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 ...
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.
Later
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.
The comedian wasn’t very funny.
I have read that he confides in no one but her. He has no close friends and no one really knows him.
You say he’s not a person and i agree. Is there not something about him that seems unnatural? When i say that i don’t mean just that he is “fake”, but that he is empty. Like he is lacking a soul. Listen to his voice. Have you ever heard anyone sound that empty? It’s scary, really.
He's my avatar, not my role model.
That is very good... lol!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.