The rules only work when results don?t matter. And at a certain point, results always do matter.

Actually, the point of these rules is that they have worked throughout most of human history. The problem most people have with them is that they are couched in language that is, at best, amoral by traditional standards. They eschew any form of actual productive ability and focus on the ability to (if I may be permitted value-laden words) steal, cheat, and lie.

If you look carefully, most of the rules have to do with appearance and perception. Ever since groups of humans have been able to complete tasks which single humans could not physically complete (most of human history), the appearance of power has granted power. What the rules tacitly acknowledge is that since large groups of humans have been able to complete tasks which small groups of humans could not physically complete, (most of post-classical civilized history) there have been no other viable routes to power.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the contents of this book. It is a manual for an individual to achieve success at the expense of others. I find it, in general, fairly reprehensible in its tone. I find the prose to be only moderately well crafted.

None of that makes a damn bit of difference. It’s correct. If you don’t like it, and want to change things, study it. In it you will find the description of the problem and the only route available to fix that problem. Unfortunately, by the time you are able due to you skill and accumulated power, you will be unable to based on your reworked persona and self-image.

This isn’t about assigning credit to Obama for deliberate employment of machiavellian tactics (and i hope it is understood that that term is qualitatively neutral).
This is about describing phenomenal fact.
Obama may never have read the 46 laws. He may only be aware of only a dozen of them. He may only consciously employ a handful. But there is a such thing as “intuitive practice” (i making this term up but it describes a real phenomenon).

Natural speakers can employ previously described laws of oratory and rhetoric without ever having formally learned them.

People with natural charisma have been engaging in tactics described in “The Game”, for years before its publication.

What T is describing is how Obama, however deliberately or intuitively, is engaging in these “laws of power” to achieve his success. And the proof is in the pudding.

This isn’t about credit or Obama’s policies or qualifications or even his fitness to lead. This is a descriptive character study.

You say Luck= Opp+ Prep. Nothing in that equation refutes anything T’s arguing.

I talked a little before about Machiavelli and his moral neutrality. This is a point that i feel many people miss. And i’m not talking about moral relativism or even believing in ends justifying means. I’m talking about the very purpose of his writings.

“The Prince” is quite simply a descriptive treatise on power;its various types, exercise and effects…ALL based on real world observation.

Talking about the roles luck, timing, circumstance and preparation play in a subject’s ascent to a position of power is like talking about the role rain, soil, light and aeration play in seeds flowering (or whatever the hell seeds do when they wanna grow).

his 100 present votes in the senate, voting no on iraq at a time when that was pretty unpatriotic. while everyone else was being ‘formed’ and led by the political climate surrounding them, he bet it all on a change in perspective on the war.

i’d say he was thinking ahead to being able to use that to separate himself.

he basically went into this election as a blank slate, able (just as the law states) to be vague and let the voters see him through rose colored glasses.

he did the same thing again opposing the surge. although he was wrong this time, he masterfully controlled that dialogue, turning it back on mccain and capitalizing off the popular sentiment that we shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

mccain on the other hand tried way too hard to define himself, more often than not shooting himself in the foot. the fundamentals are strong, im going back to washington.

the media, rather than presenting anything that was actually positive or negative regarding obama, they spent most of the time acquitting him of any negativity brought upon him by his actions, allowing him to maintain the clean image with the voters through his rhetoric.

There’s going to be a lot of pressure on each Washington insider to avoid being the person who wakes everyone up from the Dream–the person who selfishly holds Obama to one of his many promises, or points out that some course of action is crazy, or takes personal advantage of one of the many contradictions within the Democratic coalition. Obama will get cooperation from the Washington establishment in a way that other presidents would drool over (and Bush will weep over). He’ll have it easy, and mistakes will be simply ignored or excused.

That, plus Obama’s apparent preference for never actually doing anything, will make it hard for opponents to tarnish his image.

This configuration is brittle, and may shatter spectacularly if something terribly scandalous happens, but it is very strong and could last a long time. I hope I’m wrong; I doubt I am.

I sort of have to disagree with the overall premise of how the big O operates though. I think you are giving the guy way too much credit. I am sure you have investigated his biography thoroughly and what was the one thing that stood out to you? To me it is simply he has been at the right place and right time his entire life. I am really having a hard time believing he would have received the nomination much less the presidency if it hadn?t been for circumstances beyond his control. He simply got the nomination due the country was never going to re-hash the Clinton years and they were looking for an alternative. (side note ? funny how a re-hash of Clinton is exactly what we are going to get per his appointments so far) What alternative would they have chosen? Biden? Edwards? Dodd? No, they were going to choose someone who makes them feel all tingly inside. An articulate, good looking, Harvard educated black man was just the medicine. After that it was a lock.

Then he goes up against a party with a sitting president who has just undergone 8 years of character assassination and a nominee who half the party hated. Add the financial meltdown and you have a recipe for someone of his non-existent qualifications becoming the president.

I am big believer in the following equation.

Luck = Opportunity + Preparation.

He was prepared per your post above. But he sure as hell needed the opportunity and he got it.

At some point he has to deliver. If people are impoverished, particularly formerly middle class people, during his term, he faces possible impeachment. Economics as much as anything else drove Nixon from power. Clinton delivered the good times or did not impede them and thus was spared that fate.

If he loses a city to a nuke, he’s done. Removed by impeachment.

Moreover, he faces men with whom this will NOT work. Putin can intimidate him personally and by long distance. Zawahari has personally killed children with his pistol, he’s not going to be impressed by any of that. Nut-job or Hugo Chavez or the Chinese oligarchy don’t care about that, and can and will inflict hideous defeats on Obama that can threaten him severely if not make him a goner politically.

Suppose Obama loses Afghanistan, and many troops in a disaster worse than Pearl Harbor and Wake Island combined? None of that matters.

The rules only work when results don’t matter. And at a certain point, results always do matter. There is no one else to blame. He’ has the reins. If he does not deliver success he will pay, the way an ordinary politician like Bush did not (re: Iraq a mess and re-elected).