The new web ad being run by the Obama re-election campaign stars Bill Clinton. The copy is priceless, vintage Obama self-absorption. It starts off with the words on the screen, “The commander-in-chief gets one chance to make the right decision.” Then President Clinton comes on and says,
Look, he knew what would happen. Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there and it hadn’t been bin Laden. Suppose they had been captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for him.
Isn’t that great? The Navy SEALs risk death or imprisonment in some filthy Pakistani jail and Obama risks . . . . a bad headline.
It reminds me of a story about Harold Ross, the legendary founding editor of The New Yorker. James Thurber had written a profile on someone and it was scheduled to run in the next issue as the lead article. About half an hour before the magazine was to close, however, Thurber ran into Ross’s office and told him they would have to kill the profile because the subject had just died. Ross’s reaction? “Goddamnit! Why does everything have to happen to me?”
At least Harold Ross was a great editor.
I honestly don't see how anyone can support a politician as self-absorbed as Obama. He is a despicable person. Who would vote for such a "leader"? We certainly don't surround ourselves with friends like him, and anyone who's worked with narcissistic people knows how irritating and, ultimately, useless – nay, dangerous – they are. I realize that politicians, almost by definition, have to be full of themselves, but there is a big difference between a large ego and a self-centeredness that knows no bounds.
Obama's narcissism was well known to anybody willing to pay attention long before the elections of 2008. Too many genuinely sincere people unfortunately wanted to prove they were not racists. End of story.
I think it's worth adding that many liberals viewed (and continue to view) Obama as a uniter. Of course, conservatives don't look for uniters – we look for leaders. We may rally around a cause – post 9/11 – and expect our leaders to lead, but we don't expect them to "unite" us. Being grounded in reality, we recognize how silly and undesirable that would be. nIn this sense, Obama once more serves as a telescope for those interested in understanding the contemporary left, which is slogan-based and focused primarily on making its fashionable practitioners look good to each other. I'm sure Bill Clinton is genuinely impressed that Obama was willing to take such political risks in order to get Osama bin Laden, and maybe for him that truly is the most important aspect of the event. (After all, Bill famously wasn't willing to take those risks.) I think what is even more interesting is the apparent (and increasing) unawareness on the left of how transparent they have become. That may be the real story. They are becoming more and more isolated from mainstream America in a way that is beyond the comprehension of conservatives. nWhich, incidentally, is why I think Obama will be crushed in November, whatever polls are saying now. It's inconceivable that a President capable of allowing such an ad will fool the people again.
It's tempting to say that good news like this proves the point conservatives are making about Obama. This type of "cowboy" action was condemned by Obama and other Democrats when it served THEIR political purposes. But now that it serves their political purposes to continue policies they once condemned…
Another self hating American.
As a retired soldier and the father of a serving soldier, I was really disgusted by Clinton's statement. My daughter, an Army MP, spent a year in Afghanistan (2010-11). I had several opportunities to meet the other members of her unit before and after the deployment. I’ll just say that compared to them, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and the rest of that crowd are small, tiny people.