Monday, January 12, 2015

“It’s fair to say that we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there."
     -Josh Earnest, White House spokesman.


Why didn't you? He was asked that; he didn't answer. Obama, personally, needs to answer that question. Really answer it. "Why?" Not say I'm sorry, I should have. Earnest has done that. Obama, personally, needs to explain. Explain his thinking, the decision-making. Because there are all these things out there now: what I wrote yesterday and what David Brooks wrote on January 8 and what Jay Carney said about the Mohammad-asshole cartoon in 2012--that Obama was not going to "stand with" Charlie-frigging Hebdo!

There's out there now that he doesn't like Europe--No, really--he was asked one time why he always seemed so eager to leave Europe when he visited; I've read that he reacted with mumbled surprise, obviously mystified that anyone would think that.

There's out there that he is not a top-down manager, that if he had said "I want to go, I must go," that obviously he would have damn well gone! but that he never said. He never said. He just sort of...went with it, you know? No, we don't know! What do you mean, you just went with it. Went with WHAT?! Went with what with whom? Valerie Jarrett? Susan Rice? Michelle? Who did you speak with about this? What did they say? What did you say? What went into this non-decision-making decision making?

There's out there's now that he's not a leader, that he does not want to be a leader, that he doesn't want the United States to be a leader.

There's talk that he couldn't go because there's something BIG coming--No, really--like some big NATO thing.

There's talk that there is NOTHING big coming, that he didn't think what had happened was SO big that he ought to have gone, that he views Europe as a giant "puzzle," he views the puzzle intellectually, coldly, not emotionally, humanly.

So yeah, there's all this talk and Obama's got to do all the talking now.