In an archived post of mine from September 7 2011, "Each Man is 3 Men" ~ President Obama's 3 MenI tried to identify the 3 Obamas with the help of astrology. Almost two years have passed, we're now several months into the President's second term. Have Obama's "3 Men" become any clearer to an observer? I guess it depends from which political vantage point one views the scene.
"Each man is three men:I'll take another stab at it - this time sans astrology.
What he thinks he is,
What others think he is,
and
What he really is."
What he thinks he is ~ Only Barack Obama can know what he thinks he is - that's for sure. Even his closest companion, his wife, will not be 100% certain of how he honestly sees himself.
What others think he is ~ This one can have as many answers as there are people observing him. The main groups' opinions seem to fall along these broad lines:
Republicans of the far right like to think he's a socialist, Marxist ready to sell out the USA lock stock and ....whatever.
Moderate conservative and corporate Republicans tend to see him as weak and worth bullying to get their way.
Centre-left Democrats keep holding on to experience the kind of "Hope and Change" their hero promised he'd bring to them in 2008. They see him as a good guy hamstrung by wicked right-wing politics.
Progressive Democrats on the left of the party have begun to see through the Obama fog and are daring to criticise their leader (not before time in my opinion - and too little, too late!)
Those further to the left, whether Democrat or of other parties or of no registered party, have been critcising the President for years, seeing him as, at best a middle-of-the-road conservative, not far removed from the likes of Ronald Reagan, and even to the right of Richard Nixon.
What he really is ~ I wish we could be sure.
Was he groomed from early on in his career (or sooner), by the Real Powers that Be, as a likely candidate for the presidency during a time - possibly not then identified - when a black (half black) presidential candidate would inspire the disillusioned masses initially, then, after some had seen through the plan he'd continue to be pushed as "better than the alternative". He was certainly pushed hard and aided by the corporate-owned media in 2008 and 2012. In 2008 it had seemed far more likely that Hillary Clinton was headed for the White House. In 2012 there was no primary challenger from the Democrats and other parties were virtually locked out. Why would the Real Powers have preferred Obama to H. Clinton in 2008? His inexperience, meaning malleability, and perhaps a rather conservative and corporate-friendly under-pinning to his superficially Democratic nature?
Or...was he absolutely truthful and sincere in all his 2008 campaign speeches? Did he really believe he could bring the kind of hope and change of which he spoke, and only found out once ensconced in the White House that he was to be little more than a puppet? If that was so - why did he campaign so hard for a second term?
Or..if he wasn't deliberately groomed, did he understand exactly what would and would not be possible as president, and decided to go for it anyway, using as much insincerity and as many lies as he needed? He's seen by many as a narcissist, not into a lot of grinding hard work, loves to leave the daily drudgery to others. (I remember he once said as much in a 2008 debate when asked what was his least favourite part of being a politician, and it rang a warning bell for me). He'll be set up for life now. In 2016 he'll create his presidential library, go off on speaking tours, write books and never have to work again.
So...what is he really?
6 comments:
He's a way-shower politician. After eight fun years of lil Bush, hopes were high and the gold was given to an untainted newbie. The astrology commencing 2008 indicates an unsettling time, greed and business as usual in conflict with a disrupting awareness of principles, humanity, and explosive polarities, often caused by the trampling of the little people. Other nations' leaders, Obama and his appointed staffers, and the US congress are enabling the citizens of the world to see the fallacy of misdirected and often corrupt leadership not representative of the citizens. Somehow or other, this current reality show is necessary to reclaim what has been lost. The current astrology clearly indicates a need to suffer through this. We little people gave the keys to the lion's cage to the lions and it's time to retrieve them.
Anonymous ~ Thanks for your thoughts - I agree!
I've just been reading the latest piece by Chris Hedges, along wioth comments at Common Dreams. Thoughts there align with your last sentence.
The question that hangs over everything though is "HOW?"
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/20-1
I don't see that there are enough people of the same mind yet. Common Dreams commenters are a feisty lot, but they make up little more than a cupful in an ocean - still, it's a start, I guess.
I would describe him as a charlatan. A front-man for the powers-that-be. Not necessarily groomed for the position, but knowing full well he would be acting on behalf of big business and prepared to do so for the selfish opportunities it afforded. He has a glib tongue, a ready wit, and a winning smile - all great assets for a conman. History may well view him as the worst US president ever. At least with George W Bush, what you saw was what you got. Obama is sly, underhand, and two-faced. I think the Obama's see themselves as the first black family to really make it to the top, and bask in the shallow glory of hobnobbing with the 'gentry'. They'll sell us all down the river to keep that position, while maintaining a front of 'working for the people' that still manages to fool many.
RJ Adams ~ That's certainly one likely explanation of who he is.
He was helped enormously by the DNC and the media in 2008, which makes me think that he might have had some high powered backers behind him, if not exactly grooming him, then taking advantage of a wagon ready to roll - and with it the $$$$$$$$$$$$ dosh and millions eager followers and consumers seeking a fabled "hope and change".
Having arrived in their Ivory Tower, the First Family, as you say, must see themselves as having "arrived". Sadly they did not bother to take their ethnic brothers and sisters, nor many of us others, along for the ride.
When even Dr Cornel West and Tavis Smiley see through the President, there has to be something very, very wrong going on.
I cannot agree with all this anti-Obamism though I do not esteem him, it may seem a contradiction but it is not.
It is not a contradiction for, if we are looking for what Twilight calls “THE HOW”, that how, we won’t ever find it re-cooking ol’ XXth Century ideas.
In other words: Either a new start, **really**, or continuing with what did not function last Century will make us very sure and safe: Sure that the world will fail again and let safe the ones who brought to this failure...
What I do see is Obama as the President of the Weak Compromise of old ideas of XXth Century as, on the contrary, I see George W. Bush as the President of the Open Domination of the Skull&Bones and other networks.
Now Kerry is again in charge as H. Clinton has been chased again.
Hilary Clinton - with her husband - was another of the Compromise: They said to the Corporate world, you maintain the power but we solve the problem of the consensus.
That was what was done by the Clintons and done in a far weaker way - due to many reasons - by Obama, that I call the President of the Weak Compromise as Clinton was the President of the Strong Compromise.
That Kerry is in charge, and so with him some “strange” network, means one thing only: The Weak Meek Compromise is over...
Chomp ~~ Rather than being exactly anti-Obama I try to understand where he's coming from - who he is, truly. I don't think you and I are far apart in our opinions, we've just expressed them in a different way. :-)
Corporations, capitalism and greed for both wealth and power are the root of what's wrong in the country and the world. But while corporatism rules any other system will be impossible without all out revolution which I doubt could happen here - unless there's some vast catastrophe on the horizon.
I think you are right about the Clintons - they are a wee bit stronger in action "for" the people, and clever enough to keep those who hold the real power happy enough while looking after ordinary people's needs somewhat better than Obama does. All of which comes from a deeper understanding of "the game" being played, and a better understanding of American people as a whole. My husband and I have said this - or almost this - many times since 2008.
About Kerry - I don't know. He's an unknown quantity and quality for me.
Post a Comment