Well, Duh! Obama's Reason for Running? Narcissm.

Discussion in 'Bill Archer's Guestbook' started by Karl K, Nov 17, 2008.

  1. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    So, we all know, really, deep down, that Barack Obama is a supreme narcissist. Not just because the key items on his resume are two best selling books about his favorite subject -- himself.

    And not the way Bill Clinton was a narcissist, desperate for approval from adoring crowds, and an endless string of women, beautiful and otherwise.

    No, Barack's "appetites" are quite different. They are the appetites of a person who sees himself as larger than who he really is, a person who thinks of himself more of a symbol, and an icon.

    And, to confirm, as if we needed further evidence, that this peculiar brand of narcissism -- a narcissism, frankly, of someone with a inclination toward a despotic turn of mind -- we have this from Sunday's NYT magazine.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/magazine/16change.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all

    Hooo boy.

    You see, it's not about governing. It's not about making decisions and setting a direction for the nation that make sense.

    It's about being a symbol, an icon. It's about being the Michael Jordan of politics. . .but without the accomplishments, the work ethic, and the desire to greatness and excellence by dint of talent and work that set Jordan apart

    It's about getting other people to LIKE us and getting others to believe that he IS us.

    And, frankly, it's a bit chilling.
     
  2. Prawn Sandwich

    Oct 1, 2003
    Bhutan
    I hope you invested in a waterproof cover for your keyboard
     
  3. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    Jesus, man. You are really being petty and small.
     
  4. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    Ya think?

    Look, I have no problem with a President being a narcissist and egomaniacal: heck, you can't get to that position without having a huge ego.

    But to me what's troubling about Obama is that there seems to be little about his entire career arc that is based on accomplishments or the desire to really achieve them.

    What compelled FDR's ambition? To get beyond his illness and privileged upbringing and be productive.

    What compelled Reagan? Years of work making speeches and radio addresses and writing -- in between a stint as an effective executive in the Governor's mansion -- honing a coherent vision of the American spirit, the economy, the world, and our nation's place and responsibility in it.

    And so what has compelled Obama? To be a symbol. A metaphor. An icon. He will be the first "post modernist" president, in that he is who you think he should be.

    With FDR, you knew what will come next. With Reagan, you knew what would come next.

    With Obama, I don't have a clue, and neither do you. That's why the fawning media are now anointing him as a "pragmatist" -- a code word for "Heck, we don't really know what the guy's gonna do, but boy, he can really make good speeches and look good, so it's all gonna work out in the end, you betcha!"
     
  5. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    True. When I think of Obama, I think about a guy who hasn't really accomplished all that much.

    I don't agree with your reasoning here (your cherry-picking and simplifying), but even if it were true, which candidate in this year's election satisfies these expectations? Social conservatives certainly didn't know what to expect with Romney or McCain. Fiscal conservatives didn't know what to expect with McCain or, to a lesser extent, Romney (because of the health care issue). I suppose you had a pretty good idea what came next with Giuliani, but people didn't like what they saw.

    (Yes, Microwave, it was clear what you would get with Paul, but he would have been like Nader in the White House: completely incapable of moving his agenda forward because of his inability to compromise.)

    Obama has presented very straightforward policies, with some tinkering over time. He has a "data rules" policy that I also see in Michael Bloomberg. That does count for something.

    On a different subject, I downloaded Afghan Whigs' Up In It not long ago, as my vinyl copy is buried in a box in Seattle somewhere. Good record, but I need to find Congregation. Still my favorite of theirs (and one I don't feel bad about downloading, as I actually bought the thing at one point).
     
  6. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    Funny thing--right after I wrote this, I found a copy on some blog. Have it on right now. Great record.
     
  7. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    Here's what we have since Reagan-

    GHW Bush - no great purpose, waited in line long enough.

    Clinton - Supreme Narcissist, makes Obama look normal, no great purpose

    GW Bush - no great purpose, not even a record of accomplishment to make him think he ought to be president. Didn't write any books, or opinion pieces, probably couldn't even compose a couple of coherent sentences.

    So I'd say that this thread is one of the lamest of the lame cheap shots on Obama. Give it a break, Karl.
     
  8. Eric B

    Eric B Member

    Feb 21, 2000
    the LBC
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's been a while since a thread around here was derailed by Bo's crappy musical tastes.

    Anyway, I don't fear Obama, I fear his followers.
     
  9. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    GHW Bush -- war hero, pretty good government resume, experienced, ran a very successful war, two terms as VP, knew his way around the block.

    Clinton -- won, lost, and won again as governor. Really reached across the aisle to get conservative policies in place. A pretty good, though not great president.

    GW Bush -- Executive experiences as governor. And history will be kinder to him than most think. Has destroyed al Qaeda; freed 28 million Iraqis from the worst dicatator in modern times. Exceptional AIDS initiative.

    Obama? -- failed community organizer, undistinguished adjunct law professor, do-nothing legislator, 1/3rd of a term US Senator, best selling author of two books (one of which, rumor has it, was ghost written by you-know-who). But one heckuva symbol/icon as he reads mellifluously from the teleprompter!!

    There you have it.

    Not to say will be worse than the others. He might be much better. He might be much worse.
     
  10. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    And his followers are getting awfully pissed off at him as he seems to be establishing at Clinton II Whitehouse.
     
  11. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    Dude, tell me you don't believe this nonsense. It's roughly as credible as the assertions that his birth certificate is fake.
     
  12. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member+

    May 12, 2003
    Berkeley, CA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's natural for conservatives, who are always looking backwards, to fear change and the hope of a better future.
     
  13. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    I do think.

    One of two things is at work when it comes to your thoughts on Obama. 1) you really hate the guy and look for any and all reasons to tear him down even when you know they are false. Or, 2) you have been paying frighteningly little attention to a major politician operating in your very own state for over a decade.

    Knowing your propensity to read, I have to conclude that 1) is the answer.

    http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress...ican-il-senator-kirk-dillard-on-barack-obama/

    This is a bunch of quotes from Kirk Dillard. You know him. He is a State Senator and the Republican party chairman of DuPage county -- by far the most republican county north of Peoria.

    He addresses many of the issues you raise in your post. Far from a primadona, Obama has rolled up his sleeves and worked hard on many issues in Illinois and was quite accomplished while in the state senate. I can't find it but I think it was Dillard again who said that Obama showed up every Monday morning at his office in Springfield at 7:00 a.m. for two years to work on the specifics of ethics reform.

    Then we have his senate career which you and ITN like to note was dominated by his run for office. Still, he was able to accomplish some decent things even though it was a republican congress and a repbulican president his first two years. The Lugar Obama bill. The Coburn Obama transparency bill. Ethics reform with McCain.

    You may not think these are big deals, but I pointed out in the primary and the general, just what did hillary or McCain accomplish in their long careers that was so earth shattering. McCain Feingold? Ok. What else?

    There is a definite narrative about Obama that you simply choose to ignore. What compels him is service. Working for those who don't have a strong voice. Calling him a failed community organizer is like calling a soldier who served in Iraq in 2004-2005 a failed soldier. He did his bit to contribute in a long, long struggle. Few make a career out of it.

    The fact that he chose that job after graduating from Columbia speaks volumes about what drives him. Then, he was president of the Harvard Law Review . . . oh wait, I thought he had no accomplishments. With that on his resume and a JD Magna Cum Laude, he was perhaps THE most desireable associate on the job market. So, he took the millions by signing on with Baker McKenzie or Sidley & Austin right? Nope. He went with a 15 lawyer civil rights shop.

    These aren't secrets and yet you still act as if you don't know what you will get. You will get a guy who has focused on the same issues for years and so you can bet those will be priorities. You have a guy who has looked throughout his career for common ground to work across the aisle. You will get that again. You will get a guy who IS pragmatic -- the guy who supports separation of church and state but tells people to lighten up about the pledge of allegiance because it ain't that important in a constitutional context.

    You will get a guy who is focused, organized and driven.

    How in the hell, you put that below the current president because he had "executive" experience from the least powerful executive position of any governor is beyond me.
     
  14. Microwave

    Microwave New Member

    Sep 22, 1999
    Example? Source? I know when the Soviet Union was a communist state that conservatives wanted change and the low tax free market economies set up by the Satellite countries have worked gloriously even though you leftists wanted a worse future for them.
     
  15. IntheNet

    IntheNet New Member

    Nov 5, 2002
    Northern Virginia
    Club:
    Blackburn Rovers FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Tokenism at best. Did he do anything in the position or simply use it as a stepstone; i.e., his Illinois Junior Senate position? All I find in the references about his time as president of the Harvard Law Review is that he was the first African American to hold the position; like a beauty contest. What did he do while president of HLR? Matter of fact, has held a series of high positions with absolutely no accomplishment beyond stepstones to something else...
     
  16. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    You are so full of shit. Here is what the most brilliant constitutional scholar in the country thinks:

    On the eve of today’s presidential election, Professor Laurence H. Tribe ’62 spoke fondly once more of his former student Barack Obama and his “audacity of hope” for the country in his morning prayers in Memorial Church’s Appleton Chapel.

    “There are those in whom challenge stirs greatness, those who rise to challenge rather than letting it break their stride or spin their compass,” said Tribe about Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, whom he called “the most impressive and talented of the thousands of students I have been privileged to teach in nearly 40 years on the Harvard faculty.”


    http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=525102
     
  17. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    You made a mistake, somehow a quote from Tribe got put in underneath that
     
  18. Eric B

    Eric B Member

    Feb 21, 2000
    the LBC
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    God you are loopy.

    Is it possible to hope for a better future while still thinking Obama's plans might be wrong? Can we actually disagree with someone even though they think their ideas are forward looking and full of hope? Are you going to start calling us "counter-revolutionairy" as well?
     
  19. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    Typical Rethugnikkkan, invoking God
     
  20. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member+

    May 12, 2003
    Berkeley, CA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Please try to keep up Eric. We weren't talking about your opinions of Obama's plans or ideas. You said you were afraid of his "followers." IOW, you fear people who are excited to support their candidate, people who have hope for a better future. Obama's supporters are people who are fed up with the status quo, and are enthusiastic about Obama's ideas for change. The only person who would be afraid of that is someone who hates progress, who is terrified of change. That is, a conservative.

    Great point.
     
  21. VFish

    VFish BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Demos is right, Obama supporters are people who are fed up with the status quo and enthusiastic about change, that and they were political neophytes that didn't know what they were voting for, but mostly they were political neophytes that didn't know what they were voting for:

    [youtube]mm1KOBMg1Y8&e[/youtube]

    :D
     
  22. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    A B+ for cute and snarky. At best, an Incomplete for substance. Without simply cutting and pasting from a conservative critic with an ax to grind politically, tell me how on earth you come to the conclusion that Tribe is not one of the very top tier of constitutional scholars in the country.

    In your answer you may want to address how you would not consider him to be on the top shelf when his American Constitutional Law, first published 30 years ago is the most cited constitutional reference ever.
     
  23. onefineesq

    onefineesq Member+

    Sep 16, 2003
    Laurel, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Great find. However, I'd be willing to bet that he has no idea who Laurence Tribe is, and thinks that he is probably some random guy with a law degree supporting his "boy". Such is the tenor of these threads.

    By the way, the thread starting claiming that George W. Bush is going to be looked out well in history while then claiming that Obama is too much of a narcissist is laughable. What is more narcissistic that a drunken idiot who wakes up one morning in a stupor, realizes he's an embarrassment to his family, and then determines he is going to show everybody by using his name to be President one day. Nope, it was all because of his love for country, not for the avenging of his family name ..... even while he proclaimed his hatred for Saddam in large part because "he tried to kill mah daddy". :rolleyes: Get a grip Karl. Obama could singlehandedly cure cancer and AIDS tomorrow, and you'd have nothing nice to say.
     
  24. IntheNet

    IntheNet New Member

    Nov 5, 2002
    Northern Virginia
    Club:
    Blackburn Rovers FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    He looks cute in a pantsuit....

    [​IMG]
     
  25. Smiley321

    Smiley321 Member

    Apr 21, 2002
    Concord, Ca
    You said "The most brilliant constitutional scholar in the country" not one of the top ones most loved by liberals.

    He's a liberal and a narrow-minded partisan, so that disqualifies him as the most brilliant.

    From the Harvard Crimson -

    Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. would reduce abortion rights to a “hollow shell” if he were confirmed to the Supreme Court, Harvard constitutional scholar Laurence H. Tribe ’62 told the Senate Judiciary Committee on the final day of the nominee’s hearings last week.

    Tribe, the Loeb University professor at Harvard, told the panel that while Alito would be unlikely to directly overrule Roe v. Wade, the nominee would chip away at abortion rights slowly over the course of his tenure.

    “With the vote of Judge Alito as Justice Alito, the court will cut back on Roe v. Wade step by step—not just to the point where, as the moderate American center has it, abortion is cautiously restricted—but to the point where the fundamental, underlying right to liberty becomes a hollow shell,” Tribe said in his testimony.

    The Judiciary Committee was originally scheduled to vote on Alito’s nomination this week, but Democrats delayed a vote until next Tuesday. The full Senate is scheduled to debate Alito’s confirmation Wednesday.

    In his opening remarks, Tribe said that while he would not offer a formal recommendation to the committee on Alito’s confirmation, he sought to prevent senators from voting with “their eyes wide shut.”

    But after Tribe spent more than seven minutes expressing his concerns about Alito, the Senate committee’s chairman, Arlen Specter, R-Penn., asked Tribe once more whether he was really abstaining from offering a recommendation.

    “I’m explaining why I am very troubled by his views,” Tribe replied. “Obviously, it follows from that that I would be hard-pressed to recommend his confirmation.”
     

Share This Page