this is radio tabs

My internal consistency is shot when it comes to defining who and what an Obama is. I have been trying to define who Obama is? I keep putting the pieces together and no model seems to work in its entirety. I have been looking for the defining piece which makes everything make sense?

What I find to be true is that PE Obama tries and stay balanced. Balance is everything for him. Neither one side nor another, just what is. Just calculation. He does tend to stay in his intellect and suppress his emotions. As every time one hears him speak there seems to be a hollowness, a flatness in his voice. As if something is missing in the center. As in where does this eloquence come from in his speeches? Where does the passion come from? A speech writer?

So how did he arrive at this balance? The only way I know of how to achieve this balance is to have dealt with your own self, your own past and emotional history to become aware of oneself. Yet at the end of the process one grasps hold of their emotions and uses them to help chart their course. One integrates their emotions with their intellect. One is not striving for balance but arrives at the destination as part of the process. One does not suppress their emotion to try and stay balanced, one is in balance with their emotions whatever they maybe. So to go back to the hollowness that is at the center, to achieve a balance under those circumstances, it has to be an affectation. One is always studying how the other guy did it and adopts those methods, rather than coming to ones own hard won conclusions. This is the paradox of Obama?

It is obvious that if a person is always TRYING to stay balanced, then one must be in control of themselves. However the more one tries and control themselves the more brittle it causes a person to be (the analogy of the tree that bends with the wind is apt), and when a sudden shock comes along that control and thus balance breaks down. We do not know how Obama reacts under extreme stress (that 3 AM call), except that he tends to stutter when under pressure as evidenced during the debates.

The PE does have a set of Liberal beliefs, yet his striving for balance and resulting calculation (desire to be effective, and to continually learn) demands a pragmatism with regards to his limitations and what is in reality do able today. That is why one can see that Obama is picking up Clinton operatives. It is ostensibly a move to the Center, a hard move to the RIGHT for a guy whose history is a left turn at every turn and never a right turn. So in the end Obama does subordinate ideology to pragmatism.

Now the question to make sense of it all is where did this epiphany of striving for balance take place?