We at Big Pink wrote Obama was a narcissist back in October 2007. In Obama The Clown (yup, we knew he was a Clown by November 2007 too) we wrote “Obama, narcissistic as ever… Obama simply cannot get enough of himself. Beneath the mask, is a mask.”
Obama The Clown was a discussion of a Saturday Night Live skit. In Obama The Clown we included many observations about Obama which we have noted over the years. In retrospect we laugh at how accurate we have been. In that SNL skit Obama attacked Hillary Clinton as a witch and Brian Williams hosted the show (Brian worried about his “journalistic integrity” possibly compromised if he appeared on the show. We mocked and laughed and laughed at the thought of “journalistic integrity” from NBC.)
Our comments section too is a library of awareness that Obama is a narcissist. Basement Angel made repeated references to Obama’s narcissism (here, and here, and here, and here, and Michelle too – HERE), along with other commentors (here, and here).
Michelle Obama knows Barack Obama is a narcissist too. In June of this year, we quoted something that surprisingly has been ignored even by “Hillary support” websites. Why anyone ignores these quotes he difficult to fathom. This is what we wrote, that no one seems to want to face up to:
When Bobby Rush defeated Barack Obama (Bobby Rush called Obama “an educated fool”, Bill Clinton campaigned for Bobby Rush, which might explain Obama’s hate of Bill) for a congressional race, Michelle recognized what she was married to and Obama recognized what he was married to. We agree with Bobby Rush, Michelle, and Barack in their assessements:
“She was angry at his selfishness and careerism; he thought she was cold and ungrateful.”
That Obama/Michelle assessment by the people who know best is pretty much what we have been saying for a long time.
What is narcissism?
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the diagnostic classification system used in the United States, as “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy.”
The narcissist is described as turning inward for gratification rather than depending on others and as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, and prestige. Narcissistic personality disorder is closely linked to self-centeredness. It is also colloquially referred to as “the God complex.”
We do not need to describe the Mess-iah symptoms in Obama, nor how Obama’s disordered personality harms others. But let’s indulge ourselves.
* * * * *
“…two events have revealed a side of President Obama that we knew little about. First came his remark in July when he said at a press conference that the police who arrested Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates had acted “stupidly.”
The unrehearsed remark triggered controversy right at a time when Democrats needed to focus public attention on health care.
And last week, at a climactic moment for the health care debate in the Senate, Obama suddenly went to make a personal pitch for holding the 2016 Summer Olympics in Chicago, Illinois.
When the International Olympic Committee said no to the president’s hometown in the first round of voting, and then gave the event to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Obama suffered an embarrassing defeat. The late-night comedians and his political foes were predictably chomping at the bit.
Zelizer is oblivious that his assessment of Obama is off target. The proper analysis of Obama is that of a flim-flam confidence man severely stunted by his narcissism.
Zelizer is right about this at least:
Part of what we are seeing might come from the fact that Obama did not start his term in the White House with much Washington experience. This is an individual who moved from being state senator to U.S. senator to president within a very short time span.
Why didn’t CNN exert efforts when it mattered to explain the above? Only now do we hear that inexperience might be a problem.
* * * * *
Martin Peretz, the publisher of the PINO New Republic magazine enabled the flim-flam narcissist during the election campaigns. In a review of a review of the book Why Are Jews Liberal? (Doubleday 2009) we find a quick discussion of Peretz:
If the Israelis can be forced to make a humiliating and potentially dangerous concession, and the US can betray previous commitments to Israel then maybe – just maybe – the Muslim world will trust the US to be evenhanded and abandon its longstanding and implacable opposition to the existence of a Jewish State in the Middle East.
Wieseltier’s editor at the New Republic, Martin Peretz, was one of the pro-Israel liberals who put his credibility on the chopping-block for Obama the candidate during the summer of 2008, when Commentary magazine and other conservative venues brought to light a pattern of Obama’s anti-Israel associations, including his chief Senatorial aide for foreign policy Anne Power. A poster-child for the concept of buyer’s remorse, Peretz has been hammering on the same points on his blog, The Spine. One recent entry insists that the “moderate” wing of Palestinian politics remains committed to terrorism and the destruction of the State of Israel. Peretz is even disgusted with Obama:
Frankly, I am sick and tired of President Obama’s eldering–more accurately, hectoring–Israel’s leaders. It is, after all, they whose country is the target of an armed and ideological cyclone that Obama has done precious little to ease. He brought nothing back from Riyadh and Cairo, absolutely nothing except the conviction of the Arab leaders that they need do nothing but sit and wait until the president squeezes one concession after another out of Jerusalem.
It was on precisely such grounds that Norman Podhoretz opposed Obama in the last election; one might say that it was in stark staring denial of the available facts that Peretz supported Obama.
At Big Pink today, we won’t veer into a discussion of Israel and Podhoretz (although we are tempted with lines like this from the article: “Marty Peretz is just as skeptical as he is – but why Jewish liberals like Peretz have not repudiated Obama altogether. The answer is obvious. For Democratic liberals to break with Obama would be the political equivalent of a suicide bombing. They might damage Obama, but at the expense of placing themselves on the sidelines indefinitely.“) We will discuss Obama’s narcissism.
Marty Peretz, a Big Media PINO, enabled Obama during the elections last year. What does Peretz say now? Why looky here, Peretz thinks Obama is a narcissist too:
While the New York Times house “conservative,” David Brooks, continues to shower love upon President Barack Obama, editor-in-chief Marty Peretz of the liberal New Republic has become highly critical of The One. Just how critical? Well, here is Peretz using a Financial Times report on the humiliating Olympic snub of Obama in Copenhagen as the platform to launch a withering critique of the president’s self-defeating attitude:
As the FT went on to say, the IOC “delivered an astonishing snub” to the president “by eliminating Chicago in the first round of voting.” Chicago was dumped before Madrid was dumped and before Tokyo was dumped. Had the Obama folk not done any canvassing which would have alerted them to the fact that they were jet-setting to a humiliation? Maybe Michelle’s presence added to the over-confident sense of invincibility. Moreover, how could they lose with Oprah Winfrey in tow?
Ouch! And from this Olympic defeat, Peretz ponders just how effective Obama can be on the diplomatic stage:
So this question arises: If Obama could not get Chicago over the finish line in Copenhagen, which was a test only of his charms, how will he persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear weapons capacity or the Arabs, to whom he has tilted (we are told) only tactically, to sit down without their 60 year-old map as guide to what they demand from Israel.
And now for the money quote:
What I suspect is that the president is probably a clinical narcissist. This is not necessarily a bad condition if one maintains for oneself what the psychiatrists call an “optimal margin of illusion,” that is, the margin of hope that allows you to work. But what if his narcissism blinds him to the issues and problems in the world and the inveterate foes of the nation that are not susceptible to his charms?
If Obama is a “clinical narcissist” that would make the MSM his enablers since months before he was elected president, they were already portraying him in images and print as having a saintly halo image.
Peretz concludes with a “nervy query”:
I know that the president believes himself a good man. My nervy query to him is: “Does he believe America to be a good country?”
Peretz now agrees with us that Obama is a narcissist. At some point Peretz will find Obama’s answer to the query is “No”. After all, Michelle did not think the United States was worth being proud of until the Obamas were getting their narcissistic due.
* * * * *
George Will, after dining with Obama, is getting a grasp on what we knew years ago. Will has some late in the day insights:
In the Niagara of words spoken and written about the Obamas’ trip to Copenhagen, too few have been devoted to the words they spoke there. Their separate speeches to the International Olympic Committee were so dreadful, and in such a characteristic way, that they might be symptomatic of something that has serious implications for American governance.
Both Obamas gave heartfelt speeches about … themselves. Although the working of the committee’s mind is murky, it could reasonably have rejected Chicago’s bid for the 2016 games on aesthetic grounds — unless narcissism has suddenly become an Olympic sport.
If narcissism was an Olympic sport we know the Obamas would share top spot (Tim Russert would heave himself from the Stygian depths to claim silver and bronze). George Will continues witness of the Obama personality disorder:
In the 41 sentences of her remarks, Michelle Obama used some form of the personal pronouns “I” or “me” 44 times. Her husband was, comparatively, a shrinking violet, using those pronouns only 26 times in 48 sentences. Still, 70 times in 89 sentences was sufficient to convey the message that somehow their fascinating selves were what made, or should have made, Chicago’s case compelling.
Will’s numbers do give the gold to lemony Michelle in the narcissism Olympics. We at Big Pink will be fair and award each Obama the mirror prize.
George Will fears the possibility that B.O. was sincere about M.O.:
It was gallant of the president to say to the Olympic committee that Michelle is “a pretty big selling point for the city.” Gallant, but obviously untrue. And — this is where we pass from the merely silly to the ominous — suppose the president was being not gallant but sincere. Perhaps the premise of the otherwise inexplicable trip to Denmark was that there is no difficulty, foreign or domestic, that cannot be melted by the sunshine of the Obama persona. But in the contest between the world and any president’s charm, bet on the world.
The delusions caused by Barack Obama’s narcissism deluded many others into thinking Chicago would host the 2016 Olympics. Reality intruded into that 2016 delusion.
What if, as Marty Peretz asks: “what if his narcissism blinds him to the issues and problems in the world and the inveterate foes of the nation…?” We believe without doubt the narcissism indeed does blind them.
We further believe, as George Will only questioned, that Barack Obama and Michelle Obama do narcissistically believe in the power of their charms (recall “To know me is to love me.”). This is a dangerous megalomaniacal belief.
America and the world are about to have many other delusions shattered – delusions fathered and mothered by the latest narcissistic couple from Hell.