Barack Obama: Bitter Man or Political Opportunist?

See the previous entry proclaiming Barack Obama the winner of this blog's covted, weekly "Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate".

What is absolutely amazing about Obama's comments in San Francisco is how much they consituted an indictment of HIMSELF.

One of the "differences" about Barack Obama as a Democratic politician was supposedly his EMBRACEMENT of religion.  In fact, he has invoked God and religion regularly.  Many of his speeches have the structure and tone of a sermon.  Obama, of course, has described how Jeremiah Wright brought him to Christ.

As I asked in the previous entry, was Obama's turn toward religion because of BITTERNESS, or because of political opportunism?  Can you truly be religious and give a Marxist view of religion as the "opiate of the people", to which the people turn to forget the troubles their oppressors are inflicting upon them.

It gets worse.  The "trade" part of Obama's comments in San Francisco is often passed over, but it is even more obviously damning toward Obama.  Obama is STILL making speeches attacking NAFTA and the way our trade policies have supposedly cost American jobs.  He made another one today or yesterday.  Is that because of BITTERNESS, or is it a crass attempt to pander to the bitterness Obama perceives to exist in lesser creatures than himself.  Of course people can be bitter about lots of things.  But the idea that the bitterness consumes them to the point that they leave rationality behind is leftist elitism at its best, or worst.  To then pander to that bitterness you perceive, from your lofty spot above everyone else, is truly reprehensible.  In a just world, it should disqualify someone from being President of the United States.

You want more evidence?  Glad you asked.

As I say above, the sheer intellectual dishonesty of Obama on trade has been obscures somewhat by his references to the "hot button" issues of guns and religion.  In fact, it reminds me of the padnering of Obama after one of these shooting incidents.  I think that was the time Obama received his FIRST (of many?) "Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate".  He was certainly a nominee.  Obama said:  "We must eradicate gun violence in America".  Talk about PANDERING to perceived bitterness with a ridiculous statement!!!  If it is not obvious to you that the statement is ridiculous, especially in conjunction with Obama's simultaneous statement that he had no intention of interfering with gun ownership, see the archives for my blog entry. So Obama is more than vulnerable about "guns".  But the way he has approached trade has been at least as revealing, if not more.  Newt Gingrich has pointed this out, but few others that I have seen.

Like other Democrats, in their recent leftist incarnation, Obama has been against trade deals.  This includes the BENEFICIAL (to us) proposed trade deal with Columbia--a country attempting to be one of our bigger allies in South America.  The deal would lower more Columbian tariffs against U.S. goods than U.S. tariffs against Columbian goods.  Further, it gives encouragement to an ALLY against the Marxist inflence of Hugo Chavez in the region--not to mention an ally trying hard to contain the drug cartels.  See my recent entries on the cmparistons between Columbian and Mexico, where Mexico seems to be going in the WRONG direction.  Yet, Obama has pandered to the labor unions (that perceived bitterness again) to attack "trade" deals.

But does he believe it?  Remember that story from a month or two ago about an Obama representative supposedly assuring Canadian authorities that Obama's speeches are just rhetoric, and that he will not really do anything about NAFTA? 

Is this all about fooling the RUBES and HICKS (people like me, and most of you, who do not exist on the same plane as that upon which Obama perceives himself to exist)?  I think it all fits together with what Obama said in San Francisco.  He thinks he can appeal to bitterness with SPEECHES--whether he means them or not.

This should insult you even more than the implied arrogance and elitism.  As I said in the previous entry, Obama seems to be determined to prove Lincoln wrong--to prove that you CAN foll all (or at least most) of the people all (or at least most) of the time.

There are trully strong elements of Marxism running through all of this.  There is that "opiate of the people" type terminaology on religion.  There is that underlying arrogance and contempt for the ordinary working man, at the same time you are professing to be acting in his interest.  There is this strong impression that Obama favors the idea that "the end justifies the means"--which might be regarded as the ultimate, evil motto of Lenin, Stalin and the old Soviet Union.  There is the alignmentwith Jeremiah Wright, and the idea of the U.S. (not to mention white people) being "oppressors".  This is on top of the ordinary, anti-capitalist rhetoric that now characterizes the Democratic Party (not to mention, sometimes, McCain).

Is not the whole Marxist/leftist idea to CREATE bitterness against the capitalist system, to the extent you cannot take advantage of whatever bitterness exists?

Is not Obama steadily creating a picture of who he really is--a picture of a man who thinks he can tap into the bitterness of people that he perceives to exist.  However, it is a bitterness that Obama himself obviously feels he is above (good luck on that one).  Obama is perfectly willing to base a political campaign on taking advantage of what he regards as irrationality of OTHER people induced by bitterness.  The way he has pandered on the trade issue, while saying different things in private, is a glaring example.

Can you become President with this kind of cynical, arrogant, intellectually dishonest campaign--based solely on an ability to give good speeches (when carefully prepared)?  I truly hope not.