Does Obama = Queen Elizabeth?

I have, off and on, argued that in many ways we have returned to a "Guilded Age". Not simply because the Bush Administration has resurrected a Cold War mentality thought discarded, including the politics of fear, and loathing, and paranoia-inspired witch-hunts, but even more pervading then geo-politics. In theatre today, much like the arts prior to the Rennaissance, we have the habit of re-hash. Re-hash was quite prevalent in art back then, and I think Shakespeare quite strikingly ,approximately 400 years ago, highlighted the derobing of an era by pitting Falstaff as one manifested era.

The derobing of this "new-old era" would be nice, and at times when I hear Obamatons respond I suspect they yearn much like Phillip Stubbs claimed Elizabethan England yearned oh so long ago. He stated:

"They be desirous of new-fangles, praising things past, condemning things present, and coveting things to come; ambitious, proud, light-hearted, unstable, ready to be carried away by every blast of wind."

I agree that today we have a moment, a time-situation where people are "ready to be carried away by every blast of wind". We want "change". But I disagree here with my own premise, and disagree with Obama's message and his followers. He is simply a "new-fangle", yet still being worn on that old crusty arm of a hag who will continue to propel is in a foreign policy that will not change.

This is not 1578. Obama is no Queen Elizabeth. Michelle Obama is no John Dee, magician extraordinaire who transformed England from a disease infested, barely rich enough to be called poor, nation-state of illiterates, and criminals. There will be no change. There will be no launch-pad to propel us to new heights.

Though America is in (symbolically/metaphorically at least) a similar "age" where the people want to discard "fear", Obama is no Queen Elizabeth. He may talk about "hope" and "change", but he is not the harbinger of it. He is simply more of the same, with a face that we are not accustomed to seeing.