This essay is spot-on, and reflects accurately my thoughts. Malor calls it precisely.
Christopher Hitchens asks: "Why is Obama so vapid, hesitant, and gutless?"
Uh, is that a trick question?
Obama acts like an aimless twit because that's what he is. There is no "deeper Barack." Sure, he does fine on the topics he's rehearsed a hundred times (race, healthcare, race, anti-Bush, race, Iraq, oh and race), but give him something new to to think about and he defaults: "Present."
...He seems vapid and hesitant because he's never really sure if the answer he's giving is the right one. He's worried that his minders are going to have to turn him around so he can explain away any "inartful" statements.
You see where this leads, although the author did not say so explicitly: it will not be Obama who is making policy, nor "running" the country. It will be his advisers, and THAT cast of characters is not too savory. In fact, none are more than partisan hacks with their own power-trip agenda.
This separates Bush and McCain from Obama. Clearly, GWB and McCain are not Conservatives; just as clearly, they are both very independent and quite stubborn. It may be that Bush and McCain's final policy will coincide with that of one or more of their advisers--but that's more likely to be coincidence than design.
Obama, however, is not a leader. He is a creature of the Machine--he is exactly what Axelrod and Plouffe built and programmed.
And that Machine is not interested in "the National Interest." It is self-interest, pure and simple.
Look no further than Fannie/Freddie to see the Machine in action.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment