Did I confuse Obama with the loathsome liberal base that wildly cheered his ascension? If I did it's because he welcomed, encouraged the confusion. What little of substance his past revealed suggested with as much clarity as was possible that he and the base were of the same mind - and clearly he would not have won the nomination if he had proclaimed to that base that he planned to govern as a more moderate version of Bill Clinton - but be that as it may it would not seem amiss at this point to suggest that Obama apparently distrusts the sympathies of said liberal base as much as I do. Still difficult to draw conclusions as to what this means - not only has the dust not settled I'm not even sure it's been properly stirred up yet. I do find myself leaning to the conclusion that the man is a rather ruthless and cunning - what should I call it - rationalist? Let's face it, the real value of democracy is not that it allows us to vote for our leaders, a vote that is more often than not tainted by ignorance, illusion, delusion, an abiding disinterest and impatience with vexing details, tainted by any number of flaws - no, the real value of democracy is that it allows us to amend those errors of omission, commission and submission in a somewhat orderly and regular fashion - moderation by consensual negation, that's the rub I imagine. If Obama holds a similarly cynical view of the electoral process and therefore was at peace with exploiting it to his advantage by pretending to be one thing in order to be a something else once elected - well, then I can't help but be intrigued by that, regardless of the merits of it.

"... look, we've all been in rooms where the smartest person in the room was not the smartest person in the room... by which I mean... you know, evidently there's some debate as to whether or not Elizabeth was a great leader, but regardless it seems clear that she was at least a very good leader. Still, given that, I don't doubt that, although certainly a woman of rare gifts and keen intelligence, it does not seem misplaced to suggest she probably wasn't the intellectual equal of Burleigh or Walsingham... but would anyone here argue that either of them would have been more effective regents...?"

My response to pundit re Obama's brain:

“… but displayed little interest in refereeing disputes…” - the implication seems to be that Bush wasn’t smart enough to compete against the ambitious big brains around him but because Obama is a bright guy he’ll do better - but it wasn’t just Bush that was out played, Rice was and so was Powell, not exactly simpletons. People put too much emphasis on intelligence - I’ve known plenty of Phds who I wouldn’t trust for a second in a crisis with my life. Savvy, cunning, a certain ruthlessness, the gift of good instincts and the wisdom that comes of hard experience are often more important qualities for a leader to possess. So it is I can look at Obama right now, at his emphatic move to the center in direct contradiction of the rhetoric that brought him to power, and I can say: this is good, he’s a cunning bastard, I want that in a leader; or, this is bad, he’s weak, he’s afraid of power and is relinquishing control to the Clintonites - not that handing some control to the etceteras would be bad in and of itself, but if it comes or came to that because of weakness, well, that could prove problematic - almost certainly would, actually.

Level of intelligence is of course important but after a certain point how smart a person may or may not be does not especially factor in when considering leadership skills. In fact, too much intelligence may impede leadership if the effect of it is to make one shy as regards action and the use of force, primitive devices when measured against an ideal logic.

My consolation, as a person who thought Hillary the best fit for President in these trying times, my consolation so far would appear to be that Obama is giving every indication that he plans to govern as a pragmatic centrist comfortable with the use of military force, which is how I viewed Hillary and why I supported her. Whether this change in him is a ruse, a feint, a delaying tactic, a sign of weakness or a showing of his true colours, I don't know - what is clear though is that for the moment anyway Obama seems to have no enthusiasm for being the President he campaigned to be but apparently some interest in being the President Hillary in theory would've been. Curiouser and curiouser...

Well - Hillary almost certainly in as SecState, an ex-Marine looking set to become the NSA, a good chance Gates staying on as SecDef, a fiscal conservative in at Treasury, refugees from the Clinton administration sucking up White House jobs like candy on Easter - it's pretty clear Obama is moving, has moved to the center. Question is what does it all mean? Is he really a pragmatic centrist? If so, does that mean he's also therefore a cunning rationalist who saw the electoral process for what it is - a farce [recent poll revealed that only 2% of Obama voters actually knew anything about his policy positions before voting] - and did what he had to do to get elected and now being elected will have his way with the beast on his terms? Or has he [happily?] relinquished control of the process to the unstained-by-idealist-fancy Clintonites he's surrounded himself with? If so, would that mean he really has no governing ideology - and if that's true what then will he do with all the uber lefties who spearheaded his election when they grow restive and disillusioned? Or is it simply that the full weight of the burden he has taken on has forced him into a change of posture?

Despite my endless playing of Cassandra to Obama's Troy there was always a chance that the man who ran for President would be significantly different from the man who is President - but even if that's the case here it's still far from clear how real the difference is - and, possibly of more import, what exactly is motivating it.

This curious, a small thing but quite revealing: Sarkozy discussing - defending his 'negotiations' with Russia over Georgia states France [meaning 'he' no doubt] was there to defend the interests of peace and human rights when no one else, and he specifically alludes to Bush here, was willing to. He mentions human rights again when goes on to defend France's meddling in the most recent war in Lebanon. This view of the good people do versus the bad they do, the relationship between the two - well, it's very liberal isn't it? I'd say a lot of the apprehension about Obama centers on this notion of a coming to power in America of a French view of the world, this aura of a 'new enlightenment' that swirls around him. This idea of human rights existing outside of conflict, as if conflict is just this ugly thing which gets in the way of some perfect, pre-existing condition - well it's a very French enlightenment take on things, no? Put simply, your basic conservative, realist, Hobbesian take on things is that everything we might view as good in our society is tied to, was generated by, is rooted in something bad and progress, as we know it in the West anyway, is a result of a delicate and oftentimes paradoxical balance between the two. Seems to me Sarkozy's casual delineation of the Georgian conflict states dramatically the opposing liberal view of human history. It is yet to be revealed if Obama shares that view or if he was just being somewhat Machiavellian in allowing his rabid supporters to believe he does.

"... well, you see, I'd say my whole problem with the... Obama thing... came about when the writer of a military blog I used to frequent came out of the closet as a fervid supporter of the man and started larding his posts with Obama goo... cheesy sloganeering... my god, regularly terminating ostensibly sane and objective discussions with the excruciatingly insipid catch phrase 'Yes We Can!' - exclamation mark included!! It was sad and sickening... one couldn't help wondering that if a military man, a Capitan in the army who'd done a tour in Iraq, if such a man could be reduced to shamelessly regurgitating this gibberish... with giddy punctuation!!... well then, who could know how diminished the empire would be after Obama and his maudlin crew had done gaying it up..."

Seems odd doesn't it that Hillary supposedly being considered for Secretary of Sate post? Not sure what to make of that. I don't see her and Obama being compatible when it comes to foreign policy questions - unless of course he was just playing the part of a super liberal in order to get elected and is actually a hard nosed realist in process of slipping out of sheep's clothing, as it were. Doubt it's simply a rumour that has spun out of control - in which case he either legitimately is considering her or merely wants to appear like he's legitimately considering her, much like the rumour of him retaining Gates as SecDef which I thought may be a ruse designed to give Obama the illusion of bipartisanship, the illusion of being comfortable with tough military stances.

Now, if both Hillary and Gates end up in his cabinet? Would certainly suggest he was playing possum during the election - and probably require me to recalibrate my opinion of him. Likewise, though, if neither shows up in the cabinet that'd be a strong indicator of Obama being exactly who I fear he is.

Actually, there is a third option here: I have speculated that Obama has no real interest in governing, in leading per se - rather, he just wants to be seen as being in the lead - he was only interested in getting elected and would like nothing better now than to delegate to his multitude of advisers while he wanders the world giving pretty speeches. This was just a wild guess on my part based loosely on observations of the guy, how he carries himself, how he speaks and then tying that to his rather flimsy record - in short, I thought that maybe he was just all about the show. I bring that up because I've read that some of his people are pushing hard for Gates and Hillary but he himself remains aloof. If true that could mean several things, one of which certainly being that even if Gates and Hillary end up in the cabinet that would not necessarily mean at all that his governing ideology has been defined - it could simply be a sign of confusion or acquiescence - or of an image conscious man looking for people he can scapegoat later on, possibly for the purposes of appeasing a restive left.

And yet another option which was floated on talk shows this morning: bring Hillary into the cabinet as a way to neutralize her as a rival power. Certainly possible, but weakening her by giving her more power? Don't know about that. Yeah, it worked for Tony Soprano, but for it to work for Obama, Hillary would have to be unaware of his true motives, which quite obviously wouldn't be the case.

status quo - liberals call those who voted in favour of Proposition 8 'intolerant'. Seems obvious, but to reject is not to be intolerant towards even though said rejection insinuates that one finds intolerable certain aspects of the thing rejected. No doubt many who voted in favour did so at least in part because they don't like being told that if they hold a valid opinion in opposition to someone else's possibly valid opinion they are perforce bigots, they no doubt squirm uncomfortably at the notion that there can be only one legitimate view to have on this issue and to not hold that view shames one's soul. The crude equivocations of social activists truly grate: I understand they need people to think about gay marriage in the same ways they do racism and sexism and therefore they have to or feel they have to deploy supercharged language - but the analogies are specious. We talk about equality of the sexes but we would never force men and women to share public toilets, would we? People are too complex to be uniformly categorized under what amounts to an allusive abstraction - concepts lose some or much or sometimes all of their utility at a certain point after exposure to reality. Marriage is not merely a right enabling some lofty concept, it is a vital social artifact whose weighty significance, like burial of the dead, is both practical and metaphorical and deeply rooted in the cultural norms of the Western tradition. Doesn't mean you can't change it - but it does mean if you change it you can't then pretend its meaning remains unchanged. It's not to behave like some ignorant bigot to worry about the consequences of such a change or to wonder if the greater good is not being held hostage by the narrow concerns of a discontented few. In a free and open society we are obligated to hear peoples complaints, render them the respect they are due and then act to address grievances should action be deemed necessary or appropriate - should action be deemed necessary and appropriate - the constitution does not guarantee that one's opinions will be held as self evident truths simply because one holds them.

I must admit to being a bit bewildered by claims of how electing a black president changes the racial dynamics of America. Could be because most [all] intellectuals writing about this in a public forum have little to no real experience dealing with, working with, socializing with normal [ie having modest, low or no education] people of a different race, ethnicity, whatever. If they did they would understand that all races etc fear and feel intolerance towards things that are not like them. People, all people, have a problem with other people who don't look like them because implied in that difference is the threat that the 'others' do not or will not act like them. It's all about culture, cultures that are foreign - and it's an entirely natural human response, natural because people worry about their security and security is about among other things expectations. I've worked with Indians who hate blacks who hate Asians who hate Mexicans who hate etc etc etc. It's not that highly educated people are smarter and therefore above such things it's that education is a great homogenizer - ie anxiety re expectations is mitigated - or, possibly more accurate, hidden.

I suppose a lot of intellectuals are just not comfortable with stating the obvious: Obama has the education of a privileged white kid, the mannerisms of a privileged white kid, the verbal patterns of a privileged white kid, the everything of a privileged white kid - the only thing black about the guy was his wacko preacher and he cut him loose! If you're saying Obama being president changes some racial dynamic involving black people then you either have no legitimate conception of how people think about race or you're implying act like you were raised a privileged white kid and everything will be ok... which, well, seems a bit racist, no? Not to mention you ignore the fact that by and large blacks have spent the last generation defining themselves in opposition to a white ethos - what, they're just suddenly gonna drop that whole black culture thing 'cause the half brother with the Harvard education is president? Don't think so. Fact is people - well, educated people - working scum have absolutely no problem expressing themselves on this issue - people are not comfortable talking in real terms about race because to do so honestly would be to admit to an ugly truth - and thus this rather inane offering up of the lie of Obama, that somehow things are now changed...

I will admit to some agreement with the whole white guilt thing, Obama being restitution for the sin of slavery etc etc - but I'd tend to put it more ironically and say it's payback: we're at war and we elect an uber liberal whose sentiments, whose predisposition, whose philosophical wherewithals are probably not in keeping with the demands of war - whose whole career was based on seeking out the support of anti-war types and whose opposition to the present war was fundamentally flawed, illogical and in the narrowest of ways, self serving. Yeah, looks like payback to me...

"What... are you saying racism is nothing more than completely rational human behaviour?"
"Ah... sure. Why not. But in an entirely irrational way of course."
"But..."
"Ok, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. Or maybe I just think I know what I'm talking about..."
"How is that a difference?"
"Look... look... people feel fear, right? Everything they think about other people is based on that. That's all I'm saying. You can no more get rid of racism, or any other nonsense one man might do to another, than you can get rid of fear - lofty speeches to the contrary not withstanding."
"Sounds to me like you're trying to make excuses for your own shortcomings."
"Yeah? Well, why don't you go fuck yourself. How 'bout that?"

"Why do you have to be such a downer, such a party pooper, such a curmudgeon, such a god damned stick in the mud?" she asked. "You can't allow that people feel good about electing the black guy, that people look forward to change, that they tend to prefer hope over despair?" she continued, and with some sincerity I think, as if she wouldn't mind an answer but felt in all honesty that the question obviated the need for one.

"I'm quite content to indulge people their little fantasies," I evenly replied. "After all, it's not like one has a choice, really: you can tell a dog to stop behaving like a dog and it may comply in some way - but it's still a dog. No, I don't mean any harm... it's just that I'm the type who, when I first meet someone, as I'm shaking their hand I'm thinking all the time 'so what's this one's problem'... I'm a 'what's wrong with this picture' kind of guy... and the more people I see standing around admiring the picture, the more suspicious I become."

She looked at me with just enough pity that it could have been mistaken for kindness if she didn't find me so pitiful. "You're a sad, sad creature," she said.

"Yeah," I said, turning away as if to contemplate something at a great distance. "Doesn't mean I'm not right..."

so, it's E day - guess Obama will win. Ah... ya think? Hell, he better - a loss would probably amount to the greatest electoral shock ever and send liberals into such a bitter despond that academia will needs shut down, Hollywood starlets will wander out of their compounds sans rouge, teased hair, Kabbalah quick reference guide, crack whores will stop swapping food stamps for easy hits, too sour on life to continue their remorseless destruction of it - end times will be at hand.

Simon in Politico today referred to McCain's run for President as probably the worst ever mounted. Can't argue with that. His refusal to reference Wright and the incoherence viz Palin will go into the blunderers' hall of fame. Still, have to give Obama and his staff their due - ran two smart and efficient campaigns - albeit aided and abetted by two dim and inefficient opposing campaigns.

guess I should feel vindicated - I have been talking about an Obama presidency [in entirely negative terms of course] for almost four years now.

it is fascinating though to hear how many are referring to this election as 'history in the making' and 'most important ever' - don't need to be a genius to read subtext there. Thank god media bias is just a phantom of GOP paranoia.

afterthought - seeing how soundly he's been defeated, I wonder if McCain's refusal to bring up Wright was because, knowing he had no chance, he didn't want to be seen or remembered in defeat as 'that kind of politician'? Possible. But the time to bring up Wright was at the beginning, when victory was imaginable, as part of a strategy to define Obama as too liberal - so that excuse really doesn't wash. But, hell, would it have mattered anyway? Didn't the republicans need to lose? They literally are the Grand old Party - a good rethink is definitely called for - because even if Obama fuck's up as badly as I imagine he will and the GOP finds itself back on top four years from now it still seems like the ground has shifted, the dynamics have changed - I don't see how this constant hectoring on god, guns and abortion gets you very far on the road that lies ahead, especially with the way immigration is disturbing the demographics. America will remain a fundamentally conservative country - conservatism is in the DNA of all empires, is probably a requirement of empire - but will it be a conservatism that todays Republican base recognizes or can feel comfortable with? I tend to think probably not.

Then again, if Obama governs as his past suggests he might, as an uber liberal, then who knows what twists await.