Barack Obama

[GRiM]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/world/middleeast/15bibi.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Benjamin Netanyahu uses exactly the same web-page as Barack.

 

[go2]

. Does anyone know at what point JFK started asserting himself in a way "uncooperative" with the PTB?

I don't have the references, but the Generals woke JFK at midnight April 18, 1961, to insist the US military use airpower to protect the doomed CIA Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. He refused permission. JFK was tested within months of becoming President. Needless to say, the Joint Chiefs and the CIA were enraged. Perhaps, Joe Biden knows history, hence his comment that Obama will be tested within months. The test will most likely be by the men behind the curtain. They will need to know if Obama will due their bidding. I am not dismayed by his advisors, as we live in a world of violence and lies. As Boris Mourvieffs says, "You must feed the crocodiles, lest they devour you."

Simon Davies and Donald Hunt have it just about right.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/168879-The-Road-to-Hell-is-paved-with-Free-Market-Capitalism-Imperialism-and-Psychopaths

It is easy, and not a bad thing, to be cynical of all the talk of hope and change. Many in the "foreign policy establishment" (American Imperialists in other words) see Obama as a "rebranding" of the U.S. internationally. Obama's talk about "winning" the war in Afghanistan is particularly repellant. Obama's pick of the rabid Zionist (and rabid generally) Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff, was a stomach punch to many. One hopes that Obama is following the principle of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. Even if the ideal president was trying to move away from Zionism, how could that president possibly do it given what the United States is now? You would only get one shot and it would have to be right between the eyes. The same goes for abandoning imperialism. If you miss, you're dead. Just have a seance and ask John Kennedy.

So the jury is out. Time will tell if Obama is just an eloquent front man for the same old death machine or if he is another naïve reformer in over his head in shark-infested waters. In any case, someone needs to get him a copy of Political Ponerology.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/124946-JFK-The-Debris-of-History

Laura's work, drawing on Farewell America by James Hepburn.....http://www.voxfux.com/kennedy/farewell/farewell00.html, illuminates the shark infested waters a President with conscience and compassion, must navigate if he is to accomplish his Constitutional role and stay alive.


http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2008/07/07/obama_books/index.html

Laura Miller, a senior writer for Salon.com wrote, "Barack by the books", on the books and ideas which have influenced Barack Obama. The three mentioned influential works are:

1. "Moral Man and Immoral Society" by Reinhold Niebuhr
2. "Rules for Radicals:A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals", by Saul Alinskiy
3. "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln", by Doris Kearns Goodwin

 

[PepperFritz]

Time will tell if Obama is just an eloquent front man for the same old death machine or if he is another naïve reformer in over his head in shark-infested waters.

Well, they both work out to the same thing. It's only a question of whether he KNOWINGLY ran for president as a "front man for the same old death machine" (which would make him a psychopath), or was naively co-opted by the "same old death machine" as a candidate more palatable to the American public to win the presidency for them (which would just make him a useful idiot).

I think that the likelihood of Obama being a "hero" who will champion reform at great risk to his own personal life, is extremely remote. Even if you were to try to explain away the people he has chosen to surround himself with as "keeping his enemies close", his senate record is that of a war- and corporate-supporting conformist. Unless he has a life-changing moment on the road to Damascus, I'm sure he intends to continue as he has gone on to date.

 

[go2]

Well, they both work out to the same thing. It's only a question of whether he KNOWINGLY ran for president as a "front man for the same old death machine" (which would make him a psychopath), or was naively co-opted by the "same old death machine" as a candidate more palatable to the American public to win the presidency for them (which would just make him a useful idiot).

Obama's life and words give little indication of psychological deviance. The men behind the curtain may consider him to be a useful idiot, but he seems well read to be naive of the reality of power on this violent planet. There is the possibility he is a decent man and will do what he can. The books that have influenced him indicate this possibility. Barack Obama has stated that his favorite philosopher is Reinhold Niebuhr who wrote the Serenity Prayer.

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

This is the line of thought that leads me think Obama is a decent man and will do what he can. He is a realist with normal psychology and above average education and intellect. I have a more nuanced view of Obama and what he can accomplish after studying his life and words more closely.

I'm sure he intends to continue as he has gone on to date.

I do not know the future, it seems open ended.

The quote you attributed to go2 is from Simon Davies and Donald Hunt.

 

[PepperFritz]

There is the possibility he is a decent man and will do what he can.

As the following article by Ralph Nader succinctly itemizes, Obama's senate record does not reflect "a decent man". It reflects a deeply conservative opportunist dedicated to maintaining the status quo, who supported the worst crimes and abuses of Bush's administration, and did NOT align himself with those "decent" men and women who opposed them. To expect his political character to radically change just because he has been elected president, is wishful thinking.

If we are to successfully negotiate the troubles to come, it is important that we endeavour to see things objectively, as they ARE, not as we would like them to be. Knowledge protects, ignorance endangers.

Between Hope and Reality:
An Open Letter to Barack Obama
by Ralph Nader, CounterPunch.org
November 3, 2008

Dear Senator Obama:

In your nearly two-year presidential campaign, the words "hope and change," "change and hope" have been your trademark declarations. Yet there is an asymmetry between those objectives and your political character that succumbs to contrary centers of power that want not "hope and change" but the continuation of the power-entrenched status quo.

Far more than Senator McCain, you have received enormous, unprecedented contributions from corporate interests, Wall Street interests and, most interestingly, big corporate law firm attorneys. Never before has a Democratic nominee for President achieved this supremacy over his Republican counterpart. Why, apart from your unconditional vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, are these large corporate interests investing so much in Senator Obama? Could it be that in your state Senate record, your U.S. Senate record and your presidential campaign record (favoring nuclear power, coal plants, offshore oil drilling, corporate subsidies including the 1872 Mining Act and avoiding any comprehensive program to crack down on the corporate crime wave and the bloated, wasteful military budget, for example) you have shown that you are their man?

To advance change and hope, the presidential persona requires character, courage, integrity-- not expediency, accommodation and short-range opportunism. Take, for example, your transformation from an articulate defender of Palestinian rights in Chicago before your run for the U.S. Senate to an acolyte, a dittoman for the hard-line AIPAC lobby, which bolsters the militaristic oppression, occupation, blockage, colonization and land-water seizures over the years of the Palestinian peoples and their shrunken territories in the West Bank and Gaza. Eric Alterman summarized numerous polls in a December 2007 issue of The Nation magazine showing that AIPAC policies are opposed by a majority of Jewish-Americans.

You know quite well that only when the U.S. Government supports the Israeli and Palestinian peace movements, that years ago worked out a detailed two-state solution (which is supported by a majority of Israelis and Palestinians), will there be a chance for a peaceful resolution of this 60-year plus conflict. Yet you align yourself with the hard-liners, so much so that in your infamous, demeaning speech to the AIPAC convention right after you gained the nomination of the Democratic Party, you supported an "undivided Jerusalem," and opposed negotiations with Hamas-- the elected government in Gaza. Once again, you ignored the will of the Israeli people who, in a March 1, 2008 poll by the respected newspaper Haaretz, showed that 64% of Israelis favored "direct negotiations with Hamas." Siding with the AIPAC hard-liners is what one of the many leading Palestinians advocating dialogue and peace with the Israeli people was describing when he wrote "Anti-semitism today is the persecution of Palestinian society by the Israeli state."

During your visit to Israel this summer, you scheduled a mere 45 minutes of your time for Palestinians with no news conference, and no visit to Palestinian refugee camps that would have focused the media on the brutalization of the Palestinians. Your trip supported the illegal, cruel blockade of Gaza in defiance of international law and the United Nations charter. You focused on southern Israeli casualties which during the past year have totaled one civilian casualty to every 400 Palestinian casualties on the Gaza side. Instead of a statesmanship that decried all violence and its replacement with acceptance of the Arab League's 2002 proposal to permit a viable Palestinian state within the 1967 borders in return for full economic and diplomatic relations between Arab countries and Israel, you played the role of a cheap politician, leaving the area and Palestinians with the feeling of much shock and little awe.

David Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, described your trip succinctly: "There was almost a willful display of indifference to the fact that there are two narratives here. This could serve him well as a candidate, but not as a President."

Palestinian American commentator, Ali Abunimah, noted that Obama did not utter a single criticism of Israel, "of its relentless settlement and wall construction, of the closures that make life unlivable for millions of Palestinians. ...Even the Bush administration recently criticized Israeli's use of cluster bombs against Lebanese civilians [see www.atfl.org for elaboration]. But Obama defended Israeli's assault on Lebanon as an exercise of its 'legitimate right to defend itself.'"

In numerous columns Gideon Levy, writing in Haaretz, strongly criticized the Israeli government's assault on civilians in Gaza, including attacks on "the heart of a crowded refugee camp... with horrible bloodshed" in early 2008.

Israeli writer and peace advocate-- Uri Avnery-- described Obama's appearance before AIPAC as one that "broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning, adding that Obama "is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future-- if and when he is elected president.," he said, adding, "Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people."

A further illustration of your deficiency of character is the way you turned your back on the Muslim-Americans in this country. You refused to send surrogates to speak to voters at their events. Having visited numerous churches and synagogues, you refused to visit a single Mosque in America. Even George W. Bush visited the Grand Mosque in Washington D.C. after 9/11 to express proper sentiments of tolerance before a frightened major religious group of innocents.

Although the New York Times published a major article on June 24, 2008 titled "Muslim Voters Detect a Snub from Obama" (by Andrea Elliott), citing examples of your aversion to these Americans who come from all walks of life, who serve in the armed forces and who work to live the American dream. Three days earlier the International Herald Tribune published an article by Roger Cohen titled "Why Obama Should Visit a Mosque." None of these comments and reports change your political bigotry against Muslim-Americans-- even though your father was a Muslim from Kenya.

Perhaps nothing illustrated your utter lack of political courage or even the mildest version of this trait than your surrendering to demands of the hard-liners to prohibit former president Jimmy Carter from speaking at the Democratic National Convention. This is a tradition for former presidents and one accorded in prime time to Bill Clinton this year.

Here was a President who negotiated peace between Israel and Egypt, but his recent book pressing the dominant Israeli superpower to avoid Apartheid of the Palestinians and make peace was all that it took to sideline him. Instead of an important address to the nation by Jimmy Carter on this critical international problem, he was relegated to a stroll across the stage to "tumultuous applause," following a showing of a film about the Carter Center's post-Katrina work. Shame on you, Barack Obama!

But then your shameful behavior has extended to many other areas of American life. (See the factual analysis by my running mate, Matt Gonzalez, on www.votenader.org). You have turned your back on the 100-million poor Americans composed of poor whites, African-Americans, and Latinos. You always mention helping the "middle class" but you omit, repeatedly, mention of the "poor" in America.

Should you be elected President, it must be more than an unprecedented upward career move following a brilliantly unprincipled campaign that spoke "change" yet demonstrated actual obeisance to the concentration power of the "corporate supremacists." It must be about shifting the power from the few to the many. It must be a White House presided over by a black man who does not turn his back on the downtrodden here and abroad but challenges the forces of greed, dictatorial control of labor, consumers and taxpayers, and the militarization of foreign policy. It must be a White House that is transforming of American politics-- opening it up to the public funding of elections (through voluntary approaches)-- and allowing smaller candidates to have a chance to be heard on debates and in the fullness of their now restricted civil liberties. Call it a competitive democracy.

Your presidential campaign again and again has demonstrated cowardly stands. "Hope" some say springs eternal." But not when "reality" consumes it daily.

 

[gwb1995]

I remember seeing all the discussions prior to the election, and they were mostly 'for Obama' and his stated claims to be 'For Change'. I was just not able to 'SEE' any real truth in his statements then and I can't see anything now that would begin to change my view. I just don't think it matters who is President in this world. The PTB has a firm grip on this world and nothing is going to stop them. They don't care who is President, so long as people 'Think' they have made a choice to right the ship, or not. It's all about continuing the same old story.

I think the only important thing is for people to WAKE UP and face the reality of what is really happening in this universe. WE are not being controlled by Presidents; we are being controlled by forces from 4D.

 

[bedower]

Just found this article on perceptions of Obama in this region at:

_http://www.dailystaregypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=17632

Obama’s success potentially beneficial for region, but many are cautious

By Abdel-Rahman Hussein
First Published: November 6, 2008
AFP
Many see Obama as a the worl'd new superhero.



AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast, File
In this June 6, 2008, file photo Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., left, huddles with then-Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. in Chicago. President-elect Barack Obama chose Emanual to be his White House chief of staff, his first selection for the new administration, Democratic officials said Wednesday.



CAIRO: Initial regional reactions to Barack Obama’s victory in the US presidential elections mirror those in the United States with much to be hopeful about.

But all optimism is tinted with a note of caution; it is impossible to expect dramatic change in a region that has been simmering in turmoil for over half a century.

This caution has been justified by Obama’s first staff appointment, offering the chief of staff position to Democratic Congressman Rahm Emanual. The Chicago representative is the son of an Israeli who was a member of the Irgun, famous for its role in the Deir Yassin massacre of Palestinians in 1948.

On the flipside, it emerged that Obama had sent his senior foreign policy advisor Robert Malley to both Cairo and Damascus these past few weeks to outline the president-elect’s plans for the region, which indicates a willingness to further strengthen ties with staunch US ally Egypt and begin boosting relations with Syria.

President Hosni Mubarak sent Wednesday his congratulations to Obama along with the hope that he would work towards a just settlement in the Middle East, with the peace process currently in disarray a year after the Annapolis summit.

Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood’s supreme guide Mohamed Mahdi Akef called on Obama to put an immediate stop to the “criminality” of the incumbent Bush administration against the Arab and Muslim world.

And while he saw Obama’s victory as a positive step and repudiation of the Bush administration, Akef said, “He must atone for the sins of America.” Directing his comments at Obama he added, “I hope you build your policy in the Arab and Islamic world on the respect for justice and freedom for everybody … and I invite you to respect democracy and human rights.”

Yet the histrionics of the Arabic press that a man with a Muslim name had been elected to the highest office in the US was also tempered by the belief that while the image has changed drastically for the better, US policy, especially in the Middle East, will not undergo a similar transformation.

The Egyptian newspaper Al-Badeel said in an editorial that Obama’s victory “doesn’t mean that we’re about to witness a radical change in American policy” and that not much would change for the Arab nations in the region, as US policy is all about “preserving Israel’s superiority over all its Arab neighbors and [having] oil at an acceptable price.”

Indeed Obama and his running mate Joe Biden have been at pains to display their support for Israel, with Obama promising Jerusalem to be the “undivided” capital of Israel and Biden stating that Israel would not find a better friend than him.

Reactions from Israeli politicians have also been positive about Obama’s victory, denoting that it would in no way weaken relations between the two.

“Israeli-US relations are a special relationship based on values and common interest, with tight cooperation. Israel and the United States both desire to maintain and strengthen these relations,” said outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said, “During Barack Obama's recent visit to Israel, and especially during the tour we conducted together in the city of Sderot, the people of Israel were impressed by his commitment to the peace and security of Israel.”

“Israel looks forward to continued close strategic cooperation with the new administration, the new president and the US Congress, in order to continue to strengthen the lasting special relationship between our two countries,” she added.

However, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal said before the election results came through that the Palestinian group was ready for dialogue with any US leader.

“We are ready to deal with any presidential candidate, but we will always stick to our rights. We acknowledge that the United States is powerful, but we are more powerful in our territory,” he said.

And if the peace process is one Middle East issue on Obama’s plate, there is also the matter of Iraq and its neighbor Iran.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali Dabbagh said, “The government has a sincere desire to cooperate with the elected president in order to achieve the joint interests of the two sides, preserve the security and stability of Iraq, maintain the full sovereignty of Iraq and protect the interests of its people.”

While in Iran, Ali Haddad Adil, a senior advisor for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei said, “The American people have to change their policies in order to get rid of the quagmire created by President Bush for them.”

However, before all of this Obama will find himself assuming office with a staggering series of problems to contend with, chief amongst them an economic crisis not seen for generations and two wars the US is already committed in, as he said in his acceptance speech.

And while his advisors want to avoid the mistakes of his predecessors and formulate a foreign policy strategy right away, Obama might find that there are other issues that need his immediate attention.

Pictures don't paste, unfortunately.

 

[go2]

Obama's senate record does not reflect "a decent man"

A man's political ideology has little to do with the concept of a "decent man", used in the sense that he does not exhibit psychological deviance in his life and words, beyond what is necessary in his role in an STS system. The Senate votes probably reflect the realities of power and not a reflection of a man's basic character. I find little evidence that Obama is psychopathic. The political system is pathocratic, hence the great tragedy of JFK's attempt to change the status quo. Change is very dangerous, however Obama will probably have some latitude to change on the margins as the PTB need a facelift after GWB. It is the old bad cop-good cop routine. Perhaps, he will do what he can.

To expect his political character to radically change just because he has been elected president, is wishful thinking.

I don't know if you are putting words in my mouth, but expectations or wishful thinking have nothing to do with the
observation that Obama seems likely to do what he can. What he can is far from "radical change", or maybe not. Your subjective analysis of Obama's role and my comments seems to limit your understanding. When you are "sure" of your views and the future itself you have reached a conclusion, thereby limiting the reception of new information. Objectivity is not reaching a conclusion, as I see more today than yesterday. You seem very sure of your objectivity. Does this limit our potential to grasp new knowledge and lead to ignorance? The future is open and people can change if they have the potential to mature to a more nuanced perspective. It seems possible Obama has this potential.

The ideas I am considering in reference to Obama are applicable in our own lives, as we attempt to live with integrity in a pathocratic system and survive. This is a great drama being played out, and I want to maintain an open mind, as clearly I can be wrong when I reach a conclusion on my interpretation of the present scene and its actors, or conclude the future is fixed by the past.

 

[Jacques]

Pictures don't paste, unfortunately.

Hi bedower,

Yes it is possible to put a picture.

Here's the picture for your article:

Go Here and after that look for "insert image".
It will explain to you how to insert an image.

 

[bedower]

Thanks, Namaste, that's very helpful. Perhaps I should have written that I didn't know how to paste the pictures.

The picture I wanted to paste was the one of Obama with Emanuel, that goes with this caption:

In this June 6, 2008, file photo Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., left, huddles with then-Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. in Chicago. President-elect Barack Obama chose Emanual to be his White House chief of staff, his first selection for the new administration, Democratic officials said Wednesday.

but I couldn't 'lift' it off the page, even after reading your instructions carefully. Presumably because it's a file pic, AP copyrighted.

The real message that goes with this picture is that the writer, Hussein, hadn't missed the full implications of Obama's appointment of Emanuel. He makes the point here in the article:

This caution has been justified by Obama’s first staff appointment, offering the chief of staff position to Democratic Congressman Rahm Emanual. The Chicago representative is the son of an Israeli who was a member of the Irgun, famous for its role in the Deir Yassin massacre of Palestinians in 1948.

and then leaves it alone, using the picture for emphasis without treading on any toes, or so I see it.

Cautious, wary and not very optimistic is the way I'm reading this article.

 

[anart]

Hi go2,

In case you are unaware, you are evidencing quite the identification with 'Obama the good man'. You might want to ask yourself why that is.

A man's political ideology has little to do with the concept of a "decent man", used in the sense that he does not exhibit psychological deviance in his life and words, beyond what is necessary in his role in an STS system.

The objective fact of the matter is that you cannot know such a thing. You do not really know anything about his life and words. You do not know him - at all. What you 'know' is what has been spoon fed to you through the corporate media, yet here you are rather vehemently defending him as 'Obama the good man'.

I hate to break it to you, but, in this day and age, 'good men' do NOT make it to the highest political office in the land.

The Senate votes probably reflect the realities of power and not a reflection of a man's basic character.

While this statement is a bit of a stretch, let's say it is true. It would follow that his role as president would be exactly the same - it would 'reflect the realities of power' -- can you at least see that?

I find little evidence that Obama is psychopathic.

Evidence from where? You do NOT know him - you cannot know him - all you know is what those who control the corporate media want you to know. I, personally, find no evidence that Obama is NOT psychopathic - but that also proves nothing.

From your identification with this man who you do not and cannot know, it certainly appears that the media blitz has worked very, very well on you. It might be wise to wake up now.

The political system is pathocratic, hence the great tragedy of JFK's attempt to change the status quo. Change is very dangerous, however Obama will probably have some latitude to change on the margins as the PTB need a facelift after GWB. It is the old bad cop-good cop routine. Perhaps, he will do what he can.

And perhaps he is in this position because they want him in this position - because he will do what they want him to do. At this point in history, could it really be any other way? This is NOT 1961.

Just for clarity's sake, as far as my personal take on Obama, I do not know. What I do know is how things work here on the BBM - and pretending that is not so just because the media has stoked your hope means they have you exactly where they want you - asleep and dreaming that you live in a democracy.

 

[Laura]

As the following article by Ralph Nader succinctly itemizes, Obama's senate record does not reflect "a decent man". It reflects a deeply conservative opportunist dedicated to maintaining the status quo, who supported the worst crimes and abuses of Bush's administration, and did NOT align himself with those "decent" men and women who opposed them. To expect his political character to radically change just because he has been elected president, is wishful thinking.

On the other hand, anybody who had opposed the Bush team over the past 8 years would have had ZERO chance of running for president, much less getting elected.

If we consider that the Dominionists can so covertly plan years ahead to take over the government for evil intentions (which they, of course, do not perceive as evil though they are certainly delusional), why do we not think that a decent person could, under the very trying circumstances we have all endured over those same 8 years, decide to try to do something about it, to behave covertly, so as to get into position to do something?

It's probably not the case, but I think we ought to leave the door open to that possibility.

And if it IS a possibility, then we would have to think that Obama would deliberately create a congressional record that would support him to the presidency.

Let's keep in mind that a smart man learns from his mistakes but a genius learns from the mistakes of others. The big mistake that John Kennedy made was to underestimate his opponents and to think that just being brave and decent and standing up for what was good for people was all it took. People who love truth sometimes forget that it often has to be protected with a shield of lies. And it doesn't take a genius to figure that out - just a lot of reading of history and a few firing neurons.

 

[Jacques]

Thanks, Namaste, that's very helpful. Perhaps I should have written that I didn't know how to paste the pictures.

The picture I wanted to paste was the one of Obama with Emanuel, that goes with this caption:

In this June 6, 2008, file photo Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., left, huddles with then-Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. in Chicago. President-elect Barack Obama chose Emanual to be his White House chief of staff, his first selection for the new administration, Democratic officials said Wednesday.

Here's the picture:

You put your cursor on the picture and you click with the right part of your mouse, then you choose "property". You will see the url address. You choose and copy that link.

After that, your paste it in the "insert image" or you do that (img)paste the link(/img) but in changing the ( ) for []

 

[bedower]

Thanks again, Namaste. :) Your helpful instructions have been written down for future use.

As for the picture, it speaks for itself, which is what I believe Hussein (the author of the article) was trying to convey; that the wrong one is speaking and the wrong one is listening, osit.

The phrase 'a thousand words' springs to mind here.

 

[PepperFritz]

It's probably not the case, but I think we ought to leave the door open to that possibility.

I "leave the door open" to all kinds of possibilities, but some are more probable than others based on the objective information we have. From what we have come to know about the relentless stranglehold that the Control System and psychopaths have had on the American political system for so many years, coupled with Obama's record in the senate and kind of people and issues he has allied himself with and taken millions of dollars from, the possibility that he is a "covert" hero and renegade who will turn on his masters seems extremely remote to me.

Obama has sold people (even some on this forum) with his rhetoric of "hope" and "change", which if we are to believe the C's is impossible at this late stage in the game. It seems much more probable that his function at this point is to pacify and distract the populace with false hope. I think caution and skepticism is the wisest stance, as appealing as Obama's promises may be. There's a fine line between being "open to possibilities" and letting one's objectivity slip due to wishful thinking.

Just my take on it, for what it is worth.