While reading Tony Blankley's column it struck me that Obama may be exactly what the Democrats have been seeking, a young, popular, appealing leader without a thought in his head. I know some on the right think Obama is a Machiavellian mastermind, but I disagree. He did manage to use procedural methods to knock out his opponent in his first primary ever, but that could be the work of clever handlers, not Obama. Similarly, is it not possible all his shady associates were not people he chose, but who chose him, grooming him to be the mouthpiece of the far left of the Democrats?

Actually, there is evidence for this position: my governor. Before Obama became the golden boy of the Democrats, they briefly toyed with Martin O'Malley as their mouthpiece, giving him national attention, convention speeches, praising him in national forums for nonexistent improvements while he was mayor of  Baltimore. And all of this attention was certainly not because of any of O'Malley's conventional merits. He holds office in Maryland because he married into "attorney general for life" Joe Curran's family (and is a Democrat in Baltimore), not because of any innate ability. If you ever hear him speak without a teleprompter you immediately realize that you are hearing a frat boy who never grew up trying his hardest to sound like a politician*. And yet the Democrats briefly toyed with promoting him to national office.

And that does serve to convince me that Obama may be less of a covert socialist and more a mouthpiece for overt congressional socialists, as well as simple pork-loving Democrats. Just like O'Malley, Obama is young, reads speeches well, is seen by some as charismatic, and has not a thought in his head**. And that may be precisely what the Democrats want. After all, the congressional Democrats had enough of a president with an agenda in Clinton. In fact, as far as congress is concerned, the less a president does on his own, the better. Their last two presidents, Carter and Clinton, managed to do a lot of harm to the party with their ideas. So maybe all congress wants is a mouthpiece to push their agenda.

And it seems Obama fits the bill perfectly. The supposed stimulus seems more the creature of congress than the president. Likewise, while Guantanamo was an election promise, it seems the actual order was written by someone else, and congress immediately comes to mind. Nor is there anything I can name that seems to actually be Obama's alone. Every idea he has pushed since the election seems to be a congressional pet project or a giveaway to a constituency, Obama himself seems to be behind none of his own actions.

Then again, perhaps this is all misdirection, and Obama is simply trying to pass the blame on to congress should any of his plans fail. It is possible he is even more crafty than has been suggested. However, my experience suggests that no one is that crafty. If someone looks to be a fool, almost always that proves to be the case. And if Obama looks every bit the empty headed*** mouthpiece of congress, odds are good that is exactly what he is.

-------------------------------------------

* If anyone watched the last two seasons of The Wire, the one mistake they made was making Carcetti a bit too clever. He was every bit as venial and self-involved as O'Malley (though the rumors were O'Malley's affair was with a local newscaster), and very accurately always ended up responding instead of initiating any action, but he was just a little too smart to really resemble O'Malley. (Also, O'Malley would have known "Dominic DiPietro" was ALWAYS referred to as "Mimi DiPietro". Don't they ask locals before writing these scritps? They got so much local color right, I was shocked when I had to spend time figuring out who Carcetti was talking about.)

** Proof? He came up with the excuse that for 20 years he never quite figured out what Wright was saying, and thought it was a good idea. Any other politician would have been laughed out of office, but, thanks to a lapdog press, Obama dodged the bullet despite the most idiotic defense ever. Basically claiming "I'm not evil, I'm stupid", he managed to win the presidency. More proof? Listen to him whenever he strays from a written speech, for example his comments at the Guantanamo closure signing in Blankley's column.

*** Another bit of evidence can be found in his stubborn opposition to the Illinois BAIPA. In that case, Obama gave every sign of being his own man and stubbornly pushing his agenda, despite the political costs. He did not make empty pronouncements or go on the permanent campaign trail, and he certainly did not show an ignorance of what he was pushing. None of his recent actions resemble that opposition in any way.

----------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

Found an amusing page comparing Carcetti and Obama, and that may actually be a better fit than Carcetti's real model. However, it does provide additional evidence that O'Malley (Carcetti's model) and Obama are cut from the same cloth, and that is "young front man for congress and the DNC".

POSTSCRIPT II

I never believed in Freudian slips, but I have been converted. When adding the bit above about Mimi DiPietro, I made a telling mistake, which describes quite well my attitude towards Maryland politics. Somehow, I ended up writing "Dominic" and "Demonic". Not that I have any particular ill-will towards the late Mr. DiPietro, just a general distaste for Maryland politics. So maybe there is something to that "Freudian slip" nonsense after all.

POSTSCRIPT III

The other possible reason the Democrats in congress would want a figurehead is the lesson on 1994-1996, when Clinton, confronted with the popularity of welfare reform and other parts of the Contract With America, gave in and accepted some Republican reforms. That cannot have gone over well with congressional Democrats who wanted to obstruct the passage of any of the contract. With a figurehead they don't have to worry about him putting his own success ahead of the party's agenda.