Why did Obama snub the European leaders in Paris?

And from this viewpoint, Obama did well to stay away.

and if he'd gone, there'd have been hysteria from the right about the $ he was wasting, and the time he was taking away from Washington, and how he was trying to gather publicity for himself, and and and

I think he was wise to stay away

Will "freedom fries" revert to being called "French fries?"

LOL. That could make a nice cartoon...

I certainly agree to that! Look, Merkel and Hollande are bonding now

Charlie Hebdo had balls - something American media doesn't have. They're more concerned about political correctness - the latest even from North Korea - then having a true satire magazine.

My understanding is that they intend to carry on. Do you know different?

They'll come out with a new issue this or next week. They carry on!

That he didn't attend is a fact. The rest is merely your speculation.

He visited the French Embassy in DC, George!

Somehow this tempest in a bedpan seems important to lots of people, but in the scheme of things, Obama has caused the killing of thousands of people just like the Paris terrorists. To take him to task over this is dumb.

It looks as if the media is looking for a story, playing up the basis the leader of the free world did not attend France's day of solidarity with the victims of the terrorist attacks on a day of remembrance. Eric Holder, US Attorney General, was in the rally, at least initially, in the first half of the morning because I saw his dark tall figure; afterwards, he attended meetings. Jane D. Hartley, US Ambassador to France, was there to represent the US.

I agree, with your opinion, especially seeing as how it wasn't a head of state that died and the US president's attendance would almost be mandatory,at least by the Vice President at minimum. And yet, one can understand the symbolism of wanting to see Obama there among so many world leaders, many whose own countries lack basic human rights. Let's be real, *unexpected* occurrences will take place and every head of state will not be able to attend every time----traditionally, this type visit falls to the Vice President as this is very much a part of his time-honored duties.

In the perception of many Obama critics, he is unable to do anything right, even when he goes on vacation which is a fraction of GWB's vacation time. One cannot accuse the US president of playing golf all the time, because he's aging right before our eyes. By the time he's out of office I suspect his salt-and-pepper hair will be a vivid snow white.

G'nite/morning

Here is the new cover of Charlie Hebdo, released today
http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2015/01/12/mahomet-en-une-du-charlie-hebdo-de-mercredi_1179193

Not many head of states had been there, for instance Germany had sent the chancellor, the UK the PM ...

How was it after the July 2005 bombings in London - 52 killed and 700 injured.
Any march like in Paris? Anybody who can remember how the world outside of UK reacted?

I agree. The 'proper' things to do would have been to send Biden, who is also better for these types of things, more congenial.

In any case, IF that was a conscious step by the US administration not to be represented at a political level, it could well reflect the lack of appetite or understanding in the US for satire à la Charlie. These are pure speculations from my side of course, and not very important.

I doubt the calculation on the US side had anything to do with Charlie. More likely is that the administration just miscalled it. "There is going to be a protest march and no way to get the security right, just let the ambassador handle it." Then a bunch of world leaders show up and a million people and Obama's gesture of visiting the French Embassy looks insufficient. At the same time as the French attack, 2000 Nigerians were killed in a terror attack by Boko Haram. No parades there. No world leaders in Boston or London after their terror attacks. No one would realistically expect one million people and a bunch of world leaders showing up in Paris. The administration was caught flat footed.

Something like that. It doesn't matter much anyway.

There was very little coverage of Nigeria, including on A2K, and that's clearly unfair. At the same time, it was I think the first time an entire newspaper's team was assassinated in the office of the newspaper. Of course, journalists have been killed before but always in the field, at war, or at least outside of their office (that Russian journalist killed by Putin goons a few years back comes to mind).

Every journalist in the world must have thought: it could have been me; it could have been my colleagues. Hence their reaction.