was get us into space
@SoylentGreenisPeople
and onto the moon he accomplished a helluva lot.
Few have done as much in eight years as he accomplished in less than three.
I suspect he was killed for conduct unbecoming a lemming, taking his "power" WAY to seriously, and treating Deep State and TPTB like so much dog$h!t stuck to the bottom of his shoe. "Well, I guess we'll have to show HIM, now, won't we!" Beltway Insiders didn't take any more kindly to the arrogant Kennedys than they did the George Wallaces from The South.

#1.1

there is substantial evidence that by the time that mid-to-late 1963 had rolled around, JFK had evolved on many of his previous positions. For example, he wanted to get us out of Viet Nam, and he was making public noises about peacefully co-existing with the USSR and ending the Cold War.

Remember, it was JFK that was the only cool head that prevented WWIII from breaking out during the Cuban Missile crisis, and who reached out to the Russians to avoid war. Also, there's substantial evidence that JFK wanted Patrice Lamumba to succeed in the Congo, but that he was thwarted by Allen Dulles' CIA as early as 1961.

The point is, JFK's record was not either black or white. But yes, it was a whole lot whiter than Obama's (no pun intended.)

@SoylentGreenisPeople much worse than dubya, at least with dubya you didnt
get fooled twice. -g-

Uncle Tom always comes to mind with empty suit.

(On inauguration day 2009, when the country was shedding tears of joy over the election of its first black president (one of the few truly noteworthy accomplishments of Obama's entire political career), and the new era of hope and change this was supposedly going to bring the country, I yawned as I watched the TV coverage. By that time, I pretty much knew what he was.)

Within three months of his inauguration, as I watched his various political and cabinet appointments and saw him abandon just about every campaign promise he had either explicitly or implicitly made, I marveled to myself that in all my years of life, I had never seen an elected politician abandon or go back on so many of his campaign promises so quickly. Obama was setting a new standard for betrayal and perfidy, even beyond that of Bill Clinton in 1993. At that point, I swore to myself that Obama's 2008 election was the LAST TIME I would ever again vote for the "lesser of two evils" . . . or, for that matter, for any Democrat.

#5.1

In 2004, not knowing who he was, but heeding the call of Howard Dean's "Democracy for America," I contributed $50.00 to Barry's Senate campaign. As of that time, I still naively believed that the Democratic Party could be taken over by "better" Democrats.

In 2006, Obama (or one of his operatives) made two appearances on DailyKos. Bascially, the gist of his message was this: "We should try to get along with and work with the Republicans, and not be angry, antagonistic or obstructionist just for the sake of being partisan, antagonistic, or obstructionist." Basically, it was the Obama campaign trying out its "bipartisan/work with the other side" shtick. Needless to say, he got lambasted by many in the comments that followed these posts. (Remember, this was at the height of Bush Administration outrages, and here Obama was lecturing us that we basically should all get along, and dismissing any just cause we had for our anger at the Bush/GOP regime and at Democratic Party capitulations to/colusions with their crimes and outrages). At that moment, a little voice inside me told me that Obama was just another bullshit artist politico, who was positioning himself for a run for the Presidency, and was floating trial balloons as to the type or rhetoric and packaging he was going to be using in that run.

I watched as Obama, for four years in the Senate, chose the execrable Joe Lieberman as his mentor while keeping his head low and not taking any risky or controversial positions in the Senate--including not opposing any of Dubya's nominees to positions that required Senate approval.

By early 2007-08, however, I was telling myself (against my earlier better judgment) that Obama's earlier "bipartisan" rhetoric that I had found so offensive and insulting, was an understandable marketing strategy for selling himself to the general electorate in such a way as to NOT come off too angry or alienating. Thus, I decided to ignore my earlier inner voice and judgment about him, and I rationalized away my inner "bullshit detector." (And after all, I knew that Clinton was far, far worse. At least Obama, I reasoned, might be more accountable to the "little people" that had fueled his campaign online with so many small donations.)

However, in the summer of 2008, when the Congress gave the telecomms retroactive immunity to lawsuits by way of ammendments to the FISA laws, Obama went back on a public promise he had earlier made to oppose such a move, and did nothing as the bipartisan Senate relieved U.S. corporations of liability for violations of Americans' lawfully protected privacy rights. At about that moment, a Kos commentator called "Toquedeville" wrote an insightful essay in which he explained Obama's flip flop as proof that there was an unelected American oligarchy Obama had to kow-tow to if he wanted to become President, and that Obama was ultimately owned by them.

Needless to say, I didn't disagree with this thesis.

When Obama made Biden his running mate, I understood that he was letting the establishment know that they had no need to worry--Obama would always be heedful of what the Democratic/political establishment and insiders desired. In other words, he was assuring them that he was one of them and would always be with them.

In the general election that year, by that time understanding that Obama was a gutless, neoliberal sell out, but convincing myself that McCain was the worse of two evils, I held my nose and voted for Obama.

(On inauguration day 2009, when the country was shedding tears of joy over the election of its first black president (one of the few truly noteworthy accomplishments of Obama's entire political career), and the new era of hope and change this was supposedly going to bring the country, I yawned as I watched the TV coverage. By that time, I pretty much knew what he was.)

Within three months of his inauguration, as I watched his various political and cabinet appointments and saw him abandon just about every campaign promise he had either explicitly or implicitly made, I marveled to myself that in all my years of life, I had never seen an elected politician abandon or go back on so many of his campaign promises so quickly. Obama was setting a new standard for betrayal and perfidy, even beyond that of Bill Clinton in 1993. At that point, I swore to myself that Obama's 2008 election was the LAST TIME I would ever again vote for the "lesser of two evils" . . . or, for that matter, for any Democrat.

So, after inauguration day, the only things that surprised me were the degree, speed, breadth, and intensity of his political betrayals.

And yet, I watched in amusement and disgust as for at least the next two years, people on GOS and other bastions of so-called "liberalism" made excuses for him, or minimized his betrayals, or engaged in ridiculous mental contortions to get themselves and others to maintain their faith in this smooth-talking charlatan . . . in spite of the EVIDENCE THAT WAS AS CLEAR AS DAY THAT they had been had by this "community organizer," "constitutional scholar," "eleven-dimensional-chess-player," and "heroic first black president."

By 2010, I had more contempt for Obama as a human being, than I had ever had for Dubya. Why? Because Dubya was an idiot and one could argue that he was being manipulated by smarter players . . .and I never had believed him anyway. Obama, on the other hand, was a smart one and he KNEW BETTER and knew exactly what he was doing in conning so many people.

Barack Obama: A smart, smooth-talking, but ultimately morally vacuous excuse for a human being. The very epitome of the term "sociopath."

@SoylentGreenisPeople

what a great summation. Your comment is worth keeping on hand for future point-making by anyone wanting to bring back the memory of that time.

I actually voted for Obama twice, the first time because for me John McCain was the devil incarnate and the second time because Romney was abominable. But never again, and I think that's what Michael Moore meant when he said the vote for Trump could be seen as a Molotov cocktail thrown at the whole establishment.

Thank you for making this point so well.

#5.1

In 2004, not knowing who he was, but heeding the call of Howard Dean's "Democracy for America," I contributed $50.00 to Barry's Senate campaign. As of that time, I still naively believed that the Democratic Party could be taken over by "better" Democrats.

In 2006, Obama (or one of his operatives) made two appearances on DailyKos. Bascially, the gist of his message was this: "We should try to get along with and work with the Republicans, and not be angry, antagonistic or obstructionist just for the sake of being partisan, antagonistic, or obstructionist." Basically, it was the Obama campaign trying out its "bipartisan/work with the other side" shtick. Needless to say, he got lambasted by many in the comments that followed these posts. (Remember, this was at the height of Bush Administration outrages, and here Obama was lecturing us that we basically should all get along, and dismissing any just cause we had for our anger at the Bush/GOP regime and at Democratic Party capitulations to/colusions with their crimes and outrages). At that moment, a little voice inside me told me that Obama was just another bullshit artist politico, who was positioning himself for a run for the Presidency, and was floating trial balloons as to the type or rhetoric and packaging he was going to be using in that run.

I watched as Obama, for four years in the Senate, chose the execrable Joe Lieberman as his mentor while keeping his head low and not taking any risky or controversial positions in the Senate--including not opposing any of Dubya's nominees to positions that required Senate approval.

By early 2007-08, however, I was telling myself (against my earlier better judgment) that Obama's earlier "bipartisan" rhetoric that I had found so offensive and insulting, was an understandable marketing strategy for selling himself to the general electorate in such a way as to NOT come off too angry or alienating. Thus, I decided to ignore my earlier inner voice and judgment about him, and I rationalized away my inner "bullshit detector." (And after all, I knew that Clinton was far, far worse. At least Obama, I reasoned, might be more accountable to the "little people" that had fueled his campaign online with so many small donations.)

However, in the summer of 2008, when the Congress gave the telecomms retroactive immunity to lawsuits by way of ammendments to the FISA laws, Obama went back on a public promise he had earlier made to oppose such a move, and did nothing as the bipartisan Senate relieved U.S. corporations of liability for violations of Americans' lawfully protected privacy rights. At about that moment, a Kos commentator called "Toquedeville" wrote an insightful essay in which he explained Obama's flip flop as proof that there was an unelected American oligarchy Obama had to kow-tow to if he wanted to become President, and that Obama was ultimately owned by them.

Needless to say, I didn't disagree with this thesis.

When Obama made Biden his running mate, I understood that he was letting the establishment know that they had no need to worry--Obama would always be heedful of what the Democratic/political establishment and insiders desired. In other words, he was assuring them that he was one of them and would always be with them.

In the general election that year, by that time understanding that Obama was a gutless, neoliberal sell out, but convincing myself that McCain was the worse of two evils, I held my nose and voted for Obama.

(On inauguration day 2009, when the country was shedding tears of joy over the election of its first black president (one of the few truly noteworthy accomplishments of Obama's entire political career), and the new era of hope and change this was supposedly going to bring the country, I yawned as I watched the TV coverage. By that time, I pretty much knew what he was.)

Within three months of his inauguration, as I watched his various political and cabinet appointments and saw him abandon just about every campaign promise he had either explicitly or implicitly made, I marveled to myself that in all my years of life, I had never seen an elected politician abandon or go back on so many of his campaign promises so quickly. Obama was setting a new standard for betrayal and perfidy, even beyond that of Bill Clinton in 1993. At that point, I swore to myself that Obama's 2008 election was the LAST TIME I would ever again vote for the "lesser of two evils" . . . or, for that matter, for any Democrat.

So, after inauguration day, the only things that surprised me were the degree, speed, breadth, and intensity of his political betrayals.

And yet, I watched in amusement and disgust as for at least the next two years, people on GOS and other bastions of so-called "liberalism" made excuses for him, or minimized his betrayals, or engaged in ridiculous mental contortions to get themselves and others to maintain their faith in this smooth-talking charlatan . . . in spite of the EVIDENCE THAT WAS AS CLEAR AS DAY THAT they had been had by this "community organizer," "constitutional scholar," "eleven-dimensional-chess-player," and "heroic first black president."

By 2010, I had more contempt for Obama as a human being, than I had ever had for Dubya. Why? Because Dubya was an idiot and one could argue that he was being manipulated by smarter players . . .and I never had believed him anyway. Obama, on the other hand, was a smart one and he KNEW BETTER and knew exactly what he was doing in conning so many people.

Barack Obama: A smart, smooth-talking, but ultimately morally vacuous excuse for a human being. The very epitome of the term "sociopath."