the house/senate, the voting system) for a reason. We have the ability toquestion the government and make changes when we don't agree without uprooting the whole system and causing a war. But giving the President so much importance threatens those balances in my opinion. The President alone isn't supposed to run the country! So there's my 2 cents...or more like 2 dollars it's so freaking long.

And yet, at times (the civil war, the great depression) the president's power to calm, to unite and to motivate has certainly been useful. For this reason, I would personally welcome a return to the ideal that the president be, at the very least, sufficiently above average that he or she can speak English fluently.

And do you not see the "messianic appeal" to non-logical and non-reasoning persons as worrisome? From my perspective, we've had enough of Presidents elected on the basis of something other than logic and reasoning. Senator Obama is most likely a very nice person, but is too young, and too inexperienced to be catapulted to the position of "Leader of the Free World" by folks who can not explain a single thing for which this candidate stands. I find nothing of substance in his rhetoric, pleasing though some may find it. His policy proposals fall far short of where I believe our country needs to go, and his financial support from large corporate entities whose favorite lobbying activity is for privatizing Social Security precludes me from joining in the chorus.

I'm voting for the guy who is leading on the issues, framing the debate, and willing to take on the lobbyists on behalf of the American people: John Edwards.

R