A shrink does Obama

I've made no secret of my admiration for the writings of "Robin of Berkeley;" therefore, I believe I have earned the chops to claim that she is over-thinking this one--as those in the profession of psychoanalysis are prone to do. "A shrink asks: What is wrong with Obama?"
I am pathetically uneducated about the workings of the mind. Don't wanna know. Don't want anybody searching through the deep recesses of my personality quirks and moral failings. I base my opinions of people on what they do.

I don't care why people do what they do. Keeps things simple. Don't care why you tortured the cat, only that you did it. Don't give you "understanding" or "empathy" for being a child-abuser, only disdain. I'm just as hard on myself if that earns me any points with you liberals.
In the end though Robin of Berkeley comes to the right conclusion:

"Let's return now to my original question: "What is wrong with Obama? My guess is a great deal. The answer is complex and likely includes some combination of the above." She suspects many potential psychological problems, and most of them caused by his early upbringing in a family with a distant mother who abandoned him to the care of a crazy grandfather and a pedophile communist mentor. Me, I don't care what the causes are.

My conclusion is much simpler. Why does he seem so unprepared and out of his league? Because he is. Why does he do and say strange things? Because he does not have a clue what is appropriate. He is acting, grasping out of futility for the appropriate things to say and do. He is an empty suit.

He is the embodiment of the Peter Principle. He was promoted beyond the level of his competency. I have no doubt that he could have been a good lawyer. It does not take much competence to be a law professor. How hard can it be to fulfill the duties of "Community Organizer?"

But imagine if he applied for the job of C.E.O. of any medium-sized company. What experience do you have, kid? Why should we trust our $100,000,000 enterprize to your leadership? To ask the questions makes the answers obvious. Nobody in their right mind would hire him.

I've always said that he was incredibly unprepared to be President, let alone a Senator. McCain's stupidest act was to pick Palin as his V.P. because it took away his best argument: That Obama is wet behind the ears and utterly unprepared for the presidency. Yeah, I know, Palin was "more experienced" than Obama. But that's like saying my ten-year old little league son is more prepared to hit Major League pitching than your nine-year old son.

Lest you liberals complain that I am being one-sided, I'll say it: George W. Bush likewise was in way over his head. His father was probably the most prepared of any that I recall in my lifetime, yet he was a one-term President. Reagan mastered the position in part because of his age and fullness of life, but his age also caused a decline in his performance in his second term. Bill Clinton was the best politician besides Reagan, and could have been a great President but for his personal moral failings.

Okay, I'll say it: I think the presidency is bigger than any one person. We need several persons to fill the various rolls. Bubba was the best actor Emoter in Chief [cue video of him biting his lower lip and claiming "I feel your pain."]. Reagan was the greatest head of state at dealing with foreign governments. His skillful outmaneuvering of the Soviets should go down in history as his greatest achievement. President Ford was the best at vetoing legislation. George Bush and Harry Truman were the best at being tenacious as Commanders in Chief despite overwhelming opposition back home. LBJ was supposedly a master at ramming his legislative agenda through Congress.

I seriously cannot think of a single attribute of the enormous position of the Presidency at which Obama excels. He was a great campaigner, but since then what has he done? He has chosen incompetent and/or crooked nominees. He's been afraid to take questions during press conferences. He's bowed to our enemies and alienated our allies. He's been a sock-puppet for Pelosi and Reid.

His one shining moment was when he refused to give up on HCR, and he finagled the Republicans into allowing him to chair a televised debate on the issue. For a day he was back at law school leading a feel-good meeting on some arcane topic that nobody cared about and even less would be affected by the outcome. That's what they do in colleges: they have meetings and discuss how they feeeeeel. The Republicans lost by just showing up. They gave the other side legitimacy. That gave the other squishy moderates on the fence just enough cover to vote for the abomination.

Sadly, the low point of his presidency--the enactment of HCR--is also the highlight of his presidency. May school children decades from now look back and wonder who was this one-term man-child about which so little is written.

John Doe (cross posted at Smash Mouth Politics)