Many of my friends, even fairly well informed people, fell for Obama's charm and vague promises and collapsed in tears on election night, believing that we would now get "change" and now had reason to "hope." It is understandable to want a Daddy figure to come swooping in out of no where to rescue us, but unfortunately there was never any good reason to believe that Obama was that person.
One can settle into a movie theatre and be swept away to a land of make-believe: ancient Japan, 19th century Wyoming, or a gritty story of inner city Baltimore. We silently exult when the hero escapes the bad guy and weep when he dies at the end in his lover's arms. But we won't be shocked when we see him alive and well at the Oscars, for we know it was just theatre. We know that if we saw him dancing with joy or sneering with contempt on the silver screen, it wasn't that he was really feeling those emotions. He was acting.
Film makers use trained actors, costume designers, set designers, makeup and hair stylists, lighting designers, music composers, cinematographers and script writers to create a world that seems real, but is 100% a fantasy.
So why is it that people who well understand the power of theatre have such a hard time believing that political campaigns use the same techniques to convey a false sense of reality? Or a false expectation of "hope" and "change?"
Do they think that Obama writes his own speeches and sincerely means every word he says? That if Michelle had a pimple on her nose or spinach in her teeth, it could not be airbrushed out? That their kids never pick their scabs or shove each other?
Do they think that there isn't enough at stake in becoming president of the US to tempt politicians (and their wealthy Wall St. backers) to say whatever it takes to get elected?
When Tom Cruise flashes his pearly whites in a big toothy grin, he is just acting, and the public understands that. But the same public seems incapable of believing that Obama can do exactly the same thing, and win much more than an Oscar for his trouble.
Too late, Obama's supporters are realizing that they've been had. Disappointment is busting out all over. We didn't get change you can believe in, we got Bush III.
Glenn Greenwald describes the communal let down here:
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) -- which, to the cheers of liberals everywhere, was one of the nation's most stalwart defenders against the Bush assault on core civil liberties -- declared last week: "In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's." On Tuesday night, Keith Olbermann began his show by announcing:
President Obama‘s Justice Department now is not just defending Bush officials from lawsuits surrounding National Security Agency domestic spying, but seeking to expand the government's authority by making it immune from any legal challenge regarding wiretapping -- ever.
Olbermann went on to add that "the Obama administration is just flat-out dead wrong about this" and then contrasted Obama's campaign statements on transparency with his conduct as President and concluded: "That was then, this is now." Law Professor Jonathan Turley -- who, as a regular on Olbermann's show during the Bush years, was one of the single most-cited and praised sources by the netroots on matters of executive authority -- said that Bush officials should wave a "Mission Accomplished" banner because they "have Barack Obama adopting the same extremist arguments and, in fact, exceeding the extremist arguments made by President Bush."
Meanwhile, Josh Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo surveyed a panel of experts last week -- including one from Center for American Progress, headed by Obama transition chief John Podesta -- to ask and answer these questions about Obama's argument in the illegal surveillance cases:
Does it represent a continuation of the Bushies' obsession with putting secrecy and executive power above basic constitutional rights? Is it a sweeping power grab by the executive branch, that sets set a broad and dangerous precedent for future cases by asserting that the government has the right to get lawsuits dismissed merely by claiming that state secrets are at stake, without giving judges any discretion whatsoever?
Get the rest here.