Reading The Pictures: Obama's Art Of War

Now that the Obama era is underway, consider this the first illustration (and casualty) of the new art of war. (And, I'm not talking about the way Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Bush, McCain and those other cavemen thought to practice it. I'm talking about something a lot more Taoist.)

In June, Obama hit Joe with the stick (taking him to task for disloyalty on the Senate floor), and yesterday, he finished him off with the carrot. In allowing Lieberman to retain his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee after Lieberman played footman to McCain and banged away at Obama for months, Lieberman stays in the Democratic fold but in a severely weakened and dependent state.

But then, words are superfluous in comparison to this brilliant picture by Getty's Mark Wilson. Not only does a chastened Lieberman wear the face of a schmuck, in the absolute center of a sea of reporters, he commands the attention of no one.

For more visual politics, visit BAGnewsNotes.com (and BAGnewsNotes @Twitter).

Comments

[iBlog4Fun]

This post is about the photo. Why do people go on rants about something else?

Anyway. Great photo. Great interpretation.

[FortuneTeller]

Joe Lapdog is on life support....you betcha!

[trailblazer]

Does that photo look like The Last Supper to anyone but me?

[FortuneTeller]

LOL...I see ur point, but what is Judas doing in Jesus' chair?

[Nommo]

He's about to pick up the tab.

[BarackDaVote]

Good post.....SPOT ON!

[lovethesinner]

Great analysis, Michael. Thanks for the perspective.

[TravelinMan357]

Law 45

Preach the Need for Change, but Never Reform too much at Once

Everyone understands the need for change in the abstract, but on the day-to-day level people are creatures of habit. Too much innovation is traumatic, and will lead to revolt. If you are new to a position of power, or an outsider trying to build a power base, make a show of respecting the old way of doing things. If change is necessary, make it feel like a gentle improvement on the past.

Hey BlacJac.... I think Barack reads the Art of War, Niccolo Machiavelli, Nietzche, and Robert Greene.

[DS3M]

correction: he read those works.

[PlanetKansas]

The committee for Homeland Security was an invention and legacy of the Bush era.

Why does everyone think this committee will matter in the new Obama era?

It might soon fade to a relic and Lieberman will be Chair of Nothing.

Speaking of Obama's brilliance, has it occured to anyone that his flurry of cabinet appointments from the House and Senate will force newer and younger blood into the ranks and leadership of Congress? In doing so, he can change the Congressional branch before the next mid-term elections.

This guy is not to be underestimated.

[Michale32086]

}}}}
The committee for Homeland Security was an invention and legacy of the Bush era.

Why does everyone think this committee will matter in the new Obama era?
{{{{

Simple...

Terrorism is still a threat...

Can you imagine the uproar if PE Obama were to abolish the DHS and then we got hit with another attack???

The calls would come fast and furious for impeachment and rightly so..

I don't think Obama is that stoopid to pooh-pooh away the threat.. His stance on FISA makes it clear to me that he is fully cognizant of the threat we face.

Michale.....

[cyb1851]

Michael Shaw is right. Obama's move is straight out of Sun Tzu. Everyone should read The Art of War.

"III. Attack by Stratagem

1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.

2. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

You can quote many passages to see clearly that Obama is a strategy man. He is not in this to win battles.

[papapj]

Obama is a very shrewd Black man, wary of the modus operandus of all successful men of color.

The art of the defence offense, subtly acted acted out using the maxims of Sun Tzu as you so wisely point out, cyb.

Any other way and he would be liable to succumb to the old stereotype of the 'Angry Black man' and incur the fear of the fickle White electorate......not that it matters for some; the archetypical 'Angry White guys' i.e the likes of Hannity, Boortz, Buchanan et al always seem to be able to spew their venom in lieu of cogent arguments, amd are oft quoted by fear-driven conservatives...

...Just pointing out a double-standard that many of us who feel it are more than aware of.....

[Pearlswan]

So Lieberman is now an Independently Dependent Democrat? LMAO

[Canuck27]

Political pragmatism. Joe now owes Obama big time, Joe has a vote in the Senate. Obama is more interested in passing good legislation than he is in petty revenge.

[sonoffestus]

I agree Canuck27. I have been saying this since before O was elected. I believe he will usher in a new era of "pragmatic politics". Strict adherence to a single ideology will not lead us out of the deep hole the bush administration has dug for us.

[Michale32086]

@KrautMan

}}}}
That wouldn't leave any room for appointing republicans...
{{{{

Do you know how you can tell a bigoted comment?? By changing the target group. If the comment still "works", then it is a bigoted comment.

So, in this case, you are in effect saying, "You can't appoint Republicans because they are not qualified for anything."

So, let's do the "bigot tweak" on that comment.

"You can't appoint Germans because they are not qualified for anything."

As you can clearly see, that comment is a bigoted comment. Ergo, the initial comment is also a bigoted comment..

Michale....

[Michale32086]

@Hazelnut

}}}}
Remember too, that even though someone might say they feel like punching someone in the face, most would not actually do that. What people feel and what they are really willing to do are often very different.
{{{{

Simply making the threat seems to be enough to have Democrats castigate Republicans.

Why should it be any different when it's Democrats that are making the threats?

Michale....

[Michale32086]

@fan4truth

}}}}
Democrats weren't calling McCain a marxist or a terrorist,
{{{{

Yer kidding, right??

McCain and Palin were called that and much much worse. One only has to read the pages here on HuffPo and elsewhere to realize this..

}}}
and President Elect Obama did not ever insinuate that Sen. McCain or Gov. Palin had "palled around with terroist'.
{{{

Well, the simple fact is, PE Obama DID socialize and DID work with a known and proven terrorist. So, while the "palling" around might be a stretch, it is undeniable that there were more than tenuous connections between Obama and Ayers. This has been established as fact.

Michale.....

[ayc]

What were McCain and Palin called, by the Obama campaign, that was much worse? It was the McCain campaign, not their surrogates or random Republicans that were using these names.

And can you link to where a stronger connection between Obama and Ayers has been established as fact?

[Michale32086]

@fan4truth

}}}}
His support of the McCain campaign at the expense of a party that he (even nominally) still belonged to only proves the original assumption.

{{{{

Only if you operate under the bigoted and mistaken assumption that anything and everything Democrat is better than anything and everything Republican...

Since that bigoted assumption is patently and obviously false, so is your assumption.

Michale.....

[MizFlagPin]

O got what he wanted. Lieberman was kicked off the Environment and Public Works Committee. A committee that will be extremelyy important to the O administration. The EPWC is where the action will be.