horse of george

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.