Skip to comments.Krauthammer: The Return of the Real Obama
Posted on 01/04/2013 2:54:54 AM PST by SueRae
The rout was complete, the retreat disorderly. President Obama got his tax hikes naked of spending cuts passed by the ostensibly Republican House of Representatives. After which, you might expect him to pivot to his self-proclaimed principle of fiscal balance by taking the lead on reducing spending. Why, asked The Post on the eve of the final fiscal-cliff agreement, is the nations leader not embracing and then explaining the balanced reforms the nation needs?
Because he has no interest in them. Hes a visionary, not an accountant. Sure, hell pretend to care about deficits, especially while running for reelection. But now that hes past the post, hes free to be himself a committed big-government social democrat.
As he showed in his two speeches this week. After perfunctory nods to debt and spending reduction, he waxed enthusiastic about continued investments i.e., spending on education, research, roads and bridges, green energy, etc.
Having promised more government, he then promised more taxes on millionaires and companies with a lot of lobbyists, of course. It was a bold affirmation of pre-Clintonian tax-and-spend liberalism.
Why not? He had just won Round 1: raising rates. Round 2 is to raise yet more tax revenue by eliminating deductions. After all, didnt John Boehner offer him $800 billion of such loophole-closing revenuejust a few weeks ago?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Return of the old Obama? Krauthammer and the A-hole Oreilly who kissed the ass of Obama for 4 years now tell us,Obama is really a left wing big spending Democrat! Excuse me so called experts,Most of whom Lambasted Rush Limbaugh years ago when he was the ONLY one who Proclaimed “I hope He fails”,where are the comments on How Rush was Right,or how about Glen Beck who has done an even better job of exposing The Marxist for who he “Really Was”,by laying out the entire Menagerie of Marxist Czars and their agenda,his shows were classic,The Putz Oreilly even had Beck on his show for his own comic relief,now who is left with his Private parts Hanging out?
These Pontificators love calling out the Cowards in Congress,at least they have an Excuse,they want to keep their lucrative Country Club Positions in Washington,where was Oreillys Courage? Krauthammer is good at stating the Obvious and always gives the Benefit of the Doubt,which Marxists like Obama Thrive on,the good Nature of Patriots before they stab them in the Back.
Beck and Rush Get Hammered because they are right on the Mark,To really get the low down those are the ones to listen too,Beck will be Launching his own cable channel soon. Oreilly and Krauthammer and their ilk will just be The First to the Slaughter,I prefer to go down fighting with those who are NOT afraid to speak out from the Beginning
Even Charles here doesn’t seem to face the fact that the direction we’re being taken is not sustainable. Myself and all the other makers don’t make enough to supply the ultimate vision of the president and his taker followers.
Spending cuts?? Are you insane?
We live in a center-left country now. Obama was completely sincere during the election and Americans wanted more government, more benefits and look to the state to take care of them from the cradle to grave.
Obama is as transformative and consequential a President as Ronald Reagan. The political coalition he created will last a generation.
In the face of this political climate, conservatives are fighting a losing battle.
You are 100% correct, Rush was right.
Good article by Krauthammer.
There are plenty of people who joined Obama in bashing Boehner...somehow making Boehner the face of evil....those people say they are conservative, but they miss the point that when they join Obama in attacking Boehner they’re writing campaign commercials for the liberals.
The Republicans and conservatives are Uncle Scrooge.
Its a political loser. Every one likes Santa - and even if you don’t like Obama, you’re happier with all those shiny presents under the Christmas tree.
That’s why he’s now being inaugurated this year for his second term.
Well said, sadly.
There is no way this ‘coalition’ will last a day with the money nearly gone and without Obama as leader.
The demographics have changed. Ronald Reagan couldn’t win today.
When the GOP has to write off New York and California every four years, its a growing national problem.
Its there and its not going to go away in our lifetime.
We DID go over the fiscal cliff, and taxes were then cut for all income groups except the top 1% of households. But payroll taxes will still increase for 77% of households (1), including many of his core constituent groups because of the payroll tax increase -- that nobody on either side of the aisle wanted to stop. Add in the reduced hours, layoffs and increased paycheck deductions because of Obamacare. Then consider that the price inflation resulting from monetizing the reckless spending and that COLA adjustments to transfer payments are made well after price inflation has taken place. Taxes of one kind or another are going up on practically everyone, and are going to most hurt the groups that Obama claims to want to help!
IMO we have a President who would be in over his head as a High School class President, and who doesn't have the depth of understanding about economic behavior of a cocaine dealer in the Chicago projects. Notwithstanding the Nobel Prizes, his advisers aren't any better. True, Obama has a "vision", but it's not just through rose-colored glasses, it's through the distortion of funhouse glasses. It's so disconnected from reality that it will fail.
PS. My recommendation: don't move to Chicago, or any big city! When Obamanomics hits the fan, deep blue urban areas will be Ground Zero!
The freeloaders have been the majority in New York and California for quite some time. Now, the freeloaders are the majority in the nation at large.
It’s over. The only alternative is resistance or exodus.
The best advice I have heard so far comes from (gasp) Newt Gingrich who has himself been down this road a couple of times before. His advice: stop negotiating and start legislating. Send bill after bill to the Senate with prudent and reasonable legislation contained therein and let the president and this Democrats in the Senate be reactive instead of slouching into a corner where Boehner and the Republicans are painted by the media be reactive.
Can you recall in the past two years any hearings except for the Fast and Furious scandal which as far as I can tell garnered Republicans no votes anywhere and Benghazi which was skillfully parried by the triple barriers of the Obama administration, the national media and Romney's fecklessness? Why have there not been hearings for two years in the house on spending, on the fiscal cliff, on the looming debt crisis? Why has the House of Representatives not been turned into an interrogation chamber? Gingrich cannot explain it either.
The predicate has never been laid for a successful opposition to Obama. We cannot expect talk radio to do the job of party functionaries, of Republican legislators, of Congressional Committee Chairman who should building hearings. We indignantly put all the blame on Boehner who, concededly, is the victim of his own ineptitude but that characteristic prevails everywhere in the Republican Party. One need only look at the Romney campaign with its comic opera technological failures on election eve to know how inept the Republican Party is across the board.
Gingrich suggests that Republicans start outside the Beltway and work across the country. He suggests that every Congressional Representative be responsible for conveying conservative message in his district and even in his state. We have Republican governors in abundance and Republican legislatures which we are not effectively employing. There is a failure of leadership and execution up and down and across the board.
Boehner should never have negotiated in private with the president, certainly he should not have done so without a condom, but he should never have permitted the party to slouch into this corner. He should have sent legislation up and made the media describe Obama's choice. Instead, he let Obama and the media define Boehner's dilemma. Under no circumstances should he had negotiated against himself, nor should have conceded tax increases from the beginning out of fear of the implications of Obama's election victory.
Romney should have run a more effective campaign. The Republican National Committee should have organized a bottom-up, grassroots movement in association with the Tea Party to combat the Democrats more advanced get out the vote system. To the degree that we conservatives are disillusioned with the Republican establishment for its ideological declensions, those feelings should be amplified geometrically with respect to its failure to execute a nuts and bolts operation to be expected of a national political party. Execution is not dependent on purity of ideology and these Rinos running the party are virtually exclusively responsible for this breakdown. Heads should roll.
Romney's peculiar history left his ideology unclear, probably muddled, which might (repeat "might") account for weak turnout among Republicans but the mechanics of the campaign were also so thoroughly muddled that it is difficult to understand whether it was incoherent ideology or mechanics or both which produced the debacle on election day.
I go through all of this because I feel that the last line of defense against Obama, the Republican House of Representatives, is about to be breached and broken. We were not united on the fiscal cliff vote and might not be united in the critical battle that must be waged over the debt ceiling. If we are in disarray at that critical moment there is nothing to stop Obama rolling on to total domination.
For God's sake let us not fight that battle disunited, without coherent strategy, with the public ignorant of the stakes, from a corner embattled.
The GOP could have won with a stronger candidate. I doubt even Obama could pull out a win with everything that has happened since election day. Younger people might want more socialism but until they are getting richer not poorer it just isn’t going to happen.
Maybe, maybe not. The country polls completely different on issues than they voted in 2012. The only real issue that polled well for Obama was to raise taxes on the rich and not the rest. This is human nature, and no one made an effective counter argument.
Your conclusion can be countered with the successful election of conservative governors in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia, Ohio, New Jersey, and Michigan (more moderate republicans in the later two). These governors all won on decidedly conservative platforms just two years ago in the very states that went for Obama and dem senators just two years later. 2012 was a surprising outcome because it bucked every public trend of the previous three years. I am not convinced it was not the anomaly. The democrats simply ran a massively better campaign.
I think it goes way beyond Santa Claus, and I think Krauthammer takes far too benign a view of Obama, at least in the beginning of the article. Towards the end, he does bring up Obama’s class warfare rhetoric, but he’s still not going far enough.
Obama is a stupid, bitter man with a huge entitlement mentality himself; I think this is part of his sociopathic personality. But he is consciously carrying out not an agenda planned by him, but the 1960’s Marxist agenda of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, who I think we would find to be the true intellectual authors of his program. They were two of the Weathermen, a group that used to greet each other by sticking out all four fingers to celebrate the way that Charles Manson stuck a fork in Sharon Tate’s stomach. Like all white radicals, they were wannabe blacks and regarded the Black Panthers as the vanguard of the supposed revolution. Obama himself is a wannabe American black, a possibly foreign born and certainly foreign raised child of an alienated white leftist hippie chick and her foreign, absent African baby daddy, who has spent his entire peivileged life trying to craft his image as a member of this supposedly revolutionary black ghetto underclass.
Everybody else around him is carrying out different parts of the hate America program, mostly by subverting the country in its dealings with foreign powers or terrorist groups. But the domestic agenda, which is based upon sheer irrational hatred and resentment, like any leftist revolution, comes from these two Weathermen. The fact that Obama used Ossawatomie as one of the places to kick off his campaign should have been headline news; the place was not only the scene of a labor action, but the name of the paper published by the Weathermen.
So while I entirely agree that Americans as a whole have become too fond, not only of Santa Claus, but of Holy Mother the State, I think there is much more behind this and much more ruthless manipulation of our system than we are willing to admit.
But that’s a good question: could Ayers et al. get away with this without Obama as a figurehead? He’s some one who probably doesn’t come up with any ideas of his own but whose hatred and frightening personal instability and sociopathic disregard of normal behavior are enough to carry out any program they devise, like any good dictator, and who, as Krauthammer pointed out, has now overcome the final institutional barrier to total power.
I think Obama personally, with his craziness, is essential to the program, and I don’t think it could continue without him. But we missed our chance to get rid of him, and I think this next term (which he may extend, or extend by having his wife run in 2016) is going to be very frightening indeed. It will be the full takeover by the Weathermen, victorious at last.
Good points all. It is very true that the GOP has relied upon talk radio to do the work that it should be doing as a party, and I think this is primarily because the GOP leadership is cowardly and doesn’t want to take the heat they would get from the entrenched leftist powers and the leftist media.
Gingrich is right: the House should be seething with resistance and should be asserting itself. Unfortunately, Boehner’s decision to “negotiate” independently with Obama contributed to the sense that the House is powerless and exists mainly for show, and I think this is one of the things that has allowed Obama to now regard the House as the final institutional threat that has now been neutralized.
I read that one of the conditions of boehner’s reelection was that he never again deal individually with Obama or the Dems, but let the normal legislative process take its course. Sadly, I think it may be too late for this; it would be wonderful if the House would take Gingrich’s wise advice and reclaim and reassert their powers, but I don’t see that happening.
I disagree with the idea that it won’t go away in our lifetime. We don’t produce enough exportable goods, or any goods for that matter in this country. Our money is soon to become virtually useless. You cannot continue to give what you don’t have. Other nations that produce our “cheap” products will soon want something other than useless paper for their goods.
I won’t speculate on exactly what WILL happen, although I do have a few ideas. But it will end soon. Within the next 2 to 4 years,and I hope my lifetime is a bit longer than that!:)
I’m usually a fan of Charles Krauthammer (OK, as much of a fan as I could possibly be of anyone who once wrote speeches for Walter Mondale!) and I think he’s somewhat off the mark here.
We DID go over the fiscal cliff, and taxes were then cut for all income groups except the top 1% of households. But payroll taxes will still increase for 77% of households (1), including many of his core constituent groups because of the payroll tax increase — that nobody on either side of the aisle wanted to stop. Add in the reduced hours, layoffs and increased paycheck deductions because of Obamacare. Then consider that the price inflation resulting from monetizing the reckless spending and that COLA adjustments to transfer payments are made well after price inflation has taken place. Taxes of one kind or another are going up on practically everyone, and are going to most hurt the groups that Obama claims to want to help!
IMO we have a President who would be in over his head as a High School class President, and who doesn’t have the depth of understanding about economic behavior of a cocaine dealer in the Chicago projects. Notwithstanding the Nobel Prizes, his advisers aren’t any better. True, Obama has a “vision”, but it’s not just through rose-colored glasses, it’s through the distortion of funhouse glasses. It’s so disconnected from reality that it will fail.
And who in the MSM, including Charles will bring up the quote “ not raise your
taxes one thin dime”
How did John Boehner vote on the fiscal cliff? Did he vote FOR or AGAINST what Obama just signed into law?
“The best advice I have heard so far comes from (gasp) Newt Gingrich who has himself been down this road a couple of times before. His advice: stop negotiating and start legislating. Send bill after bill to the Senate with prudent and reasonable legislation contained therein and let the president and this Democrats in the Senate be reactive instead of slouching into a corner where Boehner and the Republicans are painted by the media be reactive.”
Amen to THAT and the rest of your comment in #14
Agree 100% that O’Reilly loves obama. He pretends to ask “tough” question. I hate, hate, hate when he says he’s doing it “for the folks.” Puhlease, O’Reilly wants to be loved by the MSM. He’s the foil so some can say there is balance at FOX. Spoke with a friend whose relative was a producer for FOX. Said almost ALL of their announcers are liberals just pretending. That’s why Megan Kelly was giddy with excitement on election night. Have not watched FOX since I saw her disgusting display when b. hussein won.
I don’t think Reagan could win today, but not because the demographics have changed (which they have), but because Obama and the rest of the shi’ite eating democrats no longer pretend to play fair. No sir. They now blatantly buy votes with Obamaphones, union bailouts and exceptions, extended unemployment benes, “free” health care, etc, etc.
Obama now has 50 percent of the population on the public dole. We will NEVER go back to the way it was via our traditional political methods. Conservatives will not be able to win over people by telling them they will get less free stuff and should take pride in providing for themselves. As Rush said, it’s hard to beat Santa Claus.
The ONLY way we will return to our former greatness will be through some kind of correction. I don’t know if such a correction will be an Obama-superdepression or outright revolution — or both, but the glacier shift in the American psyche can not be reversed by using the same methods that got us here. The glacier will have to be removed.
If Obama has his way, we won't be able to trade our cheap energy for their products either. Got gold?
We have seen two individuals in my adult lifetime takeover institutions, reshape them, and employ them as instruments of national power. The first, was the takeover of the Senate by one of the most accomplished politicians of our time, Lyndon Johnson. Not before and not since has the Senate to that degree been the instrument of one man's will. It is interesting that Johnson accepted the position of Majority Leader when it had very little political upside and much downside, he transformed the office by force of his political acuity, and in the process transformed the Senate from a southern oriented, anti-civil rights organ in thrall to old bulls who ran important committees into an arena to work his own will. When he left that position, the Senate reverted to some degree.
The second was done by Newt Gingrich when he decided that the Republicans really could obtain a majority in the House, faught the establishment within his own party, found the means such as televised Special Orders, defined the issues, crafted the message, conceived of ways of delivering that message (Contract with America) and won a majority for his party. As speaker, he came close to running the country from the House of Representatives.
My point is, as you say, not that it will be done but that it can be done.
The deduction to revise is the standard deduction
That is where the money is
True that! Note the source here! (NOT the NYT or WaPo!)
I think that if you went issue by issue asking people to choose whether they agreed with the conservative stance or the liberal one, a majority would favor conservative stances.
But the one issue that trumps them all is the addiction to entitlements. People will not give up the government cheese even if it means that future generations will be enslaved to big gov. That cheese is a powerful opiate.
There's a huge psychological disconnect between what people say they want collectively and what they vote on personally.
If conservatives can find a way to bridge the disconnect and convincingly show that undermining the collective undermines the personal, they can be winners.
I had recorded the new show “Vegas” and last night decided to watch several episodes.
It was eerie to draw parallels to our current administration. The show plays in 1960 and presents the takeover by Chicago mobsters, who now seem to have taken over Washington.
I am also somewhat optimistic that toward the end of this Bozo’s tenure the shine will be removed from his administration. They will have to radically increase everyone’s taxes and fees to accomplish the “shared sacrifices” he keeps talking about. This administration wants to continue spending without checks and balances.
When, not if, interest rates on Government bonds rise, our debt will be impossible to maintain and we will officially go bankrupt. Some of the money grabs that will follow will be: Takeover of all pension, 401K, Iram etc. in order for Government to “help the poor American Worker”. Inflation to manage our debt, an automatic decrease of 22% in entitlements, etc.
Watch the pitchforks slowly but surely emerge.
Guess who pays for the neo moochers party? The hard working American people!
Time to take a page from the Polish people who refused to work for the socialist polish government and went on strike across the country!
If every American with a pair would simply stop working for thirty days, call it a vacation from the moochers, this paper socialist government would collapse under its own weight! The American people have the power to bring down the neo moochers party, all it will take is some guts to do it!
With the socialist demanding more money to the moochers, eliminating Americans and their firearms, I do believe the time for the working American to take a protracted vacation from their hard work for thirty (30) days would certainly put one hell of a crimp in the neo moochers party's plans!
Stand up America, you are the makers, the neo moochers party are the takers! Stop producing the wealth, where will the neo mothers party go for the money to give to the moochers? No hand outs, no neo moochers party any more!
Americans can work their a$$ off paying the moochers, or they can stand up and say NO MORE! The free ride is over, moochers watch your step getting of the hand out train!
Let's all sit back and see how much the American people will swallow before they take a stand against this out of control moochers socialist government!
Personally, when I get home, if I get home, I will NEVER work for a pay check, instead, all work will be for cash, if, and only if, I decide to accept federal reserve notes (FRNs)! The neo moochers party cannot take what I don't have!
Stand strong America, it is WE THE PEOPLE, not, WE THE NEO MOOCHERS PARTY.
Side note, the Constitutional Law Professor who wants to get rid of the US Constitution, I say OK, that will also get ride of this Government, since the only thing the US Constitution did was create a federal government, with limitations placed on this Federal government under which it may operate, then, by all means, lets get rid of this out of control government! The communist need to be very damn careful what it is they wish for!
That should be a bumper sticker it might inform the idiots of what he’s doing.They never think on their own they have been traind like a dog.
My belief is that none of this would have happened but for Obama's skin pigmentation. Obama has succeeded in diverting attention away from all negatives whether they are in his own biography or in the national ledger sheet, in Benghazi or in Chicago. He has been successful in diverting scrutiny of his biography and performance because the media runs interference for him. I understand that they will always support a liberal but in this case they are supporting a radical, probably a communist, certainly a socialist.
My belief is that they would not have done so, at least to the blatant degree they have done so, if Obama had not been black. So when you say that the costs of supporting Obamaism become apparent his support will fall away, we cannot rely on a Marxist analysis; in other words, we cannot say that a purely economic analysis will persuade over race. Certainly, it will not persuade the African-American "community" over identity politics. It simply will not avail. My belief is that on this issue at least, that demographic is beyond reason.
We have seen in the last election that Obama is able to appeal to persons of other colors, such as brown Hispanics and brown Asians, by playing a race card which is perhaps more credible because of his own color. His color also shields in from scrutiny by whites out of white guilt and an understandable human preference not to acknowledge that one has made a mistake in the last election.
Even with questions of color aside, the history of socialism around the world teaches us that the socialists take over the apparatus of power and when their economic policies fail they resort to political power. I believe that is why we see the left in America lose its once proud adherence to the First Amendment, or at least the free speech provisions of the first amendment. If one examines the reaction of the people of Greece to failed socialism we see them rioting and burning in the streets as a way of demanding more socialism, not less. When Hugo Chavez dies of his current malady (from my pen to Allah's ears) I will be rather surprised if Venezuela moves right and embraces capitalism. Too many powerful forces are entrenched their now.
As Obama insinuates socialism into the American body politic, its culture, and its economic system, we will see the rise in corruption, the breakdown of the rule of law, the spread of cynicism, the loss of patriotism, the rise of selfishness, and the institutionalization of cronyism everywhere. We will have seen the breakdown and corruption of counterbalancing institutions such as the church, academia, the police, courts, the media, our eleemosynary institutions, family with parental control etc., and, of course, the media.
I hope you are right and I am wrong.
Revenge for Obama’s Grandmother File.
I think that it is going to happen (soft socialism, that is). The problem is that the younger people have been bought off by trinkets. And they'll be more trinkets down the line, like perhaps college loan forgiveness.
I saw a couple of news videos where young voters said they voted for Obama because of the free cell phones. They simply don't understand that if America was working properly, they'd have good jobs to buy those cell phones for themselves, and much more.
The GOP has done a terrible job in getting that message across.
With 2.5 million (mostly white Republicans) dying every year being replaced by black/hispanic/asian >70% Dem voters, the trend is clear.
Good point. The GOP is going to have to face this choice: hold on to every core principle, and lose every Presidential election from now on, or be flexible and stay competitive.
It's an ugly choice, for sure.
Every person in this country had driven past a shuttered and abandoned factory. Every person in this country knows someone who was laid off from a good factory job.
I simply don't understand why no one in the GOP (except for Trump) says anything about this.
“we have a President who would be in over his head as a High School class President”
You’re being generous. Hussein is about one-half a brain cell away from the short bus. He’s a charismatic idiot whose salvation was/is taking advantage of Affirmative Action offerings at critical steps along the way. A white man with identical experience and intelligence would be drooling in some prison now.
I’m not discounting the immigration angle certainly, but I’m even more concerned by our domestic Under 30 crowd. Virtually every one of them I speak with is utterly ambivalent on any issue of substance, and seems more than willing to give Socialism a try.
And they are, for the most part, college educated and white.
When I view the leading members of the Republican Party today, I see people who are far more concerned with what the MSM thinks than the voters. Since the MSM is a branch of the Democrat Party, it basically comes down to these Republicans basing their decisions on what Liberals will say. What they (the Republicans) cannot seem to comprehend is no matter what stances or decisions they take, they will be viewed upon with disdain.
President Reagan was a proud Conservative who was concerned with the feelings of the electorate and not the Media. In other words, he was recognized by voters as a true (Conservative) leader, which is why he not only turned out Conservative voters, but also appealed to many Democrats.
In the last Presidential election, a “Moderate” Romney didn't turn out the base and didn't appeal to Democrats (even though he shared many Democrat beliefs). Had Republicans run an unafraid Conservative, the election wouldn't have even been close and Obama would now be planning his retirement.
President Reagan would win election today just as he did before. It's like Rush says, “Conservatism works every time it's tried”.
You wrote an extremely good post. Only quibble is I don’t think this movement depends on obama himself going forward. Obama was essenttial to get it going and start the major. But once socialist pieces are in place they are extremely hard to dismantle. I think hillary or others would have no problem carrying the flag going forward. The only thing that will stop them is educational information about the long term effects of what they are doing. They will continue to defeat us unless we get leaders that can communicate what is going on and go around the MSM. Right now we have no one that can get it done.
nathan bedford ping
too thoughtful to let go to waste lost in a Freeper thread
Here’s a thought - I just actually thought of this. When individualism was formally codified into our founding documents and system of government - most citizens of this country were likely subsistence farmers or otherwise self employed as artisans, shopkeepers etc. There were a few plantation owners, many slaves (who didn’t vote), and probably relatively few people who either didn’t own a small business or work for one.
Now, in the 21st century the exact opposite is true. Most people either work for a collective (a corporation) or are supported by one (the government).
And this is after being schooled by the government collective for something like 15 or more years.
This fact alone is bound to be transformative of the country as a whole. Do we expect people to espouse principles of self reliance, individualism, individual responsibility when for most of their lives they have been deriving physical and spiritual sustenance from one collective or another?
Two generations of “progressive” education have produced exactly the results they hoped for.
Not much to disagree with there.
It’s hard to say. Hitler only got ahead because he was Hitler, even though he had had to change his original identity to turn into what we now think of as “Hitler.” That is, he was the child of an abandoned mother, he was a despised Austrian/Bavarian who wanted to be an “Aryan,” meaning a Nordic German, and he changed his name from Schicklgruber to Hitler because he thought it sounded better for his future career (just as Stalin changed his despised Georgian name to Stalin, meaning “Man of Steel,” and Obama went through several name changes). But while Hitler/Schicklgruber had his own ideas and wrote his own manifestoes, I think that once he was dead the whole Nazi project would have collapsed.
On the other hand, Stalin got ahead not as a founder but as a sociopath who (like Obama and Hitler) had changed his name to reflect what he would like to be and then glommed onto a movement that he thought could bring him power. It did, obviously, and the fact that he then eliminated the people who had gotten him there didn’t alienate the population (who were by then totally subject to his police state anyway) but simply made the subsequent apparatchiks be a little more conscientious about swearing allegiance to Stalin.
I think Obama is more in the Stalin mode than the Hitler mode.