I believe we are beginning to see the real Barrack Obama. He is a product, as he has said, of the Chicago 'rough' political school. It is a school versed in dirty politics and illegal tactics.
I do not believe Senator Obama has done any thing illegal. Certainly not.
Yet repeatedly, since announcing his candidacy, he has struck out at specific people, usually HRC, using passive-aggressive language that is hard to pin down for rebuttal. It's a highly skilled language technique.
He is reportedly Tony Robbins trained, not a bad thing in itself, yet I personally believe he isn't using that training consistently as intended. It can be highly manipulative.
Newt Ginrich was another Robbins trainee who took the training to another level when he went an NLP training facility for a number of weeks. It served him well. It didn't serve the USA well but it got him to a majority in Congress.
Brilliant when reading a speech from a teleprompter, and appearing to be extemporaneous, Obama fumbled a number of times in earlier debates. I watched on pre-primary debate with a cowboy buddy. (A real cowboy...not a line-dancer.)
He turned to me at one point and said, "Isn't he the one that supposed to speak really well?" "Yep.", I said.
He replied that he couldn't understand how Obama got the reputation as he was doing so poorly. Interesting comment from a man who thinks all politicians are crooks.
Senator Obama has now shifted to direct, angry attacks whenever he's confronted by his own comments, votes or record. (Another trait that Robbins would not condone.)
Sorry, but Obama did glorify Ronald Reagan, a man I admired as a man and despised as a Governor and President, and the 'transformative' movement he 'created'. [In fact that 'movement' had been in the works for many years by powers behind the Republican party. Reagan inherited the decades of work of others.]
If Obama can be so rattled in a relatively supportive setting what will he do when he doesn't have a substantial majority in either House and is confronted with a Republican threat to shut down the government yet again?
Bill Clinton called their bluff and let them shut down the government. The Republicans were roundly 'booed' by the American public and that action led to fracturing of the Republican majority and the retirement of Newt Ginrich.
That's just one topic.
What about the nuclear threat in Pakistan and India?
Can he handle that kind of pressure? Standing up to conflicting decisions that have substantial impact far beyond the original action is one strength needed in a President.
George Bush has shown us exactly what happens when a President has to rely on advisers to program his answers.We do not need another President that needs that much help.
What happens when Obama learns that the world isn't a happy place waiting to reconcile and join hands? What happens then he learns that rhetoric won't move Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel or the Palestinians?
Those subjects need cold hard analysis with an eye to the consequence of actions. Then the President has to be aware of the consequence of that consequence etc. Thinking 4-5 steps ahead of the action helps lead to effective original choices.
Could Barrack Obama stand up to that kind of pressure with grace and strength? He hasn't shown that to us yet.
I would like to see both John Edwards, HRC and Senator Obama be equipped with exact dates, times and places conflicts in the debate.
Obama does seems to change interpretations when it's in his best interest. Perhaps that's a mis-perception on my part. I think, however, that they aren't allowed to bring notes to the podium. Too bad it would serve everyone better including Senator Obama.
