President Obama’s 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft

My husband insisted last night that we watch BHO’s 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft — and then promptly fell asleep because, as he later said, “that was really dull.”  My husband was right.  I managed to stay awake, but it was an effort.  This was my takeaway from the great orator’s talk:

We, uh, I, uh, me, uh, my, uh, our guys,uh, the guys, uh, sending guys, uh, that guy, uh, no guys, uh, my guys, uh, we have “denigrated” the Taliban.

It was that last that woke me up.  Denigrating someone is a verbal accomplishment:  “to speak damagingly of; criticize in a derogatory manner; sully; defame: to denigrate someone’s character.”   For example, I’ve done my fair share of denigrating Barack Obama, although I’d swear there’s nothing defamatory about that, since truth is always a defense.

Certainly, we as a nation have spent the last decade saying nasty things about the Taliban (and al Qaeda), but is that what Obama really meant to say?  Perhaps he misspoke.  Perhaps he meant to say “decimate.”  However, he’s misspoken so often out of manifest ignorance (“corpse-men,” “Austrian language,” etc.), giving him the benefit of the doubt may be too generous.

Aside from a lot of “me” and “I” statements, along with that constant “uh” interjection (which is unbelievably irritating, even when it falls from the mouth of a great orator), there were a few things conspicuously absent from Obama’s talk:  any other people.  It didn’t surprise me that he completely ignored George Bush and the contributions from his administration.  What did surprise me was that he also ignored everyone else.  To hear Barack Hussein Obama tell the story, the whole affair unfolded thanks to Barack Hussein Obama, and a whole bunch of anonymous “guys” and “team” members.

Admittedly, some of the “guys” had to be anonymous, such as the SEALs.  However, once  having worked ones way through his tangle of pronouns and generic verbs, it was clear that occasionally, when Obama used “we,” he was talking about his advisers, rather than his royal self.  Likewise, some of those “guys” to whom he referred were White House people too.  Couldn’t he have been polite enough to name some names, kind of like an Academy Award speech?  The only time he named names was when he identified those to whom he issued orders.  What a little, petty man.

Also, is it just me, or was there something strange about the way in which he only referred to the Special Ops forces involved as “guys.”  Could he have said “our troops,” “our forces,” “our military,” or just about anything else that might raise them above “guys”? This is especially true because he kept referring to bin Laden himself as “this guy” and “that guy.”

It’s pretty clear that Obama’s world isn’t peopled with individuals.  It’s peopled with anonymous faces and bodies who perform tasks for him, including “that guy,” who was good enough to die at Obama’s command, so that a garden-variety political assassination (and that’s what, fundamentally, this was), could be elevated to the Second Coming.

I don’t have a transcript of Obama’s talk to Croft but, if I did, I’d love to do a ranked word count.  I know the thousands of “uhs” won’t show up, but I’d be fascinated to see how many times the words “guy,” “I,” “my” and “we” appeared.

One more thing:  Do you think, as I do, that it would have been infinitely more appropriate for Obama, the brilliant thinker and orator, to have made himself available for a free-wheeling press-conference, rather than to limit himself to straight-line, tightly controlled interview with the worshipful Steve Croft?

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

The Bookworm Turns : A Secret Conservative in Liberal Land,
available in e-format for $4.99 at Amazon or Smashwords.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    “It’s pretty clear that Obama’s world isn’t peopled with individuals. It’s peopled with anonymous faces . . . “

    Yup, afterall, that is his worldview, all them white folks look a like.  Heck, even his grandmother was a “typical white woman.” (Hope that isn’t too snarky – But, I really do believe that Obama hates white people)

    Book, you did much better than me – I could only stand about 5 minutes of listening to drone of the “great orator” before I had to change the channel.

  2. Danny Lemieux says

    “Do you think, as I do, that it would have been infinitely more appropriate for Obama, the brilliant thinker and orator, to have made himself available for a free-wheeling press-conference, rather than to limit himself to straight-line, tightly controlled interview with the worshipful Steve Croft?”

    He can’t. It would be the equivalent of Toto pulling back the curtain on the wizard.
     

  3. SADIE says

    Couldn’t resist sharing this article, since you all know how I enjoy word play and puns.
     
    -snip-
    The most iconic presidents have not necessarily been the most successful, but those who were best able to merge their own biographies with those of the nation at a crucial juncture. Washington’s quiet paternalism, Jackson’s rough confidence, Lincoln’s humble uncertainty, Roosevelt’s boisterous determination, Kennedy’s youthful optimism and Reagan’s momentous situationalism, became shorthand for the Americas of their time. There are fewer liberals on the list, because far fewer liberal presidents have been enough at peace with themselves to accomplish this.
     
    -snip- It is the age of the King of I, who knows nothing and therefore has no need to learn it, who embodies hope for those escaping from themselves. The King of I lives out the dreams of others, but his own sleep is troubled. He has convinced his followers that he has nothing to run from anymore. But the truth is that he has never stopped running. His passionate public love affair with himself is a disguise. An older disguise than his family, but a disguise nonetheless.
    The King of I
     

  4. says

    It is surprising to revisit the Bush years and realize that President Bush gave a heck of a lot more freewheeling, open press conferences and that that used to be the norm.

  5. SADIE says

    Thanks, Indigo Red, for linking the spelling binding in depth interview (strike interview insert 60 Minute DNC promotion).
     
    Bookworm, you held back. I counted at least a half dozen ‘yeahs’ to balance the ‘uhs’.
     
     

  6. Charles Martel says

    I didn’t watch it either. My antipathy for Obama doesn’t consume me, so if I run into him on TV or the Internet, I don’t automatically turn it off. (I wait at least 30 seconds.) Its the sycophancy of the media and little acolytes like Croft that drives me up the wall.

    Also, unlike liberals, I really don’t measure a man’s worth by how glib he is. Ask all the women who ever became pregnant and then abandoned by glib men how well verbal facility served them in the end. I know that Obama is a bright man, but he’s essentially aliterate and ill-educated. Thus his steady stream of gaffes (“denigrated”) as he pretends to a gravitas and intellectual substance he just doesn’t have.

    But notice the hypocrisy here. Two years into Obama and not a peep from Jon Leibowitz or Lawrence O’Donnell, et al., about the man’s inability to speak well extemporaneously. If it had been Bush. . .

    While we conservatives see through the facade, there are many people who can’t or won’t. Obama’s lack of eruditon just isn’t going to be a factor in the 2012 election. The media will, as always, front for him, and given the inarticulateness of so many of his supporters, it just won’t matter. Alas.  

  7. Gringo says

    One more thing:  Do you think, as I do, that it would have been infinitely more appropriate for Obama, the brilliant thinker and orator, to have made himself available for a free-wheeling press-conference, rather than to limit himself to straight-line, tightly controlled interview with the worshipful Steve Croft
     
    I am reminded of JFK’s spontaneous humor in press conferences. Here is a press conference from May 1963- not one where there is much humor in evidence. This was his 56th press conference, in 28 months, an average of about two a month. This much more than Obama has held. Offhand I don’t know how many press conferences Obama has held, but they are a rarity.
     
    Also note how JFK has no difficulty answering questions and explaining his positions.
    I have never watched an Obama speaking. Nor did I spend much time listening to Dubya.
     

  8. Charles Martel says

    Dubya was inarticulate and everybody knew it because nobody tried to cover it up. Obama is fortunate to have the lackeys of the academy and the media continue to pretend that he’s a 180-degree opposite of Bush.

  9. Lyte Lee says

    When you stand behind 40 million aborted children, your whole outlook has to be shaded by anonymous faces who don’t really matter.

  10. says

    So, according to Barack Obama, we “denigrated” the Taliban. How did that work exactly? Like the French Soldier in Monty Python’s Holy Grail?   “I don’t want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries… now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.”

  11. Cathy says

    I think most everything you write is just terrific, Book, but this post is FANTASTIC! (And I’m so glad you fixed your e-mail widget so I can send to my daughters who don’t read blogs!)

    CathyB in Chicago

  12. says

    It’s pretty clear that Obama’s world isn’t peopled with individuals.  It’s peopled with anonymous faces and bodies who perform tasks for him… It’s also populated by a vast array of special interest groups, none of which has a single face, but each of which has a vast amorphous but unique “appearance”: black or female or hispanic or middle eastern or asian. Never generically American, but always, always specially groomed for victimhood.

    Outside of his inner circle, the President knows no-one, and I’m guessing he has no actual friends. I think he closed himself off deliberately a long time ago. If he got to know regular people, he may have learned things about Americans that he really does not want to know. Hence his constant “I” and “me”. He truly is the only one worth his time.

  13. says

     
    Bookworm: Could he have said “our troops,” “our forces,” “our military,” or just about anything else that might raise them above “guys”?

    Obama: 

    “And so at that point you probably had unprecedented cooperation between the CIA and our military in starting to shape an action plan that ultimately resulted in success this week.” 

    “Our Special Forces are the best of the best.” 

    “as outstanding a job as our intelligence teams did — and I cannot praise them enough they did an extraordinary job with just the slenderest of bits of information to piece this all together — at the end of the day, this was still a 55/45 situation. I mean, we could not say definitively that bin Laden was there. Had he not been there, then there would have been significant consequences.”  

    “You know, every time I send young men and women into a war theatre, that’s a tough decision. And, you know, whenever you go to Walter Reed [Army Medical Center] or Bethesda [Naval Hospital] and you see the price that our young people pay to keep this country safe, that’s a tough decision. Whenever you write a letter to a family who’s lost a loved one. It’s sobering.”
     

  14. says

    Bookworm I’d be fascinated to see how many times the words “guy,” “I,” “my” and “we” appeared.

    I, 91
    “And for us to be able to definitively say, “We got the man who caused thousands of deaths here in the United States and who had been the rallying point for a violent extremist jihad around the world” was something that I think all of us were profoundly grateful to be a part of.” 

    my, 17
    “And so my number one concern was: if I send them in, can I get them out?”

    we, 71
    “This was a very difficult decision, in part because the evidence that we had was not absolutely conclusive.”

    That in a dialogue of 5248 words. For comparison, Bush used the word “I” 65 times in the  1866 words of his Farewell Address, about twice as often. 

  15. Charles Martel says

    Chuck Martel notes that the Zach Swarm failed to complete Book’s assignment by not including how many times Obama said “guys.”

  16. SADIE says

    Charles Martel
     
    They did do ‘extra credit’ by comparing Bush’s Farewell Address. And to think, it wasn’t even required, requested or relevant.
     
     

  17. Charles Martel says

    Chuck Martel applauds the ZachBorg’s willingness to accommodate his request for guys. He thinks it is one of The Hive’s more endearing qualities.

  18. says

    SADIE: They did do ‘extra credit’ by comparing Bush’s Farewell Address. And to think, it wasn’t even required, requested or relevant.

    It’s been suggested that the number of personal pronouns is a measure of the rhetoric of a self-serving demagogue, like Hitler. Comparing Obama to another U.S. president would be relevant, then. According to these examples, Bush was only twice as fascist-sounding as Obama—rhetorically speaking, of course. 

  19. Charles Martel says

    Martel notes that the Zach Horde has introduced a word into the discussion that nobody had used in discussing Obama, but that they attach to Bush: fascist. Chuck thinks that perhaps the Basement Cohort let that one slip out unconsciously.

    (Martel notes that sans Wiki or the dictionary, The Swarm has always had a hard time defining fascist. Now that they have suggested a metric—“Bush was only twice as fascist-sounding as Obama”—surely all here will be treated to further explication. However, Chuck also knows that the Zach Clones will wiggle out of that task by claiming they were. . . .wait for it. . . .”rhetorically speaking, of course.”)

  20. Charles Martel says

    Danny, any plans to see it? When I was a kid, I always liked Thor. I thought the Norse gods were more fun—quicker to kick butt than the Greeks.

  21. Danny Lemieux says

    Likewise…my instincts say the flick is a dud but, like you, the romance of the old Norse gods does exert a mighty pull. I suspect that I will succumb and sneak into a local theater with a bag over my face.

  22. says

    I just liked the hot Valkyries that would swoop down and pick up worthy warriors on the battlefield. They were called Choosers of the Slain and those that died on the battlefield would train in preparation to fight Ragnarok, the final battle in which the gods would be destroyed (obviously by Leftists and atheists).

    Hollywood is derivative. They can’t come up with anything original so they have to steal stuff from Gods that they don’t believe in.

    It kinda works like that.

    I recommend watching Battle Los Angeles. But I’ll see whether Thor is worth its weight in iron.

  23. says

    Charles Martel: Martel notes that the Zach Horde has introduced a word into the discussion that nobody had used in discussing Obama, but that they attach to Bush: fascist. Chuck thinks that perhaps the Basement Cohort let that one slip out unconsciously.

    Grayhawk: Is there anyone like Roosevelt or Churchill in the world now? 
    The swastika, mustache, and shouted delivery are 
    dead giveaways, but would we recognize Hitler’s words if we heard them repeated today?

    Perhaps he was referring to Hitler’s love of dogs.

  24. says

    We asked several times for clarification, but it wasn’t forthcoming. We’ve been forced to guess at the point. It apparently applies to Obama. Let’s change the previous sentence, in light of what Martel noted. According to the methodology of counting I’s, we can conclude that 

    Bush was only twice as Hitler-sounding as Obama. 

    Is that correct, then?

  25. Mike Devx says

    Ymar (and CharlesM) : I recommend watching Battle Los Angeles. But I’ll see whether Thor is worth its weight in iron.

    Now that I’m done with my latest software project and on break, I have plenty of time for movies again!  I will see both of these.  And with popcorn!  I’ve read horrible review of Battle Los Angeles, but there were horrible reviews for “Taken” with Liam Neeson as well, and I loved that movie to death.

    (Horrible reviews for Atlas Shrugged, by the way, as well, and while I didn’t love Atlas Shrugged to death, I did find it well worth the price of a matinee admission.)

  26. says

    In answer to your question, Danny, Greyhawk is one of the better known milbloggers.  He matters if you respect him on his own terms (as I do), and if you appreciate his place in the milbog hierarchy.

  27. Danny Lemieux says

    Hi Book

    – the point that I was trying to get Z to make is as follows: why is one milblogger who seems to make an indirect suggestion of “Obama is Hitler” in (from what I could determine) a tongue-in-cheek manner to be considered equivalent to the legions of Left-wing bloggers, commentators, newscasters, academics, students, politicians that pounded the “Bush is Hitler” meme when Bush was in office?

  28. says

    Sorry for being dense, Danny.  If I’d been following the thread more closely, I would have caught that.  As it is, I’d just staggered to my computer after the usual domestic morning (fixing breakfasts and lunch, cleaning, laundry, dog walking, etc.).  My mind simply wasn’t in gear.

  29. Charles Martel says

    Charles Martel believes that if the Zach Swarm, and not Colonel Kurtz, had the the protagonist in “Heart of Darkness,” the great Conrad would have been forced to rename it “Heart of Obtuseness.” Martel notes that the gist of Greyhawk’s comments were that in tenor and topics, Churchill and Roosevelt’s speeches were dramatically different from Hitler’s. Even a cursory read by the Basement Buddies would have showed them the point Greyhawk was getting at.

    But the Collective Contrarians decided to do a mash-up and throw Book’s “I-Me-My-Guys” comments into the mix, all the better to set up their practiced pose of intellectual dismay: “Did we say ‘fascism?’ Goodness, it’s implied in the mash-up we just created! Now, keep answering our questions until we’re satisfied that you have accepted the words we are putting in your mouths.”

    Martel says, in impeccable Frankish, “Tut, tut.”

  30. says

    Danny Lemieux: Who’s Greyhawk and why does he/she matter?

    He is Bookworm’s citation on the “On Leadership” thread, to which you have also contributed. We’ve been attempting to get some clarification on the point being made. No one is very clear on the point, but the closest appears to be that Obama is Hitler-sounding, or uses Hitlerian rhetorical flourishs. This was supposed to have something to do with the personal pronoun, and if so, then Bush was twice as Hitlerian as Obama.
     
    Danny Lemieux: why is one milblogger who seems to make an indirect suggestion of “Obama is Hitler” in (from what I could determine) a tongue-in-cheek manner to be considered equivalent to the legions of Left-wing bloggers, commentators, newscasters, academics, students, politicians that pounded the “Bush is Hitler” meme when Bush was in office?

    Greyhawk doesn’t appear to be kidding. But perhaps Bookworm was making fun of the comparison. If so, kudos for the exceptional drollness. 
     

     

     

  31. says

    I’ve actually read a few of Hitler’s speeches, rather than believed whatever I was told about them by other people.

    Hitler sounded like a socialist and so did Obama in all those speeches promising the moon and stars.

  32. says

    The more horrible reviews come in, the more I like Battle LA. Same may be true for Thor now.

    Thor isn’t bad. Best character development for the main character. The heroine is very attractive and has a striking profile. Very good kingship from Odin.

    Unlike the weird CGI movie called Star Wars 1-3, Natalie Portman was given a substantially human role. It was rather fun watching her facial expressions. I think she got the “nervous cute” style there.

    Hollywood movies still don’t do special attacks well in order to individualize warriors and heroes. I would have preferred a more Japanese style utilizing named special attacks and slow motion capture in order to grasp the fundamental fighting techniques of Thor’s subordinates. There’s something special about the wind up to a hero’s special attack, initiated by the hero verbalizing the name of the attack. By attaching a name to the fighter on screen, it forms a much stronger attachment. For example, I have no idea what the names of Thor’s subordinates are because they don’t get much screen time. Mumbling people’s names isn’t going to form any connections. That’s a detriment of Hollywood directing styles that hasn’t changed yet.

    Hollywood writers are seemingly coming up with semi-original ideas. Asgard isn’t quite the same as the legendary Asgard, though some things are similar such as Odin’s eye and Loki. They made enough substantial changes that I won’t categorize it as copying or plagiarism. 

    Now you have two ways to figure out which movies are good. If Hollywood and the Obamanation nation of ignorant wannabe aesthetes hate a movie. Or if it is personally recommended by like minded fellows.

  33. Charles Martel says

    Ymarsakar, the Nazi program was very much socialist in nature. It certainly got a helping hand from Bismarck, who decided to thwart potential worker unrest by buying the people off with a welfare state. Even when they were running around murdering Jews and acting all racially superior, the Germans were socialists at heart.

    What’s funny is that Hitler essentially favored a state-business condominium that looks much like the economic model a couple of people who regularly visit this site are so fond of.

  34. says

    They like centralized culture and the Germans to this day are still orderly and focused much on authority and monolithic cultural values. You can tell because the Muslim crazyness in Britain and France? I never hear much of it in Germany.

    The Germans had a cultural belief in order and efficiency on their side. All we have are A through Z and places like Detroit and Chicago to “make it work”. I don’t think I believe that’ll make anything work for me.

    In Japan, when disaster struck, you could simply pass out emergency supplies and the local citizens would pass it fairly on to the residents of the neighborhood, making little distinction between stranger, elderly, family, or young.

    What do you think would happen if we tried that out in California, Marty?

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply