Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Will the Real Barack Obama Please Stand Up?

With no more Democratic Primaries for another month, the spotlight has gone off politics and shifted over to the worldwide financial turmoil. But it us gives a bit of space to reflect on the character of Barack Obama, because at last his bluff has been called. Lynn wrote about this story last week.

What happened was that a video was released of the pastor of Obama’s home church, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, saying the following regarding 9/11:

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is brought right back in our own front yards.”

Obama responded in the Huffington Post:

"Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

With Rev. Wright's retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright's statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.”

So there we have it. The man who voted against invading Iraq because he does not believe in “dumb wars”, at the same time seems to believe that prior to Iraq the USA never did anything dumb, and that to say so “degrades individuals.” Of course, to stay in the Presidential race he had to denounce what Wright said. But it also shows us that he is prepared for political reasons to denounce in the strongest terms a statement that any reasonable person can see contains an important and self-evident truth, and in so doing to also betray a close personal relationship.

I was disappointed by Obama’s action, because it reveals that he is essentially a politician, and that when push comes to shove, his political position is far more important than the ideals he claims to espouse or his personal relationships. I had hoped that his idealism had more substance than this. At the same time I am relieved, because it begins to burst the huge bubble of projection that has been surrounding him - the ‘Obamania’, the new dawn for America, the talk of Destiny and all that. It may have been fun to indulge in for a while, but things are now getting more real.

This does not mean that Obama might not on balance make a good President. Kennedy had all sorts of murky stuff about him, but he still managed to get the Civil Rights laws underway before he died.

Venus is the planet of relationship, how we reach out to and attract – or repel – others. In a politician it therefore has to do with popular appeal. And with Obama we find that he has an unaspected Venus at 1.29 Cancer (conjunct the US Venus). This suggests to me that his ability to appeal to people is not necessarily tied in very well with the rest of his personality: at worst it could mean that he will do or say anything to get elected. And remarkably he may be unaware that he is being inconsistent, because his Venus is autonomous. (cf Eliot Spitzer with his unaspected Gemini Sun: he was the scourge of prostitution in New York State, while at the same time availing himself of its services). So as far as he is concerned, he remains Obama the articulate idealist. His Sun in Leo square to Neptune, with its capacity for self-deception, lends support to this possibility. And with his Venus conjunct the US Venus, he knows very well how to appeal to the US electorate.

Some time ago I wrote a piece on conviction politicians, and the main point I wanted to make was that these people are able to be passionate and total in their conviction – which is very appealing to an electorate – because they are good at deceiving themselves, they see no awkward inconsistencies to take into account. With a lot of politicians, we know and they know that they are playing a game, not a very satisfactory one, but at least we all know the rules, and when they say x they really mean y and we all know that.

With a conviction politician, the game changes, and it becomes far more dangerous, because these people really do believe their own spin. Tony Blair is like this. With his unaspected Venus and Sun square to Neptune, it is quite possible that Obama, in his own articulate and considered way, will also prove to be this type of politician. With that challenging Neptune, he is not what he seems, though what he actually is, is not yet clear. In the case of the hugely popular Tony Blair in the UK, it was not until the Iraq War that we began to see who he really was. So I think Obama needs watching. Pluto is opposing his Venus this year (and next), so the electorate should be able to take a good look at this side of him before deciding who to vote for in November (assuming he is the Democratic candidate). Unfortunately, electorates tend to be too fond of this sort of politician.

This Pluto-Venus transit also reflects his betrayal of his relationship with the Rev Wright - though no doubt he sees the betrayal as the other way round, which to some extent it was.


Site Meter

19 comments:

Twilight said...

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Rev Wright, and his sermons, one thing now clear to me is that Senator Obama, for all his speeches and stances, is immature.

No need to get into race or religion (both could be discussed for pages and pages) it is clear to me that he's just not emotionally fit to be president of the USA at this point in his life.

He's managing to divide the country more than it was divided before.

Whatever he says just plays to one side or the other giving them more fodder.

In my short experience here, in a red state (Oklahoma) I see black and white mingling quite happily. Our town has a black mayor, whom we supported from the start. Native Americans too mingle in to the community, by the way.

What's happening now has the potential to set things back by decades.

Obama's judgement is measured by his actions. For me his judgement is immature both as a man and as a politician. I don't know how to define that astrologically, or whether it's as a result of his fragmented background.

The Ninth Immortal said...

I'm actually really glad you wrote this - excellent post. I want to believe in the Obama promise as much as anyone, but I, too, have feared he is the stuff of our ultimately highly wishful thinking.

Which is not to say he couldn't be a competent president. But I, for one, was repelled by how he threw Wright to the dogs.

To be fair, though, it was either that or seriously hamstring his campaign. And he wasn't about to do the latter.

Thanks for all the great writing. Keep it coming.

Best,

Ninth

yeshe_choden said...

Thanks for writing this. As much as I am an Obama supporter, I genuinely want to honor peoples' doubts about him, and be awake to his liabilities. Because that's where our work as engaged citizens will come in.

Jason Hamlin said...

I am an Obama supporter but would be fine voting in either democrat. On that note, I still don't see how this rebuttal was divisive. I would actually need to see some examples of how he is immature for one to convince me of that argument. Is trying to be conciliatory is giving more fodder to the "other side"? Who is the "other side"? The media? They will create any controversy they can to get ratings from either candidate (i.e. lapel pins, crying at campaign speeches, hands over hearts, etc.) I think, Twilight, you may have a nice view of a small Oklahoman town that does not address the more pervasive issues that are and have been ingrained in this country's race relations since it's birth.

This is a nice article with the astrology there to make me think. However, I have no doubt in my mind that he was denouncing anything that was factual in Rev. Wright's speech. The statement that was quoted from Rev. Wright was not the statement that "disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies." Obama was referring to the statements that have been flying all over the news here...where Rev. Wright was saying that all black people should be singing "God Damn America" instead of "God Bless America". Those are, indeed, inflammatory, controversial remarks. As informed as I am about the atrocities committed by the U.S., I would certainly disagree with that rhetoric. Did any of you guys see the speech given today by Obama? He went into more detail about why he denounced those controversial statements, but continued to embrace the Rev. (as a friend) for all the positive influence he's had on him.

Keep up the good work.

Dharmaruci said...

Jason, Obama says: "Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy"

Now I find it hard to conceive that this did not include Wright's statement about 9/11 and chickens coming home to roost. That statement was also the subject of controversy, therefore Obama was condemning it, as he says himself.

Dharmaruci said...

I've just been reading over Obama's latest speech. Yes, he is rightly addressing the race issue. but we also read: "But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."

So there we have it: the conflicts in the Middle East are due to radical Islam and not 'stalwart' Israel. The conflicts are of course due to both sides, it is an impossible muddle, and any reasonable person can see this. But not Obama - on this subject, he is damning Wright for speaking the truth.

Jason Hamlin said...

What I mentioned before about "God Damn America" is what was getting play throughout the media here. There is no way Obama was trying to dispute the facts. You can't dispute facts...unless you're in the Bush administration. Believe me, there is a lot of truth in what the Rev. said. I do not believe, however, that America deserved 9/11. I don't believe any country or group of people deserves to be terrorized, regardless of who's doing the terrorizing. I also oppose the death penalty, and that plays into the moral argument of my belief. Because Obama condems Rev.'s argument that America deserves 9/11, doesn't mean that he believes America shouldn't be held accountable for it's past transgressions...I certainly don't.

I also realize that Obama is very careful with his words. When I read the statement referring to Israel as "stalwart" I kind of cringe. It would be easy for me to draw the conclusion that Obama believes the Middle East conflicts are only due to radical Islam and not Israel. But then I question why he used the adverb "primarily" to describe the conflict with respect to Israel or "emanating" when describing the radical Islam influence. To me that statement says two things: I disagree with anyone who says that Israel's actions are the "primary" reason for conflict. I believe that the conflict "emanates" from radical Islam, but also isn't the primary cause. That's why I conclude that he can see the impossible muddle. I think we all know with his Aries Point venus, seeing both sides of the equation and bringing two seemingly conflicting ideas together is definitely not the problem.

Venus said...

Obama is wooing the Jewish community so he genuflects in the direction of the "stalwart (ally)..Israel."

His speech, while self promoting, is aimed at pushing the controversy that he is embroiled in over his Pastor's outrageous hate driven speech to an abstract distance away from himself. He would have us believe that it is about "race" in general, and not about his relationship to this preacher. Nice try, but it just doesn't wash.

As Michael Gerson points out in his column (“A Speech That Fell Short,” Washington Post, March 19, 2008), one much question why, unlike Martin Luther King who repudiated hatred, Obama chose for decades to support and walk with a man who didn’t.

nathifah said...

Mr. Dharmaruci
Rev. Wright was not speaking "the truth". The truth can not be so full of hatred. It is the truth to you because you share his point of view.
Do you really thing what happened on 9/11 is because of the bad things the United States has done in the world? Trust me, its because of the good things too.It's because of what it stands for. The world is a tough place and ugly things are done by humans.
We just have to read history to see the things we have done to each other regardless of nationality.The United States is at the top of the food chain but trust me, if the other countries were in that place they probably would do the same things or worse.Besides, Rev. Wright speaks like he was from Mars.He is an american too and some of the things he so strongly critisizes are done to support his style of living, tax free church and all.Our only hope is to see that we are one and stop the division.To me, any speech or position that puts you there and me here, pitched against each other is same old,same old.

Anonymous said...

D- You state: "The man who voted against invading Iraq because he does not believe in “dumb wars”, at the same time seems to believe that prior to Iraq the USA never did anything dumb..."

Let's be clear about one thing-- Obama was NOT a US Senator when the initial vote was passed in late2002 that gave Bush authority to use force in Iraq. He made a speech at the time, apparently, saying he was against the war, but he did not vote on it because he had not yet been elected to the US Congress.

Since he has been a senator these last 3 years, he has consistently voted for all funding for the war-- his voting record is identical to Hillary's. I assume he's "supporting the troops."

Further evidence that he is a politician?
-Anonymous in NH

Dharmaruci said...

Natifah, you say: "The United States is at the top of the food chain but trust me, if the other countries were in that place they probably would do the same things or worse."

I agree! I have said for a long time look, the US is an Empire and they behave like Empires have always behaved, let's not get too idealistic about the US. And as Empires go, I think the world could do worse: I'd much rather have the US than the Chinese as the dominant superpower. And look what the US did for Germany and Japan in giving them their freedom and reconstructing them after WWII: that was extraordinary and unprecedented. It's a pity that pragmatic idealism has fallen away, but civilised behaviour comes and goes, let's not be too disappointed when an empire just does what empires have always done.

dawa satso said...

Every time I hear someone speaking the bald truth like Rev. Wright, however crude it was, I break into a smile and a chuckle. Race is not the issue it once was. Nor is woman being kept from power an issue anymore. It just isn't an up to date concern. Poverty is though, we hear zilch about that.
We have lost our sense of humor and perspective, people.

Still this is a mindless gobbling of whatever gets shoved in front of us much to the amusement of the MSM. This is an ant argueing in the shadow of a giant chicken without a clue what is really happening to them. We will go in any direction the media wishes.
People who once knew better are losing the grid within themselves. It is truly destroying our ability to reason and discern. We humans have far far to go to get back to square one after this working over ends.

As the exits are sandbagged the real conversation that ought to be happening, the real communication about the u.s. turning fascist and the direness of that and what to do to help ourselves is either blacked out, nipped, diverted so we will find there is no remedy when the reality hits. Just ask the Tibetans.

dawa satso said...

Oh, about this topic. Rev. Wright is absolutely pitch-perfect spot-on correct.

But we wouldn't want to offend murderers and thieves, now would we. Since they've damned us and all. Being stuck in the u.s. at this time is frightening. I wish I were viewing all this from another country where we could have the luxury of regarding this as 'rogues behaving the way rogues do'. Again, ask the Tibetans how that feels in full flower. Every law protecting u.s. citizens from the same fascist rule has been shitcanned..and it has happened with strategic deliberateness.

Good luck to us all.

Anonymous said...

The poster who mentioned the stuff about "God Damn America" was right - that was the money quote that got all the attention.

I think it was a stupid thing to say. And I do think it will hurt Obama's campaign. But I thought that his rebuttal speech was well-reasoned and, actually, mature. What I got from it was the importance of not throwing people away. I thought that was a pretty brave statement, going against the grain of common U.S. political speech.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will be enough. He was appealing to moderates but I think that will no longer be the case.

As for being a politician, well, yes. He is in a tough spot and is trying to appeal to both sides. But I think he did it in a tone that hasn't really been used before.

I don't think he should throw his entire campaign away because a charismatic preacher wanted some extra oomph in his sermon.

dawa satso said...

The giant spider which has crept in is the fact the topic of religion does NOT belong in a dialogue about gov't structuring.

No one seems to notice.
It was done deliberately.
I give up.

Dharmaruci said...

I missed the bit about religion. But I think something has to be done with it, or it creeps in the back door and you end up with crusading Christians like Bush and Blair in the top job.

At least if there is a place for it in government, the subject remains conscious. When it is shoved out of government, it will come back in an unconscious and therefore more crude and dangerous form.

I like the fact that in the UK the Prime Minister appoints bishops. I like it because it is comical, and humour around religion is a good thing.

dawa satso said...

Dharmaruchi, oy. The u.s. constitution (before shredding) had a founding provision separating church & state. This country is made many different people from all over the world with many different faiths. IT IS THEIR BUSINESS and not one dominates any other. It is why they fled King George's heavy handed religious schtick in the first place!
JFK, Carter, FDR, way on back, reglion is a PERSONAL affair. It is not a PUBLIC affair. It is a self-contained dignity up until these born agin' christers who are off their knob began making their religion mix with theft, murder and fascism. It is not a bunch of loud-mouth perverts "killing for christ". These people who profess "religion" are anything but dignified christians.
Same as the privacy of one's sex life. NOthing derails the business of a nation faster. It is used to destroy a man who is too hot on the trail of gov't corruption THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO SPITZER. He was after gov't corruption, NOT the false story of being after prostitution. He was a jewel, a gem. They destroyed him and his family and career in one fell swoop.
So what if he visited a hooker once a year. The Fascists who wish to swamp this country are stronger now that they've effectively removed the threat of Spitzer. What you heard is grossly incorrect.

Mu'Min M. Bey said...

Hi DR,
I too have written a bit about Obama. When I get a chance I'll paste in a bit.

Salaam
Mu

Dharmaruci said...

OK Dawa, but all the same it is still hypocritical if you are going to clamp down on prostitution if you are using the service yourself. That was far too hypocritical to be acceptable even in a politician. We can't expect politicians to be perfect, but you can also see how the privacy argument can be misused to cover up stuff that needs to be known about.