Charles Krauthammer on the vanity of Barack Obama

Posted by: Sister Toldjah on July 18, 2008 at 9:14 am

Charles Krauthammer pens a blistering description of the level of vanity present in the mind of The Chosen One, Barack Obama.  Here’s a sneak peek:

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 Ronald 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 John F. 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 the elder — 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. There’s nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted “present” nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

Read the whole thing.

I wonder, though, if he’s right on his assertion that “Americans” (used in a general sense) are catching on to the fact that the guy running for president on the Democrat side has an ego the size of Mt. Rushmore.  Conservative poljunkies know it, but is the average voter paying attention to more than just the glowing soundbites uttered by the mainstream news mediots about the candidate they’ve made it perfectly clear that they support?  I’m not getting the sense that they are.

Bill Maxwell, a black columnist from the St. Petersburg Times, pens another good opinion piece this morning on Barry O. (via ST reader GWR).  Snippets:

You had better mind your manners with regard to Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

You can’t disagree with him. You can’t question the legitimacy of his many platitudes and promises. And you had better watch it when you offer a litany of his flip-flops or point out his crass opportunism.

Be forewarned: If you say, sing, write, draw, paint or sculpt anything unflattering about Obama, expect the Spanish Inquisition. The salvational fervor and unfiltered euphoria surrounding the man have cast a halo around his head. A halo, as you know, suggests something otherworldly.

[...]

That’s what satire used to be about. In the Obama era, however, satire may be satire only if it pokes fun at anyone except the Haloed One. If it pokes fun at Obama or subjects related to the Obamas, it’s described as being “crude,” “tasteless and offensive,” “insensitive,” “racist” and so on.

The hypersensitivity coming from Obama and his minions is dangerous. Does anyone who’s half literate not know that the New Yorker, in its singularly liberal way, lampoons everything and everyone? Nothing, especially a flawed individual, is sacred. That’s a good thing.

If Obama’s swooning, humorless supporters continue to force critics to whisper, to shut up or to explain their artistic renderings, our precious gift and right of free expression will diminish if Obama is elected in November.

These people need to know that some of us cherish free expression. They also need to know that if Obama needs to be protected from the satirist’s rapier, he doesn’t deserve to be the president of the United States of America.

Indeed.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

8 Responses to “Charles Krauthammer on the vanity of Barack Obama”

Comments

  1. alchemist says:

    1) While I don’t agree with Obama’s stand a la New YOrker gate, something just occurred to me…

    Was Krauthammer the guy who wrote part of George Bush’s inaugaral speech, and then after it was read declared it “revoloutionary”.

    Hello, pot. Meet kettle. I think you’ll find a few things in common.

  2. Severian says:

    Keep humping that straw man alchemist, can’t wait to see the baby pics. 8-|

  3. Leslie says:

    ST Ponders about Charles Krauthammer:

    I wonder, though, if he’s right on his assertion that “Americans” (used in a general sense) are catching on to the fact that the guy running for president on the Democrat side has an ego the size of Mt. Rushmore.

    I doubt it. Anyway, it doesn’t matter all that much. You have to have some kind of ego to run for president, and frankly–in line with some of the comments about Joe Biden–I think that Obama would do no better than place if he ran in an ego race with the man from Delaware.
    ;)

    Conservative poljunkies know it, but is the average voter paying attention to more than just the glowing soundbites uttered by the mainstream news mediots about the candidate they’ve made it perfectly clear that they support?

    Probably not. I find this whole thing rather astonishing. If the very modern models of the modern major mediots ever before rushed to cover an overseas trip–a trip that can only be described as a campaign trip–by the, I say, I say suhs, presumptive party nominee, let alone the official one, I am unaware of it.

    I’m not getting the sense that they are.

    Nor do I. And in closing I invite you all to imagine this scene: James Cameron, or Gordon Brown, during the next British election, campaigning at the Statue of Liberty (or for that matter the Brandenburg Gate).

    “All for our vantage. Then, in God’s name, march:
    True hope is swift, and flies with swallow’s wings:
    Kings it makes gods, and meaner creatures kings.”

    –Shakespeare, Richard III, act 5, scene 2
    :d/

  4. Great White Rat says:

    Was Krauthammer the guy who wrote part of George Bush’s inaugaral speech

    Do you have a clue what “inaugural” means? Or are you just adept at missing the point?

    Krauthammer’s talking about the candidate’s opinion of himself – not the columnist’s opinion of a speech. There’s a huge difference between the first speech of an elected president (that’s what an “inaugural address” is, by the way) and a campaign speech by a community agitator and freshman senator with no accomplishments and an inflated ego.

    Krauthammer’s right. If Obama wants a platform reserved for people of accomplishment and courage, let him demonstrate both. To date, he’s shown neither.

  5. Tom TB says:

    I’m sure that are Berliners that grew up eating food brought in by our planes during the airlift, remember JFK and Reagan’s speeches, and will look at Obama and think “Who do you think you are?”

  6. Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg says:

    “His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.”

    Priceless.

  7. benning says:

    Bill Maxwell is a very liberal, perhaps Leftist, columnist for the St. Pete Times. He recently returned from a foray into academia. Perhaps what he saw scared him a tad.

    Anyway, if a liberal black columnist can see the empty suit, I expect others have as well. Only time will tell.

  8. I wonder, though, if he’s right on his assertion that “Americans” (used in a general sense) are catching on to the fact that the guy running for president on the Democrat side has an ego the size of Mt. Rushmore.

    I think he is. Most Americans don’t pay close attention until Fall, but stuff seeps through. I work at a very liberal institution (I’m their token Rightie. :d ), and even co-workers who don’t follow politics have clued in to the “Obama’s ego” theme. One just shook her head over the whole presidential seal mess, and she’s someone who does not follow politics.

    In bits and pieces over the summer, an image will be built of Obama in the average voter’s mind, and it won’t be flattering.