sic semper tyrannis

John Windsurfer Kerry has endorsed Barack Lighter than Air Obama. From the WaPo political blog The Fix, the basics:

Obama “brings the lessons of the neighborhood, the lessons of the legislature and the lessons of his own life” to the “awesome challenge” of running for president, Kerry told a crowd gathered at the College of Charleston. “Those lessons made him a candidate to bring change to our country and they are the same lessons he’ll take to the Oval Office every day to fight for you as president of the United States,” he added.

We all know that Kerry is heartfelt about labeling Obama as “a candidate to bring change.” Because that’s all Obama will bring. As will any of the candidates now running, in either party, since none of them are George W. Bush. And if there are any Democratic partisans who read this, do you honestly believe that any of the men likely to win the Republican nomination will govern remotely in the fashion of Dubya? I sincerely hope such a belief is not held; this would be delusional.

As for the value of Kerry’s endorsement, I’d guess not much. Firstly, with rare exception, I don’t believe that endorsements amount to very much, regardless of who makes them. As for John Kerry, he is hardly a popular figure in his party, given that George W. Bush didn’t win so much as Kerry lost in 2004. A dull, wooden speaker, phony to the core, married to wealth, he is everything that the vast majority of voters dislike. And that is without regard to the policies that John Kerry might support; we’re just speaking of his persona.

As for Obama, he’s riding high on the crest of media sainthood (“the next JFK!”), but that can’t last. As some Donks keep asking of Obama, “where’s the beef?” Good question.

Then there’s the actuality, which Karl Rove illuminates in today’s Wall Street Journal (yes, I know, the Devil incarnate to many Democrats; but that man knows his politics). A sample which illustrates Obama’s vulnerabilities:

Former President Bill Clinton hit a nerve by drawing attention to Mr. Obama’s conflicting statements on Iraq. There’s more — and more powerful — material available. Mr. Obama has failed to rise to leadership on a single major issue in the Senate. In the Illinois legislature, he had a habit of ducking major issues, voting “present” on bills important to many Democratic interest groups, like abortion-rights and gun-control advocates. He is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn’t know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through.

Of the Democratic candidates, one might suppose Hillary is the easiest to beat.  Not that it will be easy in the absolute sense, this being a tough time to be a Republican.  It’s just that she’s got the highest negatives of any candidate. But St. Obama has not been tested. An Oprah endorsement can only carry him so far.  And John Kerry’s endorsement may cause him to take a step or two back.

Dead, actually. And did you know that they were nuts? Not being a viewer of The View, I got this from that evil, Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Rupert Murdoch Well-of-Darkness Fox News this a.m.: Joy Behar has called the saints of Christian history crazy. Here’s the story, and, according to the gang at Fox and Friends, they’ve been inundated with emails from outraged folks whose religion has been insulted.

The basics:

Behar got things started by saying: “I have a theory that you can’t find any saints anymore because of psychotropic medication. I think that [in] the old days, the saints were hearing voices and they didn’t have any Thorazine to calm them down.

“Now that we have all of this medication available to us, you can’t find a saint anymore,” she said on ABC’s daily chatfest.

Let’s all take a deep breath and calm down, people. Behar meant to be funny. She wasn’t, well, ok, perhaps she was a little, in an irreverent way clearly intended to annoy as many folks as possible. But she is not a serious commentator on religion. She is not a theologian; doesn’t claim to be one; doesn’t even play one on television.

Was her intent malicious? Other than meaning to annoy (which doesn’t rise in my book to the level of malice), I don’t know and I don’t care. Do her remarks intend to trivialize the deep, abiding faith of those who observe the Calendar of the Saints? Yes, indeed. Imagine that: Christian faith mocked on ABC. So what else is new? Think that what Behar said is worse than the typical depiction of our Christian faith on most prime-time shows? Think again.

I didn’t watch The View in the past; won’t in the future. The best way to deal with these kind of insults? Ignore them, know that your faith does not depend on the opinion of celebrities who appear on silly pieces of entertainment.

If, on the other hand, your faith does depend on the opinion of celebrities, you’re either a member of the Church of Scientology, or could use some Thorazine yourself…