Obama didn’t intend to offend Britain: he’s just in way over his head

March 8th, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

brown obamaWhen a Brit complains of ill treatment for days you can be sure he’s truly angry. The Obama administration now also finally realizes this and has decided to apologize or at least explain the rude treatment Brown received away.

The defense? Obama doesn’t dislike Britain nor its Prime Minister Gordon Brown. It’s just that he’s in way over his head:

Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been “overwhelmed” by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.

British officials, meanwhile, admit that the White House and US State Department staff were utterly bemused by complaints that the Prime Minister should have been granted full-blown press conference and a formal dinner, as has been customary. They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister. …

Allies of Mr Obama say his weary appearance in the Oval Office with Mr Brown illustrates the strain he is now under, and the president’s surprise at the sheer volume of business that crosses his desk.

A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama’s inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to “even fake an interest in foreign policy”. …

The American source said: “Obama is overwhelmed. There is a zero sum tension between his ability to attend to the economic issues and his ability to be a proactive sculptor of the national security agenda.

“That was the gamble these guys made at the front end of this presidency and I think they’re finding it a hard thing to do everything.”

Much better isn’t it? I mean it’s always better to be incompetent than rude, no?

“He’s in over his head.” He’s “overwhelmed.” Even if he is, you don’t say so. What moron thought of this excuse? It makes Obama look weak and, well, simply a horrible president who had no clue about what it meant to be president when he announced his candidacy and who now realizes he can’t deal with it. That’s not exactly a signal the most powerful country in the world can afford to send at a time when its enemies are becoming increasingly aggressive, let alone when a terrible economic crisis has hit the country resulting in many millions of unemployed Americans worrying about how they can provide for their families and employed Americans worrying about whether or not they will still be employed next week.

I’ve said it once but I’ll say it again: it’s amateur hour in the White House.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. jrshipley
    March 8th, 2009 at 03:06
    Reply | Quote | #1

    I realize that the Republicans want Obama to fail. They say that its Obama and not America that they want to fail. But why then, in a financial crisis, are Republicans holding up the appointment of key financial advisers like Austan Goolsbee. Not would be a good time to stop the talk about failure and stop obstructing. Of course Obama is in over his head. He’s stepped into the presidency with an ecological, economic, and foreign policy crisis–a triple whammy no president has ever faced. ANYONE would be in over their head. He needs his advisers. Stop obstructing. Stop wanting your country to fail. Stop prostrating yourself to drug addled bloviaters. Its time for Republicans to stop playing petty games.

  2. Justin Gardner
    March 8th, 2009 at 05:09
    Reply | Quote | #2

    You honestly can’t be serious with this Michael? This is evidence of the administration being pathetic, incompetent and amateur? Wow.

  3. repsac3
    March 8th, 2009 at 05:27
    Reply | Quote | #3

    Hey… Isn’t that a Murdoch paper making all those complaints?
    Of course it is…
    Why am I not surprised…

  4. T-Steel
    March 8th, 2009 at 05:28
    Reply | Quote | #4

    I going to wait on this. For some reason I really don’t trust The Telegraph on this one. Something just smells about this story. I could be wrong. But….

  5. Noga
    March 8th, 2009 at 05:53
    Reply | Quote | #5

    “Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been “overwhelmed” by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.”

    I watched just a day or two ago a report on CNN on how the Obamas like partying and they have already thrown six or seven parties in the White House since they moved in. Hardly the kind of social activities people do when they are tired, overwhelmed and in need of rest, no?

    “- The White House is the place to be on Wednesdays.

    Since the presidency changed hands less than six weeks ago, a burst of entertaining has taken hold of the iconic, white-columned home of America’s head of state. Much of it comes on Wednesdays.

    The stately East Room, where portraits of George and Martha Washington adorn the walls, was transformed into a concert hall as President Barack Obama presented Stevie Wonder with the nation’s highest award for pop music on Wednesday.

    A week before that, the foot-stomping sounds of Sweet Honey in the Rock, a female a cappella group, filled the East Room for a Black History Month program first lady Michelle Obama held for nearly 200 sixth- and seventh-graders from around the city.

    Cocktails were sipped during at least three such receptions to date, all held on Wednesdays.

    Bookending the midweek activity were a Super Bowl party for select Democratic and Republican lawmakers and a dinner for governors, the new administration’s first black-tie affair. It was capped with a performance by the 1970s pop group Earth, Wind and Fire. And a conga line.

    The flurry of entertaining is in keeping with the Obamas’ promise to make the White House a more open place for everyone. ”

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090302/Obama_whouse_090302/20090302?hub=Entertainment

  6. Cernig
    March 8th, 2009 at 06:40
    Reply | Quote | #6

    Tim Shipman at the Dully Torygraph as a reliable reporter? Sheesh. He’s long been a reliable conduit for vested conservative interests in Washington. The Telegraph has been pushing this for all it’s worth for days. They get a twofer: suggesting that Obama wouldn’t hate Britain (and insult their readers’ hyper-nationalism so much) if the PM had any personality (like say, that nice fellow David Cameron) while at the same time suggesting, for both domestic and US-internet readers, that Obama’s a wannabe-Superstar and Grumpy Gordon doesn’t just doesn’t cut it in the photo-ops department. However, note that it’s only UK conservative papers driving this myth-take rather than a real general outrage.

    Regards, Steve

  7. mjB
    March 8th, 2009 at 11:40
    Reply | Quote | #7

    not only is he quite possibly LAZY, but a confirmed narcissist–and milking the crisis to propel his agenda of social spending while dragging his feet on actually addressing the financial crisis.

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1543285/the_ploy_of_inaction.html?singlepage=true&cat=75

    mB

  8. C Stanley
    March 8th, 2009 at 14:32
    Reply | Quote | #8

    I have to agree with T-Steel that this doesn’t pass the sniff test, and Cernig may well be right about the role of this British journalist.

    However, that just shows why it really was a sign of incompetence to flub the normal gift protocol. My question when this first came to light was, who was responsible? I don’t think for one minute that the president typically would personally see to the gift choices- there must be a staff member who deals with that. The choice of DVDs as a gift for head of state certainly sounds like a faux pas by a very young staffer who perhaps is completely unaware of the types of gifts that are normally exchanged.

    But messing up something like this (especially as part of a series of flubs, starting with one awkward event which is a little more understandable, Obama sending back the bust of Churchill, and then continuing through the tepid reception that Brown received and then Obama ducking out of a full press avail) only gives an opportunity for reporters like this one to take advantage of an opportunity to stir the pot.

  9. Dan
    March 8th, 2009 at 23:15
    Reply | Quote | #9

    Maybe he should just sit out at his Crawford ranch while Al Qaeda plans a massive terror attack.

    Whoops, that was the last guy. Your precious Bush II did worse.

  10. Michael Merritt
    March 10th, 2009 at 02:07

    Dan, and maybe Clinton shouldn’t have ignored the warning signs as well.

    Stops spewing the scripts.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.