Speaking of the symbolic power of the President why not check out the sick psycho-path at this site:

http://heyitsjustablogman.blogspot.com

Found on the Mercator which features posts on this forum and is an outfit that is apparently admired by Sells too!

I am an American living in Australia who remembers the 1930s in the United States when Congress couldn't even pass an anti-lynching bill. I voted for Obama by absentee ballot in both the primary and general election. It is terrific that the US has elected him president. He did not run as a black man but addressed the needs of all Americans.

He called the Iraq venture a 'stupid war' when Hillary Clinton and others were giving President Bush the authority to wage such a war. He has had contact with American underclass through his experience as a community organiser. That choice indicates to me a sympathy with the downtrodden. He has the intellect to become editor of the Harvard Law Review. His choice of words indicate a mind behind those words. However, he is not only intelligent he is a good organiser. The US has had some very intelligent presidents who were unable to delegate authority or correctly prioritise goals. Two very intelligent men who were failures in that were Carter and Hoover. In his campaign and fund raising efforts Obama has shown great organisational talents. Under pressure he has never made any great misstep.

I hope he will support the International Criminal Court, heed the wishes of other nations and support other instruments of international cooperation, reverse the anti-environmental policies of the current president, curb the excesses of capitalism, reduce the gap between rich and poor, provide universal health care, improve the educational system and be an inspirational figure as both Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln were.

I am prepared to be disappointed.

Plus remember that most, if not all of the writers that feature on American Thinker, and the multiple blogs that link into the AT, all in one way or another link into the Mercator site.

Most of them also like to talk about the primacy of reason too---at least when it suits them.

Plus they would have all loudly cheered when the pope made his "controversial" Regensburg address in support of reason a couple of years ago.

As would have most, if not all of the people, who write essays etc on the Mercator blog.

So what you might ask?

Well in my opinion, the blog that I pointed to in my first post, reveals the hell-deep psychotic shadow that is just behind the "smiling" face of right-wing politics in the USA---as distinct from sane balanced conservatism.

A collective psychosis that was signalled to the world at large by the "success" of that vile and horrific pornographic snuff-splatter film The Passion.

"There is actually little evidence to suggest that even Obama’s most enthusiastic supporters in the US think that he has the ability to pay their gas or mortgage costs, raise the dead and heal the sick, or walk far above the water."

Is this writer insane? What has Jesus's life and fallacies re his powers got to do with Mr Obama? Obama is a politician, what do you really expect of him? I must add that even the wildest tales re Jesus ony claimed he walked ON water, not far above it.

He's black. So what? His party is still mainly white and again, so what? I didn't detect any claims of supernatural powers anywhere, either from Obama or the media.

So you have to conclude this writer is just insane. Where's my butterfly net?

Dear Pegasus,

The words with which you take issue are not mine, but those of Geoffrey Garrett, who wrote: “Given the sky high expectations on Obama, no mortal, no matter how far above the water he walks, could meet all those expectations”. I am also well aware that the story of Jesus going to Capernaum tells of him walking on the sea, not above it.

I am not sure how it is possible to mis-read my paragraph to suggest that I think that Obama is the Messiah. For the record, I think that he is a politician. And my point was that most Obama voters/supporters also think that – with the exception it seems of one woman who became a youtube sensation with her claim that an Obama victory meant that she would no longer have to worry about putting gas in her car or paying the mortgage.

Thank you for sharing your views about mental illness with me,

Helen Pringle

The article was a very well thought out way of admitting that the US presidency is puppetry.

How every now and again, its nice to be like an audience of children, where we can escape into emotion, ego and romanticism. This is not thinking. This is about as un-thoughful as it gets. Unless by 'thought' you mean illogical and irrational thought. The type of thinking thats inconsistent with reality. The type of thinking that changes nothing.

The most glaring thing about the recent presidential race, was just how apt people are to go for a silver-tongued snake, who speaks words dipped in sacharine sweet subterfuge. How its all about identity politics. All appeal to emotion and ego and veiled self-interest. How feeling the words is much more important to thinking about the substance of those words. No wounder Obama won, that sort of silver tongued oratory is his specialty.

The thing lve noticed about the right is that their spin is very easy to see thru, as its light on emotion. Whereas the leftist spin is very deceptive and manipulative, coated as it is in layers of emotion and sentiment. And they are extremely adept at dipping it in just enough logic, truth and reason to get the gross lies to fly. Their sanctimonious self-deciet gets rather tedious (l used to be a lefty) after a while and eventually, inevitably, people see thru it, zone it out and everythig keeps changing in the same sort of way it ever did.

Go for it, David F -

As one originally poorly schooled, owing to have to help save the farm during the Great Depression, was one of the lucky ones to survive WW2, and given the chance in my later retirement from my own family farm, to sit for and gain a Post-Grad in Political Science.

After Australian Politics under David Black, was fortunate to have an American tutor as well as teaching American politics, taught us in decisionmaking, from where we learnt how important it is to always have strong historical insight to steer one's foresight.

Furthermore because the historical insight must be tempered more with Scientific Reasoning rather than with faith, such could account for most of the blunders even during our modern history.

Bit long-winded, mate, but was hoping you might agree.

Cheers, BB, Buntine, WA

david f,
I like your ideas, you are a progressive person! I wish Obama will support the International Criminal Court but I do not expect it with Hillary Clinton as foreign minister. Our expectations from Obama are very high and the situation is USA is not very good! I am prepared to be disappointed but how much?
I agree with you david f
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Just a quick comment - have only skimmed the article and the comments section. Surely some of the excitement that surrounds Obama must be due to the contrast between him (or any competent candidate for that matter) and George Bush. At last an american president who speaks in complete and intelligent sentences! Perhaps much of the world would not be so excited about him if say, he was following Clinton, Bush Senior or any other American president bar Warren Harding or Richard Nixon.

However, the fact he is not only mixed race, but the son of a muslim man makes the power of his story yet more compelling. His election has undoubtedly improved the way millions of people regard the US, it people and its system of government. This kind of symbolic power has been tagged as 'soft power' and may be of increasing relevance in a smaller and more connected world. If a child in Indonesia feels a symbolic connection to the US president (and there they were at his old school barely able to contain themselves with joy) does this mean militant fundamentalism will be less attractive? Perhaps wishful thinking...of course there are other forces at work... but suddenly the US and its president are that little bit more difficult to portray as evil, and as 'other.'

PS be kind this is my first post

Dear Bushbred,

I see nothing in your post to disagree with. Apparently you are even older than I am.

I don’t know why faith is accepted as a virtue. It really is only a virtue for those who would want you to accept whatever nonsense they spread. Doubt and questioning are much more worthwhile.

Dear Antonios Symeonakis,

I am unhappy with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. During her campaign for the presidential nomination she talked about obliterating Iran. That means murdering about 70,000,000.

The word, progressive, has many meanings. I think it is better to discuss ideas than to label a person even though the label denotes approval.

Dear chandralekha,

Welcome to the list. We should always be kind. I think Richard Nixon was quite an intelligent man. IMO the wrongs he committed were not nearly as bad as those of Bush 2.

Welcome chandralekha, may you enjoy the many challenges you will encounter on OLO - not all are kind.

Davidf

I hadn't thought of comparing Bush Jnr to Nixon, and I concur. Bush caused far more misery, presided over a completely corrupt, arrogant and indifferent government and set the scene for financial collapse. Nixon looks relatively benign compared to the Bush legacy.

As for Obama, so many high expectations that no mere mortal can live up to, however he remains the best hope I have seen in politics in any nation for decades.