This is starting to creep me out

[Vorticity]

Look at this Boston Herald article by Margery Eagan on the "Obama phenomenon":

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1074977&format=text

Here's a quote:

Oh - I’m nervous because it’s all gone to his head and he hasn’t even won yet.

I’m nervous because it’s gone to a lot of other people’s heads as well. Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings introduced Obama last week in Baltimore and said, “This is not a campaign for president of the United States, this is a movement to change the world.”

“He walks into a room and you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere,” says George Clooney.

“I’ll do whatever he says to do,” says actress Halle Berry. “I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear.”

It's really starting to creep me out when I hear people saying these things (especially the vaguely psycho-sexual Halle Berry quote). I think it's bad for a society when people start acting this way towards elected officials. Cults of personality centered around leaders are always a bad thing for a country.

Now don't get me wrong. I actually voted for Obama in the New Mexico primary. However, I voted for him solely for the strategic reason that he seems to have a higher probability of defeating McCain in the general election.

I'm a political cynic: I'm entirely confident that every single one of the candidates for president will be a worse president than their supporters expect, with Obama as no exception. With all of this Jesus-talk around Obama, the letdown will be all the more intense if he wins.

Why does every candidate have to be Abraham F***ing Lincoln according to his or her supporters?

[Puppycow]

Point taken. I shall henceforth refrain from emphasizing Obama's messianic qualities such as his ability to walk on water. ;)

I would also like to point out that my reasons for supporting Obama are entirely sober and realistic.

[elbe]

I'm voting Obama because I heard from a very reliable source, a random email sent to snopes, that he may, in fact, be the antichrist. If that's not a good enough reason to vote someone into the presidency, then I don't know what is.

Yeah, all the fawning is rather weird, but maybe they're really, really, really into politics...

[Brainster]

Despite the supposed tolerance for atheism, they are selling this as a religious movement (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2539494179064730283&q=Michelle+Obama+UCLA&total=40&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1) instead of a political one.

[Piggy]

No one should be surprised at this.

The possibility of the election of a "black" president* in the United States in 2008, a mere generation after the end of Jim Crow... no one can deny that this is historical.

For that reason, his campaign becomes bigger than him. It becomes even more emotional than political campaigns already are.

It's impossible to deny that his candidacy, if it succeeds, represents a sea change, a historical moment.

People get caught up in that. Plus, you add his undeniable personal charisma and his mastery of rhetoric (and as a rhetorician, I do not use the term "mastery" lightly)... this is to be expected.

It would be surprising if this were not happening.


*I only put "black" in quotes b/c -- although I certainly understand why it's the case -- I can't help but note that a man of mixed parentage in the USA is still "black". Objectively, it would make as much sense to call him "white". But of course, no one would.

[Dr Adequate]

“He walks into a room and you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere,” says George Clooney.

“I’ll do whatever he says to do,” says actress Halle Berry. “I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear.” Look you've got to admit that that's quite impressive.

How much charisma do you have to have before George Clooney starts following you about like a dog 'cos you've got more charisma than his charisma? That's like the scene in Austin Powers when he makes the fembots' heads explode because he has more mojo. Sorry for the erudite literary reference there.

You remember I told you Obama had superpowers?

Nonetheless, I shall not admit that it's a real cult unless he actually makes Halle Berry pick up the cups.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Also, he is not a "rockstar" until he autographs a woman's breasts.

[latent aaaack]

More similar criticism from an op-ed columnist at the Washington Post now wearing a fake mustache and glasses out of fear of the Obama revolution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902336.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

It's hard not to be dazzled by Barack Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline). At the 2004 Democratic convention, he visited with Newsweek (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Newsweek+Inc.?tid=informline) reporters and editors, including me. I came away deeply impressed by his intelligence, his forceful language and his apparent willingness to take positions that seemed to rise above narrow partisanship. Obama has become the Democratic presidential front-runner precisely because countless millions have formed a similar opinion. It is, I now think, mistaken.

[Piggy]

Piggy's theory of election evolution:

First, people are seeking information. Who are these candidates? What do they stand for?

As a result, the candidates jockey to define themselves, looking for those issues that people respond to.

In the process, they begin staking out territory, as they discover which claims and tropes work for them, and help to distinguish them from the rest of the field.

As this happens, for each candidate a few memes emerge. These 2 or 3 telegraphic ideas come to define each candidate. They're not fixed; they can change. And in the early stages, they often do. But it boils down to a very few simple ideas generally associated with each candidate.

As these central memes harden, people begin siding with candidates they can agree with, whose memes match their goals, aspirations, and beliefs.

That's where we are now.

But there's another phase ahead -- the one which will actually determine the outcome.

Once the candidates' public identities are established, the voting population begins looking around at each other. Everyone knows what the candidates "stand for". So it becomes a matter of associating oneself with the group who supports the candidate that stands for those ideas or actions with which the voter wishes to be associated.

In other words, people tend to vote for a candidate, in the final analysis, because they want to be seen -- by others, and by themselves -- as the kind of person who would vote for that candidate.

"Oh, you support him? Pssh!"

"Oh, you support her? Well cool!"

We're in that transition with Obama.

The bulk of Obama supporters will be voters who want to be perceived, or who want to perceive themselves, as the kind of people who would vote for someone like Obama.

As long as Obama can make people feel good about that, he has a great chance of riding his momentum to the White House.

[Dr Adequate]

Also, he is not a "rockstar" until he autographs a woman's breasts. Note to women: you cannot become rockstars by autographing your own breasts.

Yes, that is deeply unfair, but I didn't make the rules.

[Redtail]

No one should be surprised at this.

The possibility of the election of a "black" president* in the United States in 2008, a mere generation after the end of Jim Crow... no one can deny that this is historical.

For that reason, his campaign becomes bigger than him. It becomes even more emotional than political campaigns already are.

It's impossible to deny that his candidacy, if it succeeds, represents a sea change, a historical moment.

People get caught up in that. Plus, you add his undeniable personal charisma and his mastery of rhetoric (and as a rhetorician, I do not use the term "mastery" lightly)... this is to be expected.

It would be surprising if this were not happening.


*I only put "black" in quotes b/c -- although I certainly understand why it's the case -- I can't help but note that a man of mixed parentage in the USA is still "black". Objectively, it would make as much sense to call him "white". But of course, no one would.

As someone who resembles this description, more so that Obama in fact, I agree whole heartedly.

[Puppycow]

The bulk of Obama supporters will be voters who want to be perceived, or who want to perceive themselves, as the kind of people who would vote for someone like Obama.

As long as Obama can make people feel good about that, he has a great chance of riding his momentum to the White House.
I think you have an insight into human psychology there.

This is why this line of attack is being tried now. If you can't go after Obama, go after his supporters. Describe them as credible, immature, faddish, impressionable, mesmerized, enthralled, spellbound, entranced, hypnotized, rapt, bamboozled, cultish and “drunk on kool-aid.” Who wants to be one of those weak-minded cult people.
I don’t know whether this will work. Maybe some people who prefer to think of themselves as sober and skeptical, and immune to silly fads, will be turned off.
I doubt it will get too much traction, because it’s sort of an elitist and pessimistic kind of argument.

[New Ager]

I'm voting Obama because I heard from a very reliable source, a random email sent to snopes, that he may, in fact, be the antichrist. If that's not a good enough reason to vote someone into the presidency, then I don't know what is.



Then that would mean there is a Christ and you would be on the wrong side. :)

[Krash]

Why does every candidate have to be Abraham F***ing Lincoln according to his or her supporters?

I think that the loud ones usually come across as fanatics while those inclined to be reserved in their support are rarely noticed. Thus, it's easy to make such generalizations.

[elbe]

Then that would mean there is a Christ and you would be on the wrong side. :)
Nah, I think it's admitting that someone, somewhere believes it and I'm just stupid enough to vote based on their beliefs.

[NeoRicen]

I think it's a sign of the times in America that a candidate campaigning merely on bipartisanship and a shift in government priorities is labelled an overly optimistic whack job and supporters of this the same thing.

I mean really, read his book and listen to his speeches, what he's advocating isn't really that radical. This is probably why his supporters are so eager, they know what he wants to do can be accomplished, that's why it's important.

[LawnOven]

Yeah well, looks like, as I say, that some people just need to be ruled. I have to find out to harness this tendency in certain people and use it to become rich and powerful.

So does this mean that Clooney and Berry really are functionally retarded?

No, but seriously, I hate it when people, lets say "the media", create a cult of personality around a person; just so they can tear it down later and shout "Aha! He's a phony!" Because he doesn't live up to their impossible self-constructed expectations and it fills up copyspace. That's like, what they did to Howard Dean too. The newspapers are creating their own news. Ohhh, he's a politician, big ****** surprise. Is the general populace really that stupid? I mean, come on people.

I'm voting for Obama because I'm sick of the same two damn families being seen as the figureheads for my country. Obama also seems to be one of the smarter viable candidates to come along in quite a while; certainly since before I was born. His optimistic output whether realistic or not seems like a good thing for a president to have. I've got terrorist fatigue, and I think America needs a president that has the potential to make us feel good about ourselves again. If we don't get "change" from him, we shouldn't have expected to get it from anyone else either.

You should expect to be disappointed by politicians from time to time, I mean, they're just people, like you, they're going to eff-up now and again or do something you disagree with.

Its not Obama's fault if some people are stupid.

[Elizabeth I]

Note to women: you cannot become rockstars by autographing your own breasts.

Yes, that is deeply unfair, but I didn't make the rules.

Not even if I autograph them "Jon Bon Jovi" or "Gene Simmons"?

That's like, what they did to Howard Dean too. The newspapers are creating their own news. Ohhh, he's a politician, big ****** surprise. Is the general populace really that stupid? I mean, come on people.

Come on now, don't you think Dean a little bit to do with his own crash-and-burn?

[Hokulele]

Note to women: you cannot become rockstars by autographing your own breasts.

Yes, that is deeply unfair, but I didn't make the rules.

Dammit.

* Puts away felt-tip *


Back to the OP, this is purely anecdotal, but it seemed when the candidates' minions were promoting Clinton and Obama in Hawai'i just before Tuesday's elections, the talks I heard and the discussions I had with friends really were on the issues, and not on the personalities. Although it would be nice to believe I am supporting someone because I am a part of something larger, and it would be nice to believe I am backing a winner, I don't really see my reasons for my vote that way. Granted, most of the people I have political discussions with IRL tend to be close to my age, so I do not hear as much of the youth-oriented plugs.

[LawnOven]

Come on now, don't you think Dean a little bit to do with his own crash-and-burn?


Well, he screamed after he came in third Iowa and that was icky.

[The Painter]

Well, he screamed after he came in third Iowa and that was icky.


You should expect to be disappointed by politicians from time to time, I mean, they're just people, like you, they're going to eff-up now and again or do something you disagree with

[quarky]

Dean's scream was taken out of context by the media.
It was an assasination by the media.
Quite stunning to witness their power.

[Piggy]

Dean's scream was taken out of context by the media.
It was an assasination by the media.
Quite stunning to witness their power.

In all fairness, they played it because they knew it would sell.

I think in most cases where "the media" is blamed for this or that, it's actually our fault to a large extent, because if we didn't gobble it up, they wouldn't put it on the plate.

Of course, that doesn't exonerate the infotainment industry, which often goes out of its way to turn a non-story into a scandal in order to attract eyeballs.

Fox News is very good at this, for example. They love to dish dirt and justify it by claiming that it's really the potential social impact of the dirt that they're covering. While I was at the gym earlier today, I saw them give extensive coverage to the question of "Will patriotism have an impact on the Presidential race?", of course portraying McCain as the "patriotic" choice. When, in fact, it's their very coverage which is a key factor in generating the perception which they claim merely to be "covering".

[Beth]

In all fairness, they played it because they knew it would sell.

I think in most cases where "the media" is blamed for this or that, it's actually our fault to a large extent, because if we didn't gobble it up, they wouldn't put it on the plate.

Well, I try to do my part by not watching them. The only way I know about some of this stuff is from the headlines on Google. It's pretty hard to avoid knowing that Britney has gone insane again and that politicians are being accused of having sex with women they aren't married to. I just can't get excited by such 'scandals' other than to feel sorry for the people they target. The stories all seem to stay the same from year to year, sometimes the names change.

Of course, one result is I'm rather ill-informed about current events. :( Ever since the war in Afganistan started, I find that the 45 to 60 minutes of NPR during my commute to work is sometimes more news than I can handle.

[Sefarst]

I'm voting for Obama because I'm sick of the same two damn families being seen as the figureheads for my country. Obama also seems to be one of the smarter viable candidates to come along in quite a while; certainly since before I was born. His optimistic output whether realistic or not seems like a good thing for a president to have. I've got terrorist fatigue, and I think America needs a president that has the potential to make us feel good about ourselves again. If we don't get "change" from him, we shouldn't have expected to get it from anyone else either.
I don't particularly like Hillary Clinton (or Obama for that matter), but I can't stand it when people give as their reason for voting against her that they don't like the idea of "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton" or dynasties or what have you. If Clinton is the best candidate, it shouldn't matter if her husband was president. As for Obama being the smartest to come along in a long while, I don't see it. He's certainly intelligent, but I don't see how anyone can begin to decide that he's smarter than any other particular candidate.

And as for the Change Message, I have to ask, "change to what?" Change is certainly not good if we end up worse off because of it. I've read through his platform and watched several of his speeches. It's largely a mix of good ideas and bad, but I think he gets the major issues wrong.

[mortimer]

deleted... not sure what i thought i was responding to...

[Dorian Gray]

It's impossible to deny that his candidacy, if it succeeds, represents a sea change, a historical moment.

And Hillary Clinton's candidacy, if it succeeds, represents a 'c' change.

[The Painter]

And as for the Change Message, I have to ask, "change to what?" Change is certainly not good if we end up worse off because of it.

Change!! Yes that's it. Today it seems like everyone today wants to go back to the "60's". Change is what everyone wanted back then too. I remember my hippie days of the late 60's and early 70's. We protested for change, all over the country. We fought for change in the streets of Chicago, Kent State, and other places. We forced a President out of office. We ended the war. We got change. The times we live in now are because of the changes we got back then. How ya' like it???

[Dr Adequate]

Change!! Yes that's it. Today it seems like everyone today wants to go back to the "60's". Change is what everyone wanted back then too. I remember my hippie days of the late 60's and early 70's. We protested for change, all over the country. We fought for change in the streets of Chicago, Kent State, and other places. We forced a President out of office. We ended the war. We got change. The times we live in now are because of the changes we got back then. How ya' like it??? It's dreadful, you guys should restart the Vietnam war (cos it was going so well) raise Richard Nixon from the dead and install him as President, and bring back racial segregation. You could criminalize homosexuality, have Klansmen in Congress, a little "Kinder Kirche Kuche" for the ladies, bless 'em ... and if Barack Obama wants to "change" something, he can start with the seating arrangements on buses.

Ah yes ... the good old days.

[Brainster]

Dean's scream was taken out of context by the media.
It was an assasination by the media.
Quite stunning to witness their power.

I heard it live (well, live on TV which was in the other room), and to be honest with you, I thought it was some kind of parody, that it couldn't possibly be really Howard Dean. I would remind you, however, that it came after Dean had lost badly in Iowa, so the notion that the media did him in is a little absurd.

[Dr Adequate]

I heard it live (well, live on TV which was in the other room), and to be honest with you, I thought it was some kind of parody, that it couldn't possibly be really Howard Dean. The point, as I understand it, is that Dean was shouting to be heard over a roomful of cheering people, and that the "media", whether accidentally or of a purpose, broadcast what was coming over his mike, rather than how it sounded to someone in the hall. You could do that to any politician and they'd sound weird.

[quarky]

As I understood it, Dean's scream was to his cadre of volunteers on his campaign...not meant for the general public. I was watching TV that night; something I almost never do; and was stunned to see his scream repeated on every network, just hours after it happened. Even the comedy shows were ready with their wisecracks. The feedback mechanism was nearly instantaneous.

[Darth Rotor]

It's dreadful, you guys should restart the Vietnam war (cos it was going so well) raise Richard Nixon from the dead and install him as President, and bring back racial segregation. You could criminalize homosexuality, have Klansmen in Congress, a little "Kinder Kirche Kuche" for the ladies, bless 'em ... and if Barack Obama wants to "change" something, he can start with the seating arrangements on buses.

Senator Byrd of W VA (http://byrd.senate.gov/)is still in Congress, so we do have a Klansman (former) in congress. :D David Duke didn't make the cut, but I'm sure he'd love to pitch in. Shall I have him call you? He, like you, is a Doctor.

I'll get straight to work on reviving Nixon, I know a well respected Necromancer. (http://www.guildwars.com/gameplay/professions/necromancer/) (OK, so he's a guy my son plays Guild Wars with, it's the best I can do on short notice! )

Racial segregation? Can you define the races you wish to segregate before we get started on that?

Buses? How about some trains?

DR

[Suddenly]

The point, as I understand it, is that Dean was shouting to be heard over a roomful of cheering people, and that the "media", whether accidentally or of a purpose, broadcast what was coming over his mike, rather than how it sounded to someone in the hall. You could do that to any politician and they'd sound weird.

It was more the sight than the sound. I compared it then to Dukakis riding around in that tank and I think history is with me.

It was more damaging because it played up to form in that it seemed to distill everything people didn't like about Dean into a nice small package. He looked like a foolish nerd in over his head, and since that was more or less the general criticsm about him, it caught fire. Dukakis was seen as someone too small for the job, and... well... ye gads.


Most of the backlash against Obama is going to come from those that will be shocked to find out he is a liberal, on the pretense that his trying to transend and such is an implication he claims to be unique to the bone. Somehow his being a liberal will be seen as a betrayal, that he is really Hubert Humphery with a really deep tan or something.

[Suddenly]

Change!! Yes that's it. Today it seems like everyone today wants to go back to the "60's". Change is what everyone wanted back then too. I remember my hippie days of the late 60's and early 70's. We protested for change, all over the country. We fought for change in the streets of Chicago, Kent State, and other places. We forced a President out of office. We ended the war. We got change. The times we live in now are because of the changes we got back then. How ya' like it???




I missed when Bush invaded Iraq based on the I Ching.

You lost. The war ended way after the hippies became irrelevant. You didn't get anyone out of office. The Reagan Revolution was the hippies being let go of for good. The most liberal president since then got off on executing retarded people and was so socialist he pushed for NAFTA.

[The Painter]

I missed when Bush invaded Iraq based on the I Ching.

You lost. The war ended way after the hippies became irrelevant. You didn't get anyone out of office. The Reagan Revolution was the hippies being let go of for good. The most liberal president since then got off on executing retarded people and was so socialist he pushed for NAFTA.

I guess you missed the sarcasm in my voice.

[dudalb]

It was more the sight than the sound. I compared it then to Dukakis riding around in that tank and I think history is with me.

It was more damaging because it played up to form in that it seemed to distill everything people didn't like about Dean into a nice small package. He looked like a foolish nerd in over his head, and since that was more or less the general criticsm about him, it caught fire. Dukakis was seen as someone too small for the job, and... well... ye gads.


Most of the backlash against Obama is going to come from those that will be shocked to find out he is a liberal, on the pretense that his trying to transend and such is an implication he claims to be unique to the bone. Somehow his being a liberal will be seen as a betrayal, that he is really Hubert Humphery with a really deep tan or something.


That is why I have a problem with the "Obama Is A Uniter" rhetoric. A good percentage of the US population simply do not agree with liberal policies, and Obama is a Liberal ,as much as he will play the centrists in the upcoming campaign.
There is nothing wrong with being a Liberal,but don't pretend that the large precentage of the US population that are conservative on various issues will convert just because Obama has a certain amount of Charisma.
In the end it is all about policies and programs, not whether a leader can inspire or not. I am not denying that Charisma is a very useful political tool,but I have a deep suspicion of politicans of whatever stripe who run on Charisma and emotion with policy taking a second seat.
What gets to me is if rightwingers were reacting to a conservative candidate the way some Liberals and Democrats are reacting to Obama the hereforemtnioned OBama supporters would be the first to ridicule them.

[Suddenly]

What gets to me is if rightwingers were reacting to a conservative candidate the way some Liberals and Democrats are reacting to Obama the hereforemtnioned OBama supporters would be the first to ridicule them.

I'd ridicule him for being a right winger. The rest is just conversation.

Obama isn't about converting people as much as getting the center engaged in realistic liberal politics. The mass of people are begining to see the rewards of conservative policies, and having someone in power that sees his job as serving the people rather than sacrificing people at the alter of economic growth at all costs is gaining traction and will continue to do so. The center has been leaning right because things have worked for them. Now that the bill is coming due a lot of them are rethinking the sales pitch...

He's got a powerful message for the center, and I hope his opponents keep mocking his positive approach as they are digging a rather large hole. I am gratified to see conservatives fall into the same stupid trap that has crippled liberals in this country for thirty years.

[Puppycow]

Now this creeps me out. I kind of liked the first will.i.am video 'Yes We Can,' but now he's put out another one that just gives me the creeps. [Shudder]
ghSJsEVf0pU
Should have left well enough alone. :covereyes

[Piggy]

Now this creeps me out. I kind of liked the first will.i.am video 'Yes We Can,' but now he's put out another one that just gives me the creeps. [Shudder]

Should have left well enough alone. :covereyes

Was that Angela Davis?

Well, hey, why let the deluded idealist vote slip thru your fingers? Gotta ****-block the Nader campaign, after all.

[Bododio]

“I’ll do whatever he says to do,” says actress Halle Berry. “I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear.”

Damn. I wish I could get Halle Berry to feel that way about me. :( Of course, it wouldn't be for picking up paper cups that she would be most useful. :o

[Vorticity]

Now this creeps me out. I kind of liked the first will.i.am video 'Yes We Can,' but now he's put out another one that just gives me the creeps. [Shudder]
ghSJsEVf0pU
Should have left well enough alone. :covereyes
****.

That chanting in the background really IS creepy. IMO going in this direction is a big mistake for the Obama campaign.

[Vorticity]

Damn. I wish I could get Halle Berry to feel that way about me. :( Of course, it wouldn't be for picking up paper cups that she would be most useful. :o
That's true. I've heard she's also a mean C++ coder.

[aerosolben]

****.

That chanting in the background really IS creepy. IMO going in this direction is a big mistake for the Obama campaign.
It's not put out or endorsed (AFAIK) by the Obama campaign, it was independently made (as was the other one) by Will.i.am (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will.i.am) of the Black Eyed Peas and Jesse Dylan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Dylan).

[Elind]

Point taken. I shall henceforth refrain from emphasizing Obama's messianic qualities such as his ability to walk on water. ;)

I would also like to point out that my reasons for supporting Obama are entirely sober and realistic.

Please, please, tell us what they are so I don't have to listen to his poetry anymore.

[Puppycow]

Please, please, tell us what they are so I don't have to listen to his poetry anymore.

Mostly foreign policy.

[Elind]

Mostly foreign policy.

Like invading Pakistan or making our enemies love us? I am guessing you are jesting.

[Puppycow]

I'm serious as a heart-attack. He's not going to invade Pakistan.

[MaGZ]

King Obama

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/070323obama-early-photogallery,1,677595.photogallery?index=2

[Upchurch]

Fool MaGZ

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108420




(what does the slide show of Obama's early life have to do with "King Obama"?)

[UserGoogol]

The page MaGZ linked to uses frames, so I think he must've linked to the wrong picture on the gallery by accident. The the 22nd picture (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/070323obama-early-photogallery,1,677595.photogallery?index=22) has "King Obama" carved into some cement at the prep school he went to, although the caption notes that a representative of the school is of the opinion that the word King was carved by someone else. It's still somewhat of a weird thing to link to, but it's somewhat more coherent if I'm right.

[Upchurch]

The the 22nd picture (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/070323obama-early-photogallery,1,677595.photogallery?index=22) has "King Obama" carved into some cement at the prep school he went to, although the caption notes that a representative of the school is of the opinion that the word King was carved by someone else. It's still somewhat of a weird thing to link to, but it's somewhat more coherent if I'm right.
Indeed. It was the 20th picture when I loaded it just now and looked around.

Here's the caption:
While a student in the late 1970s, Barack Obama carved his name in the pavement outside the cafeteria of Punahou School. A representative of the school said she believes "King" was written by another student.

That would make sense since the "King" appears to be written with a thinner stick than "Obama" was.