Obama's beliefs

The more I read & learn about what Obama has said, the more I believe that he has completely contradictory thoughts that he uses and weaves into speeches, and varies what he says depending on his audience.

For example, he is now famous for telling "Joe the Plumber" that it's important to spread the wealth.

But, at the Saddleback Civil Forum, he told Paster Rick Warren that he thinks Americans shouldn't get things for free - that if his grandparents sacrificed to make a better life for their Country and their children, then so should we (vis-a-vis the environment).

But, his "Issues & Policies" pages of his website speak to tons of "free" things from the Government - in lots of areas from IRS refund checks when you didn't pay taxes, to money for college, to volunteering, to health care, etc.

This is just one example.

The blog post below "What is Obama's ideology" sets forth many many examples of him doing the same double-step with other supporters in other issues - see, for example, what he told his Harvard Law Review colleage regarding conservative Constitutional interpretation, versus what he says now.
- see also what he told his Chicago supporters when he was an IL State Senator versus what he says now

I really think Obama is trying to be all things to all people. I think that he really believes that that's what a "Uniter" is and does.

And, personally, I might be able to conclude that this is his passion - to be all things to all people - and thus, not to have a grounded center - because of his upbringing. He is the result of a complete mix of contradictions - abandonned by his father, a hippie mother, a Kenyan citizen and an American citizen, then moved and lived in Indonesia under an Indonesian step-father, then lived with his American (from Kansas, but then lived in Hawaii) maternal grandmother. A very mixed-up childhood, with lots of issues.

It seems to me that his personal life challenge is to create unity among that chaos - and that this is what he is trying to "be" politically.

However, in my opinion, it really results in a bunch of appeasement.

And, in case anyone forgets (or doesn't know about) Chamberlain, appeasement fails to lead. Appeasement ends in disaster.

At best, his attempts to be all things will come to an end if he becomes President, because he will have to "take a stand" on issues, or he will pawn-off the responsibility (and the blame) - which will also be disasterous.