Or has he already?
In the comments section of my last post there was a telling exchange about Obama’s outward demeanor versus his true inner nature and agenda. This comment by “kamper’ was the one that started the ball rolling:
The reason the “Obama is a radical” meme has not taken hold with the electorate is that it is belied by their own simple observation of the man. He’s about the furthest thing from a ‘radical’ in his demeanor. So this becomes a ‘who you gonna believe, me or your own lyin eyes’ argument.
Some people thought kamper was trying to say that Obama really couldn’t be a radical because of that calm demeanor. But I had a different interpretation, which I offered here:
I saw [kamper's comment] as an observation, and a correct one at that. Barack Obama does not act radical. That is exactly why he had been able to effectively deny his radical associations, his radical past, and arguably his radical plans for the future. If he “acted radical” he would never have gone as far as he has.
Shakespeare, who seems to have noticed a great deal about human nature, said something relevant in the play “Hamlet” (actually, he has the character Hamlet say it, in Act I Scene V):
…one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.
The next line (which I had forgotten until I looked it up for this post) is pretty risible: At least I’m sure it may be so in Denmark. We can be safely sure that the phenomenon is not limited to that country. It’s a universal one, I’m afraid.
This is why so much attention has been paid—at least by the blogosphere; certainly not by the MSM—to Obama’s actions and his record or lack thereof. This is why his thinness of achievement in almost every position he’s held, as well as his dirty dealings in previous elections, have gotten so much study. This is why his old radio interviews are seen as clues to his true intent, why his reinvention as a centrist is suspect when you look at his liberal past, and why his radical associations are even more important than they would be for someone with a more solid and clear history in the national spotlight. That is why his words to Joe the Plumber have been parsed so finely.
Because Obama began running for President before he accomplished much of anything in the US Senate, we must take into account all these small clues as to who he is and what he might intend. We cannot trust his words in this campaign, which in any case have been a constantly shifting group of proposals or an amorphous target of hope/change generalities.
The evidence in his past is sobering rather than reassuring. But people hope that Obama won’t be the radical all indications point to—and, if he should be elected, I’ll be one of those people hoping.
Tony Blankley speaks to this phenomenon and does not think the “sensible” Obama will emerge. He cautions:
But of course, throughout history when dangerous, radical men have offered themselves up for leadership, their moderate supporters have rationalized their early support by hoping that the dangerous man is really a sensible man like them and doesn’t believe some of those wild things he has said to his more fervent followers.
But as the campaign clock ticks down to its last days and hours, prudent people have to consider the possibility that beneath that easy manner and calming voice is the pulsating heart of a genuine man of the radical left.
It a frightening possibility. But just as frightening, in a way, is the fact that we have reached the point of nearly electing this man and we still don’t know. Say what you will about almost any other politician you can think of, Right or Left, there is no one else in prominent national life who has this character of essential unknowability and possible extremism.
That is just one more reason to avoid voting for Obama—unless, of course, you’re a far Leftist, and that sort of change is just what you’ve been hoping for all these years.
[ADDENDUM: Jules Crittenden finally succumbs to the lure of the shining Obama facade. And before you write Jules angry emails, let me mention that his article is tongue-in-cheek.]