Is the Andrés Manuel that we saw on Tuesday in Iztapalapa the same one that managed to convince 15 million Mexicans choose him in 2006? Is the man with a tough appearance, defiant attitude, and arrogant strategy the one who conquered millions during his years on the campaign? I couldn't stop asking myself these questions while I watched and rewatched the images of the meeting in Iztapalapa. Did he trick us or not? Did the defeat change him or did it only exacerbate his worst side?As Maerker points out, one person who famously did see through AMLO before election was Enrique Krauze.
But, what did we see? To start, the act itself, defiant and self-satisfied. While he shared his great plan to mock the decision of the Electoral Tribunal, Andrés Manuel looked euphoric, he seemed to be saying that he wasn't going to let one get away, and that if anything gets in his way, he always finds a way around it. And it's a given that if it's about him, it doesn't matter if the path is eccentric and anti-democratic, it's valid because it's his. It's that simple. Hence, the humiliating tone.
Did we have any indication that López Obrador was like this? I'd like to say no, but the truth is that we did; attributes that without a doubt the loss has accentuated: his contempt for those marched against insecurity, his "cállate chachalaca" [a famous insult of Vicente Fox], the tolerance for his guys, the intolerance of others, his decision to not go to the first debate, the made-up polls.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Should We Have Seen it Coming?
Denise Maerker, who has previously expressed sympathy for AMLO and his cause, wonders if he's changed since before the 2006 elections: