It was this twitter that grabbed my attention this morning
It leads to a thoughtful article that makes a lot of good points, not the least being
let’s not forget at the same time to acknowledge the profound pathology of Obama apologists who refuse to grasp he has not been and is not an ally to the base that elected him.
It also mentioned this other interesting evaluation from a former fan, Mike Papantonio
He thinks Obama’s problems arise from his need to be accepted from the ones rejecting him. And concludes with a last abject begging: “They’ll never love you like we might…if you only…”
Libbyliberal at Corente concludes
In a way, Obama reminds me of a bride who overfocuses on her wedding — with Obama it was the election — rather than maturely fathoming the commitment of the marriage — the responsible commitment to running the country. A very damaged country thanks to George W. Bush
It’s what we used to say in the campaign: Obama is a show horse, Hillary is a work horse.
She also thinks Obama’s dream of “postpartisanship” was a genuine one, based on his grandiosity.
At the low end of the spectrum it’s Frank Rich’s
in which he uses the very original Stockholm syndrome.
I overdid that one myself with the image of Obama tied to the railroad by evil Rahm when his fans could still blame it all on “entourage”. Of course, unlike Rich, I was being sarcastic.
After his pathological Hillary hatred during the campaign, Frank Rich ought to attend to his own psychological damage before attempting to excuse the damage he wrought by psychology.
My problem with all these efforts, insightful as they are,(Frank Rich excluded) is that they are using our point of view to understand someone who lives on a totally different plane of existence – where all the puny world revolves around him. Look at the Corrente title
Psychological Considerations for the Betrayal by Obama
We feel it as a betrayal, Obama doesn’t. The right way to understand this is to look in the mind of a loyalist – for whom Obama does no wrong:
33. “Doesn’t make him any less weak.”
That’s the problem with the President’s critics. They’re in a Twilight Zone criticizing the President about their perception of his character and personality and the disposition of his supporters. He’s busy getting stuff done. Permalink
By identifying herself with Obama to such extent, she gets it. He does live in a reality where he doesn’t betray, nor does he owe any explanation for what he does (much as he declares that his duty as president is to make people understand his decisions better).
Amoral? Yes, to those of us living in our little world guided by morality.
But scrap that vision to bring the parties together or that longing for acceptance. And don’t harp too much on his overachieving.
All his life Obama got away with little work, based on flimsy excuses, connected to his personal circumstances. As a child, student and politician, his identity (as spun by him) has been his “get out of jail” card and eventually “get in the White House” card. (with the help of some well connected people who felt Rs boat sprung a leak and the natives were restless so they needed an appeaser)
Obama was needed to cloud the difference that became very clear between the Democrats(peace and prosperity) and the Rs (war and misery) Instead of pointing at the obvious, Obama offered himself and the notion of post-partisanship. Then proceeded to dismantle from inside the very essence of the Democratic party.
What historically was called a Trojan Horse.
Billions in propaganda were spent to make enough people buy that, and to make those who didn’t buy it appear the enemy (racist, bitter, uneducated and worst of all, “women”). And of course, to manipulate the primaries and get him installed.
Not a vision. A job. As the flunky says: he got things done while we indulge in our reality where he owes us/the country something. Or as W used to say: “Who cares what you think?”