*********************************************
As to whether Clinton and Obama are two of a kind ... nope.
Obama is a fundamentally more poisonous version of narcissist than BIll Clinton, in fact he is not a truly a narcissist. He is a sociopath.
I'm talking clinically here - not name calling. There is a fundamental difference, and it's rather frightening. Grows out of the same initial wound, different coping strategies that then become inherent thinking habits.
The fundamental defining trait of a sociopath is NOT that they stab people in showers. Nor just that they lie and manipulate a lot (they do, but that's not the defining characteristic,) it's that they are incapable of any connection with their fellow man. This is because they feel they are connected to something greater. It's a coping mechanism they used to deal with rejection and abandonment. The more they coped this way, the more disconnected they felt, hence the more separation, and on and on. Spiral of disconnection.
Clinton is scum, but he knows he's a narcissist. And he knows he needs people. His ego is defined by the love and admiration of those around him. He has no 'self.' Clinton likes mankind because he needs them, otherwise there would be no one to love him. That's narcissism. They manipulate, they lie, will be cruel if necessary, but they are connected, if only because of need, and even though the focus, the purpose of the connection is themselves.
Obama dislikes mankind. In any personal level interaction, he will not even try to make a connection because personal rejection is the fundamental defining characteristic of his history. He never mastered Clinton's coping strategy. Whereas a narcissist's abandonment leads them so seek connection, sociopaths avoid connection at all cost. So, Instead, he competes, outshines, defeats others. He trades the shallow gratification of winning for the deeper gratification of a connection. He's totally uncomfortable losing at anything, because his primary fear is to be dominated. If no one dominates you, no one can reject you. Mitt dominated him. He hates Mitt for that. On a personal level, he hates it more than losing the election. It hurts him more.
Notice that Obama can relate to crowds where there is no personal connection. He himself has commented on how he sort of disdained people when he'd give a soaring speech, and they'd fall for it. But left one on one - he either avoids it entirely - as pols in DC can testify to - or he falls apart into a stuttering mess, to which debate watchers can testify. Or, as with Boener, he seeks victory rather than compromise. Compromise is the same as being dominated. His entire unconscious life strategy is to avoid domination.
So, in debates 2 and 3, he carried TOTUS with him in his frontal lobe, and that's why he just kept staring into the nothingness of the crowd, regurgitating combinations of old phrases from old speeches.
Put simply: - Clinton needs people because that's where he gets his love. - Obama disdains people because that's where he gets rejected (a crowd is not a person, it's an abstraction, quite safe.)
Clinton has a sick need for attraction. Obama has a sick aversion for rejection.
Kids with abandonment issues pick one of the two as a coping mechanism.
Often, this coping mechanism becomes a great strength. Clinton feels their pain - connection. Obama soars above to be admired, worshipped - disconnection, separate.
But ... the coping mechanism cuts both ways.
Obama ultimately fell because he couldn't compromise his great vision. Hence he destroyed the deal with Boener.
Clinton fell because a hussy admired him.
Obama's is a far, far more dangerous imbalance in a leader.
Finally ... and this what makes the sociopath a thousand times more dangerous than the mere narcissist:
The narcissist is merely absorbed with himself and busy using others as a means to servie his ego.
The sociopath, especially expressed as a megalomaniac, is busy using others as a means to servie his holy mission. Why the holy mission? Because he never found a way to ease his suffering as the narcissist did by seeking admiration. He never solved the problem, so, the best he can do is explain it with a story grand enough to justify the suffering.
He is deeply invested in a heroic self image and an epic heroic mission to his existence - a story he created to explain his suffering - so deeply invested that he believes in it as revealed truth, it's reason for being and for suffering. Any suffering he experiences is only more proof of his mission, because heroic missions require sacrifice and suffering.
Including the suffering of others. Therefore he believes anything is moral in service to this mission because of his direct connection with the capital T Truth, or a God of his own creation and the mission that God has assigned to him.
Ever wonder why it seems like Barack is knowingly perfectly willing to enact broad policy that he knows destroys the very people he prescribes it to (middle class.) he doesn't believe these things benefit them at all. That's why he can so glibly lie. His mission is greater than the middle class. He disdains them - and he treates them like he disdains them. He doesn't even see them as individual people. All he sees is an abstract middle class.
Clinton is a severely damaging figure, but he has no ideology, so it was easy for him to compromise. He's married to being loved, not ideology.
His damage is the damage of reckless and selfish irresponsible use of power, but with no goal for that power except to bring him love. He's a drunk in a china shop.
Unfocused, Random, Haphazard Destruction in the service of seeking admiration.
Obama is married to epic and heroic ideology. His is the psychology of the tyrant. The head of the tyrannical government, or the tyrannical dictator. His use of power is focused, deliberate, and always bent on darkness because at the base of his disconnection with man is his hatred of man, and at the base of that is fear.
Focused, Deliberate, Disciplined Destruction in the service of imposing an epic and heroic ideology, at the cost of anyone and anything in its path, including generations of humans.
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Kim Jong Il and a dozen Muslim tyrants. Obama's is the psychology that murdered 100,000,000 in the 20th century. There are millions of these types who simply never make it to the point where they can 'express' their ideology in a position of absolute power.
Because he rose in the US, with something left of a Constitution, he was always limited in terms of what he could actually do. The more power he would have gotten, the more strictly he would have exercised his ideology. So it seems extreme to say all this, but its only because he was never allowed such power. He certainly resented that he didn't have it.
And in the end, he didn't have the charm or I think the discipline - not enough disdain for mankind, to really make a go at it. He's kind of a half ass, slacker dictator. But given more power, he would have taken it. He wouldn't have gone on a purge, but he would have had no qualms about leading his country on a path to generations of living suffering in service of his great vision.
The sense I get is that Chicago saw they had a 'true believer', and so they ran him. They didn't care about his mission, they just knew he would rise, and they would rise as far as they could in his wake. Ultimately, he was used, willingly.
He'll probably mellow in ten years. As an ideologue, true believer, dictator ... he's more of Choom Gang guy at heart. He's got his money. Maybe there just wasn't enough pain and confusion to make a true life long active hater out of him. Doesn't have the discipline, probably not cruel enough - although he is cruel - but feeling nothing for anyone, you'd never convince him of it.
Ironically, as a slacker, he'll sell out his ideology for the good life he now has.
I don't expect he'll be a big world player, or try to hang on the way Bill has. He doesn't love it, there's not much left in it any more. I doubt he even seeks to rise at the UN or in international politics.
Muslim and Mulslim sympathizer? Yeah, but real Muslim radicals have a lot of patience and discipline. I don't think he could make it as a rank and file terrorist. Too much personal sacrifice, and not his personal ideology. He'd never give himself to a cause 'greater than himself' other than one he invented and led himself.
Well - didn't expect to write that much, but hey, four years of a guy you really don't like and always thought was a fake - more fake to his own followers than those of us who had no inclination to follow. I don't think he believes a single thing in all those 4 years about his policies and his stated goal (Build the middle class out? That's just using marxism in service of his personal vision.)
For the anti colonials - better called 'west-progress-haters' ... Marxism was just what filled the void after they decided they where 'anything but the west.'
I think his mission, his great vision, his grand ideology was to tear down the west, only secondarily to substitute Marx in it's place. Dinesh nailed it that when he embraced his father's grave, that's when he picked sides. That's what gave him his great epic story - payback to the west.
Come to think of it, that's pretty much Dinesh's conclusion.
So, anyway, as to my first statement: his psychology is potentially far more poisonous than Clinton's. Clinton: Undisciplined Destruction, Moral Chaos Obama: Focused, Premeditated Destruction, a focused morality of tearing down anything enlightened. :-)
Bump
That said, I believe their ideologies are the true concern. Billy is a minimalist socialist; Hillary is a true socialist; Obama is a hardcore socialist verging on communist. I would bet that in the back of Obama's mind he believes the Marx saying, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
The failure that is communism, and more recently socialism in Europe has been apparent for some time, not to mention historically. From American history, even the starving Pilgrims found their perfect collectivist commune didn't work and gave into capitalism.
Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. This change, [Governor William] Bradford wrote, had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior.
Here is my own personal experience with communism:
I was a rebellious teen in the 1960's. I watched the hippie movement grow and didn't want any part of it.
Reason: I watched others join communes. I watched as some would work hard to make their utopia grow. I also saw that others of the same commune didn't carry as much weight for their perfect world. Eventually, all those communes disintegrated. Why? Because of the human characteristic of wanting to be rewarded for efforts. I saw this at 17 years old and having a couple of brain cells it was obvious to a young punk teen the outcome. I went on to work various menial jobs until I joined the Navy.
I have seen nothing to change my mind after 62 years about socialism and/or communism. Those ideologies may work on feel good collegiate papers, but they don't work within the human mindset of self-accomplishment, self-worth, and yes, desire for advancement (greed to some).
Excellent read.
Re your reply to my questions re Clinton v. Obama (how different, and who is more dangerous?)
***********
Thanks,Hannibal, for your views about the major differences you see between BO and Clinton — very astute and made tons of sense.
Really appreciate the time you took to lay all that out. Excellent work!