The Audacity of Vanity

[red states rule]

As usual Mr Krauthammer nails it. The messiah, known as Obama, is on an international ego trip



The Audacity of Vanity
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate.

He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast -- a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins -- would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials.

What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final "tear down this wall" liquidation. When President Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.

Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush 41 -- who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap -- called "a Europe whole and free"?

Does Obama not see the incongruity? It's as if a German pol took a campaign trip to America and demanded the Statue of Liberty as a venue for a campaign speech. (The Germans have now gently nudged Obama into looking at other venues.)

Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself.



for the complete article

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/obamas_egoaccomplishment_gap.html

[Yurt]

Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself.



for the complete article

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/obamas_egoaccomplishment_gap.html

and most seem to be voting for him, the libs find he can do wrong, no matter how far right he moves, he is a dem, that is good enough

[red states rule]

and most seem to be voting for him, the libs find he can do wrong, no matter how far right he moves, he is a dem, that is good enough

Obama is a narcissistic empty suit. Laughable if examined closely.

Krauthammer has given the best and truest description of the pathetic rock star who is trying to lip sync his way into the presidency.

People are starting to see this - which is why the messish, known as Obama, is still in a dead heat with Mccain

[Hobbit]

This is a disgrace. The Brandenburg Gate has been around for 400 years and isn't just a campaign prop. It was the focal point for the plan to divide Berlin between the allied powers and it was where the physical fall of the Berlin Wall started (as in, where the first hammer struck concrete). Like the article said, Kennedy EARNED the right to speak in front it for the Berlin Airlift, among other things. Reagan EARNED the right to speak in front of it for being the first president since Kennedy to take the defeat of the Soviet Union and the liberation of East Germany seriously. George Bush 41 EARNED the right to speak in front of it for carrying on Reagan's legacy and presiding over the fall of the wall, though he gracefully declined, saying that it was a day for Germans and Berliners, and that they were to have it to themselves. All three of these men were currently serving presidents of the United States when they made their speeches.

Then here comes the Obamessiah, lord of all arrogance and patron saint of the Democrat party, decides to use it as the backdrop for a speech, and why? Because screw you, that's why. Kennedy spoke there and it brings out the divinity in his eyes.

[red states rule]

This is a disgrace. The Brandenburg Gate has been around for 400 years and isn't just a campaign prop. It was the focal point for the plan to divide Berlin between the allied powers and it was where the physical fall of the Berlin Wall started (as in, where the first hammer struck concrete). Like the article said, Kennedy EARNED the right to speak in front it for the Berlin Airlift, among other things. Reagan EARNED the right to speak in front of it for being the first president since Kennedy to take the defeat of the Soviet Union and the liberation of East Germany seriously. George Bush 41 EARNED the right to speak in front of it for carrying on Reagan's legacy and presiding over the fall of the wall, though he gracefully declined, saying that it was a day for Germans and Berliners, and that they were to have it to themselves. All three of these men were currently serving presidents of the United States when they made their speeches.

Then here comes the Obamessiah, lord of all arrogance and patron saint of the Democrat party, decides to use it as the backdrop for a speech, and why? Because screw you, that's why. Kennedy spoke there and it brings out the divinity in his eyes.

Point 1, the messiah, known as Obama was humilated by McCain to go to Iraq and meet with the troops. The messiah decided to make the Iraq trip part of a PR tour and grand photo op

The liberal media, the messiahs largest campaign contributer, is tagging along to provide glowing coverage

Point 2 - The polls cannot be too exciting for Obama and Co. With such an unpopular administration and congress, high gas prices, economy struggling, and war, you would think he should have a commanding lead, not just within the margin of error. I think many are having trouble buying his act.

The liberal media is out to try and correct this with their slaned and bias coverage.

[Kathianne]

In fairness to the media, most of the bigger outlets, with the exemption of NY Times, have castigated Obama on examples of his arrogance in the past week. It may be late, but the strongest was WaPo on Iraq.

[diuretic]

Chuck K is pissed off because Obama's camp has come up with a winner :laugh2:

They'll milk it for whatever they can get out of it and I reckon that would be a fair bit. All those subliminal issues...no wonder Chuckey is throwing a tantie :laugh2:

[diuretic]

In fairness to the media, most of the bigger outlets, with the exemption of NY Times, have castigated Obama on examples of his arrogance in the past week. It may be late, but the strongest was WaPo on Iraq.

Has a presidential candidate every stood up on the stump and yelled, "Vote for me! I'm meek!" ? :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

Has a presidential candidate every stood up on the stump and yelled, "Vote for me! I'm meek!" ? :laugh2:

No, perhaps it's a culture thing. To be president certainly means to have a strong ego, no doubt about that. Difference is, a non-incumbent candidate does not hang a faux presidential seal, have 300 foreign policy 'advisors', or go to foreign countries, as a faux president. That takes arrogance, not self-confidence.

[diuretic]

No, perhaps it's a culture thing. To be president certainly means to have a strong ego, no doubt about that. Difference is, a non-incumbent candidate does not hang a faux presidential seal, have 300 foreign policy 'advisors', or go to foreign countries, as a faux president. That takes arrogance, not self-confidence.

Okay, being serious now. I did hear this on the BBC World Service a few hours ago. And I will admit to thinking that it was a bit presumptuous. But that's the objective part of me. Now I know I don't have a dog in this hunt and I apologise for leaping into a purely domestic issue in American politics and yet again I'm grateful for the tolerance of Americans for a foreigner commenting (and that ain't no lie).

It could well be seen as arrogance and I think perhaps, just perhaps, this is a calculated risk being taken by the Obama camp. It could easily backfire on him. Not least because - and this remark goes for any country, not just the US or mine - in an election foreign policy issues are generally not big winners. I know that's the case in my country although I must say that we are a minnow in international affairs so it doesn't matter. But the US is the sole world superpower, so it matters in US politics. Question is, does it matter to the average voter?

It could be Obama is trying to separate himself from McCain in terms of portraying himself as a statesman. Inexperience is a criticism I've read of Obama and perhaps this is a direct response to that.

[Kathianne]

Okay, being serious now. I did hear this on the BBC World Service a few hours ago. And I will admit to thinking that it was a bit presumptuous. But that's the objective part of me. Now I know I don't have a dog in this hunt and I apologise for leaping into a purely domestic issue in American politics and yet again I'm grateful for the tolerance of Americans for a foreigner commenting (and that ain't no lie).

It could well be seen as arrogance and I think perhaps, just perhaps, this is a calculated risk being taken by the Obama camp. It could easily backfire on him. Not least because - and this remark goes for any country, not just the US or mine - in an election foreign policy issues are generally not big winners. I know that's the case in my country although I must say that we are a minnow in international affairs so it doesn't matter. But the US is the sole world superpower, so it matters in US politics. Question is, does it matter to the average voter?

It could be Obama is trying to separate himself from McCain in terms of portraying himself as a statesman. Inexperience is a criticism I've read of Obama and perhaps this is a direct response to that.

I'm just about to post some advice for McCain. I think Barone hits that this campaign is very similar to Ford v. Carter.