Those who look upon Obama's European trip as "hubris" are generally those who look upon the rest of the world with disdain. I had no problem at all with his trip or his speech in Berlin. Was it presumptive? I don't think so. Rather, it was an opportunity to make contact with world leaders and to make a first impression with them and with the people of Europe. Obama, it would seem is one of the few people who see the importance and value of working with the rest of the world.

The jingoistic view that so many Americans maintain did, in fact, work against Obama with respect to subsequent polling. Obviously, the trip was risky.

True to form, the Republicans have thrown out any pretense at maintaining positive campaign. Instead, they have thrown their entire focus on negative character slams against Obama. All the dedicated Rovists are obviously on board McCain's "straight talk express".

I do think it's curious why McCain's "flip-flops," his memory lapses, his maloprops don't seem to register. I guess he's just such a great a guy that all that stuff doesn't matter. Of course, if elected, we will be awaiting with bated breath as McCain's arteries continue to harden, and he wakes up one morning in the Oval Office wondering where the hell he is. Never fear though, he will undoubtedly be able to turn over the reigns to the able mitts of uh, Mitt.

B

Wikipedia defines Hubris thusly:

Hubris, sometimes spelled hybris (ancient Greek ὕβρις), is a term used in modern English to indicate overweening pride, self-confidence, superciliousness, or arrogance...

I think that accurately describes pretty nearly every American politician of the last 100 years, including all the current (and immediate past) presidential and vice presidential candidates.

Therefore, I agree with the author's basic premise:

"Politics, Thy Name is Hubris."

Perhaps, but that doesn't get us very far. A certain amount of hubris is necessary for anyone to consider a run for political office. The same can be said for an aspiring actor or pretty much any type of entertainer or artist. The same can also be said for anyone setting their sights on any endeavor which would ultimately place them in some way above the norm.

So, in that light, is hubris a bad thing? It is, I think, a fine squiggly line. I simply don't think Obama has crossed it, at least not seriously. (The Obamamania Presidential Seal was a step or two over the line. Thankfully, I believe they made frisbees or coasters out of them.)

Obviously, John Edwards leaped across his squiggly line and then tried unsuccessfully to squirm his way back. My wife says simply that Edwards is a dog. (She also now applies that same moniker to Morgan Freeman. Guys, even great actors, don't get it. There's no free hump, er, I mean lunch.)

Given the incredible ordinariness and lack of sophistication of GWB, and yes, the incredible hubris of Bubba Clinton, we've come to expect our president to display some baseness that puts him (or, someday, perhaps, her) on a more level plain with the rest of us. Perhaps it is that Obama hasn't shown us that side of himself that many consider him too audacious and aloof.

Personally, I think it would be a welcome change to have someone in the White House who actually brings back a higher sense of what it means to be "presidential." With McCain, we get just another "aw shucks - I'm just a simple homespun sorta guy like ya'll." (Who happens to be married to a multi-million dollar heiress.) Frankly, I've had enough of that bullshit.

There are those now who lambast Obama for being "just another liberal," or "just another 'politics as usual' candidate." Yet, when he does something different, something unexpected or out of the ordinary such as his European trip, the same people jump on him for it.

They lambasted Obama for NOT visiting the wounded troops in Germany. Had he done so, the same people would have lambasted him for "using" them as political props. The fact is, his detractors would likely find a way to criticize Obama for the way he wipes his ass if his method was made public. - "He uses his left hand, can you imagine?" "He uses too much (or too little) paper. He doesn't fold the paper, he just wads it up. You can't get up there and clean it that way." or "He folds the paper like some priss. Why doesn't he just wad it up like the rest of us do? Who does he think he is? Does he think he's got some kind of golden ass hole? Uh, that's right isn't it? Most of us just wad it up, right?"

I can only hope that the way he and Michelle do the nasty doesn't come to light. I'd hate to see him accused of bedroom hubris.

B

Thanks for this cautionary fairy tale. It reminds me of all the reasons I will never be a politician.

Dan - That's a big stretch to think that satire is easily grasped, especially around here!

Au contrair. The satire was noted - even appreciated - but the intent was also clear.

I believe I responded in kind.

B

Au contraire, that is.

B

Baritone,

Glad you caught the satire. Deserved or not, I think Senator Obama is increasingly seen as having a bit too much hubris. Sure, all politicians and folk in public life need some. We all do. However, now that the comedians have found him an appropriate target for their jabs, he had better watch what he does.

The perhaps transitory glory in which he was able to cloak himself in Berlin supports this view. Just look at the aircraft which he leased and had substantially modified to jet domestically and around the world; it does not bespeak humility; we rather like some evidence of humility in candidates, provided it is not an act. Golda Meir is said to have rebuked someone for his excessive humility: "You aren't great enough to be humble." There has to be a balance, and I am afraid that Senator Obama has come to put too much stock in the adulation accorded him by the media. Should Senator Obama become the President, Air Force One will be something of a comedown.

There were parts of his Berlin speech which I actually liked, other parts which I saw as a tad short on historical perspective, and parts which I (and probably others) viewed as needlessly messianic. The latter helped the commedians, and hurt Senator Obama.

Dan

Dan, I've got to criticize this article, just because I usually praise you syncophantically. This isn't really a satirical article as much as an article about satire. With that out of the way, what did Morgan Freeman do?

Baronius

I pondered whether to label it satire or opinion, and so did my esteemed editor. Satire seemed to me to be the best label, since one of a few provided labels is required.

I'll bite. What did Morgan Freeman do? As I recall (and as confirmed by a very brief Google search) he was an actor.

Dan

Profet(ess)? It-it's those damned feminist-communists again? I hope I never fly with a pilotess.

Shorthly after Morgan Freeman had his accident, it also became public that Freeman and his wife are divorcing owing to his daliance with another woman. While my wife (and I) loves him as an actor her opinion of him tumbled owing to his indescretions. Freeman has been relegated to my wife's proverbial dog house.

B

IMO, B-tone, the ONLY thing about actors one should take seriously is whether or not (and how well) they can ACT, nothing more.

Acting (and being a celebrity) doesn't make one more intelligent than others; on the contrary, acting (especially in film, as opposed to live on stage) doesn't require more than modest intelligence, the ability to read, and the ability to follow instructions from the director, and most Hollywood actors don't display much intelligence in their public lives and utterances.

Their personal lives are irrelevant to their ability to portray a character, and since, unlike politicians, we don't have to trust them, what they do in their marriages is not really relevant.

It's best not to pay any attention to them except in their roles.

Clav,

Well put. Might I offer a parallel comment?

IMO, B-tone, the ONLY thing about actors politicians one should taken seriously is whether or not (and how well) they can ACT, nothing more.

Acting (and being a celebrity politician doesn't make one more intelligent than others; on the contrary, acting (especially in film, as opposed to live on stage on television) doesn't require more than modest intelligence, the ability to read, and the ability to follow instructions from the director, and most Hollywood actors politicians don't display much intelligence in their public lives and utterances.

Their personal lives are irrelevant only to their ability to portray a character set a moral tone, in which we have little interest in any event, and since, unlike politicians, we don't have to trust them, what they do in their marriages is not really relevant but highly entertaining and therefore newsworthy.

It's best not to pay any attention to them except in their roles.

Respectfully submitted,

Dan

Nice editing job, Dan!

I like it...

Clav,

You obviously have a low opinion of film actors.

I spent a good deal of my younger years as an actor. While film and stage acting are quite different, your characterization of film acting is a bit unfair, and not altogether accurate, at least in some cases.

Certainly, it takes little acting talent to perform in your average action movie or the dumb down comedies so prevalent now. But good performances in good films require far more than looking good for the camera.

As to their personal lives, I do believe in what Bogart once told the press when asked why he had rebuffed an autograph seeker when eating at a New York restaurant. Bogart said that "all [he} owed the public was a good performance," further citing that the rest is nobody's business. (Bogart is also cited as telling the same thing to a young Frank Sinatra.)

Morgan Freeman, IS (not was) a truly fine actor. His private life has not been trotted out in the media much as he is an old fart at age 71.

Actually, I don't concern myself much with the private lives of any celebrities. My wife simply made the comment as an adjunct to the Edwards disclosure. I pretty much accept the Bogart analysis.

B

Clavos re #13, well that certainly explains Ronald Reagan!

Dan,

Consider the hutsba it takes to run for president; to even think you could run for president. The thing that seems to bother so many regarding Obama is that he's got style - pretty much the opposite of about anybody who's ever run for the office with the exception of JKF. We'll see if voters come November are put off by his supposed hubris.

The comics had to find something to use on Obama. Should he win, there will likely be more elements of Obama's persona that they will pick up on. It's inevitable. How Obama responds will be just as important. As long has he can take the little comic jabs in good humor and laugh at himself, I don't see it having any particularly detrimental effect.

Look at what the comics have done to Bush and Bubba over the years (most of it deserved IMO,) and yet the little creep and the cocksman both won 2 terms in office.

B

B-tone,

I have acted (and continue to do so) both on stage and in films since my teens (though my film work is mostly on TV and with only a few speaking parts, except in commercials).

Even the really big stars wind up having take after take shot until they get it right; not all retakes are the actors' fault, in fact many are lighting retakes, but nonetheless, unlike stage actors, the film people don't have to get it right the first time and every time.

And no, I don't have a very high opinion of most Hollywood actors, especially the current crop. One I do have an enormous amount of respect for, not only in regard to his mastery of the craft, but also his brains, is Jon Voight, whom I got to chat with quite a bit during the filming of Ali, here in Miami. I also found both Will Smith and his wife to be good people on that same shoot. OTOH, Ron Silver, as I was told is often the case, was a jerk on that set.

Dan, don't you find it telling that today's comedians use the jokes they used to make about vice-presidents on Bush?

Not that there's anything funny about Chenney; the poor man had to shoot a collegue in the face just to get our attention!

"The thing that seems to bother so many regarding Obama is that he's got style"

Not it at all really!

The thing that seems to bother so many regarding Obama is that style is all he has so he has't to make it a hubris style.

Style is like bread, hungry voters what to know where the beef is. Everytime they think they have found it, he flip-flops and the beef disappears again, leaving a hungre voter with nothing but hubris bread to eat.

That diet get old fast!

Clav,

I've done most of my acting on stage. However, the bottom half of me is in the film "Eight Men Out."

While I didn't get into "Hoosiers," I wrote some articles about its production and in the process got to meet and talk with both Gene Hackman who was very gracious and interesting and Dennis Hopper who was a little nuts but was really fun to be around.

The world of celebrity has taken on an aspect that is wholly otherworldly. "Stars" have always lived lives on a different plain than the rest of us. I imagine it is difficult to remain unaffected. A lot of them are pretty much crazy. What bothers me is that so many supposed "super stars" have no discernible talent. Some can't really do anything. They just have a look.

While writing this, I have watched Michael Phelps in a short interview in Beijing. At least at this juncture, he is a guy who seems to have remained humble and yet is unarguably the best at what he does. But, down the road depending on how his "star" rises, we will see how all that plays out for him.

B

Interesting that Edwards' name only came up in passing on this thread. I notice that there haven't been any articles about him, either.

This Edwards story makes me feel sad. No anger, no cynicism, no schadenfreude. There's always been a hint of Willy Loman about Edwards, the guy who thinks he can talk his way to the top, despite the fact that he's sliding downhill. He's not interesting enough to be a Spitzer or a Craig. He's just an ordinary guy who fell for that most common temptation.

The only real lessons in all of this are about the laziness of the press, and even those are things we already knew.

Perhaps Mr. B, America wants a government run on talent, and not by the National Enquirer. John F. Kennedy slept around constantly while in office, but he was respected for what he did for his nation and left the gossip to Jackie to deal with, as it should be.

With the religious Far-right taking over politics in the last 20 years demanding that government kiss their ass in return for guaranteed votes, you can be condemned for not blessing somone who sneezed in the same room if they think it would help their cause in smearing who they oppose.

Eisenhower
Truman

Great men, but a little weak and yes the press protected them and let them do their job... then Bill Clinton was caught lying to his wife about an affair, and since the congress couldn't convict him of not a single one of those trumped-up and politically motivated whitewater charges, they tried to impeach him for lying about having an affair, probably something a third of all husbands in this country are probably guilty of.

This John Edwards story from how long ago?? sounds like probably what it is and I personally suspect the timing myself, and believe the GOP dept of dirty tricks held back until the announcement fit their timing of things.

Baronius,

In an early draft of the article, I had included a paragraph about Edwards. The draft is gone, but the paragraph was to the effect that only extremely elevated hubris could have convinced him that someone as prominent, politically ambitious and as much in public eye as he was would not get caught, with entirely foreseeable consequences. He was diddling a woman not his wife while simultaneously seeking and gaining voter sympathy for his wife's fortitude and loyalty to him during her severe illness. When he was finally caught, he lied about it. He may well still be doing so. True, he succumbed to a common temptation, but his was not a common situation. The total audacity of his apparent belief that he would get away with it was just plain stupid; his hubris overpowered his common sense.

I can think of no excuse for what he did, particularly in the almost Clintonesque context in which he did it. I deleted the paragraph, because it didn't seem necessary to the point I was trying to make, because he is toast -- burnt toast -- and at this juncture the less said about him the better.

I think he should just fade away into the darkness, never to be heard of, or from, again.

Dan

There's always been a hint of Willy Loman about Edwards...

...I see him as more of an Elmer Gantry. Willy Loman was a failure, but not a charlatan.

I agree with Dan here. Edwards' diddle sin is exacerbated by his particular circumstance and the entire tenor of his presidential campaign; one in which he wore his religion and his supposed high mindedness on his sleeve - all while lying out his ass as his beleaguered wife lives with the loss of a child and fighting cancer. Yes. John Edwards should just go away.

Willy Loman was tragic; deluded, but tragic. John Edwards is NOT tragic. He is simply a liar and a hypocrite.

B

Jet, if this were a Republican dirty trick, they could have done a lot better timing it. Like the morning after Edwards' convention speech. Maybe the morning before.

I don't know if I'd call Edwards tragic or not. That's too dramatic a word. He just seems banal, like every other husband who thought he was smart enough to get away with cheating on his wife. I bet he thinks of this as a political setback. I keep going back to the word "sad".

Edwards is anything but sad. he's a conniver, a narcissist, and an egomaniac.

He's as phony as a nine dollar bill, and has been at least as long as he's been on the national scene.

And now, one of his deceptions has been outed. He's done. He's history.

Good riddance.

Baronius, you hold your hole cards for when you need them. Due to shoddy and amateurish campaign tactics Obama has lost almost all of his lead on McCain.

This little scandal is perfect timing to push a few holy rollers over to his side just before the conventions.

Self-righteousness suits you Clavos

"Due to shoddy and amateurish campaign tactics Obama has lost almost all of his lead on McCain."

Wow, are you admitting that that is all it takes?

For God's sake I wrote a whole article about it.
Why is everyone so damned shocked that I DON'T like Obama?