(12-17-2013 12:28 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Something I've said since he first got it. He wasn't brought in for substance, he was specifically groomed to be the best candidate the democrats could ask for. Half black--can adapt to a lot of crowds, Ivy League educated, no black marks that can't be downplayed, from a large city, and no real record. Most importantly, at a time when the last thing people wanted was a Washington insider, they just happened to find him in Illinois.

The perfect non-insider to be controlled by the insiders.

Exactly.

(12-17-2013 12:28 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  He wasn't brought in for substance… Half black--can adapt to a lot of crowds, Ivy League educated, no black marks that can't be downplayed, from a large city, and no real record.

It's one thing for an empty-suit to be elected to the state legislature or even Congress/Senate, but future generations will be astonished that a man with his featherweight résumé could actually be elected President(!). It's almost like "Chauncey Gardiner" with an ethnic-sounding name.

However, don't mistake no-real-accomplishment for no-real-record. Before he hit the big-time with his speech to the Boston Convention in 2004, Obama did, in fact, possess a very long (20+ years) record of intense, dyed-in-the-wool leftwing activism, moral posturing, and fellow-travelling with people (Ayers, Wright, etc) even farther removed from the national mainstream than himself.

Quote:Most importantly, at a time when the last thing people wanted was a Washington insider, they just happened to find him in Illinois.

Except that Obama was elected to the US Senate in November 2004.

Quote:The perfect non-insider to be controlled by the insiders.

I see it differently: Obama is an insider who has (or had) surface-appeal to the outsiders, but who never confronts the other insiders and is guaranteed to do their bidding and present the most acceptable version of the insiders' agenda to the masses.

Jim Brown is clearly a racist.

(12-18-2013 11:50 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 12:28 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  He wasn't brought in for substance… Half black--can adapt to a lot of crowds, Ivy League educated, no black marks that can't be downplayed, from a large city, and no real record.

It's one thing for an empty-suit to be elected to the state legislature or even Congress/Senate, but future generations will be astonished that a man with his featherweight résumé could actually be elected President(!). It's almost like "Chauncey Gardiner" with an ethnic-sounding name.

However, don't mistake no-real-accomplishment for no-real-record. Before he hit the big-time with his speech to the Boston Convention in 2004, Obama did, in fact, possess a very long (20+ years) record of intense, dyed-in-the-wool leftwing activism, moral posturing, and fellow-travelling with people (Ayers, Wright, etc) even farther removed from the national mainstream than himself.

Quote:Most importantly, at a time when the last thing people wanted was a Washington insider, they just happened to find him in Illinois.

Except that Obama was elected to the US Senate in November 2004.

Quote:The perfect non-insider to be controlled by the insiders.

I see it differently: Obama is an insider who has (or had) surface-appeal to the outsiders, but who never confronts the other insiders and is guaranteed to do their bidding and present the most acceptable version of the insiders' agenda to the masses.

Basically serving a third of his first term does not make one an insider. I don't know what the term is in America, but in Canada that's called a backbencher. He immediately began to be groomed after he got elected. It started when they re-published his book.

(12-18-2013 12:07 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Basically serving a third of his first term does not make one an insider. I don't know what the term is in America, but in Canada that's called a backbencher. He immediately began to be groomed after he got elected. It started when they re-published his book.

I don't know when his book was republished.

The Democrat Convention in Boston that nominated Kerry was in July 2004. Obama was given one of the premier speaking-slots (and, to his credit, he hit it out of the park). So the grooming-process had already begun by that point.

The word "insider" has more than one context. In terms of the Senate's legislative process, yes of course Obama was a "backbencher". In fact, a backbencher would actually have more influence than he had in the 4 years he was there.

But I was calling Obama an insider in the sense that he lives and moves and has his being among the wealthiest, most powerful, most glamorous segments of society. He symbolizes their values and their interests, and they repay him by providing him with overwhelming media/financial support. But Jim Brown's insight remains true, and now with ObamaCare in center stage, we are about to see that symbolism (and that support) put to the ultimate test.

(12-18-2013 08:32 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 12:28 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Something I've said since he first got it. He wasn't brought in for substance, he was specifically groomed to be the best candidate the democrats could ask for. Half black--can adapt to a lot of crowds, Ivy League educated, no black marks that can't be downplayed, from a large city, and no real record. Most importantly, at a time when the last thing people wanted was a Washington insider, they just happened to find him in Illinois.

The perfect non-insider to be controlled by the insiders.

Exactly.

But the same could be said about all presidents. It just depends on the mood of the nation at any given point.

The first time Romney ran, I thought he was the best candidate out there.

This time around, he struck me as a complete idiot.

(12-19-2013 05:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 08:32 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 12:28 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Something I've said since he first got it. He wasn't brought in for substance, he was specifically groomed to be the best candidate the democrats could ask for. Half black--can adapt to a lot of crowds, Ivy League educated, no black marks that can't be downplayed, from a large city, and no real record. Most importantly, at a time when the last thing people wanted was a Washington insider, they just happened to find him in Illinois.

The perfect non-insider to be controlled by the insiders.

Exactly.

But the same could be said about all presidents. It just depends on the mood of the nation at any given point.

The first time Romney ran, I thought he was the best candidate out there.

This time around, he struck me as a complete idiot.

I disagree with all of Fitbud's comment here, but the contrasting opinion of Romney's two runs is interesting to me. In both campaigns, he struck me as exactly the same -- tolerable but nothing great. The bland but successful investment-banker executive, whose only ideology was basically "pro-business-ism" and who viewed the White House as his last and greatest management-consulting gig. That profile will appeal to some and not to others, but I can't see how anyone could've been excited about him, or offended by him. He was just too neutral to get worked up about, IMHO.