Count me as irritable on the subject, but President Obama's imperious habit of suggesting that American diplomats work for him is offensive to democratic sensibilities.
Which is odd since they pretty much do work for him.
Also, Imperious? Really? This seems to be a common theme for right-wing critics of Barack Obama. They like to say he's "arrogant" or "aloof" or "elitist." My assumption is that they think it is the height of arrogance for Obama to act like he's really the president, or that he has any right to be president. Do a google search fro Obama + arrogant. I just did one and it returned 7,900,000 results. Results like:
The Arrogance Of The Obama Administration Will Bankrupt Us ...
And it would be one thing if he seemed at all arrogant, but Barack Obama? He's conciliatory to a fault. He doesn't strike me arrogant at all.
In the second presidential debate last fall, when the Benghazi matter came up, the president responded: "Well, let me ... talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation [sic]. And these aren't just representatives of the United States; they're my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm's way. I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody's more concerned about their safety and security than I am."
He's concerned about their safety? The arrogance!
And he is, in fact, the person who sends them out. So what's the problem here? Hell if I know.
Then she adds this snide little aside:
(I wish Candy Crowley had asked what the names of the four dead Americans were. But, as we discovered, she had other plans that night.)
First of all, I guarantee you he would have known the names. No way would he have gone into a debate that unprepared. Secondly, what "plans" did Candy Crowley have? The plan to not let Mitt Romney's falsehoods go unremarked upon? Was that her nefarious scheme?
Last week during a press conference, the president again described the murdered Americans as "people I sent into the field."
She keeps bringing this up as if it were some sort of obvious faux pas, but they were literally people whom he had sent into the field. So what's the objection? It isn't clear. If he hadn't said something like this, she would have attacked him for passing the buck or failing to face up to his responsibilities or something. I think it just grates on her that this particular person is president, and so anything he says that reminds her of that fact offends her.
White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer, emphasizing the president's deep concern, noted, "This is a horrible tragedy, people that he sent abroad whose lives are at risk, people who work for him."No. Ambassadors and other officers of the Foreign Service represent the United States of America. They are not the personal envoys of Barack H. Obama.
Well, yes and no. They are employed by the State Department, at the president's pleasure, which is the agency tasked with carrying out the president's foreign policy, so they kinda represent both the United States AND the President. Or, as you quoted Obama as saying " these aren't just representatives of the United States; they're my representatives. I send them there."
The president sets our nation's foreign policy, Mona. Even if the president is black!
(I shouldn't so lightly accuse someone of racism, but I really can't see any other reason why she would be so undies-in-a-knot over a sitting president stating basic facts about the state department)
(which reminds me)
Anything this president does is an outrage to the mouth-breathers on the right. Even if it is something that other presidents have done routinely, like use a teleprompter or play golf. Maybe a white Democratic president would have been treated just as badly. They certainly accused Bill Clinton of everything from rape to drug trafficking to outright murder before settling on having received oral, so who knows. Maybe it's not based entirely on racism. But it's still dickhole behavior and it isn't good for America.