Many at DU are saying Obama is a flat-out con man. I say he's probably being intimidated/blackmailed

[anAustralianobserver]

Really, what's harder to believe:

1. He enjoys playing a part where he destroys his own public reputation and political capital, and sits around with the Republican gangsters laughing about how he's demoralising the citizenry and undermining core progressive planks one-by-one.

OR

2. He's part of a political culture where a *spectrum* of intimidation rising to blackmail is entrenched—and taboo to talk directly about (centred in the Senate, intelligence agencies, media and monopoly corporations).


Option 1 is Alex Jones-level paranoia; and would also mean his marriage is a sham (unless Michelle also attends the super-villain meetings).

Option 2 entails that people who have got to high levels of political power in the current environment have accepted an ends-sometimes-justify-the-means corrupt political culture—where 'soft' blackmail is a science that rarely rises to the level of direct violent threats.

I think it's critical to distinguish between the real gangsters/con men and the well-meaning, partially compromised/enabling and understandably frightened (Obama, Pelosi, Biden, Reid etc. etc.)


As I said in another post,

"I think Obama is too clever for his own good like President Clinton and rationalises to himself, for lack of courage, that it's sometimes necessary to become part of the problem in order to become part of the ultimate solution.
He probably regrets not using a come-out-fighting strategy—but it's hard to know because he rarely says *what's really on his mind* directly to the public."

[BrklynLiberal]

1. I am beginning to buy the theory that he was replaced by a clone that the repukes created.

[anAustralianobserver]

2. hehe there's a lot of cognitive dissonance going on in US politics. It's scary and bizarre to watch.

People on both sides don't know what to believe or who to trust.

[BrklynLiberal]

8. imagine the insanity of actually living with it....

[whistler162]

46. Actually a clone sent by the Martian overlords!

[Merlot]

3. My theory is that any democratic president is being held hostage

repub presidents are working with TPTB, democratic presidents work against them. Notice how dems always move rightward when in office? They probably learn that if they don't, things will get a lot worse for everyone who's not a part of TPTB.

TPTB = banks, military, wall street, corporations, the fed

[anAustralianobserver]

5. Yeah I forgot the big banks and Fed. Yes that makes sense to me!

[XemaSab]

24. I don't think the republicans stand for anything either

Take abortion, for instance.

Bush had the legislature and the judiciary. But he chose to do nothing.

We're not the only ones who've been sold out.

[awoke_in_2003]

34. the first day in office...

watching the Zapruder film over and over and over. the republic died in 1963- the powers that killed it make sure that the threats to their power know the truth of what will happen to them should they dare to cross them.

[Mimosa]

52. I've read long and deeply on the coup of 1963 and I tend to agree with Awoke_in_2003

One needn't be a 'conspiracy theorist' to recognise that the whole system was changed. The US entered into endless wars. 'Regular' jobs were shipped out after the draft ended so the military could be filled with able bodied men and women who were deprived of affordable educations and goodpaying job options.

It goes on, and on.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

43. Yes, TPTB

otherwise they end up like JFK

[Ozymanithrax]

4. The Obama we have is the one we elected.

He is a centrist to center right, and most of his voting record as a U.S. Senator and a State Senator prove that.

He belives in free markets, because the center piece of his healthcare plan is based on free market forces.

He was not a "peace President" because he promised to excalate the war in Afghanistant, and has fulfilled that promise.

He has tried to move the political system to the right, which in his case is back towrds the middle for American politics rather than the left.

He is neither a conman nor being blackmailed. He is a pragmatic centrist, which will not win him a lot of friends here, though he is still popular with the Dmeocratic part as a whole.

I think a lot of people saw what they wanted to see in him rather than what he really was.

[dflprincess]

9. He has escalated the war in Aghanistan far beyond what he said he would

and now he says we'll be there another 4 years. No word on how he plans to pay for it.

And, he apparently never really had a health care plan as his "solution" was to mandate that we buy the same crap from the same crooks with no promise of being able to get care. These are the mandates he claimed to be against when he was a candidate.

He promised to restore the rule of law but he has protected war criminals.

He's not a conman. Just a typical politician who is more concerned with his own interests than those of the people who elected him.

Next time we all need to be smarter and pay attention to the candidates the media is ignoring rather than jumping on the bandwagon of one of the two or three that have been deemed acceptable by TPB so that we have the illusion of having a choice.

[anAustralianobserver]

12. I agree he is a centrist but I believe his original statements about health care including the ones

before he was president. I don't think he really believes private-controlled health insurance is more efficient/desirable.

(By 'centrist' I mean by world standards.)

If he is just a right-leaning pragmatist I can't see why he staked most of his political capital on the Public Option, end of the top tax cuts etc.—and now isn't fighting transparently for them.

Afghanistan - he seems to have delegated that.

[Mojorabbit]

23. I came of age in the 70's

Looking at the govt from that perspective we have moved way to the right. Still I disagree with your statement, The center is not on the right. Polls have shown that time and time again.

[elocs]

30. I think a lot of people believed words which Obama used in campaigning

that had implications that he was more liberal than he really was. There was a lot of excitement in that campaign of 2008 and I think many liberals had their hopes and dreams reflected in Obama's candidacy, which ultimately was a mistake which has lead to their disappointment with him. Also, during the campaign I think Obama preferred to have people believe what they wanted to believe about him within his own party and had no desire to correct their misconceptions that he was anything other than a pragmatic centrist.

[jeanpalmer]

37. Not really

He campaigned to the left and immediately moved right once in office. He misled people.

If he was a centrist, why didn't he campaign as such? "I'm a centrist for change." Get real, that wouldn't have gotten him anywhere. He understood people were looking for change and knew he had to misrepresent himself to get elected. And that's what he did. Your standard bait and switch.

[Skittles]

78. CORRECT

people really, really never paid attention - they were star-struck

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. Oy vey

...

[boppers]

7. Option 3.

The US is a representative democracy, and there are powerful legal and political forces out there wielding their power. Since Obama's not a dictator, he has to play the game with the same rules as others.

No conspiracy, no blackmail needed: Real power games, being fought by congresspeople, the judiciary, the military, lobbies, unions, corporations, bankers, etc.

[struggle4progress]

14. +

[anAustralianobserver]

16. That doesn't explain how he's let you down so much on transparency. He could be calling a lot

more people and tactics out, but he seems to be hiding behind being 'presidential', modelling Bill Clinton's coping strategies.

[boppers]

27. He hasn't let me down on transparency, so I'm not sure who you're talking to.

I also see through a different media/political lens, perhaps.

[awoke_in_2003]

36. "I also see through a different media/political lens"...

maybe so

[boppers]

38. Lets see:

1. I don't watch faux, I sometimes watch CNN, and Maddow is about the only person I can handle on MSNBC.
2. I don't read print newspapers.
3. I don't watch local or "big three" news shows.
4. I follow about 300 different online news sources.
5. I don't read online political tabloids (HuffPo, Politico, FDL, etc.)
6. I avoid blogs like the plague of half-assed self-important puffery they seem to project themselves as.

Maybe it's a rose tinted world, or maybe I just don't read all the shit-flinging that passes for discourse, and thus, am not convinced that everything is covered in shit.

[awoke_in_2003]

35. "The US is a representative democracy"

that is the funniest shit I have read here in a long time.

[boppers]

39. What's funny about it to you?

To me, the broken part is the "representative" system, I don't see any need for Congress, or a system where Wyoming has equal power to California in *any* way. I'd prefer a direct democracy, and a well educated populace.

[awoke_in_2003]

45. That is why we originally had two houses...

The small (population) states were worried that the large states would have too much representation, and the large states were worried the small states would have the same. What we got was the compromise. But now we have a house and senate that represents no one but the rich, so it is a moot point anymore.

[boppers]

70. Well, originally, it was only land owners.

So, in that sense, not much changed.

[Dreamer Tatum]

49. There you go, making sense when there are perfectly good conspiracy theories out there. nt

[Arkana]

10. 1 is Alex-Jones level paranoia, and so is 2.

[anAustralianobserver]

17. haha At least it's not David Icke-level.

[bertman]

11. Interesting thread. RECCED, but got UNrecced. nt

[anAustralianobserver]

19. Thanks. Not surprised a thread with 'blackmail' in the title would be unrecced

but my post is a bit more nuanced than it might first appear.

[mtnsnake]

25. Same here. I find the OP very interesting. My rec got unrecked as well.

[pscot]

13. What puzzles me

is how anyone as averse to conflict as he obviously is, thought he was going to implement the kind of big changes he campaigned on. He spent 4 years in the Senate. He had a chance to study the Republicans. He knew what they had done to the Clintons. Did he really think that sweet reason would win them over? I agree about not knowing his mind. This Whitehouse doesn't leak much. I think they'd be better off if they let a little light escape. It's a black hole as far as gossip is concerned.

[anAustralianobserver]

26. Maybe he thought he could play rope-a-dope but they anticipated it and trapped him

somehow; and now he's trying to save face and work out what to do next.

[jeanpalmer]

40. He never had any intention of implementing big changes

That's clear from his subsequent behavior. Change was just a campaign slogan, invented and test marketed in several previous campaigns by Axelrod. It had worked -- that's why he used it. People were very susceptible to the change theme sloganeering, given the imploding state of the economy at the time. If he had been honest and told us, for example, that he intended to work for a health care reform requiring mandates and an escalation policy in Afghanistan requiring the tripling of the number of troops there, no way in hell would he have been elected.

[anAustralianobserver]

63. I don't understand how you could think that. I just don't think that he's that petty and

unprincipled, or foolish.

[firedupdem]

15. wow...so this is what DU is about nowadays?

I really wonder if this would be allowed if any other Dem had been elected.

[anAustralianobserver]

22. I'm not the one saying he's saying a crook and I sincerely don't know how else to deal with the

dissonance in Obama's actions.

[Codeine]

71. The whole board is crawling up its own ass to show how much they

despise the president now. The new rules are going to eat this fucking place alive. With one sweeping change the Skinner and the mods have effectively killed the place.

Enjoy the Two Minute Hate, citizen.

[Laelth]

18. You are very generous. n/t

-Laelth

[vixengrl]

20. The late, great Bill Hicks speculated that once anyone got

to be president, they were sat down in a chair by the real folks in charge and shown a film of the Kennedy assasination at an angle no one ever saw before. Which as time goes by, only strikes me as more plausible.

But a more rational (rationalizing?) part of me thinks that Obama tries too hard to seem reasonable and like he's hearing both sides out. He's bought the "bipartisan lie". Only Washington village idiots seem sold on it--Main Street folks could give a shit. They'd rather know someone is pulling for them and hearing their concerns. The real deal is: You have to draw a line. It might be the hardest damn thing to do. It might have to be right down the middle of someone you know--but you draw the line and you fight it tooth, nail, and spleen. You stump your throat hoarse and if you have to sling some mud, you make sure there's a rock in it and you hit your damn target. And you maintain the morale of your home team, because you want a defense when you're behind, not a fragging.

His ideals vs. the hardball politics that are needed seems to be the big issue.

Edit: Me spell pretty some day.

[anAustralianobserver]

28. Yeah that Bill Hicks scene resonates, but I don't think it has to rise to level of

direct violent threats. Threatening (indirectly or directly) to destroy you or your family's or friends' public reputations with corruption, cover-up or sex allegations or revelations, while simultaneously getting other people to offer rationalisations for why you have to compromise would work for most things.

I like the way you put that about drawing a line. I don't think he's naively bipartisan though.

[XemaSab]

21. In my most paranoid moments

I think that people run as authentic individuals, and on the first day in office they sit them down and give them the skinny.

I think there's SO much stuff we've done as a country that no otherwise well-meaning president is allowed to do what he wants. :(

[anAustralianobserver]

29. Yes eg how much oversight and authority do the Congress and Admin really have over the CIA, DIA etc

I think there's a strategy to restore general constitutionality and *executive power for non-Republican presidents* but it's a mess of espionage and extra-governmental agencies—which must involve some of the key people in the Congress.

Remember how Nancy Pelosi said something to the effect that one of the oversight committees was never allowed to see crucial info; when some in the CIA were trying to scapegoat her for something - I can't remember what it was atm.

[Mimosa]

53. Little or none.

anAustralianobserver, have you seen the film "The Good Shepherd"?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0343737/

It's enlightening. Also the books "Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years" by Russ baker may interest you.

http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secrets-Americas-Invisible-Government/dp/1608190064/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291487285&sr=1-1

President Obama may be afraid to oppose the shadow government. I wish he weren't. Because they won't let 'us' have anything which will pull us out of the maelstrom they have caused.

[anAustralianobserver]

62. Thanks, no I haven't seen those but I might check them out.

[tallahasseedem]

66. I actually believe you're spot on...

There are times when I would love to know what they know, but mostly I'm okay with not knowing.

[Recursion]

73. Have you ever worked for the government or military?

The idea that this kind of conspiracy could be A) accomplished and B) kept secret is contradicted by every experience I've ever had working for and dealing with the government and military.

[David__77]

31. Both scenarios would be morally reprehensible, right?

Shouldn't one be prepared to sacrifice all for their lofty principles?

[anAustralianobserver]

33. Some of the decisions Obama and the leadership have made aren't justifiable

but they are also very brave people in some ways.

(1) means they are more part of the problem than they are part of the solution but (2) means the opposite can be true.

[craigmatic]

32. He's clearly holding back. I think it's because he's been bought off by corporate money.

[pscot]

57. I'm pretty sure Barak Obama

would be deeply offended by that notion. And Michelle would be really pissed off.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

41. Exactly, we told him to go right when we didn't support him in the election why are some

confused by this ?? We did it to Clinton too, he'd of been way more progressive if he had, had the power. I wouldn't want him to veer right but that's what we did tell him to do, the ONLY hope we have is to wake up the right wing voters has loud as we can. When folks voted they didn't punish him we punished ourselves all the President is doing is his job now he has recieved instructions from the electorate. The strongest message washington ever recieve is the vote and what we've told them for 30 years is we loves us some Reagan trickled on economics. No one to blame but ourselves. Sure we can blame the uninformed but if we were truly smart we would of made them informed by now. This comes from a sunny optimist as well being realist.

[anAustralianobserver]

65. I think most of you are doing what you can in the face of state-of-the-art propaganda and

corporate monopolies. I can't see so much of the electorate being fooled for another 5 years like this though; 'death panels' 'socialism' etc.

[impik]

42. I say that this place is fucking crazy and should be put to sleep

[HipChick]

44. Agree...now we're discussing Illumanti puppets at DU?

I had to check twice what site I am on..*facepalm

[Mimosa]

55. Why don't you 2 try reading books? Histories...anything but parroting political talking points. n/t

[HipChick]

58. or anything but spewing anti-Obama hate

gets old

[mstinamotorcity]

47. If you were the President

and was handed this hot shitty mess full of corruption we call America what would you do?? If you were a member of the elite Billionaires Boys club and you were making trillions of dollars Globally and destroying your own country and its people in the process,so that your prehistoric assets can continually grow,What would you do???Even though we voted for CHANGE, we too must also CHANGE!!!It doesn't matter who we elect as President!!!As long as you got Congressional members who have their hidden little appetites, there will be someone who will feed you what you like. In the form of campaign donations(Hey Mitch McConnell whats up with that big donation from TOYOTA to the McConnell Foundation)or those golf outings and corporate junkets (John Boehnerr),and wearing diapers for prostitutes (David Vitter) or paying them thousands of dollars (Spitzer). After a few drinks well most people will let their guard down and do things they wouldn't while sober.Not to mention the depth they look into your family history.Is President Obama's aunt still here in the U.S.?? Who would want themselves exposed to public scrutiny. Our President can't sign anything unless it comes to his desk. He must have the votes. Don't you hear Dems and Repugs say they must vote to their constituency. But every time they go to their District the opposite is true!!!Check Media Matters. Firedog lake.We should all be able to see through that talking point.

[anAustralianobserver]

60. Yes I guess I'd play it similar to Obama but I like to think I'd be more like Kucinich or Weiner.

[mstinamotorcity]

61. If we only had more who actually believe that the fundamentals

of Government should work for the least of us as well as those who are well to do. I like those who fight for the people it shows individualism without corporate influence.Its a shame these will be the norm unless we rise up and make things right.

[anAustralianobserver]

68. At times in interviews when I saw them (& other Dems like Dean) expressing exasperation and dismay

regarding the president it looked to me like they would like to say more about what kind of pressure he is under. They generally defend him.

[mstinamotorcity]

76. It was just too easy for the

Billionaires Boys Club to swindle the American people. They just pitted everyone against each other and reaped the spoils. While we are busy trying to fight each other,and stupid ideology and rhetoric in the MSM we are being robbed blind.

[treestar]

48. What has the President done now?

[Dreamer Tatum]

50. I thought he was playing higher-level chess. That was the explanation last year.

Is that now wrong?

[anAustralianobserver]

67. I think Obama and the leadership *are* playing a long-term strategy chess game

to restore constitutionality but they have been intimidated into making critical sacrifices at some points.

[Joe Chi Minh]

69. Obama should show some bipartisan spirit and reach

out to the Democrats. Politics is about compromise. Well, to be fair, he is holding the line with the tax cuts, isn't he?

[Aramchek]

51. how about keeping your observations down under, mate?

[Mimosa]

54. ^ WTH is wrong with you, Aramchk? US Gov actions affect/afflict the rest of the whole damned world.

An Australian Observer has every right to post here. And I for one welcome him or her. :)

[anAustralianobserver]

64. Sorry if I cross the line sometimes. When you read here regularly you feel like you're in the

American headspace.

Thanks Mimosa :)

[Turbineguy]

56. RW propaganda

is having an effect. The key to propaganda success is not using terms like "capitalist-imperialist running dogs" but making the story sound reasonable and possibly even truthful.

But at the same coming out with batshit crazy stuff only the obvious true believers buy into.

[swilton]

59. Makes no difference whether it's option 1 or 2

if the policy results are the same.

[Recursion]

72. Option 3: the priorities and values of some here are so far removed...

...from how most of the country thinks that people actually talk about a liberal President being a secret Republican mole and are taken seriously.

[patrice]

75. Agreed on all except "liberal". He's Center with Rightward leanings, because the Right, unlike the

Left, actually has a coherent functional position that can be worked with and around. There's nothing cohesive on the Left, so he doesn't have to do anything about it.

[patrice]

77. There's a contradiction in what you have said: If he was Liberal, the DU would not be calling him a

Reich wing mole.

[patrice]

74. 2. + a financial environment that is affecting everything, but about which, he can say little or

nothing for making it worse, i.e. the Derivative Crash of 2008 has exposed us to Foreign Powers in a way that is unprecedented in any of our lifetimes. It's mostly private information, so the President only knows what THEY tell him and what he can infer from events. Anything he says or does can and WILL be used against US, so he needs us to come together and get strong enough to advocate for ourselves in a manner that establishes that we know what's at stake in this situation and are capable of negotiating our own position, so Obama doesn't have to do much more than facilitate our rightful place at the table.

[anAustralianobserver]

79. Hmm interesting points.

[Creative]

80. He is a politician--ALL politicians are con-men.

[AngryAmish]

81. This is the first time he has been in a political fight against powerful interests

When he ran against Bobby Rush he got crushed. Then he was able to skate into the state senate. Once there he allied with Emil Jones - and if you were one of Emil's guys you were "a made man" so to speak. You were untouchable. He didn't have to deal with Repukes because there are none in his district.

Then he decided that he wanted to run for Senate. The guy who won the Repuke primary left the race. Then he ran against Alan Keyes, who is crazy.

Then he ran for President. We all supported him. But he could not knock Hillary out for a long time. He also looked a bit listless during the primary fights.

So, when faced with opposition he gets passive. It is his nature. He is not used to this.

My 2 cents.

[StarsInHerHair]

82. I raised the same question and was asked if I were a troll, I guess I'm not

Miss Popular, but it doesn't change my premise. I was also asked why I was focusing on such an idiot thing, but whatever.