They used to call that court politics used by courtiers, where the power was during the reign of a Divine King.

“I can hardly imagine the family that raised such a selfish, immoral, conscienceless, sociopath. Way to go Stanley and company. If you were alive today, you would be so proud of your handiwork.”

Interesting point…

Here’s an interpretation, penned by “Spengler” (David P. Goldman), which appeared in Asia Times Online on February 26, 2008.

“Obama profiles Americans the way anthropologists interact with primitive peoples. He holds his own view in reserve and emphatically draws out the feelings of others; that is how friends and colleagues describe his modus operandi since his days at the Harvard Law Review, through his years as a community activist in Chicago, and in national politics. Anthropologists, though, proceed from resentment against the devouring culture of America and sympathy with the endangered cultures of the primitive world. Obama inverts the anthropological model: he applies the tools of cultural manipulation out of resentment against America. The probable next president of the United States is a mother’s revenge against the America she despised.

***

Michelle Obama speaks with greater warmth of her mother-in-law than of her husband. “She was kind of a dreamer, his mother,” Michelle Obama was quoted in the January 25 Boston Globe. “She wanted the world to be open to her and her children. And as a result of her naivete, sometimes they lived on food stamps, because sometimes dreams don’t pay the rent. But as a result of her naivete, Barack got to see the world like most of us don’t in this country.” How strong the ideological motivation must be of a mother to raise her children on the thin fair in pursuit of a political agenda.

“Naivete” is a euphemism for Ann Dunham’s motivation. Friends describe her as a “fellow traveler”, that is, a communist sympathizer, from her youth, according to a March 27, 2007, Chicago Tribune report. Many Americans harbor leftist views, but not many marry into them, twice.

***

Dunham’s experience in Indonesia provided the material for a doctoral dissertation celebrating the hardiness of local cultures against the encroaching metropolis. It was entitled, “Peasant blacksmithing in Indonesia: surviving against all odds”. In this respect Dunham remained within the mainstream of her discipline. Anthropology broke into popular awareness with Margaret Mead’s long-discredited Coming of Age in Samoa (1928), which offered a falsified ideal of sexual liberation in the South Pacific as an alternative to the supposedly repressive West. Mead’s work was one of the founding documents of the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and anthropology faculties stood at the left-wing fringe of American universities.

***

Barack Obama received at least some instruction in the Islamic faith of his father and went with him to the mosque, but the importance of this experience is vastly overstated by conservative commentators who seek to portray Obama as a Muslim of sorts. Radical anti-Americanism, rather than Islam, was the reigning faith in the Dunham household.

***

Barack Obama is a clever fellow who imbibed hatred of America with his mother’s milk, but worked his way up the elite ladder of education and career. He shares the resentment of Muslims against the encroachment of American culture, although not their religion. He has the empathetic skill set of an anthropologist who lives with his subjects, learns their language, and elicits their hopes and fears while remaining at emotional distance. That is, he is the political equivalent of a sociopath. The difference is that he is practicing not on a primitive tribe but on the population of the United States.

There is nothing mysterious about Obama’s methods. “A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is,” wrote Karl Krauss.

***

America has the great misfortune to have encountered Obama at the peak of his powers at its worst moment of vulnerability in a generation. With malice aforethought, he has sought out their sore point.”

The full essay is at: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html

DaveindeSwamp, I would tend to agree with you.

The way I saw (and see) it, much of the support then (2008) candidate and later (2012) President Obama received among middle- to upper-middle class “professionals” had nothing to do with his politics or policies, as such. Equally, it had absolutely nothing to do with “guilt”, an idea oft suggested over the past six years. There was no such guilt. Rather, I think that much of his support among that group was – and doubtless still is – a kind of narcissistic validation of one’s social status: Politics as a form of fashion, or a way for members of the government-media-academic (ruling class?) to dissociate themselves from the hoi polloi.

This leads to four cases:
1) Affects somebody else, Obvious harm: Met with rationalizations or “at least is wasn’t me.” (Which shows that many lefties are bad people)
2) Affects somebody else, Hidden harm: “I don’t see a problem.”
3) Affects them, Hidden harm: “I don’t see a problem.”
4) Affects them, Obvious harm: “This is an outrage!”

The problem for Obama is that Obamacare is class 4. Lefties would like it “tweaked” so that it doesn’t harm themselves, but as these attempts fail it will become obvious that you can’t fix a trainwreck. And you can’t lie your way out of one, either.

He has to stay in practice.

It really is that simple.

I once had a business partner that lied like Barry. When pinned to the ground… he admitted that he spun lies… just to stay in practice.

Lying was at the core of his personality. He couldn’t go a single day without cranking out a fresh whopper.

By such continuous practice, he was able to inject deceits into ordinary conversation without any pangs at all.

His craft reached such art that hardened professionals couldn’t spot his lies — even when they’d been previously informed as to fact and truth — and to his deviant personality.

When their folly was brought to their attention — the self-shaming was so drastic that they’d run away — withdrawing from their professional association.

At the end of the day, the audience has to come around and admit that they’ve been had. Very, very few people can bear that self-revelation. This is why you see true believers hanging on to the ’cause’ — even when it’s as vile as Nazism, Stalinism, and Maoism.

Which leads directly to “Does Stalin know?”

The above mentioned are what we ignorant rednecks called damned fools .

And it’s really a pretty simple message to get out there; they could start by noting that all a plan has to do is raise copayments by $5 and it will lose its grandfathered status. That would open more than a few eyes, I would think.

lie, because a communist has planks…