Spoiled elites in the White House priorities: me first!

  Yesterday's news was full of stories about the pampered royalty we place at the White House. Primarily the focus currently is the NY TImes reporter's Jodi Kantor's book on the Obamas, some of which is soft-sell complimentary language concerning the "warmth, glamour and hospitality" of the First Lady.
  But Kantor needs to sell books and thus includes unflattering stories about the Obamas. 
  The excerpt in the Times seems to be written with a certain wonderment and surprise: didn't the Obamas know that being president would mean moving to DC? Didn't the Obamas know much of their freedom would be lost as leader of the free world? Didn't the Obamas know their every move woud be scrutinized?
  The picture that emerges of Mrs. Obama is that of a controlling spouse who denigrates the role of FLOTUS but who won't be put off by the fact that she herself was unelected, though she is conscious of those FLOTUS perceptions from earlier First Ladies.
  It appears she is a demanding woman, assuming that everyone would look at her through the prism of race, unhappy and unwilling to accept anything but perfection which most people know is unrealistic:

Mrs. Obama often found herself caught in an internal debate about how the Obamas should look and live, travel and entertain. As the first African-American first lady, she wanted everything to be flawless and sophisticated; she felt “everyone was waiting for a black woman to make a mistake,” a former aide said.

  The internal debate grew into staff screaming matches, manipulation through Valerie Jarrett and some staffers leaving because of her dislike of them. Mrs. Obama's petulance led her to refuse to campaign, frustrating the staffers who felt she was an asset rather than liability.
  While she complained that she didn't want to interfere with her husband's administration, she most certainly did try to control what was happening in debates of direction for the administration and was uncooperative when it came to helping out on the road.

Still, Mrs. Obama agreed to only eight campaign stops, fewer than the political team had wanted. “She basically agreed to do nothing,” one aide said.
Now that her husband faces a tough re-election fight, that tentativeness has vanished: She is all in, she has told aides. If Mrs. Obama has sometimes been an internal critic, she is also her husband’s most determined advocate.

  Reading between the lines (which is always dangerous) one might wonder why a person committed to a spouse and an administration would withhold public support of that administration through appearances; the rationale had to be payback, punishment and/or petulance. 
  Her fights and resistance to cooperating, it appears, was not only with the staff but with her husband.
  There were fights over her spending, which apparently didn't stop her from the lavish trips overseas and, revealed in today's New York Post, given to equally lavish parties such as a White House Halloween party celebrating the Alice in Wonderland flick, complete with appearances by Johnny Depp and Time Burton. 
  Apparently, though they were comfortable spending that kind of money on numerous parties, rumored to be every other night in the first year, the administration didn't want people to know what they were doing.

The book reveals how any official announcement of the glittering affair — coming at a time when Tea Party activists and voters furious over the lagging economy, 10-percent unemployment rate, bank bailouts and Obama’s health-care plan were staging protests — quickly vanished down the rabbit hole. 

“White House officials were so nervous about how a splashy, Hollywood-esque party would look to jobless Americans — or their representatives in Congress, who would soon vote on health care — that the event was not discussed publicly and Burton’s and Depp’s contributions went unacknowledged,” the book says.

  You have to wonder what happens to these people when they get to the highest seats in the country--how spoiled they become, how demanding and how absolutely narcissistic. 
  Everyone expects White House occupants to entertain; how much is too much? A cavalier attitude toward the rights of others, including taxpayers and those who work for the White House, is evidence of poor character.
  This is exemplified again in a little noticed comment in The Washingtonian by President Bill Clinton's former chef who described Clinton as a man with a huge appetite, as we already knew, with more than just women:

Clinton arrived in 1993 with not just his appetite but also some food allergies, including chocolate and flour. “But he loved dessert,” says Mesnier. “It made it very difficult for a pastry chef.” He recalls the episode of a strawberry cake he made one evening. Clinton devoured half of it all by himself, and the next morning he wanted more. “No one could find the cake,” says Mesnier, who had a face-to-face with the distraught commander in chief. “Clinton was pounding on the table and shouting, ‘I want my goddamned cake.’” 

  The pampered Hollywood elites have been closely aligned with Democrat administrations for years, pumping money into their campaigns, selling their messages in their movies, investing billions to further their causes of socialistic redistribution of wealth. 
  Today we learn that the Pentagon is investigating the White House. Did they reveal secret information, heedless of the destruction of human life?

In his letter, King said that leaks of classified information related to the bin Laden raid had already resulted in the arrests of Pakistanis believed by Pakistan authorities to have assisted the CIA. Participation by the Pentagon and the CIA in making a film about the raid "is bound to increase such leaks, and undermine these organizations’ hard-won reputations as ‘quiet professionals,’" King said.

  As usual, all that mattered was the huge appetites and selfishness of the politicians.