You are changing the subject here to all of the reasons you don't like Obama. Your original point was that there was no reason for people to expect that he'd be different from any other politician.
Every piece of information that I give you to that effect is turned into a rant about how Obama is a racist, opportunist, etc. OK, we get it. You don't like Obama.
Beyond that, you are simply backing into your conclusion that he was no differerent. Sure, if you take every piece of anyone's life and look for a cynical explanation, you can find it. I mean, John Kerry's Purple Hearts were turned into badges of shame. And, you see no evidence that Obama has ever been the victim of racial discrimination when he told you he has. You just see what fits your conclusion. But, you haven't been with him every day of his life. Of course, if he did share more of such details, you would accuse him of "fomenting more racism" and of being an "opportunist".
And that was my point in bringing up his Zimmerman comments. He was sharing some of his experience with all of us, with regard to what it is like to be an African-American man. Of course this is a different set of experiences from any other president we have had. That was relevant to the original point. Again, you missed that point and started ranting about why you thought he made those comments.
You say you don't know Obama's heart, yet you are certain that he became a community organizer for fully political purposes and didn't care about the people in the community. You say that every emotional utterance that comes out of the man's mouth is political. He is a sociopathic robot (although he may be "warm" in his personal life). You offer no evidence to support this and, in fact, state yourself that you cannot know the man's heart. Yet, you are so certain that you're right because you and Fox News say so. You bring no evidence. Just conjecture and conclusions.
Look, I cannot know what's in his head or heart, and I certainly have had my own disappointments with this president. But, it is ridiculous to assert that there wasn't anything different about this man or that it was unreasonable for people to have a hope that he was actually different. Again, even in giving his "biography" you magically hit upon everything that makes the man different, but say it is unremarkable. I didn't choose the items you ticked off. You did. And, in doing so, you outlined the same rationale as the "believers". You just drew a different conclusion AND you're aided by hindsight.
Even his opponents fed into the notion with all of this fear mongering about socialism, "taking their country back", etc. They painted him as this "other" of which we should all be afraid. Of course, it backfired as it helped to sell the idea that maybe this man really would be transformational. Hell, they even tried to trot out those same tired lines about socialism, etc. in 2012 when it was clear that he wasn't the bogeyman they made him out to be.
You can stick your head in the sand and pretend that the atmosphere in 2008 was other than what it was. But, I wouldn't be surprised if you were one of those who was scared out of your mind of what a difference this man might actually make.
Believe me, if I wrote all the reasons I dislike Obama, it would be comparable in size to a George Martin novel. Yes, I dislike him. But that does not make what I say about him untrue - in fact, the reason I dislike him is exactly because these things are true, I don't have any personal animosity towards him. But these not all the reasons - these are only the reasons why anybody who is willing to look clearly into things and go beyond propaganda should have expected Obama not to be a transformational leader. Which he is not. If you persist in the opinion that all signs were pointing at him being transformational, but it somehow didn't work out (I'm sure it was Bush's fault or Tea Party fault or anybody else's fault but not his) - well, feel free to believe it. I only hope next time next Obama tries to sell you a bill of goods you remember how well you did on this one.
>>> Yet, you are so certain that you're right because you and Fox News say so.
No, because people who knew him say so, e.g.: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/03/harvard-law-classmate-law-review-colleague-remembered-obama-in-2008-a-pretty-cold-fish/ http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/03/harvard-law-classmate-law-...
And it's not the only place, just try to find somebody who was around him when he wasn't yet a big politician and ask them, or read accounts of those who did.
You bought the same bill of goods that Obama was selling. The only difference is that you didn't like it.
Truth be told, I have reverted to my unhealthy political cynicism post-first term Obama. Unlike you, however, I acknowledge the transformational atmosphere of 2008 that virtually anyone in the country would recognize.
I mentioned the Tea Party and Bush for reasons that I thought I had made clear, but you apparently still miss the point. Has nothing to do with blaming them for him not being transformational, but I don't want to keep repeating myself.
Finally, I hope that you realize how ridiculous it is that you are pointing to some ex-classmate or ex-colleague gossip on The Daily Caller. That is very "Fox News Viewer" of you. This is why Swift-boating works. Just drudge up some old people that knew the target in a past life but don't agree with his politics, and let them spout off what detractors want to hear. Then, canonize that into the truth and its attendant panoply of talking points.
Of course we can dig up plenty of people who say the exact opposite. This is not evidence of anything. What did he do or not do that supports the conclusions you have drawn about him? You are suggesting that people were foolish to believe he was different because there's no evidence that he would be. Yet, you offer no evidence that he would not be. It's just these declarations that he is not who he says because you, Fox News, and (now) some guys/gals he knew years ago say so.
BTW, if anyone was unreasonable about their expectations that he'd be different, it was those who were afraid. They believed he would take their guns, was a Communist, not born in the U.S., raised taxes when he actually lowered them, etc.
They were so made afraid about the difference he would make that they formed a party to "take their country back". And, they continued to believe in wild conspiracy theories, even in the face of plain facts to the contrary. This wasn't some small fringe, but a fairly broad swath of the opposition, fueled by fear-mongering politicians on the right.
Maybe you should look into that.
>>> They believed he would take their guns
He's still trying to undermine both gun ownership and self-defense rights. He is now vocally opposing Stand Your Ground - the principle he himself supported and helped strengthening while in the state senate by sponsoring a law: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/354059/obama-voted-strengthen-illinoiss-stand-your-ground-law-2004-john-fund http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/354059/obama-voted-stre...
He is still advocating severely limiting and restricting access to guns. It's not his fault that it is politically impractical right now. He is trying as hard as he can.
>>> raised taxes when he actually lowered them, etc.
He did raise taxes. It took him a while but you can't say he did not - it's just not true. What is true he didn't raise taxes for everybody - but he did raise taxes for some. And he's and his party still are advocating even more tax raises. Again, the fact that it yet didn't happened is not his fault - he did all he could to raise taxes even more, but he is not a dictator, so the Congress did not allow him to go further.
>>> And, they continued to believe in wild conspiracy theories, even in the face of plain facts to the contrary
Now you are equating people who oppose Obama due to disagreement with his politics (a tiny bit less than a half of a country) with a tiny minority that believes in conspiracy theories. Do you really think it will go unnoticed? When you attempt sleight of hand, it should not be this obvious.
He did not sweep in and take everyone's guns as was the meme at the time. People were literally stockpiling AR-15s and ammo because they believed this.
Stand Your Ground is a horrible law that's ripe for abuse. That's become more evident since his days in the State Senate. Likewise, there wasn't a "shooting spree of the month" at the time. Things have changed, and I would want someone who can reassess and change his position when conditions require. Still, the main point is that conservatives believed in change as much as progressives. It is just the flip side of the same coin: progressives welcomed the change to gun laws and conservatives were rabidly opposed to it. That's the case with much of this discussion.
Regarding taxes, the point is that many on the right (especially Tea-partiers) believed their taxes were higher even when he had actually lowered them across the board. They literally named themselves after a tax revolt because they were so angry that he was raising taxes when in truth he'd lowered them.
How cartoonish is that? But, that was the extent to which they, also, believed in "change". Even facts couldn't sway them from their doggedly held beliefs that he was a socialist who was taxing them to give money to poor people.
Finally, it is far from a "tiny minority" who believed that he was a socialist, outright communist, muslim (as if that were inherently evil), non-U.S. born, etc.
For instance a 2011 CBS poll showed that 45% of Republicans believed he was born in another country.
These conspiracy theories and right wing attacks to paint him as "other" were clearly successful and they contributed greatly to the sense that this man was, indeed, different. For a progressive who was on the fence about whether he was different, the rabid fear and irrational reaction of the right served as evidence that maybe this man was legitimately about change if he so irked the right.
That you act as if none of this happened is incredible. Funny that you mentioned "sleight of hand".