I've said it over and over again on this forum, but I don't think [what people refer to as] his 'idealism' is anything more than a tactic to get people to buy into his strategies and visions. So, I agree with you there. Though his speeches are often eloquent and laced with idealistic language, it's not indicative of his core needs in life, which is what temperament is supposed to measure. It's a strategy for making him a more effective politician.
One argument, out of the many that I'm thinking of right now, is: the way he has gone about his life seems very NTJ, rather than NTP. Rather than seeing how things were developing and changing his life plans accordingly, he has always set a task and worked toward achieving it without as much regard to the environment. His preferred state seems to be working toward the accomplishment of a task rather than absorbing more information to decide what the 'correct' task is.
Enrolls at Occidental. Leaves when he realizes his interest in political science. Enrolls at Columbia. Completes degree there. Gains work experience at a couple of corporations. Starts community organizing. Goes to law school (even there, becomes President of the Harvard Law Review). State Senate. Senate. Presidency.
This speaks more of ambition than a specific plan, I think. According to Keirsey all NTs are strategic thinkers so it's more consistent with an overarching strategy but I seriously doubt it had in mind all of these specific titles and roles. I don't really think it's a P/J issue although I will admit it seems more J like.
In my assessment, there isn't enough change in vision for it to speak of Ne. This exemplifies Ni. Even though the environment changes, the vision remains the same and the tasks (undergrad, job, law school) change quickly, they are building up to the same previously realized but slightly inarticulable vision. Gah, it is very hard to explain something so theoretical on this forum. I wish there were a diagramming function.
I don't see a reason why Ne or Ni would mean the vision should change radically. I think his overarching principles will never change despite his P nature. If anything, that has more to do with his age and the fact that people become more set in themselves as they age. We all have to work off certain principles and beliefs and as we age we are less likely to change fundamental beliefs at a later stage.
The first ENTP that's coming to mind is the late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel. If you look at his life path, it demonstrates Ne better. He knew he wanted to get into late night from high school onward but look at how he got there. (He was once quoted as saying that he wanted to wait for the opportune moment to get into television because he just knew that if it wasn't right, then he would strike out.)
Works in radio during high school (already dreaming of career in late night). Goes to University of Nevada for one year. Transfers to Arizona State. Drops out after two years without a degree. Works numerous gigs in radio and does several odd jobs (i.e. wedding DJ). Finally takes an offer to work on TV when he is offered 'Win Ben Stein's Money' and thinks the gig is right for him. Meets good friend Adam Carolla on that show and they decide to start 'The Man Show.' ABC offers him late night spot.
I think this is a bad example because the industries are completely different. An actor or comedian starting out is basically expected to live a chaotic lifestyle juggling different jobs while pursuing the dream. Obama's is more deliberate I will admit, but they are more conventional paths to success. I see what you mean though but I don't think it's a good comparison.
Do you see how that just gives off the 'Ne' vibe more? It's like there's a loose idea of where he wants to end up, but the steps along the way don't have to directly and obviously lead to that goal. The steps can deviate a little bit more and it's okay if the ending isn't exactly what it was imagined to be in the beginning.
Again this is exactly how I was defining Obama. He had a loose idea but he still bounced around. I would say working corporate jobs, deciding to go to law school only after community organizing, those steps aren't necessarily planned. Just because they worked out to his ultimate goal doesn't mean he had them in mind from the beginning.
I've seen NTJs do this. Could be Ni.
It's possible but I would think an NTJ would be more precise with specifics and how they wanted them to be implemented. Of course in the political sphere it's always best to be vague so it's good to keep that in mind considering all NTs would probably be purposively vague.
Like what core beliefs? I don't think the judging/perceiving function has much to do with beliefs. It's mostly just about how you prefer to manage your life.
I think the judging/perceiving function affects how quickly beliefs are spoken, at least. Judgers are more likely to make them realized where Ps are more likely to facilitate what is out there and find it difficult choosing a particular, specific path. As an ENTP, especially on that is a politician, core beliefs would pretty much be stricken to whatever is politically correct and yet vaguely similar to personal beliefs so they can be easily defended and used to rally up support.
Nah, many types do this. I do this all the time, and I'm not an NT. I have an ISTP friend that does this a lot too.
I dunno, I think many times relegate or defer, there is a difference between deference and actually probing people after putting in your own homework and thought into various topics. ENTPs love to look at a wide variety of things so it would make sense to read a bit on pretty much all policy so that you're informed and can make well-thought out big-picture mediations while actually substantively communicating potential problems with experts in the respective policy areas.
Ni. NTJs are often flexible with 'secondary' plans. What they're inflexible about is their 'master plan' for their lives. They need a goal to work toward, a vision to realize.
I would say the secondary plans could be considering one of many projects a P would work on. But what was his master plan? I seriously doubt he had a master plan to become president from the beginning, I think it just worked out that it became increasingly clearer as he progressed and took information through his experience (Ne) to realize the potential to do good in other ways, such as a politician.
I've noticed that your analysis relies primarily on typological functions so I will say consider the entire temperament itself, even if certain behaviors aren't considered. Obviously we also have to consider the incredible constraint that a politician is under and the reality that in fact, yes, what a politician does that we can see and here is in fact VERY deliberately manufactured no matter what type since this is PR 101. I think you make some good points and I have to admit he seems very close to a J but I'm still convinced he is a P.
Politicians can be tough to type though because I think, especially the smarter ones, know they will be judged by everything they say so they master their rhetoric and never jump off of it until all cameras and recorders are off (and let's be honest, for Obama that means not very often).