There is a very simple explanation for this: "President Barack Obama will not join other world leaders at Sunday’s Paris march in tribute to the victims of this week’s Islamist attacks in France, a US official told AFP." Basically, President Obama legitimately and genuinely does not understand why it is necessary for him - or a sufficiently dignified surrogate* - to represent our country at an activity such as this. From Obama's point of view, since no American was attacked, no American was killed, and no American was involved he clearly thinks that our involvement in this matter is thus unnecessary. And since the formal solace and condolences from foreign dignitaries would offer no comfort to him in similar circumstances, Barack Obama apparently feels that offering his own detached sympathies would be essentially equally pointless.
I know that this explanation does not actually make you feel any better - and, to be honest about it, it's not really supposed to. I am fully aware that this is an absolutely appalling description of the President's likely motivations and impulses, and that it indeed suggests a fundamental detachment from the President, and our country's collective impulses. I'm sorry if that bugs you, truly, but I gotta call them as I see them.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: We did have our ambassador there. Jane Hartley - and you'll probably be relieved to find out that she does indeed speak French, at least. You never know with Obama's bundler-ambassadors, alas (to be fair, Ambassador Hartley is a bit better than most of that type).
*I can understand why Secretary Kerry isn't there; the Secretary of State is in India. But Attorney General Eric Holder was in Paris today anyway. He apparently skipped the unity march. ...Look, if the Left can't understand why this looks bad, can they at least black-box the whole thing and accept that it looks bad? I think that the last few years have demonstrated pretty clearly why the American people default to looking to the Republican party for their foreign policy cues.