Shades of JFK?

If ever we had a glimpse into the future for this country, we’ve only to consider the inauguration of Barack Obama – or Barack H. Obama or Barack Hussein Obama – take your pick, we heard them all on Jan. 20. But it’s the same guy, and the moniker doesn’t matter.

What does matter is what he believes, what he represents and what it will mean to this country. There’s a lot at stake because of the political beliefs and goals of the man just elevated to the presidency.

Barack Obama is an enigma. We know very little about him, and that’s not an accident. It’s been his intent to reveal only what he wants known. The fact that any records of his life and experiences in school and work have been “sealed” – including his birth certificate – reveals the man has something he doesn’t want known. Perhaps, it would be that he has feet of clay, that he’s human, after all – or perhaps he’s had experiences that might not reflect well on him.

Regardless – Obama deliberately created a mysterious image and the media, rather than insisting and investigating to discover the truth, simply allowed it to persist. Those who raised a red flag, insisting that some questions need to be asked and answered, were ridiculed and ignored.

The enamored media not only allowed the absence of information to persist, they ignored it and defended their inaction. It didn’t hurt that that most of them agreed with Obama’s liberal philosophy. The Washington Post, admitted post-election, that it and others did go easy on Obama – confirming the suspicions of many.

Whatever his reasons for stonewalling, Obama won that contest and now he’s president. Deprived of information that would inform their vote, the public bought the image of a “clean” politician, of a man untouched by the backroom shenanigans and double dealing that is politics. No one in politics is untouched, except, we’ve been led to believe, Barack Obama.

What foolish sheep we are.

It’s all political theater, and it’s doubtful there’s any limit to the saccharine presentation of the family Obama. He’s the perfect man who can do no wrong. Think about it. Did traditional media ever show him with faults?

Even his smoking habit is ignored, just as that same media ignored Jackie Kennedy’s habit.

Oh no! A “Camelot” similarity!

Of course, media also ignored much about JFK. Nothing current on that front – yet.

But an inauguration is considered on several levels: sights, sounds, atmosphere, general impressions and the words spoken and their meanings. Some require time to evaluate; others are more immediate.

The classical music of the quartet was beautiful – but after the fact, we discover it was pre-recorded!

I’d wondered about their ear buds.

Any concern about their cold hands was misplaced.

They fooled us!

What was that about, political theatre?

Aretha Franklin actually sang, but her music was recorded.

A big lady with a big voice wore a big hat. Good for her!

Yes, fashion: The men get off easy. Barack Obama looked cool and smooth; Joe Biden looked like Joe Biden, which is to say, OK.

Jill Biden – or as we’re constantly told, Dr. Jill Biden – was schizophrenic. Her gown, hair and makeup for the evening festivities were gorgeous, but her daytime look resembled a ’70s holdover: messy hair, awkward ensemble, too short skirt with boots revealing skinny knees. It was too cold for knees, Dr. Jill. Wear dark tights.

The reverse was true of Michelle Obama. Her daytime ensemble was lovely and flattering although, without a coat, you wondered how cold she was.

Her overall evening look was stunning: perfect color and soft, fluid fabric. But, Michelle Obama is tall, and the gown didn’t enhance her figure. She looked shapeless. Did she have a waist? You’d never know.

The one shoulder bodice was flattering and while it’s clear Mrs. Obama likes to show off her arms – she needs to learn how to wave. Underarms are just not that attractive.

Her biggest problem was that the gown was too long. Yes, there was a train, but a train is to the back of a dress. Poor Michelle, couldn’t walk without constantly pulling the skirt up and back. She couldn’t dance either – she and her husband constantly stepped on the hem.

When you wear a gown with a train you need to practice wearing it before the big event. That rehearsal was missed, or perhaps she just wore shoes with a lower heel. Regardless of the reason, it was still a problem.

We’re constantly told Michelle is the new Jackie Kennedy.

“Camelot?” No.

Jackie knew fashion, what looked good on her, what photographed well and how to wear clothes.

There’s no comparison with Michelle Obama.

Michelle’s husband fancies the “Camelot” comparison. Barack commented at one of the inaugural parties that he “was the guy who escorted Michelle Obama to the military ball.”

Shades of JFK, who – when Jackie’s beauty and class got raves during their first trip to France – commented wryly that “he was the one who accompanied Jackie Kennedy to Paris.”

Originality is not one of Obama’s gifts; he’s drowning in confusion as to whether he’s Lincoln, FDR or JFK.

But that’s part of political theatre.

If this imitation of fame persists and the public continues to buy the fantasy, Barack Obama will be in the catbird seat.

He’ll be a politician with power, sufficient votes and an easily manipulated population informed by a sycophantic media.

That’s a dangerous combination, but it appears that’s exactly what we have.

---