A Sullivan reader writes:

“You might have a new one in charge.” he said, “Obama!” He seemed fairly enthusiastic, but when I told him that Obama’s full name was Barack Hussein Obama, the man’s face lit up. He couldn’t believe it and starting shouting ecstatically to one of his employees, “Barack Hussein Obama!” I told him that Obama wasn’t a Muslim but had lived in Indonesia. In any case, this didn’t matter to the man. He was so excited that a man with this name might be president of the United States. It was clear that he would tell many people he knew about Obama’s name and that to them, this means something important and even profound [bold mine-DL].

Obviously, I am not an Obama supporter, nor do I think for the most part that an Obama victory in November would be “good for the country” in foreign relations or domestic politics, so I sometimes have to remind myself that the people repeating these stories actually like Obama and are not working overtime to undermine his candidacy.  While I have denounced the false claim that Obama is a Muslim, since it is false and clearly intended to do damage to his reputation, I have said on numerous occasions that it is folly for Obama’s elite admirers both here and overseas to keep emphasising just how “globalised” Obama is.  The more people you have stressing how “important” and “profound” Obama’s middle name is to Palestinian Muslims and the like, the worse it will be for Obama come November (should he be the nominee).  I agree with what Scott wrote in the 1/28 issue:

This world-man aura is not without appeal, especially after eight years of a president deaf to what foreigners think and feel. But taken as far as Obama does, it would be an electoral liability.   

Note: you have the odd situation these days where an Obama supporter relates stories that emphasise Obama’s middle name and the positive reaction from a Muslim audience to that name, this is supposed to show Obama’s potential as world-uniting saviour, but when a Clinton ally claims to be praising the same thing it is regarded as an underhanded trick aimed at stirring up distrust and something that seems to have required an apology!  Whatever the intent of Clintonites, the Kerrey critics were right about one thing: this is information you don’t want to have circulating widely among voters.