Obama’s Split on Obama

Barack Obama is apparently as clueless about his convictions as everyone else is. Just two weeks ago, the Illinois Senator had this to say:

One of the things that I’ve known about myself for a long time,” he said, “is that, in difficult or stressful moments, I don’t get rattled. And I don’t get rattled during campaigns. I don’t get rattled when things are up … and I don’t get too low when things are down.

Yesterday, he said this:

In some ways, this controversy has actually shaken me up a little bit and gotten me back into remembering that the odds of me getting elected have always been lower than some of the other conventional candidates.

Change comes from within, you know. But for Obama the contradictions aren’t merely restricted to matters of the psyche. He’s let fly a string of policy inversions that, when taken together, spells complete ideological and logistical disarray. These aren’t flip-flops, but simultaneously held convictions that negate each other by necessity. They run (in my simplified version) as fallows:

America should be out of Iraq, where al Qaeda is, but go back in if al Qaeda is there; America should talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who promises Israel’s destruction on a daily basis, but not Hamas because they’re set on destroying Israel. I will bomb Pakistan without permission should I find cause, but I want to hold a summit with every Muslim state to help close the gap between Islam and the West. I am the candidate of unity who’s willing to stake my run on a deep spiritual relationship with a venomous bigot.

This isn’t change, but rather a recipe for stasis. Being at odds with yourself in this way prohibits any movement. Such inner turmoil also explains the need to keep from getting rattled. If Obama is actually shaken up, there’s no telling how these conflicts may manifest . . .