Comments on: Obama Arrangement Syndrome

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:12:25 +0000

Jamie.
It depends on what you think your friends will say.
O’s cultists are very concerned.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 16:15:23 +0000

Exactly-Obama was (is) about the zeitgeist, not about any substance whatsoever. He represents balsamic vinegar (as opposed to ranch dressing) and independent films (as opposed to blockbusters) and Dave Matthews and Whatsisname Mraz (as opposed to oh, classic rock or country, I guess) – all things I like, but recognize as PREFERENCES rather than as shards of my identity. How old do you have to be before you can dare to prefer without buying the whole package?

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 20:09:06 +0000

Huxley,
I’m sixty-four and a half (don’t look a day over a tough, seasoned, masculine forty-five) and have watched both people and politics since Kennedy was running.
I was on campus in the Sixties.
I’ve worked with folks in faith-based peace&wonderfulness groups.
Never, not even among The Kids of the Sixties, have I seen the component of “we’re better” and “you’re flawed and possibly evil” as high as it is regarding political discussions involving Obama.
While some or many of those folks I mentioned earlier were proof against reality, they were, in some part, reasonably humble. They held the positions they held because the positions seemed to them to be good. Or so their presentation usually went.
Latterly, admitting you were not for Obama labeled them as superior and you as inferior and there was no question, no hesitation, no possibility it could be otherwise.
Considering the people in question, very few of them had qualifications to be in any group labeled “superior” at anything.
And, in addition, you could tell it made them feel very, very good.

By: huxley

huxley — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 20:01:28 +0000

Even on a three-day weekend the Obama watch maintains excitement. Looking for a quick and easy boost in the polls, President Obama has decided to go to the one place where merit bears no relationship to adulation: the United Nations. On September 24, the president will take the unprecedented step of presiding over a meeting of the UN Security Council. No American president has ever attempted to acquire the image of King of the Universe by officiating at a meeting of the UN’s highest body. But Obama apparently believes that being flanked by council-member heads of state like Col. Moammar Qaddafi -- who is expected to be seated five seats to Obama’s right -- will cast a sufficiently blinding spell on the American taxpayer that the perilous state of the nation’s economy, the health-care fiasco, and a summer of "post-racial" scapegoating will pale by comparison. After all, who among us is not for world peace? National Review: Obama’s UN Gambit: King of the Universe and the Polls Obama will chair a discussion of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. Iran and North Korea will not be mentioned specifically. Afterwards there will be a commemmorative showing of the film, Woodstock. Standing next to President Obama, Country Joe will lead the UN Assembly in an international celebration of the Fish Cheer. Actually I made the last paragraph up.

By: huxley

huxley — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 18:51:16 +0000

Tom Grey: You’ve hit some good points, but still seem short of the mark for this boomer ex-leftie.

Sure, we were against lots of things, but tax cuts and pro-life stands don’t quite explain it.

I’d say it was more visceral than that — like being against Lawrence Welk and for the Rolling Stones. It’s practically a cultural thing affirmed by knowing who you are with and who you are against, and not really thought through. “We’re cool; you’re not.”

This explains IMO much of how Obama walked off with the nomination then the election without saying much of anything concrete. He found ways, often non-verbal, of tapping all those boomer triggers which also work well on the young of any era.

There are books to be written about this.

By: Parabellum

Parabellum — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:33:38 +0000

On a related note, don’t miss T. Coddington Van Voorhees’ latest missive: http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/09/an-ill-wind-is-breaking-for-our-president.html

By: Wolla Dalbo

Wolla Dalbo — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:14:32 +0000

Why are people opposing Dear Leader?

On the issue of his speaking to all grade schoolers on the 8th, NBC says its because these children’s parents are too stupid to adequately raise them (and are, therefore, jealous?) (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2009/09/05/harwood-parents-objecting-obama-school-speech-arent-smart-enough-r )

By: Terry Gain

Terry Gain — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:39:19 +0000

NNC

I’m pleased to see you adopting my term Obama Arrangement Syndrome. I believe this is a very useful short from to describe the media’s gross incompetence in reporting on this disaster of a Presidency. It gives this 62 year old Canadian lawyer some hope that the media’s enabling incompetence will receive the attention it deserves.

By: Artfldgr

Artfldgr — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:24:46 +0000

all OAS is, is what i posted before but seen backwards from us to him, not him to us. I can tell no one follows my links cause they later talk about what i linked to. populism, “Charismatic authority” the effects of a “cult of personality”.

since we are not outside looking at another country, we invert what we see. after all if we were talking about another country we could not come up with such intimate reasonings as we can when we are the ones in the crowd in thrall.

so we assign new names to the same old things because this time, we are inside the whale, not outside looking in. an electron forward in time is a positron going backwards in time…

By: Wandriaan

Wandriaan — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:14:35 +0000

Obama: cold cerebral calculation in an attractive package. Palin: heartfelt straightforwardness in an attractive package. It was as clear as day from the beginning. Many ‘common folks’ have said it. As usual the fancy intellectual and artistic crowd were the most fooled. When will they ever learn?