Skip to comments.Obama in Nightmare Alley
Posted on 10/13/2009 7:41:36 PM PDT by Pride_of_the_Bluegrass
Full disclosure: I pray for President Obama weekly, in keeping with theJewish practice to seek the peace of the city. But I do not believe he will stand up to the waves of opprobrium that will beat down relentlessly upon him for the next three years. It is conceivable, I wrote in February 2008 [http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa02.html], that Barack Obama, if elected, will destroy himself before he destroys the country. Some of his strongest supporters in the press now fret that they have a sick puppy on their hands.
The epithet narcissistic now sticks to Obama the way swift-footed did to Achilles in the Iliad. Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman wrote Sept. 26, Enough TV, Mr. President and that was before the Norwegian Academy offered Obama yet another primetime spot.
Even an former enthusiast like Marty Peretz, the publisher of the New Republic, has taken up the narcissist label, and with a vengeance. A committed Zionist, Peretz put his reputation on the block for Obama during the summer of 2008 when conservative critics alleged anti-Israel bias in the Obama camp, and the revision of his views must have been painful. He blasted the president in an Oct. 4 blog post [http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/rio-1-chicago-0-the-politics-narcissism-and-general-mcchrystal]:
What I suspect is that the president is probably a clinical narcissist. This is not necessarily a bad condition if one maintains for oneself what the psychiatrists call an "optimal margin of illusion," that is, the margin of hope that allows you to work. But what if his narcissism blinds him to the issues and problems in the world and the inveterate foes of the nation that are not susceptible to his charms?
(Excerpt) Read more at spengler.atimes.net ...
Sorry, but I think it’s worse than mental illness. I believe the man is evil itself.
Then we are screwed, and we have to dig ourselves out of this mess. How is the Bluegrass these days? Rich Arabs still flying their horses into Keeneland? New Circle Road still the major traffic-prone autobahn? (note: do not move to Atlanta if you consider your current traffic bad)
Penalty results in 0.15 additional IQ point yards to the reader but loss of interest in the play. Replay the post.
Please reset the FReeper clock to 1 View.
BS, He is a Commie who took the oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. And has waged a relentless war against the very document that created this Nation. In my book that is Treason.
Am becoming more convinced that we have seen nobamas best shot and he shoots just like those gangstas on the Toledo bar video, lots of banging, damn little hittin.
A fascinating essay, although I don’t think there’s that great a distinction between malignant narcissism and sociopathic personality disorder.
Interesting—VERY interesting—that this essay was evidently turned down by Asia Times on Line, where Spengler normally publishes his essays.
Why? They have not been afraid of his exposes of Islamism, or of the cultural decay of the West. But apparently an expose of Obama is more than they can deal with. So, are they more scared of offending Obama than offending Muslim terrorists?
Unlike most of them, he recognizes they've created a monster...
Thanks for the post.
Perhaps I should add that people THINK that Obama is emphathizing with them. But personally I don’t believe that he is. He doesn’t give a damn about anyone but himself. Only he is very good at fooling people and using people—until the illusion wears thin.
Hitler was much the same way. The German people swooned over him, although he would ruthlessly stamp out anyone who got in his way. They loved him.
Malignant narcissists are able to do that.
He spent years doing community organizing among the south side blacks of Chicago. He didn’t improve their lot one iota. He brainwashed them and politicized them and did ACORN type organizing. If they died in the streets, he could care less. He took millions of dollars to organize housing developments for the poor. The rich developers got richer, the poor got poorer, and the housing all fell to pieces.
That ain’t empathy. That’s using people for your own ends.
Oh cripes. If we start listening to shrinks we are doomed.
A very interesting analysis. I think the author is very close to the truth.
to read later
Interesting, isn't it? As I recall, by 1996, the same essay was being written about Bill Clinton. It took longer to emerge, but the same conclusions were being drawn.
What is it with the Democrat Party's penchant for nominating narcisistic sociopaths?
I believe you could find similar pathologies in both Algore and John Effin' Kerry, as well.
Obamas high-risk flirtation with Ayers indicates a disturbing taste for risky deception. The thrill, it seems, is not only in the attention and adulation, but in the secret knowledge of having deceived everyone else.
sociopaths willfully disregard the rights of others, according to DSM-IV. Typical is a history of deceitfulness where the individual attempts to con people or use trickery for personal profit. For the sociopath, the thrill lies in the deception and the sense of power it brings.
My early premise was that Obama was a sociopath, not a narcissist as such. Barack Obama is a clever fellow who imbibed hatred of America with his mother's milk, but worked his way up the elite ladder of education and career, I wrote in Feb. 2008. He shares the resentment of Muslims against the encroachment of American culture, although not their religion.
He has the empathetic skill set of an anthropologist who lives with his subjects, learns their language, and elicits their hopes and fears while remaining at emotional distance. That is, he is the political equivalent of a sociopath. The difference is that he is practicing not on a primitive tribe but on the population of the United States.
Overwrought voices on the political fringe speak of treason, which is nonsense, for there is no country in particular to whom the United States might be betrayed. Instead, Obama will reduce American influence in the world in keeping with his conviction that America has played a malignant role in the world.
[Spengler is wrong about this part; he hasn't thought this through well enough]
At some point, if my analysis holds water, we should see behavior from Obama consistent with the other side of antisocial personality disorder. Again, from DSM-IV: Impulsiveness is often present, including angry outbursts, failure to consider consequences of behaviors, irritability, and/or physical assaults.
As things go badly wrong and adulation turns into antagonism, we may see a very different side of Obama than he has succeeded in presenting to the public during the past two years.
“Perhaps I should add that people THINK that Obama is emphathizing with them. But personally I dont believe that he is. He doesnt give a damn about anyone but himself. Only he is very good at fooling people and using peopleuntil the illusion wears thin.”
“all the evidence suggests that Obama exudes empathy.”
I agree with you; that was the other thing I think Spengler got wrong.
One problem when amateurs try to do psychology at home. Reimbursement for treating personality disorders is hard to come by regardless of which flavor; there is no incentive to slant these categories one way or the other, so they in fact are probably among the more scientifically valid categories in the DSM.
Obama has narcissistic traits but in fact is heavily on the Borderline side, given his bitched up family history.
What these diagnoses have in common is not "self-importance" per se but rather an underlying dynamic of aggression as opposed to anxiety. The difference is crucial.
Inevitable. Leftist ideology is based on a psychopathic indifference to the welfare of the individual, and the unabashed use of deception in pursuit of an agenda which has no particular public support.
I had begun to perceive an amlost sadistic-like quality to Obama, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. But Spengler did:
the thrill lies in the deception and the sense of power it brings.
the secret knowledge of having deceived everyone else.
You guys are missing one vital factor in this equation: the people of the United States. They love Obama, no matter what he does, because is a a young, hip black man — the perceived opposite of the old, evil white men that they hate.
(And with good reason. The old, evil white men that run most of America’s companies, churches, and other institutions are among the most stupid, venal, and vindictive individuals that have ever lived. They make themselves easy to hate.)
People love Obama for more than his perceived Outsider status, though. They also love him because they have been carefully and subtly propagandized over the years by the entertainment media to perceive white, Christian people as villains, and blacks and members of other races and religions as hip-talking, smart, sexy heroes.
The only way to overcome this sort of programming is to get up right now and throw your TV out with the trash.
But you won’t. You can’t. You love TV.
The news and entertainment media in this country control the opinions of the American people. And this is why I oppose democracy, and all forms of representative government. In any state where political power is derived from the consent of the governed, the REAL power lies in the hands of the most successful demagogue. And with today’s media a his command, a demagogue’s power to manufacture consent in the minds of the majority of voters is simply too great to be countered.
Obama is so well-loved because God has given him a gift — the only true “superpower” that exists. This is the gift of charisma — the power to lead men, to make them love you and obey you out of personal loyalty. In the hands of a Christian, charisma is a powerful force for good. And while Obama claims to be a Christian, his support for legalized abortion and same-sex marriage among other things shows that he is at the very least helping the work of the Enemy.
The only way to defeat an opponent with charisma is for another person with charisma to overcome him. And while a few people on the political right in America have charisma (e.g. Sarah Palin), the Enemy-controlled news and entertainment media will never permit such a person to rise to prominence. Unless the power of the media is broken (see “throw out your TV”, above), any charismatic leaders on the Right will be ridiculed mercilessly and relegated to obscurity.
So what is to be done? First, a defensive strategy: shift your efforts to the home front. Educate your kids in the values and traditions of Western civilization. Resolve to turn your home into a miniature monastery — a place where the knowledge of the Truth is preserved. Then go on the offensive — not with violence or political protests, but one on one. Form alliances with like-minded rightists in your town and share knowledge, information, and resources. Take over your church or parish and transform it into a true community — a home-grown “welfare agency” where its members can turn for financial, spiritual, medical, and emotional help when times get tough. Propagandize your neighbors and acquaintances who are on the side of the Enemy — not by argument (which won’t work) but by planting seeds of doubt in their minds. “Water” these seeds by returning love for hatred, by being a friend to all, especially to those who call you names or try to harm you. In time, the seeds of doubt will sprout and begin cracking the shaky foundations that support their media-created opinions. Be patient.
And have hope. Sooner or later, the current world system will fall. It is based upon false premises and in unsustainable. Our goal is to live until it all comes crashing down, survive the Fall, then crawl out of the wreckage with our civilization intact within our minds and hearts. Once the power of the current system is broken, we will be free to establish a new society, based on the traditional ideas and eternal values of the Judeo-Christian West — among which is not, thank God, the notion of representative government.
Until the Fall, then, learn all you can, keep your eyes open, and pray.
Obama has about as much of that as a maggot.
Most people in the world love him — not his policies, but the MAN himself. That’s charisma.
And I am very wary of indulging in a favorite pastime of the left which is to psychoanalyze Republican candidates to their discredit. On the other hand, can one truly understand Richard Nixon if one does not put searchlight on the Demons? Can one understand the near superhuman drive of Lyndon Johnson without seeing a super human ego? The distinction between Nixon and Johnson on the one hand and Obama on the other hand is twofold: the former two have real accomplishments to their credit and Obama, as I try to point out in my reply below, does not. Nixon and Johnson in their own way betrayed personal foibles which illuminated their psychological conditions. But Obama does not philander, does not drink, at least in excess, maintains a healthy workout regimen, in public at least is always in possession of his savoir-faire, and his worst personal character flaw seems to be an occasional furtive cigarette.
Indeed, the opposite is true, he asked almost perfect pitch for his audience. If one listens to the replay of the old public radio tape of his calling for a civil rights movement to redistribute wealth, one would swear one was listening to it professional announcer on National Public Radio. When he addresses SEIU Or Acorn he can get down for the struggle. He has no difficulty whatever in appearing presidential. The man is a chameleon-a sign of a sociopath.
The article poses a warning which I think bears attention:
As things go badly wrong and adulation turns into antagonism, we may see a very different side of Obama than he has succeeded in presenting to the public during the past two years.
I have been posting for a long time that I see danger in Barack Obama getting us into a war when his personal power is challenged. This, of course, is contrary to the views customarily expressed here on Free Republic that Obama is neutered by his ideology and his foreign policy will be a reprise of Jimmy Carter's, but on steroids. I think that you this is a real danger in the man which the author points alludes to.
Here is the reply:
To those conservatives who indulge a psychological need to disparage the talents of Barack Obama, this article should serve as a well earned slap in the face.
To those conservatives, like myself, who are arm chair bean counters in the game of handicapping elections, let this article be a disquieting wake-up call that many of our assumptions upon which we hope conservatism will build a come back may be as ill-founded as the bluster of those who downgrade Obama's talents.
First, the matter of Obama's talent, or better put, his charisma. Sometime ago I wrote a post which I think captures Obama and explains why his combination of charisma and shallowness make a very dangerous political combination, but one with undeniable electability:
"I think he is a narcissist who survives and prospers not by addressing problems but by manipulating people. Narcissists like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama are not stupid, they are wonderfully clever and exceedingly effective in reading their victims and manipulating them.
I think that Barack Obama has a worldview provided to him, posthumously, by Saul Alinsky which gives him a framework for analysis. In other words, Obama does not "analyze", rather he "sorts" and puts data into their appropriate slots provided by the philosophy of Saul Alinsky. He has learned a vocabulary which enables him to contrive a front of effectiveness, a seriousness of purpose and depth of character which is all a sham.
Think of Barack Obama as the professional coordinator at its Alinsky meeting. For those old enough, think of Barack Obama as the leader of an EST meeting of the 1970s. These experiences give him an eschatology, a vocabulary, a forensic ability to manipulate, and ego satisfaction. What was he doing as editor of the Harvard Law Review if he was not producing actual work? He was acting out as a community organizer with the shtick modified to fit a new venue. If one examines his career at every level the pattern is the same. As a constitutional law lecturer he produced no written work but he was evidently perfectly fit to the culture of the law school. In the Illinois Senate he voted present but ingratiated himself with the Daley machine. He barely passed go in the United States Senate but he knew the vocabulary and he passed muster with the likes of George Soros. In each instance, Barack Obama behaves as a narcissist, very shallow, producing no work product, but selling a great package.
If one takes away the Marxist belief system provided to him or reinforced in every step of his development from his mother to Frank Marshall Davis, to Columbia University, the Harvard Law school, William Ayres, to Reverend Wright, one is left with a truly hollow man. That is why Obama is such a dangerous ideologue. There is no Obama apart from a lifelong sham, a compensation for always being advanced beyond his competence because of his race and his ability to manipulate. He simply cannot stop the act and get off stage because there is nothing but the act.
Obama is a man without a soul and without a spiritual compass. His relationship to Reverend Wright reveals that he has no real spiritual quality to him for there could hardly be a more right apostasy in the church which he attended for 20 years. It has nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with ego satisfaction. It is the opposite of the Judeo-Christian message.
Obama cannot abandon his radicalism because there is no other there there. He is a massive compensation system. His body is a life-support system for his narcissism and the narcissism is utterly dependent on the received wisdom from Saul Alinsky and the rest of them."
Viewed from the perspective of this article, one might properly question whether I got it wrong about Obama relying on his ability to manipulate rather than upon him a capacity to produce honest results. Reading the article, it appears that Obama's success was primarily a public-relations phenomenon in enlisting black McDonald's owners and black radio station owners. The worry is that the voter registration drive is a model of both public-relations sensitivity and dynamic management skills in organizing and harvesting the black vote. If I got it wrong, if it is the latter, if the Chicago voter operation is truly an example of honest results, it is ominous in the extreme.
This interpretation is ominous because we can find parallels to the 2008 election and to Obama's course of governing. The enlistment of black radio station owners and the attempt today to kill talk radio by forcing it into African American hands stands as an example.
The article speaks of Obama's training 700 registrars. This echoes my remarks about his forensic skills and narcissistic needs merging as was the case for EST trainers of the 1970s. This explains much of Obama's need daily, actually by count more than daily, to appear on television. It also confirms the foolishness of those who complain that Obama cannot speak without a Teleprompter.
Is Obama only a narcissist, a Bill Clinton style sociopath, or is he the real deal as his supporters claim, a man who has unperceived talents to produce honest results and organize a Chicago voter drive, a successful primary campaign, a successful presidential election campaign? Parenthetically, it is interesting to note that when pressed for a single qualification which entitled Obama to be president, his supporters fell back on his ability to run a campaign.
G. Before we conclude that Obama has wonderful organizing skills, let us note that in each of these three incidents, all three of them campaigns, Obama was working with race. In the voter drive it was 100% a race effort. In the primary campaign it got down to a nasty slugfest over race between Obama and the Clintons. In both the primary and in the election campaign Obama enjoyed virtually 100% black voter loyalty. Equally important, in those two campaigns he enjoyed unprecedented media support and that media support was predicated on race.
Conservatives clearly will observe that Obama's alleged organizing skills are not so apparent when it comes to governing. But let it be considered for a moment that the governing of the Obama administration still rests on only two legs: the race card and the Saul Alinsky world view.
Imperative T-shirt Phrase Award.
“the people of the United States love Obama”
Some...but most loved the “image” of Obama; they bought the PR & the propaganda. They are slowly waking up to the fact that they got conned-—
That’s why Obama keeps campaigning. He’s trying to get the “magic” back...and it’s wearing thin.
This was all covered before the election,but Obama was elected anyway.
There is a segment in Dreams Of My Father where Obama (Ayers?) is considering his future. He arrives at the adoption of a paticular persona -- The Non-threatening Black -- as the most promising way forward.
He defines and refines the persona, actively practicing it. Soon, he is editor of the Harvard Law Review. -- without having actively campaigned for the job. He had learned how to get something without actually earning it. And, once he had he job, he discovered that -- because he was what he was -- it wasn't necessary for him to do any real work.
The Presidency is nothing less than the ultimate achievement of The Non-Threatening Black. And, yes, it really is all an act.
Would such a hollow person abuse his office by starting a war -- if he thought it would regain him respect and authority? Damn right! It's a sure way to keep the act on center stage...
“Oh cripes. If we start listening to shrinks we are doomed.”
Ser, I must atree. Spengler’s, essay is full of kinda goofy metaphors; clinical narcissist, optimal margins, to build up real nutty conclusions, “sociopaths and narcissists” belong to the same cluster. Then concludes with an “At some point, if my analysis holds water” prediction. It is well written and all in all, sorta fun read.
Not to be taken to seriously.
Nearly 6 months before the presidential election, I wrote this reply exploring the dynamics of white guilt and the Obama persona:
The Big Race - Obama and the psychology of the color barrier
Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:19:17 AM · 3 of 11 nathanbedford to The_Republican
Obama's connection with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, which exploded into the news after the Ohio primary, may do lasting damage to his candidacy by undermining his attempt to transcend race. Wright's words tie Obama to the stereotype of the angry, hostile--and also unpatriotic--black who is seen as hating both whites and white America. Wright turns Obama into a "black candidate" like Jackson or Sharpton. And, as a black candidate, Obama falls prey to a set of stereotypes about black politicians.
In the end, the lesson of political psychology for Democrats is not to avoid nominating black candidates. It is simply to understand that America's racial history continues to influence the calculations of voters--sometimes near the forefronts of their minds, sometimes in the deep recesses of their unconscious.
For years on this forum I have been posting my belief that Tip O'Neill had it wrong: All politics is not local, in America all politics is racial.
The and rest of the article confirms what I have said in post from last week, especially the part about the surviving rationale of liberalism is their belief that we are racist and they are not. Here the author betrays that liberalism will never let go of this notion no matter how deep they have to mine the subconscious to dig up pseudoscience to justify it.
Here is the bulk of my post from May 9. I reproduce it here while I consider whether I should accuse Mr. Judis of plagiarism of my idea:
Yes Obama is an empty suit but he is actually more than that, he is a candidate who is African American and this racial reality entirely disguises the fact that the suit is empty. In fact, it was always better for Obama's campaign for the suit to be empty.
The American left, indeed the international left, is a hodgepodge of mutually inconsistent plans and programs which history has demonstrated cannot work. Leftists persist in their leftism because they believe that they are smarter than everybody else. Which really means," I am smarter than all the leftists who've come before and failed with this idea." The glue which holds leftism together when it should splinter apart because of its mutually inconsistent precepts, because it has shopped the entire country to ravening special-interest groups, is their idea that Republicans/conservatives are racists and they are not.
As long as we are racists and they are not, the left need not face up to its own looniness. This is why the left reacts so vehemently to politically incorrect racist remarks.... The coin of this political race card is white guilt.
Now comes Obama. As one black writer has pointed out, he has made a tacit deal with white liberal America: you support me blindly and I will in turn refrain from rubbing America's nose in its history of slavery and segregation. You can expiate your white guilt by voting for me. But Obama has to hold up his end of the deal, he must not rub our noses in our sins like Jesse Jackson or Reverend Al. As long as he was seen to be an empty suit-offering no reproach to America-we were comfortable with him.
Now comes The Right Reverend Wright. He has broken the deal. This is why Obama had to disown him. Wright rubs our noses in racism. To a conservative his crazy allegations are so bizarre that it makes not much sense and doesn't change the equation. We don't buy into this AIDS in Africa business, for example. But for a liberal, Reverend Wright's allegations are not bizarre but actually within the realm of intellectual respectability. We can dismiss them, but the left cannot because much of it comes right out of their own catechism.
What about the great mass in the middle? The moderates, the undecideds, the people who don't follow politics until after Labor Day, the folks who permit the likes of Barbara Walters or Oprah Winfrey to persuade them, what about them, the people who actually decide our elections? These decent folks don't want to be racists. They are always looking for a savior because they will tell you, "I always vote for the man." They shrink from the very idea of voting based on ideology. So an empty suit is no problem for them as long as he is also a savior. Obama was a savior. More, he was an empty vessel into which we could pour all of our yearnings and our simplistic hopes about the political process.
Now this illusion has been shattered by the right Reverend Wright and it remains to be seen whether the mainstream media can put Humpty Dumpty's pieces back together again.
No duh, Spengler. I'm no headshrinker, and I'd never play one on TV, but even I could sense that homobama is deeply torn. He so hates his white half that he's willing to use his black half to destroy himself entirely, but not before he can ungratefully inflict as much damage on the country that has given him so much.
Oh cripes. If we start listening to shrinks we are doomed. ~ Serusawa
“Ser, I must atree...” ~ Rabin
Obama seems to suffer from malignant narcissism whereby he feels he is exceptional, acts like he is exceptional and his followers believe he is exceptional. On the basis of his followers opinion, Obama feels even more justified in his exceptionalism...
“..another manifestation of his malignant narcissism: http://18.104.22.168/focus/f-news/2241286/posts?page=22#22
To nail that reality down further:
..The pathological narcissist imagines hes giving you milk when hes actually feeding you poop; in short, hes not a bountiful breast but a toxic a$$hole. Once you get a feel for this, you can really appreciate the ubiquity of the dynamic. Ever wonder how Noam Chomsky can be so prolific? Because the large intestine never sleeps. Likewise, mass culture is a sewer. Literally. ...
...Look at Obama. What is he? Thats part of the problem, because he clearly doesnt know. Hes certainly not priestly or spiritual, based upon his long-time membership in a racist cult. Hes not intellectual, based upon his skin-deep grasp of the issues, and a mind that seems to consist of little more than recycled leftist cliches with no discernible center. Hes not a warrior; quite the opposite, as he has no feel whatsoever for military culture. Hes not a leader, as his basic masculinity is too much in doubt. Hes pretending to be something, but even he doesnt seem to know what it is. Apparently, he wasnt even a good community agitator, like Al Sharpton. .. ~ Gagdad Bob (aka Robert Godwin, Ph.D Clinical Psychologist)
Here: Beauty, Milk, Poop, Soul Jazz, and the Miscaste Obama
8 posted on 07/18/2008 5:28:20 AM PDT by Matchett-PI
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Narcissism, the Grandiose Left, and the Missing Strawberries
25 posted on Friday, February 20, 2009 11:26:50 AM by Matchett-PI
Even a redneck knows what opprobrium is. It’s the sauce used for basting barbecued opossum.
Bummer is not a person, he is a committee.
Excellent piece from Spengler....read the whole thing not just the excerpts.
So let it be written,
So let it be done.
I'm reading the article now. I'll get back to you after supper. Thanks for the ping.
Obama spends more time talking to HIS army of attorneys about keeping his past hidden and fighting FOX news, Glenn Beck and Rush that he has lost all perspective of what direction the country is heading.
I devoutly hope so. I hope he throws a very public and embarassing temper tantrum at someone on his side who can and will retaliate. I don't want a conservtive involved in any way. I want the left to own all of this fail. I hope they destroy each other and leave us to rise again.
Things could get worse after 2010 if conservatives are brought into power.
I will say this: I believe that after Obama has passed from the scene, future generations will study his ascendancy as a textbook example of the manipulation of the public and accompanying mass hysteria.
I will post a further comment later today.
Though playing armchair doctor is risky business- Spengler raises some haunting questions. With Obama I don’t quite “get” him; he is distant and unreachable. I “got” Bill Clinton- even when he was lying outright, I had a sense of him- whereas with Obama, I never do.
When Obama lies on camera I don’t see a sense of uneasiness or discomfort on any level. While that is a qualification for politicians- something about the way Obama does it is different than what I’m accustomed to seeing. I think the difference is that normally- they do it apart from their actual personalities- with Obama- it’s who he IS and we never get back to the real Obama. There isn’t one.
spengler described the “empathy” as the con mans,,faux empathy. Splengler was on target but I do not think we will see a breakdown as he described,,Obama is too protected and cossetted for that. It may happen if private but we won’t know of it.
It would be my contention that the unifying idea which animates the Left everywhere is anti-Americanism.
Even the American Left.
Without anti-Americnism, they've got nothing.
The very essence of The Non-threatening Black, isn't it?
Until he assumed the persona, purportedly at Harvard, Obama had made no mark upon his environment.
Recall that, while we've been treated to a few (precious few) recollections by his classmates at the private school in Hawaii, seemingly nobody remembers him from his days at Occidental. No classmates, no faculty, nobody.
Similarly, at Columbia. There is almost no trace of his matriculation. I believe the Times rounded up and interviewed a single roommate (a Pakistani, now doing time for drug-dealing), whose memory of Obama was less than clear. Otherwise...nothing. No classmates remembered him, no faculty, no record of him in the school newspaper or the annual.
One might conclude that, until he formulated and perfected the Non-threatening Black persona, Obama really was a nobody.
Which adds another whole layer to the psychological profile...
Before Harvard Law School Obama was dissolute without significant achievement and, as you observed, without making great impression. Today, as I pointed out, he is abstemious in his habits (apart from an occasional stolen cigarette), by all appearances content in this marriage, and possessed of a great charisma. What happened?
Was there an epiphany? George Bush experienced one and John McCain says he also experienced one while in the Hanoi Hilton near-death. Do either of Obama's biographies recite such an incident?
Can we assume that his new persona came as a function of his ideology if no single epiphany is involved? In other words did he contrive a persona for himself by extrapolating the Saul Alinsky Marxist formula? I keep coming back to the parallels to EST to which I alluded in my earlier posts. This 1970s pop psychology phenomenon was in the business of tearing people's psyches apart and replacing them with a formulation crafted by EST. We referred to these people as EST-holes because they were nearly zombielike in their new personas. But once transformed, they never lacked for self-confidence.
What happened to Obama?
We call that catsup!!! (or ketchup, depending on whether you buy the Piggly Wiggley brand or Heinz.