I meant to say that the author tried to force the quote to fit his theme, by incorrectly defining the word “mad”. So I agree with you there — you put it more clearly. However, the question remains — are we seeing madness or anger?
It's worse than that. The author actually began to make the point that Obama is mentally impaired, but then veered off into this weird "anger" hypothesis after mis-defining the meaning of the old proverb.
A really terrible job of writing, I'd say.
However, the question remains — are we seeing madness or anger?
Obama is an uber-liberal, ergo, he is by definition, nuts. Liberalism is (in my opinion) a symptom of either arrested development, ignorance, mis-education, or clinical insanity. It might even be a combination of all of those things.
If Obama is angry, that too, is just a symptom of his deeper psychological pathology.
Madness or anger?
!YES!