« Bureau Publik, Copenhagen, Tuesday | Main | Obama and the debate (WSWS) »

October 04, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I usually like Henwood's take but psychoanalyzing Obama seems silly to me. Whatever his personality faults, he was able to overcome his "narcissism" enough to interact with people from all walks of life, getting him to the Presidency.What I think is more useful is Henwood's description of the structural problems of the Democratic party - they have two masters to serve. The elite for which they are beholden to for their money and power, and of course their "constituents" to whom they must pay lip service.

In regards to what liberals (or at least "liberal politicians"" stand for - technocratic management of the austerity regime. If Obama is reelected he is far more likely to get his "grand bargain" than if Romney is elected. Obama can say I am preserving what I can of the welfare state in the face of Republican intransigence. But what argument can Romney offer that the democrats would accept. Their path back to power would necessitate that they fight entitlement cuts.

And regarding what Obama believes in, come on. Obviously Obama believes in neoliberalism with a human face - or better austerity and diminished opportunities brought to us by a pleasant technocrat. This is why an organized left is so crucial today.

Thomas Kiefer

I agree with you Alain--I think Mr. Henwood is a top-notch economic and political analyst, but as a psychologist he's saying essentially what Dinesh D'Souza has been saying. I think a much simpler explanation is that Obama is a crappy debater (recall all the terrible debates against Hillary), everyone forgot that, and his lack of skill just resurfaced then --regardless as to whether if he's really a narcissist or not. Plus, if Henwood's analysis is correct, Romney did better because he's NOT a narcissist. Really? All these people who run for higher office (incl. Romney) are totally in love with themselves. Plus Romney spent much of the last twelve months debating truly vicious people, before he got the nomination, whereas Obama had a country to putatively run.

Robert Allen

I know why Obama "lost" the debate. First of all, remember awhile back when the Republicans invited Obama to their "retreat" whereupon he proceeded to mop the floor with an entire roomful of Republicans including John Mcain to the point where Fox News had to cut the feed-- the debate loss was an "Okie Doke", prison slang for a "fix is in", it was done on purpose. It was not a case of Obama being "too polite" or professorial or a "conciliator". I saw the odious Diane Sawyer asking Michelle Obama about whether there was "solidarity" among bourgeois candidate's wives and her affirmative response underlined what I already suspected since Obama's comment about wanting to be simply a "good one term president": his allegiance is to a class, the same class Romney's is, and that is the lesson of the most Marxist confirming debate I have bothered to witness. When Obama agreed with Romney about social security, he slapped all his cheerleaders and ardent supporters in the face in an attempt to lure the last thin sliver of undecided (i.e conservative leaning) voters into his camp, arrogantly thinking the election was in the bag. It was simply a bad chess move. The notion that Obama didn't want to seem an "angry Black man" is the opiate of a deluded liberal intelligentsia, the fallback excuse to obscure Obama's class allegiance, the "structural issue" Henwood asserts.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo