Weltanschauung

Here is an article from Bob Jones University Press on the importance of protecting Real True Christian children from the dangers of secular textbooks:

When we compare “textbook to textbook,” leaving out all of the “bells and whistles” that the secular publishers use to package their products, I am convinced that the instructional design, strong biblical integration and proven student achievement results of BJU Press textbooks give Christian schools a “no-brainer” option — to go with a product that honors God and guides students to a biblical worldview.

They really like that word, "worldview," there at BJU Press.

BJU's creationist science textbook, "Physical Science Student Worktext," is advertised as teaching students "that a Christian worldview permeates true science." Here's a lecture series from BJU on "Why is thinking about worldviews important?" and "Forming a Christian worldview."

Bob Jones University is not an evangelical Christian school. It is, rather, one of the flagship institutions of fundamentalism, and more particularly of a Southern gothic, belligerent fundamentalism. Most evangelicals are just as creeped out by Bob Jones University as everybody else is. Yet for a certain segment of American fundamentalist Christianity, Bob Jones University is a  city on a hill, an outpost of truth-telling boldy confronting a world of lies.

Bob Jones is enormously respected by the network of Christian authors, speakers and radio hosts who make up the Worldview Weekend movement, which organizes seminars and conferences across America urging RTCs to take up arms in what it calls "the Worldview War Between Christians and the Secular Left." The group also has its own publishing imprint, selling titles such as Christian Worldview for Students and Christian Worldview for Children.

This again isn't a mainstream evangelical group. The kids raised on Christian Worldview for Children are homeschooled, and they don't go off to college to places like Wheaton, Messiah or Calvin College. Those types of schools are viewed by this crowd as suspiciously liberal and insufficiently committed to a comprehensive biblical worldview.

Are you getting a sense yet of the connotations of that word, "worldview," and what its repeated use signals?

Other Christians may use the word too, occasionally, rarely, in a way that conforms more closely to its usual dictionary definition or to the way the German sociologists used it when they coined the term weltanschauung. But when you hear it used frequently, the way it's employed by the BJU Press and the Worldview Weekend folks above, it is a signpost term. It helps to show where the user falls on the spectrum between typical Christianity Today/Wheaton College/Ned Flanders mainstream evangelicalism and the scary lunatic fringe of radical separatists, dominionists and third-generation homeschoolers. The more you hear someone talk about "Christian worldviews" or "biblical worldviews" the further to the extreme right of that spectrum you can expect them to be.

Use of the word in this sense tells you that the speaker is almost certainly a persecuted hegemon -- someone who simultaneously believes that America is a "Christian nation," founded on Christian principles and that Christians in America are a persecuted, um, majority. It suggests that the speaker distrusts public schools. That they're inclined to oppose the separation of church and state. That they likely believe in young-earth creationism, probably even believing that Josh McDowell and/or Kirk Cameron has disproved evolution. They believe in moral absolutes -- and have absolute confidence in their ability to know them absolutely. They believe that America's troubles trace back to Engel v. Vitale and Roe v. Wade and believe that God will bless America once those rulings are overturned.

Need more examples? Here's "The American Vision: Restoring America's Biblical Foundation from Genesis to Revelation." They publish Biblical Worldview magazine.

Or spend some time clicking around at Christianworldview.net, which says "The purpose of our Christian Apologetics ministry is to equip people to think and live with a consistent and cohesive biblical worldview."

Or check out WorldviewMatters or the Biblical Worldview Institute or Worldview Academy or AllAboutWorldview.org.

Surf around. Get a feel for the connotations of the word and what its use signals.

Got it?

OK. Now watch this:

Comments

[hagsrus]

Goodness, am I first? (No, I'm sure somebody else will be there by the time this posts.)

And in fact I just came to drop this into an available thread, after which I will return and read Fred's latest with the usual interest.

From a dominionist blog I read as a reality check:

AB 2567 has passed the California Assembly and the Senate and is awaiting Governor Schwarzenegger’ s signature or veto. This bill will set aside May 22Nd as a special day to celebrate the life of homosexual politician Harvey Milk in the public schools. Harvey Milk will be honored in the same manner as our Founding Fathers and Martin Luther King, although the only thing he is actually known for is being proud be a homosexual! If you haven’t heard about this bill it is because the liberal media is downplaying this bill so that it will pass.

PLEASE CALL GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER’S OFFICE POLL AND MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD.

The Number to call is : 1 916-445-2841
Takes less than 30 seconds.
It is just a recording:
Press 1 for English.
Press 2 to voice an opinion
Press 1 for AB 2567 – Harvey Milk Day
pressing 2 is a NO vote.
Please vote now!
Please pass this on to as many people as possible!

It took me a few tries (busy, no answer, busy) to get through but eventually I registered my 121

[Eric the Red]

Shorter Fred:

"Real True Christians are not Real True Real True Christians like me."

[not_scottbot]

Eric the Red seems to share a certain 'worldview' with someone all too tediously familiar to most here

Go back to Greenland, please.

[Richard Crawford]

Fred,

That's... terrifying. The level of ignorance that Palin displays here simply cannot be excused. Frankly, the McCain campaign's choice of Palin as the VP is simply boggling, but I can understand why the religious "right" is so positively orgasmic over her selection. I only hope that the American public won't be duped.

@hagsrus: Thanks for the heads up re: AB2567. It took me awhile but I was finally able to register my [1] vote, and spread the word to all my friends and family that they should register their [1] vote as well.

[Robb]

weltanschauung

I love that word. It was a signal to me that I wasn't steeped in mindless fundamentalists when I first heard a Bible college prof use that word. In doing so, he very gently assaulted the more commonly perceived meaning of worldview. "It's best understood," he said, "as a combination of epistemological framework and our enculturated sense of identity on a social level" (or something less vaguely bullshit sounding than that, I don't recall the exact words). He then went on to dissect & contradict (though not blatantly) the usage of [wv] that had been (and, to some degree, still is) heavily in use among the theological ilk that surrounded that school. I recall him gently suggesting that the term itself never be used again, but that weltanschauung be used whenever attempting to make such a summary of beliefs. What I only barely understood at the time was that the very idea of "Christian" weltanschauung was fraught with problems.

*****

"In what Respect, Charlie You Liberal yet still somehow sexist MotherFucker?"

Wow. . . she just gets scarier & scarier.

[Nenya]

THANK YOU, FRED.

I'm not the only one whose head hurts when they hear "worldview"? I'm not the only one who picks up the disturbing connotations of "Biblical worldview" and its extreme lack of self-knowledge? Thank you. Thank you.

*shudders heartily*

[Nenya]

(I should perhaps clarify that I work with people at the moment who use "Biblical worldview" unironically and go on about its importance. At least I've managed to escape having to attend a church that does that, finally. But the flashbacks....)

[lawl]

"BJU Press textbooks give Christian schools a 'no-brainer' option"

Quoted for truth.

[Nenya]

Okay, having gotten the twitches about the word "worldview" out of my system--"he was trying to rid the world of Islamic extremism, but there were mistakes made" really, really does not inspire my confidence that this person has any clue about foreign policy. "Mistakes were made" is a non-apology-apology. Some people who say that about the Bush adventures seem to think that if we'd murdered the entire population of Iraq (or, hey, at least MORE of them) we'd have succeeded. Someone saying "mistakes were made, but hey, he's going after Evil People who want to Destroy Our Way of Life (TM)" would have to go out of their way to convince me that they didn't think more violence, more throwing of small countries against the wall, was the solution. Palin: no better than the Bush-devotees.

Sigh.

[Geds]

Nenya: You should have seen that clip in the greater context. As I recall, that was the one that ended up branching in to why we should invade Pakistan if we think Bin Laden was there and how they'll thank us for doing the right thing.

Oh, and as a pre-emptive strike the next time someone starts in about Russia's unprovoked attack on Georgia (as I recall Palin did in that self-same Gibson interview), the whole thing started when Georgia attacked South Ossetia, a breakaway region that Russia had been supporting for months in its bid for independence. But everyone forgets that, since Georgia picked the first day of the Olympics to open hostilities.

[mcc]

"Mistakes were made" is a non-apology-apology.

The best thing about that meme is the passive voice. Who... made mistakes, exactly? Nobody, apparently. The mistakes just... made.

[Peter]

Yeah, the word "worldview" as a general rule is crap. But this is true of all of these catch-phrases that publishing companies (I can't even call them Christian in good conscience anymore) keep dumping out on us. It just takes them longer to work their way over to Bob Jones. Words like missional, intentional living, epic lives, worldviews, relevance, etc. etc. etc. always seem to be some bastardized concept of what used to be a word with a real meaning, but then is turned into something so abstract that it can be sold to anyone without threat of actually making them live better lives.

[Praline]

--"he was trying to rid the world of Islamic extremism, but there were mistakes made" really, really does not inspire my confidence that this person has any clue about foreign policy.

She's clever. She's preaching to people who liked Bush's religious-war attitude, while trying to extricate herself from the fact that Bush himself is pretty thoroughly discredited and his approval ratings have fallen. 'See? We can keep the warmongering; just pretend it was bad management instead of a bad idea...'

Entertaining though it is to see even his own people throw him in the trash the minute he stops being useful - that must be a bit of a blow to his ego - it's pretty slippery of them. The reason Bush has become discredited is because he followed the exact same policies they intend to pursue; they're managing to pretend that the problem was the man, not the policies.

Of course, if, God forbid, McCain and Palin get in, we'll be seeing them treated as equally disposable eight years from now. Far right policies being as bad for a country as they are, Republicans must be grateful for the two-terms-only policy; it allows them to reject a figurehead while staying on the same disatrous course. Republican presidents require built-in obsolescence.

[Caravelle]

I'd noticed the "worldview" in that interview but I hadn't thought of its consequences, it's true it's scary...

I... am impressed, shall we say, at how that interview looks like someone getting a job interview. Or passing orals. Say the answers you memorized, when you don't know the answers temporize, try to get them to clarify, go on a little tangent on subjects you do know and hope they won't notice you didn't actually answer... And all the while looking a little like a deer in the headlights.

It should also be noted, as it was pointed out on Obsidian Wings, that even after Gibson gave her all the answers she still got the Bush doctrine wrong : pre-emptive strike against an imminent attack has always been an accepted thing, what Bush did was take out the "imminent" part.

Oh, and as a pre-emptive strike the next time someone starts in about Russia's unprovoked attack on Georgia (as I recall Palin did in that self-same Gibson interview)

Not only did she say it, but Gibson called her on it ("You think Russia was unprovoked ?") and she confirmed.

Oh, and what should really be scary is her insistence that YOU SHOULD NEVER BLINK. She said it when asked how she reacted to being chosen for VP, and she repeated it when talking about foreign policy.
The simple fact is, pressuring yourself to make split-second decisions when you don't have all the information, and when it's not necessary (couldn't she have said "Thanks, can I get back to you tomorrow" when she was asked to be VP ?) means you'll never make good decisions.

[Josh]

The video's not loading for me. Can someone provide a link, or tell me what it is? Thanks.

[wyclif]

Possessive pronouns aren't spelled with apostrophes, you know. It might even lend a little credibility to your writing-- God knows you need it. Why? Gary DeMar isn't a fundy by any stretch. DeMar isn't even a dispensationalist-- probably the most important mark of a real fundamentalist.

Have you bothered to read Kristol's piece on the Bush Doctrine? He says there are about 8 different Bush Doctrines, depending on whom one is speaking to. So asking for clarification on Palin's part isn't exactly an unforgivable sin. It's only an interview, not a debate (and even in a debate, clarification during follow-up is *de rigeur*.

It's (no pun intended) all cool, though. I knew you were talking out of your ass after the very first paragraph.

[Ed. note: Fixed the its/it's thing, thanks.]

[not_scottbot]

'He says there are about 8 different Bush Doctrines, depending on whom one is speaking to.' Guess Palin hasn't even talked to the one world leader she can visit without a passpaort, then.

Well, considering how she is such a big fan of change, I guess that makes some sense. Of course, since she doesn't know the past, we won't have to worry about her repeating it, will we?

Support Palin - 'won't repeat mistakes she knows nothing about'

Gripping slogan, with a bit of work.

[Uncle Al]

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/reality.png
http://www.godchecker.com/

Can God make a collection plate so vast that even He cannot fill it? Sure! ALL OF THEM.

[Doctor Science]

"Mistakes were made" always makes me think of this classic Matt Groening cartoon. Sums it up, IMHO.

[Ericb]

I love how the Fundamentalists' "worldview" rhetoric turns into post-modernism when discussions shift to science.

[Caravelle]

This link seems good, Jon :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNPGnZurs1k

wyclif : Have you bothered to read Kristol's piece on the Bush Doctrine? He says there are about 8 different Bush Doctrines, depending on whom one is speaking to. So asking for clarification on Palin's part isn't exactly an unforgivable sin. It's only an interview, not a debate (and even in a debate, clarification during follow-up is *de rigeur*.

Granted, but it's obvious that was not Palin's problem. She could have said "I'm sorry Charlie, as you know there are many 'Bush Doctrines' and I'm not quite sure which one you're talking about, could you clarify ?" but she didn't, she went on a rant about Bush's fight against Islamofascists. And when he clarified even more, explaining the doctrine of attacking if we think a country might pose a threat, she confused it with attacking when there's an imminent threat. Which is not the same thing.

Note also her answer to the question if we would go to war with Iran if Israel did. I'm not sure why Gibson repeated the question three times ("We shouldn't second-guess Israel" seems clear to me) but I'm even less sure of why she refused to answer "yes" when it's obviously what she was implying.

That said, I think her answer on the "Iraq war is God's will" questions was pretty good. You could see it was a subject she was more familiar with, she lost a bit of the deer in the headlights attitude.

[Caravelle]

Oops, it was Josh that was asking for the video, not Jon.

Note that I gave a youtube link to the first part of the four-part whole interview. The bit about the Bush doctrine is at the end, with a bit on the second part apparently.
Fred's video is on the specific question "what do you think of the Bush Doctrine", with an insert of John McCain saying what the Bush Doctrine is.

[Hawker Hurricane]

"Mistakes were made". Reminds me of...

When talking to Communists, efforts to point out the horrors of Russian, Chinese, North Korea (etc) is always countered by blaming the individual (Stalin, Mao's wife, Kim il-Jung), not the system. The fact that communism always seems to put sociopaths into positions of power is not mentioned...

The definition of Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

[schism]

I'm not sure why Gibson repeated the question three times ("We shouldn't second-guess Israel" seems clear to me)...

I assume Gibson was trying to get a more qualified (or at least less stupid) answer. Or, maybe he was just trying to make a chink in her preprogamming.

[EarBucket]

If I remember correctly, I think the term "worldview" dates back to Francis Schaeffer's book and film series "How Should We Then Live?" He emphasized the different framework through which Christians and non-believers supposedly view the world, and argued that it was at the root of all the differences between them.

I can't help but think that if Schaeffer were alive today, he'd be horrified, like Victor Frankenstein, at what he helped create. I can't imagine him defending torture and the despoiling of the environment the way Dobson and his ilk have.

[EarBucket]

(Incidentally, I'm reading "Crazy For God," the memoir of Schaeffer's son Frank, right now. It's really fascinating stuff, especially if you grew up in an evangelical church heavily into Schaeffer, the way I did. Very complex portrait of the man.)

[hf]

Amusingly, the liberal site Pandagon argues that the Bush Doctrines form a unified, coherent whole, while conservatives apparently believe that Uday Bush changed his fundamental doctrine once a year for his first four years in office.

[damnedyankee]

Have you bothered to read Kristol's piece on the Bush Doctrine?

No, but I'll be sure to, because I always take the reading recommendations of know-nothing, patronizing drive-by trolls.

[Blackadder]

Ugh. Please don't rub this stuff in, Fred. I'm mad as hell at the Democrats for playing it deuces wild instead of nominating a sure thing (i.e., a southern governor) for President. Unfortunately it seems Obama failed to make the sale. And. We. Are. Screwed. Having McCain as President will be annoying, but having that know-nothing harpy as VP is going to be positively nauseating. Oh well...

[hf]

Don't worry. I don't know what the "sure thing" would look like, but the numbers say Obama can win this.

[McJulie]

Maybe this is so obvious that nobody's bothered to mention it, but the thing that jumped out at me is that she gives that vague, catchphrase-filled answer because

PALIN HAS NEVER HEARD THE PHRASE "BUSH DOCTRINE" BEFORE

She simply hasn't a clue what he's talking about. Just... wow.

Also, her voice is really nasal and annoying. I can't believe the people who called Hillary Clinton "shrill" are head over heels for this woman. They are really smoking the kool-aid.

[schism]

Don't worry. I don't know what the "sure thing" would look like, but the numbers say Obama can win this.

The numbers said Kerry could win in '04. Pessimism is always vindicated in politics.

[Blackadder]

Obama may still be able to win, but he's got a lot of negatives. He's African American, obviously. He's relatively young. He's quite liberal for modern American tastes. He's a senator, and only two previous Presidents were elected straight from the Senate (both died in office during their first term!) If the Republicans hadn't nominated a seriously weak candidate of their own, I don't think Obama would have a chance, even after eight years of Republican misrule. Right now the polls look exactly like they did four years ago. Granted Kerry almost beat Bush, so the vote easily could go for Obama. But I would feel a lot better if Obama had a comfortable lead, since I fear undecideds are going to break at least slightly for McCain when all is said and done. Don't get me wrong - I want Obama to win. I'm just afraid he didn't quite make the sale and I'm not sure he'll be able to do it in the time left.

(A sure thing would have looked exactly like Bill Clinton. There are some more Democrats with red state appeal where he came from, right?)

[Matt]

"The level of ignorance that Palin displays here simply cannot be excused."

No, actually it's McCain and Gibson who are wrong here. The Bush Doctrine is the idea that state sponsors of terrorism will be treated in the same way as the terrorists themselves. Obviously it was pitched out the window prior to the Iraq invasion or else it would have been the Saudi Arabia invasion, but that's hardly Palin's fault. Charles Krauthammer is the guy who coined the term, and he notes (on the NRo site if anyone's curious) that it was first used in the above sense before Iraq rendered it meaningless.

[Yeltar]

This probably makes me a Bad Person, but I couldn't help laughing out loud at: "...BJU Press textbooks give Christian schools a “no-brainer” option." Sure do, dat!!!

I also got a similar belly laugh out of an article in today's local paper, about our largest fundamental mega-church acquiring the equipment to create and broadcast their own television station. Oh yes, bought the capacity from the cable company and everything, and are going to produce original content as well as re-broadcast other "Christian" content. The quote that cracked me: "Our heart is to minister to ____ County, but also to give them some great family entertainment on a channel where they never have to worry about their conscious being violated."

*cackle* *chortle* *guffaw*

And by next year, they hope to have a 30-minute daily local newscast too. I wonder if they hope nobody's conscious for THAT gem either?!?

Wooooo-hoooo-hooooo ha ha ha ha ha haaaa!!! *schnort, schnort*

Yes, a Bad Person. I must be. I'm sure I am. Oh well oh well....

[Joe Propinka]

Apparently no one outside the world of Conservative pundits is confused about what constitutes "The Bush Doctrine."

Sadly, Conservapedia barely manages two paragraphs on Bush's foreign policy, or I'd link to something there.

[Cowboy Diva]

'sfunny, in my college of an evangelical bent the term worldview was considered a shorthand for paradigm, especially in the [far too] many discussions of Thomas Kuhn's writings.
I have to admit though, the concept of "biblical worldview" is just so full of STUPID I am in awe that people can say it with a straight face.

By the way, is it just me, or in the clip above does Palin's response, "In what respect, Charlie?" strike anyone else as impatient/exasperated in tone? I really did expect to see the governor checking a watch to see if time was up yet.

[Chris Koeberle]

Wait, so Kristol has 8, and Krauthammer can only name four? You'd think the guy credited by Wikipedia with inventing the term would man up.

[Dahne]

From allaboutworldview.org:

Gay is a word that used to mean joyfully happy - and for those "gays" who turn to Christ and repent of this lifestyle, gay can mean joyfully happy again!

Wow.

[inge]

Yeltar: I couldn't help laughing out loud at: "...BJU Press textbooks give Christian schools a “no-brainer” option."

You're not the only one.

[Kyle]

To be fair, there is a certain segment of mainstream evangelicalism that also heavily uses the worldview paradigm (and the term itself). InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, especially, often talks about worldviews, primarily as a result of its connection with James Sire, longtime editor of InterVarsity Press and author of The Universe Next Door, a "worldview" catalog that is plugged at IV conferences nationwide. While I do think that Sire and UND are unfortunately caught within the kinds of post-Enlightenment thought that make his concept of worldview untenable, it is impossible to place Sire and IVCF as a whole into the RTC camps. (And I actually know this for a fact, having been something between an acquaintance and a friend of Sire's for about five years.) I don't think we know enough about Palin to know the provenance of her use of the term "worldview." Perhaps someone should look up those five schools in six years to see if she ever was involved in an InterVarsity chapter.

[Reynard]

Yeltar: I couldn't help laughing out loud at: "...BJU Press textbooks give Christian schools a “no-brainer” option."

What makes me laugh (and scares the shit outta me at the same time) is that it's said *and* meant utterly without irony.

[paulcarp]

We used BJU textbooks at my (private) high school. I'll note that they didn't teach Physics, but rather, "physical sciences."

I wonder how that shaped my -- cringe -- "worldview."

Hmmm. Maybe home-schooling is just another method of preventing knowledge from gettin' in. Like sex ed...to prevent teen pregnancy, as an example.

[cjmr's husband]

Maybe home-schooling is just another method of preventing knowledge from gettin' in

Sometimes. But sometimes it's to make sure that more knowledge gets in.

[Me]

I don't understand the argument that there have been four major "Bush Doctrines". All I see is the same absolutist, nationalistic behavior. Krauthammer breaks it up as:

1. Pre-9/11: Intense Isolationism
2. Directly Post-9/11: Proto-Totalitarianism and Militancy in Response to Aggression
3. Early Iraq War: Proto-Totalitarianism and Militancy in Anticipation of Aggression
4. Lat Iraq War: SPREAD FREEDOM!

First off, I have no clue what he's referencing for part four. I distinctly remember there being the same nonsensical "Freedom Spreading" arguments there are now back when the third stage was infantile. All that seems to have changed was that these background arguments have become center stage.

Also, I don't see this doctrines as separate ideologies but instead continuous. Each of them are mere temporary policies for expressing the same contempt for the average American and the rest of the world. First, because there was no violent strike to justify "retaliation", this hatred took the form of isolationism and muted hostility. Later, with an excuse for violent action, the Bush regime decided to blast Afghanistan and threaten every one into line. Then, the attention shifted to gaining more power through the same vehicle of military "response". Originally, Iraq was allegedly tied to AQ, then it was (on its own) a military threat, and lastly it was simply to bring the Iraqis "Freedom". All of these were guises however to more or less get a second Afghanistan.

TL;DR Version: It's less a different doctrine and more that the geopolitical situation permitted more extreme behavior or their goals required a different wrapping.

[Tonio]

While Fred's dissection of "biblical worldview" is excellent, I didn't see the connection between that and the worldview that Palin invoked. "Trying to rid the world of Islamic extremism" didn't set off my religious-war alarms, because I've heard plenty of secular conservatives say similar things.

[Drake Pope]

Sometimes. But sometimes it's to make sure that more knowledge gets in.

Depends on who's doing it. Good home-school parents make their kids learn more; bad home-school parents make their kids learn less. Sort of like how good teachers in public schools tend to make their students smarter and bad teachers tend to do the opposite.

TL;DR Version: It's less a different doctrine and more that the geopolitical situation permitted more extreme behavior or their goals required a different wrapping.

You're just jealous because when you make stupid mistakes you don't have vast armies of think-tanks and pundits intent on repackaging it as brilliant masterstrokes. I wish I had that too. Then when I rear-end a stop sign after getting wasted one night and trying to drive across town in the dark, I can say, "No, officer, I wasn't drunk. I was merely implementing my Alcohol-based Initiatives Doctrine! Perhaps there could have been better planning and more oversight but the overall concept was sound! Hey, no, don't taze me, bro! AIIEEE!"

I should run for office.

[The Ridger]

Yeah. It's pretty clear that Palin was not having trouble identifying *which* Bush Doctrine Gibson meant. She hasn't paid any attention whatsoever to foreign affairs - not in and of itself a bad thing necessarily, but sort of ... weird in a choice for VP.

[paulcarp]

Sometimes. But sometimes it's to make sure that more knowledge gets in.

I don't doubt it. But when people use code words about home schooling, I think it is enforcing the idea that the public schools will let all that secular nonsense affect the education of your child. It's not about whether home-schooling works, it's about whether public schools have gone too far.

[hapax]

here are some more Democrats with red state appeal where he came from, right?

Not with significant national appeal, no. I mean, my local mayor is very Clintonesque -- populist, charismatic, good ol' boy background with sound environmental and economic ideas -- but he's less qualified for national office than Sarah Palin. At the state level, I can think of some red-state Democratic Governors and Senators, but they're about as exciting as soggy toast.

Admittedly, practically any Democrat would be better than McSame. But even though I'm not all that pumped about Obama, he certainly scores as more than just "the lesser of two evils."