The Presumptions of Obama – UPDATED

Just how presumptuous is Barack Obama?

The other day, he talked to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari, and – after finally admitting the surge has worked – proceeded to talk to the man as though he was already in the Oval Office:

“I emphasized to him how encouraged I was by the reductions in violence in Iraq but also insisted that it is important for us to begin the process of withdrawing U.S. troops, making it clear that we have no interest in permanent bases in Iraq,” Obama said.

Okay, you could argue that the one who “acts” like a president will eventually “be” the president, but this struck me as dancing on the edge of presumption. I didn’t have to look much further to find more evidence that Obama thinks he’s already been enthroned:

Hillary Clinton’s former campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle has just been officially named “chief of staff to the Vice Presidential Nominee” by the Obama campaign.

So…King Obama is going to go ahead and assemble the staff for his as yet- unknown-and-unnamed running mate, and name that person’s Chief of Staff?

Yes, it’s presumptuous. And heavy handed. And this is the guy who is supposed to have such great instincts for diplomacy?

Of course, it is easy to get into a habit of presumption when the press is running interference for you and essentially clearing your path of any thorns or thistles.

The biggest problem with the press carrying Obama to the White House, of course, is that he does not have to work hard enough to learn what he needs to know. It would be good, for instance, if he would learn the facts about AlQaeda, and their relentless (on average every 18 months) assaults on American interests, holdings and naval vessels, all committed after the ’91 WTC bombings, which were handled through our courts system.

He should perhaps take note of the fact that since 9/11, there have been no more of those attacks. He should perhaps apply his ivy-league brain to analyzing what distinctions can be made between the Clintonian Policy of Due Process for Terrorists and the Bushian Policy of Defeating Terrorists and Freeing People.

Terrorists and due process somehow do not make us feel that much safer, in the long run, do they?

Barack Obama – a rather presumptuous fellow, it seems – should, perhaps, not presume to have the answers when – as evidenced by his own remarks – it seems clear he doesn’t really have terrific grasp on the questions.

Clearly, I’m not the only one who sees presumption, either.

UPDATE: I’m getting a few emails generally echoing one of the commenters who is trying to smear me with a racism spackle (because labeling is an often-dishonest, but highly-successful way to turn a subject) by “suggesting” that the word I wanted was not “presumptuous” but “uppity.”

Let me be clear – I choose my words carefully and while “uppity” is one of my all-time favorite words, I did not choose that word; I chose presumption. I call it presumptuous as hell to assemble someone else’s staff for them, or to talk to a foreign representative as if one has authority not yet won. As I asked that commenter…what would YOU call it? Would you call it “arbitrary” or “overcontrolling” or “acting like a cowboy” or maybe you’d call it “unilateral!” Yeah, that’s what it might be, UNILATERAL!

Oh, wait. That describes Bush and his presumptions. For Barack only the words “take-charge” and “decisive” will do.

Double standards suck. I’ve never liked them. I don’t jump all over Obama’s “um’s and uhhh’s” the way some bloggers do, because Bush certainly has his verbal spasms and – since most of us have them at some time or another – it seems picayune to go there. But Bush, for all of his malapropisms, seldom had his basic information wrong. That cannot be said about Obama. Bush is “stupid,” for misspeaking. Obama is always “just tired” when he gets major things like history (and its aftershocks), geography and economic theory wrong.

But we can’t have things both ways; we have to be consistent. So which is it? Is Obama decisive or presumptuous, here? Is he unilateral or does he have a solid basis for action? And what exactly would the solid basis be?

I started out keeping an open mind about Obama, because I have no great love for McCain or loyalty to the GOP, but he is just not all that impressive.

And he really should avoid using phrases like, get over it to women. Not smart.