He might be arrogant and thin-skinned, but he’s our arrogant and thin-skinned candidate
In their initial endorsement of Barack Obama in 2008, the editors of the Washington Post concluded:
Mr. Obama’s temperament is unlike anything we’ve seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.
I never saw these qualities in the candidate. I’m not convinced that the editors of the Washington Post saw them either. But he was their ideal candidate, so they projected the qualities that they’d ascribe to an ideal candidate onto Barack Obama whether or not he really demonstrated them. How do I know that this glowing description is phony?
I know it from the Washington Post’s endorsement of President Obama for a second term this past October.
Mr. Obama alienated Congress and business leaders by isolating himself inside a tight White House circle that manages to be both arrogant and thin-skinned. Too often his administration treats business as an obstacle rather than a partner.
The descriptions “arrogant and thin-skinned” contradict “master of substance and detail” as well “eager to hear opposing points of view.” But the editors, in no way acknowledge that their earlier characterization was wrong. In fact their primary concern for the 2012 election was:
MUCH OF THE 2012 presidential campaign has dwelt on the past, but the key questions are who could better lead the country during the next four years — and, most urgently, who is likelier to put the government on a more sound financial footing.
Even as they acknowledged President Obama’s flaws and his inability to work constructively with Congress, the editors of the Washington Post endorsed him primarily for his supposed ability to right the country’s financial situation! But those flaws, as we are now seeing is what made the President ill suited to that task.
One person who’s noted these flaws has been Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. For his troubles, he’s been bullied.
“Very senior person” at White House emailed Bob Woodward “you’re going to regret doing this,” says Woodward live now on @cnn.
— Steve Krakauer (@SteveKrak) February 27, 2013
There’s that arrogance and thin-skinned-ness again.
Professor Jacobson blogged about this last night. It’s also the major item in memeorandum.
President Obama has benefitted from a compliant media. who created a myth. As we see from the Washington Post’s second endorsement, even once the myth was shattered, the media still supported and shilled for him. The contrast to its treatment of Republicans generally, especially the previous President, is striking.
I’m sure that Bob woodward appreciates the irony.
[WAJ note — this was originally published at about 8:15. I then made a mistake and thinking I was scheduling another post for 10 a.m. actually ended up scheduling this for 10 a.m. which had the result of removing it from publication for a while. That was not my intent, it was just an error.]
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
I never saw these qualities in the candidate
All I have ever seen in “the candidate” is an effeminate community organizer pointing a bony, accusatory finger at ANYone who dare oppose his point of view. That’s it. Nothing else.
Oh but there were many more obvious qualities … number one of which is the ability to tell bold lies.
Perhaps the biggest was after a 20 year close relationship with Rev. Wright, he claims he never heard those anti-American, racist rants. (despite black liberation theology still being the thinly veiled essence of Obama’s actions.)
When he called Bush irresponsible and un-American for the deficit, and promised to cut it in half so as to save the children, it was a lie. And Obama claimed he was never part of the socialist “New Party”.
It takes no great investigative reporting to uncover these things … the media knows he lies and they have protected him. (And did “Barry Soetoro” claim under oath he never had another name, when he got his law license?)
Recently he told the UN and America that Benghazi was the result of that video … a bold lie. He claimed sequester was Congress’s idea.
The only difference now is Woodward has enough liberal gravitas, that when HIS toes get stepped on, some people notice.
AMEN. Those qualities were NEVER there to be seen. A Total Pass from the slathering MSM-Lapdog Cheering Section for little things like his 20-year spiritual advisor(Obama’s description, not mine)and close-up friendships with Weather Underground Maoist-Terrorists, Billy & Bernardine… The hideous and deliberately incestual pressies averted their eyes, carried oceans of water and deliberately lied for the Anointed Majesty. And, without shame, they continue through this very moment. Even Woodward, with the hounds at his door and every lefty(or even Liberal)blog and paper NOT coming to his defense, still uses the descriptive “they’re confused” for the WH malignance.
Yep, General Custer, y’all go’on down thar along that river…
WaPo’s 2008 description of Obama is laughable. Watching videos of him on YouTube (that the MSM would NEVER show) would prove to any reasonable person that he is most definitely not “eloquent”, not a “mast of substance and detail”, and not at all “eager to hear opposing points of view”. And his behavior, and that of his administration, over the last several years would further establish his lack of eloquence and closed-mindedness.
The problem is, we’re not dealing with reasonable people.
“….eager to hear opposing points of view.” Snicker. Snort.
Fish rots from the head, etc. We have a Nobel Peace Prize winning sanctimonious, supercilious prick impersonating Chief Executive Officer of the United States with most of the news media serving as his claque. I’m sure Obama has a hunch his sequester manipulations will win him a Nobel for economics next.
Maybe I need to get my vision checked.
All I’ve ever seen is a sociopath.
Flim-Flam, Shuck & Jive, Agitation, Golf, Golf, Agitation, Golf, Agitation, an occasional night in the White House, Blather, Lies, Flim-Flam, Saul Alinsky Meditations and explicit obedience, Trips Abroad, Some MORE Utterly Unnecessary Trips Abroad, Cairo Hugs to Radical Islam Speech, Dissing Bibi, Golf, Shout-outs to fans while Ft.Hood Bleeds(from ‘workplace violence’, don’tcha know), Agitation, Perpetual Campaign 2009-2013 and counting, Golf and Effete Superiority to Common Work, much less solid accomplishment, Nobel PEACE Prize…
Are we not Blessed, America???
Con’t.. Think of the Trouble, Disaster, Chaos we’d be in IF The Boy King worked for a living!? Ya know, like a full week of 10-hour days in the Oval Office, for Gawdsakes.
Consecutive days of WORK would require some discipline, executive gifts, LEADERSHIP, moral muscles and absence of sloth & laziness.
Again, America, ARE WE NOT BLESSED?!?!
This is all due to a media that fell so in love with the candidate that they now cannot believe they fell for the lies without properly vetting the man. Now it’s a matter of “Saving face” (as the chinese would put it.)
Great post! You nailed it.