Be honest, you have no parameters for what makes a person a “neo-conservative” other than you just don’t like them. You couldn’t list, say, five attributes that “neo-conservative” all have in common.

“He is out across the nation to sell his stimulus plan.”

What stimulus plan? The bill that was just passed is not a stimulus plan. If it were a stimulus plan, the money would be spent mostly in the next 24 months to give the economy a shot in the arm. OR… here’s a novel idea: it would allow more people to keep the money they earned and spend or invest it as they see fit.

Clinton is a good model. He to charmed his way to the Presidency with a compliant press and then imploded. People forget that the first two years of the Clinton administration where a train wreck and that he alienated almost all his supporters by being mercurial and untrustworthy in the game of political horse trading. He only regained his popularity on the left after the shocking defeat of 1994 when the Republicans regained the house for the first time in 40 years. From then on the media and academia worked to defend Clinton because he was their only bulwark against an ideological blowout.

OK, he’s not a sociopath. He’s an oily, weasel-y, scumbag, lying Chicago lawyer-politician. Better?

Yes, its more accurate.

Just because you don’t like or trust someone doesn’t make them a sociopath. Leftist accused Bush of being a sociopath merely because they disagreed with him. It doesn’t make sense to turn around and do the same thing to Obama.

If it walks like and duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.

All politicians exhibit such narcissistic behavior that they might be mistaken for sociopaths at first glance. The weathervane politicians that do what is good for them at the moment especially, so. I don’t see Obama as being special in this regard.

I do think that as a leftist he is more arrogant and willing to bend the world to his individual will than a someone one the right, especially a religious conservative, would be but I don’t think he shows signs of being particularly self-centered for a national politician.

Spengler of The Asia Times characterized Obama as the political equivalent of a sociopath. He did this well before the election.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html

If it walks like and duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.

How long has he been president?

Well, if you look back in our post from last year, you will see that we predicted that Obama’s lack of experience and his dependence on selling himself would get him into trouble and now it has. We have correctly predicted Obama’s weakness to date so it is reasonable to assume we will predict his future behavior as well.

How long did it take you to jump all over Bush. If ever?

Well, if you read my post over the last two years I think it rather clear that apart from my support for Bush as a President in war time, there wasn’t much about the Bush administration of which I approved. Didn’t like TARP, didn’t like most of the “compassionate conservative” leftist-light solutions that Bush put out. Didn’t agree with his stance on abortion, didn’t agree with the embryo stem cell ban, etc. To the extent that I liked Bush, I liked him in comparison to the leftism that he stood somewhat in opposition to. He managed to forestall much silliness that we will no be burdened with.

The idea that a classical liberal like myself just drooled over Bush is silly.

CEO
VP of stuff CEO likes #1
VP of stuff CEO likes #2
VP of stuff CEO likes #3
VP of stuff CEO likes #4
VP of all the stuff CEO doesn’t like
–Director of stuff CEO doesn’t like #1
–Director of stuff CEO doesn’t like #2
–etc

This structure allows the CEO to meddle in all the stuff he’s interested in, while putting the stuff he’s not interested in all under one guy so he (the CEO) doesn’t have to think about it. While it makes things psychologically easier & more fun for the CEO, it doesn’t usually work out very well in practice.

Mostly though, Shannon is probably spot on. It is what he is; it is what he knows how to do.

Well of course you’re right that Obama is a sociopath.

I didn’t say Obama was a sociopath, I used the sociopath on trial as an extreme example of context shift.

Obama just your run of the mill narcissist just like everyone else who spends their life in politics.

But all of this was obvious long before he was elected. So what do you mean by “It remains to be seen if he can adapt.”

Adapt to what? Adapt to being the president of the United States? No offense, but what does such an “adaptation” consist of? How do you “adapt” to do something that you have no experience doing?

Obama is a pathetic shill out of Chicago who has no idea who he’s being run by. But they’re the ones who will tell him what to “adapt” to.