Obama to Trump: "The King is dead; Long live the King"?
As regards Obama, it's important to distinguish between image and reality.
This man may have have a very persuasive manner and plausible appearance - even undoubted charisma - but so have many Hollywood actors. It may be indicative of true character but it cannot be relied upon. There are many indicators that in personal as well as political life, all may not be quite as it seems or as is portrayed.
In relation to only the latter, it should be remembered despite his warm words, he approved of non-judicial drone assassination, that also killed thousands of innocents; covertly worked to create ISIS as a terrorist organisation; failed to properly investigate 9/11 or hold anyone to account for 'extraordinary rendition' or torture; failed in eight years to empty Guantanamo prison filled with un-convicted individuals in terrible conditions; bombed, invaded or incited unrest in more Muslim countries than any other President; approved two major Israelis attacks on Gaza in 2008 and 2014, that killed thousands more; yet still approved a 38 billion dollar package to continue its policy of intimidation and apartheid; approved the secret Stuxnet attack on Iran that back-fired catastrophically when it went 'rogue'; has ramped up tension with Russia and China; and allowed a web of occult child abuse to infect the Democratic Party. Meanwhile on virtually every indicator of the domestic economy as regards wealth and debt, things are worse now than when he took office.
Not a bad record for eight years I would say.
Lawrence Jackson/White House Photo
Many believe, that despite his socialist (communist even!) activist background, his meteoric rise to power from Detroit, notorious for its corrupt Mafia network, he was chosen as the acceptable face of the right, in similar vein perhaps to our own much missed and lamented Blair. The American political system must maintain the myth of democracy or it is finished, and for this the parties must be allowed to take it in turns, as long as the true power does not. I think Obama was aware of this from the beginning and agreed to run on those terms.
All Presidents, in one way or another, are made to realise they are not really in control but merely the manikin placed in the window. There are exceptions to the rule, but these are either because the President is either part of the manipulative so called "Deep State", or outside it. The latter have a tendency to end badly. The truth may have dawned on President Bush when he was in Aircraft One without fighter protection and totally incommunicado for hours after 9/11 despite ostensibly being "Commander-in-Chief". It dawned on President Kennedy when he was set up by the Bay of Pigs fiasco and later by the Cuba Crisis, which his earlier experience helped to avert. Of course the final realisation must have come with the intense pain of the first bullet.
Meanwhile Trump is a bit of an "known, unknown" quantity - to borrow a phrase from a well known conspirator. Trump may be better, he may be worse - we've yet to see. "Making America great again" could go either way but at least for the time being, he's put a spanner in 'military/industrial/banking/media complex' drive to war (hopefully) He is from a different cultural hinterland to JFK other than being sons of wealthy and ambitious fathers. Kennedy was a Catholic but neither that (or his marriage) was allowed to interfere with his prodigious sexual appetite. Trump does not appear to claim any particular religious beliefs, and thereby at least avoids the trap of hypocrisy with his. At least both appear to be or have been "straight" but in these enlightened days, this is becoming less of a barrier to political high office. It would seem that only criminal, deviant or under-age sexual activity now retains any real power to damage reputation.
Trump is undoubtedly an egotist and a populist, both of which in politics are dangerous attributes. He also appears to be racist and xenophobic which goes back a long way. Of course he denies this. Years ago he was subject to a Justice Department investigation because he refused to let his flats to coloured people. His stated attitude to Mexicans, Muslims and 'immigrants' in general, seem to confirm his basic prejudices and world view haven't evolved much over time. Rather like Nigel Farage in Britain, who he actively extolled, and Marine Le Pen in France (not to mention much more notorious figures from the not too distant past!) he quickly discovered that prejudice and fear are powerful drivers.
He has made a lot of money and avoided paying tax which he regards as being proof he is "smarter". Whether he will hold to this view when getting tax off of others, awaits to be seen. His main attribute, and probably why he was elected, is because he is an outsider and not a part of the Washington "swamp", so called. (One of his promises of course was to 'drain' it!) However, particularly as we country folk know, swamp has a habit of sucking you in, until after a while you become indistinguishable. Will this happen? In particular will his aim to be mates with Putin, withstand a deeply entrenched policy direction by those that have lived off and in, the swamp for too long?
Hopefully the word is getting out and awareness will dawn as to dark intentions, before it's too late. Some of us have seen for a long time how "terrorism" in large part has been orchestrated to pursue both a domestic and international agenda. Clinton was central to that: she was protected on a quid quo pro basis.
Trump was chosen in preference to Sanders because he was seen as less electable. He was Clinton's stalking horse. There is little doubt that the Wikileaks revelations was but another nail in her coffin, and blaming Russia, already cast irrationally and unethically as a major threat, was but a last minute desperate attempt to deflect from the sordid state of affairs in the Democratic hierarchy. It didn't work because the evidence was not there.
Even more desperately the same tactic was tried with Trump. Incredibly it now appears that the British ex-MI6 intelligence man that provided the incriminatory information about alleged sordid goings on in Russian hotel bedrooms, was also the handler for the turned Russian spy Litvinenko, who was fatally poisoned by someone (the British claim it was the Russians on Putin's orders) with radioactive Polonium. They do say that MI6 Officers never retire, so it also raises the spectre, as some have claimed, that MI6 was actively in league with the CIA to frustrate Trump's route to the White House. Who knows? Presumably somebody.
In all cases, if true, it is likely to back-fire spectacularly. The reputations of both CIA and the FBI have been damaged, and it is likely that heads will roll. The only remaining question is which ones? We should not forget that although Kennedy sacked Dulles, it did not stop the latter being appointed to the Warren Commission, widely seen as a white wash of the real assassins. Trump would do well to brush up his recent history (as well as his Shakespeare!) if he wants to survive at least one full term.
I thought the story about Johnson at the beginning of the Kennedy adminisration was telling. It is well known that Johnson hated the Kennedys with a vengeance - calling them the "Irish Mafia"- and desperately wanted the Presidency himself. With JFK riding high in the popularity polls and four years to run (at least) he was despondent. This changed dramatically after a meeting early on, the sub-text being that he knew from the start and was probably instrumental in, the planned assassination. http://jfktruth.org/johnson/index.htm
Contrary to the public civilized image, American politics is steeped in blood and the candidates, of all people, know this is true. Further, that the real threat comes NOT from foreign or outside forces, as is always suggested, but from INSIDE the political camp itself, as much with 9/11 as with Kennedy. Trump must know this. If internal forces could dispose of at least three of the Kennedy clan by violent means, because they posed a threat to particularly the intelligence and military sectors, there is no reason to suppose anything has changed, if Trump attempts to do the same.
Occupation of the office of President, does not of itself, ensure security or preservation, despite the millions expended on it. What does, is acting as stooge and facilitator of a powerful network, held together by common financial, social and cultural interests. Being an outsider, Trump is already vulnerable and as a commercial pragmatist, is likely to adopt whatever course satisfies that lobby, just so long as he can show some economic achievements, for which he can claim credit. The first six weeks of his Presidency will not only reveal the direction of travel, and whether the rhetoric of the hustings can be relied upon, but also in large measure, the longevity of Trump himself.