Obama Rejects "Fake Controversies"

The Los Angeles Times reports that Barack Obama's attacking his presidential rivals for manufacturing "fake controversies," the most recent, of course, being his "cling" comments about bitter working class Americans:

Democrat Barack Obama today defended his record of understanding working-class Americans, disparaging the "fake controversies" fanned by his political rivals to suggest that he was an elitist.

Seeking to douse the controversy that has dogged the Obama campaign over remarks he made at a San Francisco fund-raiser, Obama confessed to "poor word choices" in saying that small-town Americans, "bitter" over their economic woes, "cling to guns or religion" as a result. But he said he would "never walk away from the larger point" he was trying to make.

"For the last several decades, people in small towns and cities and rural areas all across this country have seen globalization change the rules of the game on them," he said. He argued that "years and years" of politicians pledging to address what he called "the downside of globalization" and then going back to Washington to fight "over the latest distraction of the week" had left a legacy of cynicism.

"After years and years and years of this, a lot of people in this country have become cynical about what government can do to improve their lives," he said in a speech before the Associated Press' annual meeting. "They are angry and frustrated with their leaders for not listening to them, for not fighting for them, for not always telling them the truth. And yes, they are bitter about that...."

Obama said voters he has met in small towns and big cities "are tired of being distracted by fake controversies. They are fed up with politicians trying to divide us for their own political gain."

Saying "I may have made a mistake last week in the words that I chose," Obama said the Republican Party "has made a much more damaging mistake in the failed policies they've chosen and the bankrupt philosophy they've embraced for the last three decades."

Asked during a question period about the fierceness of the contest between himself and Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama called the New York senator a remarkable candidate who has withstood 11 straight losses and still raised $33 million. He said she is using many of the critiques against him that Republicans will use in the general election campaign. "She toughening me up," he said. "I'm getting run through the paces."

Obama also addressed the controversy earlier in the day, chiding his Democratic and Republican rivals for suggesting he was out of touch with working Americans when they have supported trade policies that have hurt the working class.

"You've heard this kind of rhetoric before," Obama said to cheers from a crowd of union members and business leaders assembled at the Convention Center in downtown Pittsburgh. "Around election time, the candidates can't do enough for you. They'll promise you anything. They'll give you a long list of proposals and even come around, with TV crews in tow, and throw back a shot and a beer.

Now that's a fake controversy! Say what you will about Clinton, but she knows how to pound a couple down.

Seriously though, for all the spin among Obama backers, there are fundamental issues of character and judgment surrounding the "bitter" comments.

No, Obama's not a "Godless commie." Yet his comments indeed trash the very people he needs for election:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them....

It must be difficult when campaigning, for long stretches of time, in different forums - from candidate debates, to neighborhood breakfasts, to stump speeches for the nightly news - and be able to stay on the public message that you want people to hear: That your campaign's all about transcendance, that you'll break the vicious cycle of political partisanship and recrimintation, that your policies will reduce poverty by half in 10-years (when forty years of social policy handouts have failed to do just that), all the while not deviating from time to time, to peel back the assiduously built outward layers of acceptability and show both a condescension to and ignorance of the very constituencies who've formed the base of the "second-coming" campaign.

So far polls haven't shown a collapse in public support for Obama's primary campaign, although speculation's building that the "bitter"comments could damage his appeal in the general election.

Note how out of touch Obama really is, from Chris Cillizza's perspective:

In the coming Louisiana special election to replace Rep. Richard Baker (R) in the 6th District, the Democratic nominee -- state Rep. Don Cazayoux -- is touting his support for the Second Amendment in a new ad:

The spot features Cazayoux's parents. His mother proclaims that Cazayoux's "father taught him how to hunt" as a picture of Cazayoux and his dad holding up pheasants (we think) appears on the screen.

Thus it should come as little surprise that Barack Obama's comments that small town Americans "cling" to their guns and religion has created such an uproar.

For many Americans, including those in Republican-leaning districts like the one Cazaoux is seeking to represent, a candidate's position on guns serves as a stand in for whether or not he (or she) is one of them.

During the 1990s, Republicans used Democrats' support for gun control to paint the party as out of touch with the average voter. Using these tactics, Republicans transformed themselves into the party of the common man and sought to portray Democrats as the party of elitist liberals on both coasts.

Like it or not, it worked. Republicans used the gun issue -- and other cultural touchstones like abortion -- to consolidate their support in the South and rural areas across the country. It's not by chance that Republicans won two presidential elections and won majorities in the House and Senate during that time as well.

The ground Democrats' gained in 2006 was due in no small part to the party's decision to deemphasize these cultural issues or, at the very least, seek to redefine their beliefs outside of the traditional frame with which Republicans has used to pigeonhole Democratic candidates for much of the last decade.

Do Obama's remarks set back this cause in a significant way?

Hillary Rodham Clinton, not exactly an uninterested observer, thinks so. She argues that Obama's comments will allow Republicans to go back to the playbook (Democratic candidate is an out of touch elitist, beholden to constituencies on the two coasts) that, she argues, led to the defeat of Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.

"I don't think he really gets it that people are looking for a president who stands up for you and not looks down on you," Clinton said at a forum for the Alliance for American Manufacturing in Pittsburgh today.

It's impossible to know now -- 72 hours after Obama's comments came to light -- just how much of an impact they will have on voters' perceptions about the Democratic candidates in Pennsylvania and beyond into the general election.

Quick -- and not terribly credible -- polling done in Pennsylvania suggests that Obama has been weakened by the hubbub. Take those results cum grano salis until more reliable and detailed information comes out.

But, always remember that perception is every bit as important as reality when it comes to presidential politics. This episode has the potential to alter the way in which many voters in the country perceive Obama. For that reason, it is worth the full-court coverage it is receiving.

See also, "56% Disagree with Obama’s Comments on Small Town America"; as well as Memeorandum.

Plus, see here and here for some blog and media roundup.

What Entitles Obama to Look Down on His Fellow Americans?

Barack Obama's "Bittergate"controversy's getting better all the time.

I mean, while at least with the Wright controversy Obama could simply announce - as he did, to moderate success - that he disagreed with his pastor's hatred, but as a mentor and friend he could no more "disown" the reverend than he could his own family.

Well, Obama sure would like to disown his comments this weekend, saying:

Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it....

So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

William Kristol comes right out and says it: Obama's channelling Karl Marx, whose academic scribblings on the crisis of capitalism were among the most influential economic theories of the late-19th and 20th centuries.

Obama's tried to appear new-Democratish, especially around the time of his speech to the 2004 Democratic convention, but he's gotten pulled back over to the far left end of the spectrum:

What does this mean for Obama’s presidential prospects? He’s disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America. He’s usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped. And it’s not so easy to get elected by a citizenry you patronize.

And what are the grounds for his supercilious disdain? If he were a war hero, if he had a career of remarkable civic achievement or public service — then he could perhaps be excused an unattractive but in a sense understandable hauteur. But what has Barack Obama accomplished that entitles him to look down on his fellow Americans?

I'll have more updates. This "Bittergate" scandal's a good one!

Hillary Clinton Goes to Town With the Working Classes!

I've probably said it before, but if we have to have a Democrat in the Oval Office next January, I'd prefer Hillary Clinton.

Oh sure, I've been disgusted with her waffling and pandering, but there's always been some element of realism in Clinton's mien that frankly seems a little reasurring amid all the manifestations of a radical foreign policy coming to America after the election.

Now don't get me wrong.

I'm not giving up my criticism of Clinton, but at least I can say that she's got a few redeeming qualities here and there, not the least of which is that she knows how to tie one on with the locals - and with impeccable timing no less, considering Barack Obama's up to his neck in controversy over his "bitter" remarks about Pennsylvania's working class demographic.

Here's the reassurance on Clinton, via Ben Smith:

Smith links to MSNBC, "Hillary Pounds One Down...":

We've seen candidates have a beer, but Clinton had a shot of Crown Royal -- with an Old Style beer chaser -- at the Bronko Restaurant and Lounge in Crown Point, IN yesterday. The senator took a small sip from the shot glass, then tossed the rest of the shot back.

Well, if she's got to get some sympathy heading into Pennsylvania, a quick chaser sure beats crying at a New Hampshire ladies breakfast!

See also, "Bottoms Up: Just Another Saturday Night For Clinton? Shot of Whiskey, Beer and Pizza."

Plus, the Politico, "What Clinton Wishes She Sould Say"; plus the additional analysis at Memeorandum.

Who Wants to Be the Last to Die for al-Maliki?

I recommend for readers to go back and read Jules Crittenden's outstanding essay on Iraq published last month, "Five Years On: The War for Iraq and Its Lessons."

Crittenden, as well as a few other commentators (like Victor Davis Hanson), have been unflinching in the support for the deployment, while ever attentive to the heavy price Americans and Iraqis have paid for the pursuit of freedom in post-2003 Iraq.

I've even had my doubts - back in 2006 and early-2007, when things seemed to keep getting worse, and analysts argued persuasively for consideration of "the drawdown option" and the for unstoppability of "the Iraqi civil war" - but I've yet to call for retreat, and I won't be starting any time soon.

Still, the trend of late, after over a year of progress in Iraq (recently puncuated with a little over a week of sectarian violence), is for war opponents to hammer how costly this war is, questioning whether we should pay any price to secure Iraq's freedom.

It should be no surprise to readers, then, that I'm displeased with the new essay over at Foreign Policy, "Why the Surge Doesn’t Matter":

Since the surge was first announced in January 2007, attacks on coalition forces in Iraq have decreased by at least 60 percent. Iraqi civilian casualties are down by a comparable amount.

These impressive gains have stalled in recent months, as the war’s critics have been quick to point out. Violence is ticking back up, they note, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s recent attempt to regain a footing in Basra suggests that the Iraqi military is not ready for prime time. Truces by Sunni and Shiite militias, not more U.S. troops or new tactics, largely explain the decline in attacks, they say. The few claims of political progress are strained at best.

Such critiques miss the larger point. Surge or no surge, it’s extremely doubtful the U.S. occupation can ultimately produce a successful Iraq—a stable, unitary, democratizing state at peace with its neighbors. The surge is merely the most preliminary precursor to this intended outcome, and even Petraeus admits that it could all come undone overnight. For that matter, Iraq is just one part of a larger strategic picture, as former CENTCOM commander Adm. William J. Fallon tried to impress upon the Bush administration before he resigned. A myopic, irrational focus on Iraq has impaired the United States from making progress on the Arab-Israeli conflict, managing the rise of China, and everything in between. In short, the Iraq war is long past being worth the $120 billion a year being spent to wage it—an amount that exceeds Iraq’s entire annual economic output.

This is hardly the fault of Petraeus, a brilliant general tasked with a nearly impossible mission. Building a decent political order in Iraq has always been something of a fantasy. Even if Petraeus somehow succeeds in bringing violence down to a manageable level, it may be generations before Iraq becomes the “dramatic and inspiring example of freedom” in the Middle East that President Bush has repeatedly invoked. Instead, it will most likely evolve into a country plagued by instability, ethnosectarian violence, weak institutions, and unreliable oil production—if we’re lucky. Few Americans would support spending $12 billion a month in Iraq if they understood that they were buying, at best, another Nigeria, and at worst, Somalia with oil....

The arguments for staying in Iraq are drearily familiar. There will be a “blood bath” if the United States leaves. Withdrawing will only “embolden” al Qaeda. Iraq’s oil will be taken off the market. Iran will seize control of the country. These risks are not only overblown, they are also deeply uncertain. They must be weighed against the well-known costs of sticking around—a U.S. military stretched to the breaking point, a Middle East becoming more radicalized and anti-American, continued distraction from the real fight against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the real diplomatic action in Asia, to name but a few. Most importantly, we must not forget that even a perfect surge would still have left the United States chasing an expected strategic payoff—a stable, democratic Iraq—that is extremely unlikely to be realized for decades, if at all.

It’s one thing to ask American soldiers to lay their lives on the line for freedom and democracy, or to safeguard their country from weapons of mass destruction. But who wants to be the last man to die for Nuri al-Maliki?

I don't think the risks are "overblown," and I've written about negative security contingencies a few times (see, most recently, "The Consequences of Withrawal From Iraq").

I do think that it will be decades for a democratic Iraq to reach deep consolidation. That it will take a good deal longer is no reason to throw in the towel, nor especially to argue that the loss of American lives has been for nought.

Obama's "Bittergate" Gaffe's Weakening Campaign Outreach

Barack Obama's "working class insensitivity" has mushroomed into a virtual scandal, with some folks describing the fracas as "Bittergate."

As I've noted, some on the left have tried to minimize the controversial nature of Obama's views, but as the Politico reports, Obama's insensitivities are now coming back to bite him where it hurts, in campaign outreach and organization:

The furor surrounding Barack Obama’s comments about “bitter” small-town voters and their faith clouds an emerging story line that stood to benefit the eventual Democratic nominee at Republican John McCain’s expense.

That narrative was an ironic twist on longstanding partisan stereotypes: a November election that figured to be between a Democrat who is comfortable talking about faith and a Republican who is not.

But the Illinois senator’s controversial remarks about “bitter” small-town Pennsylvanians who “cling” to religion and other cultural stances out of economic despair — comments immediately characterized by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and McCain as condescending — have suddenly reintroduced an unwelcome issue, undermining the progress made by concerted Democratic Party outreach to religious voters and reinvigorating criticism that the effort to woo religious voters is more rhetoric than substance.

“The danger, frankly, is that Democrats will be perceived as disingenuous,” said Laura Olson, a Clemson University professor who focuses on politics and religion. “What I really would be concerned about there is that Republicans could really spin this and they could say Obama is a Marxist. That’s what Marx said [about religion]: It’s the opiate of the masses.”

Democrats’ newfound openness on faith began as an attempt to close the party’s disadvantage with regular churchgoers. Democratic nominees have lost these voters by double digits, with the exception of 1992, since Ronald Reagan won the presidency.

This so-called “God gap” consumed Democrats following the 2004 presidential election, as George W. Bush won eight in 10 of those who voted on “moral values” and the GOP advantage with weekly church attendees soared to more than 20 percentage points.

That stark divide is at the root of Sunday’s “Compassion Forum,” which comes just nine days before the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, the second event of the Democratic primary season to feature a prominent discussion of the role of religion in politics.

“It is the culmination of three to three and a half years of effort and focus, working with the party to reengage, reactivate the conversation with the whole country, with people of faith,” said Burns Strider, who heads religious outreach efforts for Clinton. “Our candidates are not just desirous to talk about faith but they are people of faith.”

The Obama campaign argues that the Illinois senator was merely saying that “in our toughest times when Christians have our backs against the wall, we’re commanded to hold fast to our faith,” according to Joshua DuBois, Obama’s director of religious affairs.

Obama’s comment came to light the same day he announced his Catholic leadership team, which ranges from the prominent Hispanic Catholic leader Ron Cruz to Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania.

“I never could have gotten a group like that to endorse [John F.] Kerry in 2004,” said Mara Vanderslice, the Kerry campaign’s director of religious outreach in 2004.

But Obama’s remarks overwhelmed the news of his Catholic outreach and threatened to sidetrack the party’s broader effort to make inroads with religious voters.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi began a Democratic Faith Working Group in 2005, led by Strider, precisely to counter perceptions that Democrats were irreligious, intolerant or looked down on to people of faith — an impression held by even some Democrats. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has consistently found that fewer than half of Democrats believe their party is “friendly toward religion.”

“Generally, over a generation now, the national party has been resistant to any discussion of religion. It’s been an almost exclusively secular point of view about what you are allowed to talk about,” Casey said.

“Voters make decisions about elections based on a lot of considerations and one is that they want to get a sense from a candidate of what they are all about, and if someone refuses to talk about their faith, that becomes a barrier to considering their stand on health care or Medicare,” Casey continued, noting that he has seen a sea change among Democrats.

This is a significant development, but I won't be convinced of a weakening of outreach until we see the next round campaign finance reporting.

If Obama's really losing support among key constituencies, we should some of the big cash flowing his way start to dry up.

Think Progress Wants Anything But in Iraq

Think Progress seems to get increasingly desperate with each new post smearing some war backer or another. This is after the editors have had to apologize for their own shoddy reporting.

It comes as no surprise, then, that Think Progress would take a few comments from some Iraqis and blow them completely out of proportion (via Memeorandum):

The Washington Post writes that “few Iraqis paid much attention” to the testimonies of Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker:

“The Americans have hundreds of meetings and testimonies like this, and what has it done for the Iraqi people? Nothing,” said Allah Sadiq, 49, a carpenter in the capital’s Karrada district. “So why do we care? We just want all the foreigners to leave and stop causing disasters for our country.”

“I don’t even know who Petraeus and Crocker are,” said 31-year old shop owner Yasser Kadhoum al-Khafaji. “I think these sorts of things are more important for Americans than they are for Iraqis.” Most Iraqis interviewed “were more concerned about a day-long curfew” that shut down much of Baghdad. Among other grievances cited: “blocked sewage drains, militias attacking residents in the street, a dysfunctional government and frequent electricity outages.”

This is wholly uncontextualized reporting.

Sure, I imagine plenty of Iraqi citizens are ignorant of America's top commander and chief diplomat in the country.

But recent surveys of the Iraqi population have indicated dramatically improved public sentiment on the future of the country. See ABC News, "Security Gains Reverse Iraq's Spiral Though Serious Problems Remain":

Improved security and economic conditions have reversed Iraqis' spiral of despair, sharply improving hopes for the country's future. Yet deep problems remain in terms of security, living conditions, reconciliation and political progress alike.

Fifty-five percent of Iraqis say things in their own lives are going well, well up from 39 percent as recently as August. More, 62 percent, rate local security positively, up 19 points. And the number who expect conditions nationally to improve in the year ahead has doubled, to 46 percent in this new national poll by ABC News, the BBC, ARD German TV and the Japanese broadcaster NHK.

These are large majorities, although many folks in Iraq, statistically speaking, would be expected to say "We just want all the foreigners to leave and stop causing disasters for our country.”

Can we get another apology from non-progress folks at "Think Progress"?

Amy Poehler Hammers Hillary Clinton's Antiwar Credentials

Via the Gothamist, Amy Poehler hammered Hillary Clinton's Iraq positions in a hilarious skit on last night's "Saturday Night Live":

Clinton's heard in the skit, "Everyone knows I have been against this war my entire life."

But check out the Gothamist's take on Poehler's Clinton take down:

Just a month ago, people wondered if Saturday Night Live was playing favorites with the Democratic presidential candidates, with seemingly more pro-Hillary Clinton material, not to mention the terrific Amy Poehler playing the Senator from New York to the hilt. However, last week, the show poked fun at the Clinton's tax returns and, last night, well, see how Clinton is spoofed in a hearing with General Petraeus (video above).

Watch the whole thing - the skit spreads the lampooning all around (even to Code Pink).

What Are Colleges Really Teaching Students?

Captain Ed's posted the correspondence of Catherine Helsley, a student at Randolph College who has renounced the school's purported academic field trip to a Las Vegas prostitution business (here's the AP story on the brothel tour).

Here's Helsey's letter:

As a contemporary American college student, I am rarely shocked by the daily dose of leftist viewpoints that I am exposed to, but nothing prepared me for an Associated Press story detailing a recent field trip to a Nevada brothel organized by Randolph College. I am particularly offended because I am myself a Randolph College student.

While liberalism and radical feminism are nothing new to me given my campus surroundings, I am frankly stunned that a college that once stood for traditional values and morality for so many years has succumbed to the liberal disease and reduced itself to Vegas field trips as part of the “academic experience.” Since when did prostitution become something to be glamorized and put on a pedestal? How did the “profession” of paid sex become so important that a college in financial crisis can afford to send students to study it?

If the administration of Randolph College is seeking to run their institution into the ground then they are certainly making good headway. With all of the negative publicity and discontent surrounding the recent decision to cease acting as a woman’s college I am surprised that they would risk such an action as this. How could any God-fearing parent be proud to proclaim to their neighbors and family that their child attends the first college to send students to the Chicken Ranch brothel in 21 years? The absence of administrative and parental disproval in this case is a clear symptom of the moral guidance that is sorely lacking in this nation.

What has to happen before parents and authority figures will finally stand up and say “enough?”

Allowing money to be spent on field trips to observe prostitution at work and ask such intellectual questions as “Do you still give a military discount?” teaches our nation’s young people that behaviors like those demonstrated in the sex industry are “OK” and an acceptable means of work. Did no one think to ask “How does your family feel about your occupation?” or “What are the emotional consequences of your behavior?” or even “Is your unwillingness to reveal your last name to us indicative of your embarrassment or shame?”

I believe that the American Culture Program at Randolph College and indeed the college itself has failed in its duty to provide an acceptable education to its students.

I believe wholeheartedly that the moral fabric of this nation is fast unraveling and field trips to Nevada brothels certainly do nothing to improve that. If Randolph College administrators and parents will not stand up to disagree, then they are condoning these actions and setting an unacceptable and condemning precedent for the future.

Helsley's sentiments mirror my own, which I laid out in a post on Elliot Spitzer's resignation last month, "Prostitution, Biology, Morality, and the Law."

Captain Ed notes, "It certainly appears that Randolph College has at least one clear thinker on its campus."

I agree. Congratulations to Helsley.

David Brock to Lead Progressive Anti-GOP Smear Campaign

This post is a follow-up to my earlier entry, "Obama's Nebulous Campaign Funding Operation."

In that essay I noted that Barack Obama's fundraising operation - despite claims to be based in the mom-and-pop grassroots - is "merging mainstream big-money bundling operations with hardline antiwar factions who're notorious political tools for the Democratic Party establishment."

Well, it turns out that Progressive Media USA - the far-left 501(c)(4) organization backed by the far-left George Soros network - will be headed by David Brock, a muckracking former conservative known for his no-holds-barred ad hominem attack campaigns.

Here's a little background on Brock:

According to Politico.com, Media Matters president David Brock is collaborating with mega-donor George Soros and longtime Democrat operative Paul Begala to launch a four-month, $40 million media campaign whose aim will be to discredit Republican presidential candidate John McCain. Brock, who will lead the campaign, last month assumed the chairmanship of an organization called Progressive Media USA, which will likely be the main vehicle for the Democratic attacks on McCain. Brock complains that because "the press is in love with John McCain," the Republican senator "is allowed to say [things] without being challenged by facts that will show him to have said something different in the past." "Progressive Media USA will be a permanent part of progressive media infrastructure," adds Brock.

For more on Brock and Progressive Media USA, see Bill O'Reilly, "American Axis of Evil."

Obama's Circle of Friends: The America-Hating Left

Andrew McCarthy, at the National Review, reiterates a point I've been making for weeks: Barack Obama's got a nasty circle of friends, people drawn from the ranks of the extreme, America-bashing political left.

Awareness of Obama's circle of friends is becoming more widespread as the Illinois Senator continues to come under close scrutiny, particularly in light this weekend's "Bittergate" controversy.

Here's McCarthy:

Why is Barack Obama so comfortable around people who so despise America and its allies? Maybe it’s because they’re so comfortable around him.

He presents as the transcendent agent of “change.” Sounds platitudinous, but it’s really quite strategically vaporous. Sen. Obama is loath to get into the details of how we should change, and, as the media’s Chosen One, he hasn’t had to.

But he’s not, as some hopefully dismiss him, a charismatic lightweight with a gift for sparkling the same old vapid cant. Judging from the company he chooses to keep, Obama’s change would radically alter this country. He eschews detail because most Americans don’t believe we’re a racist, heartless, imperialist cesspool of exploitation. The details would be disqualifying.

McCarthy goes on to enumerate the specifics of Obama's associational disqualifications: A wife who's stated that she can't be proud of America; a church pastor who's an unapologetic racist and hard-left America-bashing black liberationist; Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, who are domestic terrorists (not "terrorist sympathizers," but genuine terrorists with long, unreconstructed associations with violent 1960s radicalism); and Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO operative and notorious supporter of attacks against Israel.

I would add, too, that notwithstanding some flare-ups and concerns among hard-left activists about Obama's fidelity to the movement, the Illinois Senator's the candidate of choice among some of the most implacable antiwar and progressive organizations on the American scene, many of whom have nebulous ties to the neo-Stalinist "peace" coalition.

So, while the media's been content to play along with Obama's "transcendent" image and agenda, the candidate's revealing his true self as the campaign continues.

This is a good thing.

It's one of strengths of the American primary system - not always evident - that sometimes the process does work to give the voters a good look at candidates for election to the nation's highest office and to the position of leader of the free world.

Obama's comments in San Francisco were not uncontroversial, as some would have us think; and it's not hypocritical to flesh out the elitism that shows how out of touch Obama really is on key issues of importance to the American electorate.

But most of all, as McCarthy substantiates here, Obama's got a wide circle of friends composed of people who many would at least consider fringe operatives, if not outright enemies of the state.

Disqualification is the key word, and we need to repeat it, again and again and again.

By the way, Ben Smith provides the video from Obama's San Franciso campaign rally:

See also my introductory post in the "no enemies" series, "No Enemies on the Left? Progressives for Barack Obama

Photo Credit: FOX News

Iran Fighting Proxy War Against U.S., Crocker Says

The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C. Crocker, has indicated that Tehran has used Iraq to launch a proxy war against the United States.

The New York Times has the story:

Iran is engaging in a proxy war with the United States in Iraq, adopting tactics similar to those it has used to back fighters in Lebanon, the United States ambassador to Iraq said Friday.

The remarks by the ambassador, Ryan C. Crocker, reflected the sharper criticism of Iran by President Bush and his top deputies over the past week, as administration officials have sought to trace many of their troubles in Iraq to Iran.

Mr. Crocker said in an interview that there had been no substantive change in Iranian behavior in Iraq, despite more than a year of talks between the Bush administration and Iran over how to calm Shiite-Sunni tensions in Iraq. He said that the paramilitary branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps was continuing to direct attacks by Shiite militias against American and Iraqi targets, although he offered no direct evidence.

Asked if the United States and Iran were engaged in a proxy war in Iraq, Mr. Crocker said, “I don’t think a proxy war is being waged from an American point of view.” But, he added, “When you look at what the Iranians are doing and how they’re doing it, it could well be that.”

While Bush administration officials have long denounced what they have described as Iran’s meddling in Iraq, Mr. Crocker’s language was unusually strong, reflecting fresh concern about what he described in Congressional testimony this week as Iran’s role in supplying militias with training and weapons, including rockets used in recent attacks on the Green Zone, in Baghdad.

The Bush administration is trying to exploit any crack it can find between the largely Shiite, pro-Iranian government of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, and Iran’s Shiite government. On Friday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said that Iran’s role in supporting radical Shiite militias in recent clashes with Iraqi security forces had been an “eye-opener” for the central government in Baghdad.

“I think that there is some sense of an increased level of supply of weapons and support to these groups,” Mr. Gates said. “I would say one of the salutary effects of what Prime Minister Maliki did in Basra is that I think the Iraqi government now has a clearer view of the malign impact of Iran’s activities inside Iraq.”

From Mr. Bush down, administration officials this week have been turning up the volume on Iran. Administration officials said that Iranian support for Shiite militias became increasingly evident late last month during the indecisive Iraqi operation to wrest control of Basra from Shiite militias, in addition to the rocket attacks on the Green Zone.

Administration officials have long accused Iran of supporting Shiite militias in attacks on American forces in Iraq. The difference now is that administration officials are trying to convince the Iraqi government that Iran may not be the ally it thought, and is behind attacks against Iraqi government forces. That is a harder sell, given that Iran has supported Iraq’s government.

Mr. Bush this week accused Iran of arming, financing and training what he called “illegal militant groups.” He said that Iran had a choice, and hinted that the United States would try to sow distrust between the governments of Iran and Iraq, if Iran did not stop backing the attacks.

“If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq,” he said Thursday. “If Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests and our troops and our Iraqi partners.”

See also, Thomas Jocelyn "Iran's Proxy War Against America" (Claremont Institute), Joseph Lieberman, "Iran's Proxy War" (Wall Street Journal), and Kenneth Timmerman, "Iran's Proxy War Against America" (FrontPageMagazine).

Photo Credit: New York Times

Texas Takes Tough Line on Polygamists

My wife and I were enthralled with the media coverage earlier this week on the FLDS scandal in Texas, where authorities have taken into custody hundreds of girls amid allegations of cult polygamy.

Today's Los Angeles Times has an excellent overview of the story, indicating that Texas - unlike Arizona, Utah, and other states - takes a hard line in protecting public safety from wayward polygamy groups:

After a polygamist sect took up residence outside this tiny ranch town a few years ago, the library stocked paperback, cassette and hardcover copies of "Under the Banner of Heaven," an unsparing look at such groups that was suddenly in hot demand.

The local weekly newspaper devoted stories in nearly every edition to the outsiders. And it posted online audio clips of the sect's self-styled prophet, Warren Jeffs, ranting in a creepy monotone about the Beatles being covert agents of a "Negro race."

The people of Eldorado (pronounced el-doh-RAY-do) took in the sect's arrival with nervous anticipation -- because they understood that, unlike in Utah and Arizona, this would not last long in Texas.

Texas' aggressive raid this month -- in which state investigators took custody of more than 400 children, disclosed evidence that men were marrying girls at puberty, and discovered beds allegedly used for sex acts inside a towering temple -- is the most decisive action against the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in at least half a century.

Court papers released Friday showed that state investigators hauled off a cache of evidence from the polygamist compound that included marriage and birth records and what was cryptically described as a "cyanide poisoning document."

Texas' raid contrasts sharply with the approaches of Arizona and Utah, which have looked the other way for decades while the FLDS put underage girls into "spiritual marriages." The 10,000-member sect was founded in the 1930s by religious leaders who continued practicing polygamy after it was banned by the Mormon Church in 1890.

"God bless Texas," said Flora Jessop, an activist who escaped the FLDS at age 16. "The state has done in days what Arizona and Utah failed to do in more than a century -- protect children."

Authorities in the sect's home states have recently taken more aggressive steps; Utah successfully prosecuted Jeffs last year for being an accomplice to rape after he arranged the marriage of a 14-year-old girl to her cousin, and Jeffs awaits trial in Arizona on similar charges.

Utah and Arizona officials have long argued that polygamists are too entrenched in their states to simply stamp them out. In Utah, Atty. Gen. Mark Shurtleff's office has prosecuted polygamists for child abuse. But it has never contemplated a full-scale raid like the one in Texas, spokesman Paul Murphy said.

But see also the Times' related coverage, especially the "History of Polygamist Sect":

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a rogue offshoot of the Mormon Church, which has disavowed the sect. Polygamy is a central FLDS tenet, and FLDS followers believe the Mormon Church was wrong to have banned it in 1890. Here's a brief history of the group and recent events involving its leader, Warren Jeffs, who is imprisoned:

* 1930s: The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints breaks from the Mormon Church.

* 2002: Sect leader Rulon Jeffs dies and his son Warren becomes prophet, or leader, of the FLDS.

* 2003: Warren Jeffs starts banishing "unworthy" men and boys from the church. He reassigns wives and children to new husbands and fathers.

* 2005: Jeffs goes into hiding after felony criminal charges are filed against him in Arizona for the alleged arrangement of marriages between underage girls and adult men.

* 2006: In April, felony criminal charges are filed against Jeffs in Utah, accusing him of rape by accomplice in arranging a 2001 marriage between a 14-year-old girl and her 19-year-old cousin.

* 2007: Jeffs is convicted and sentenced to two consecutive terms of five years to life in prison.

* March 29-31, 2008: A 16-year-old girl calls a domestic violence shelter and reports that she lives at the YFZ (Yearning for Zion) Ranch, an FLDS compound near Eldorado, Texas, and that she has been sexually and physically abused by her 49-year-old husband.

* April 3: Texas police enter the YFZ compound and begin interviewing residents.

* April 4: Police begin removing children from the compound; eventually, 416 children are removed and placed in state custody.

See also, " Blind Eye to Culture of Abuse: Children of a Polygamist Sect Have Been Exploited, Molested for Years."

The New York Times has more information on the Texas case, "Texas Polygamy Raid May Pose Risk."

Photo Credit: "COMPOUND: The 1,691-acre YFZ Ranch, which stands for Yearning for Zion, in Eldorado, Texas," Los Angeles Times

Obama's Comments Aren't Controversial?

I guess you just have to get inside the minds of contemporary leftists to really understand their thinking. I mean, for the deep activists of the Democratic Party, folks like Jeremiah Wright are just speaking truth to power.

Sure, some commentators like Lanny Davis get it (bigotry and hate are "pretty much a staple" of the left nowadays, he says), but most of the lefties remain clueless.

Enter Ezra Klein (stage extreme left), via Memeorandum.

Klein's got a new post up suggesting that the content of Obama's San Francisco "bitter" speech on working class Pennsylvanians is uncontroversial:

I'm not really sure what the big deal over Obama's comments in SF is supposed to be....

As far as I can tell, few actually find the argument underlying Obama's statement controversial. It's a pretty standard thesis, and has been delivered, in various forms, by everyone from John McCain to Bill Clinton. It's that the way Obama phrased it is politically damaging, particularly the inclusion of guns and religion (though I think the crucial ambiguity in his comments is that he's talking about guns and religion in their role as conveyors of political identity and social unrest, rather than in their more natural roles of shooting at things and believing in God).

Perhaps Kein hasn't seen "Primary Colors." Bill Clinton's certainly not without his personal pathologies, but few people could speak more accurately on - let alone identify with - the plight of the downsizing industrial working classes. (Of course, Klein was only 7 years-old during the pre-primary phase of Clinton's 1992 presidential election bid.)

Victor Davis Hanson's more accurate when he says that Obama's statements are controversial, because they

...suggest both hostility and a certain us/they contempt for a slice of America that the Obamas apparently know very little about—but for the first time in their lives are rapidly discovering.

Klein adds further that all of this is a media frenzy designed to drive reader interest. Oh sure, a point all the more interesting coming from Klein, who's feted as an up-and-comer in the liberal establishment press (where the media vultures are always hovering over the next Abu Ghraib or Scooter Libby scandal).

But hey, Klein's at least got a reputation as a "respectable liberal blogger."

See also, TPM Election Central, "Geoffrey Garin: Obama's Small-Town Comments Would Damage Him In General Election - And Super-Dels Should Consider Them."

"People Wonder Why I Quit University Teaching..."

I haven't followed the case of Mark Steyn all that closely (here's a little background).

But I just love this quote, in the context of the continuing controversy surrounding the Canadian Human Rights Commission's threat to freedom of speech (source):

People wonder why I quit university teaching. Imagine an office - all your colleagues and all your supervisors and anyone with a say in your tenure prospects, your research funding and your publications - where everyone organizes their careers in such a way that a "human rights" commission would have no reason to object. Their teaching practices, their research, their political views; everything they think and do including and especially their "private" lives from the television they (do not) watch to the fast food they (do not) eat to the sex lives they (do not) allow themselves to have. Even the concept of a "private" life dismissed as reactionary and/or illusory and in any event subject to the scrutiny of any undergraduate with internet access and a grudge. That is the life I escaped. Even a couple years after the fact I find it a surprise when my internal censor warns me against writing something for fear of losing my livelihood and my career and I realize I have already crossed that bridge, burned it and done a little dance some time ago. It is a small price for freedom compared to the price so many have already paid for me. But it is something.

My "internal censor" goes off pretty regularly.

Folks have asked me about this, in light of my neoconservative blogging. I'm outspoken, and I pride myself on having an honest voice in my writing, even if that rumples a few feathers (although I'm not up for tenure at a big university research department, so perhaps I've got more freedom than others).

Glenn Reynolds has a bit roundup of related news.

Democratic Party Identity Politics

Jerry Bowyer puts his finger on contemporary Democratic Party politics at today's Wall Street Journal, "Pennsylvania Divided":

As a Pennsylvania voter, I'm disheartened by the identity politics now playing out as both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battle for votes among Democratic Party factions.

One in five supporters of Mrs. Clinton here say they won't vote for Mr. Obama should their candidate lose (and vice versa, according to pollster Terry Madonna of Franklin & Marshall College). Only 12% of nonwhite Pennsylvania voters support Mrs. Clinton. Only 29% of white ones support Mr. Obama. Gender and age cohorts break along similarly sharp lines, with women and older voters going for Mrs. Clinton, men and young voters trending toward Mr. Obama.

As a student of political history, I see these poll results as something deeper than a passing nomination squabble. For at least 40 years, Democrats have been playing identity politics and empowering factional blocs within their party.

Though others might pick a different starting point, I'd trace the start of that process to 1968 Chicago, where antiwar protestors rioted outside of the party's national convention and party leaders inside responded by creating the McGovern-Fraser commission. That commission went on to write presidential nomination rules establishing delegate quotas based on age, race and gender. State parties followed suit by structuring caucuses to favor organized activist groups such as unions.

And so now Pennsylvania Democrats, like their brethren around the country, are splitting along race, age, gender and geographical lines as they are forced to choose between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. But then, why shouldn't they? Democratic voters are just doing what they've been trained to do – thinking of themselves in group terms.

Bowyer suggests James Madison had similar thoughts in mind when he praised the "mischiefs of faction" in the Federalist Papers.

It's a little more complicated than this (see Walter Stone, Republic at Risk: Self Interest in American Politics), but I like Bowyer's conclusion nevertheless:

Democrats might have once hoped that Pennsylvania would settle their nomination fight. Instead, it has shown how dangerous it is to put voters into factional blocs that can then be exploited along racial lines. To the extent that Democrats suffer this year for not learning that lesson earlier, well, to quote Mr. Obama's pastor (who himself was quoting Malcolm X): "the chickens have come home to roost."

See also my earlier post, "Making More (Non) Sense Among Democratic Party Constituencies."

Opponents Hammer Obama on “Bitter” Americans Statement

I still don't think Barack Obama's intemperate remarks about Philadelphia's working class population will derail his campaign.

Still, the episode's providing an important clarifications of what's wrong with the Obama phenomenon.

Victor Davis Hanson points to some of the key contradictions underlying the controversy, suggesting the increasing "McGovernization of Obama":

I still believe that by August, Obama, the half-term rookie Senator, will have become the second George McGovern....

So here we have the essential Obama, a walking paradox between the postmodern hip-Ivy-Leaguer who sneers at middle-class America’s supposed prejudices and parochialism, while at the same time courting an anti-Enlightenment, prejudicial demagogue like Jeremiah Wright. For free trade or anti-free trade? For 2nd-amendment rights or not? Post-religious or pious and fundamentalist? For public campaign financing or not? A uniter of various groups or someone who sees America in terms of “they”? Straight-talking or someone who evokes "context" to explain away the inexplicable?

Again, we will see more and more of these condescending statements of the Michelle Obama strain, more and more of Revs. Wright, Meeks, Lee and others peddlers of division like them, and more and more clues to a long hostility to Israel—in what will eventually become the most disastrous chapter in recent Democratic history.

And pundits keep wondering why Hillary won't give up?

See also, Allahpundit, "Obama Tries Again: You Know, I Probably Could Have Said it Better."

Congestion Pricing: Environmental Extremism Threatens Middle Class Lifestyles

There's an interesting debate going on over London's "congestion pricing," which is a fancy phrase for the levying of confiscatory taxes on vehicle owners commuting to their jobs in the city.

Hard-left blogger Matthew Yglesias thinks it's a great idea: "Congestion pricing is working out great in London."

He cites this piece at the American Prospect, which praises London's taxes to high heaven - not only for apparently "encouraging" more people to take public transit, but for helping "lower income residents ... as most don't have cars, don't drive, and are more likely than wealthy residents to use public transit."

There you have it: The social engineering benefits of environmental programs. It's not just about reducing congestion or clearing the air of pollutants. We need to help the poor get a lift on city's gritty double-deckers!

(Actually, London's discontinued double-decker routes due to the disparate impact of that form of public transportation on the disabled.)

Being a car-loving Southern Californian, I don't cotton too well the the notion of congestion pricing.

A recent articles in the Los Angeles Times highlighting the London program's impact on the middle class only confirmed my suspicions:

The Hackings, like many of their neighbors, are a two-car family. Every morning, Giles Hacking gets into his Mercedes CL500 in West Kensington and drives to his office across town near London Bridge.

Sarah Hacking piles the three children into the Jeep Cherokee and drops them off at their schools. Often, her mother pitches in and delivers one of the youngsters.

Soon, though, multi-car families like the Hackings may be wishing all they had to contend with was London's $8-a-gallon gasoline. In an unusual municipal experiment aimed at fighting global warming where the rubber meets the road, the British capital in October is to begin imposing a $50-a-day carbon emissions fee on every gas-guzzling private vehicle driven in the central city.

Even for the Hackings, who live in one of London's better neighborhoods and earn a good income from an old family import/export business, that will be a significant jolt: $100 a day for the school and work runs, $150 if Grandma gets involved.

"It's outrageous," said Sarah Hacking, expressing a sentiment that appears to elicit a strong amen from many of those here who drive the big sport utility vehicles that Mayor Ken Livingstone refers to derisively as "Chelsea tractors."

"We'd have a massive loss if we tried to sell our cars. And I can't have a tiny little car because I have three children who go to three different schools," she said.

"At the moment, we just have to pay. We really have no choice."

The new fee, adopted by the mayor after a long consultation with the public, has prompted threats of a lawsuit from Porsche and anger from many London drivers, some of whom have vowed to make it a central issue in the campaign leading to the mayoral election May 1.

For five years, London has been assessing drivers a daily "congestion charge," now set at $16, to drive into the central city and a large swath around it, a fee designed to tackle the infernal bottlenecks that have turned much of London into a parking lot.

The program has become a test case for major cities around the world. The New York City Council this week voted for a three-year trial program that would impose an $8 charge on vehicles entering Midtown and Lower Manhattan, a plan that still needs approval from the state Legislature.

San Francisco has studied imposing a charge as a way of easing central-city traffic jams; cities in Norway and Sweden have also flirted with congestion pricing; and Singapore has been charging downtown drivers since 1975.

But London's pending carbon dioxide emissions charge goes beyond traffic control and establishes one of the first significant municipal climate change programs in the world.

Oh yeah, congestion pricing's "working great in London."

Note that if one owns a "low emitting" vehicle the city's going to eliminate the congestion fee.

I'd say the policy discriminates against middle class working families with children.

But hey, the poor will be able to get around town better!

Photo Credit: Los Angeles Times

Making More (Non) Sense Among Democratic Party Constituencies

This post updates my earlier entry, "Radical Schizophrenia? Making Sense of Democratic Party Constituencies." There I noted:

We've seen a lot of irrationality this campaign season on the right of the spectrum, which thankfully has moved largely toward remission. But as the Democratic race becomes increasingly frenetic, we're seeing snowballing incoherence among the competing factions of the Democratic Party base.

The context for the update is the current battle over activism versus electoral viability within the hard-left Democratic Party base.

It turns out there's some controversy over the Obama campaign's "purging" of progressive antiwar types from delegate lists to the national party convention. It's a bit complicated, and I frankly doubt Obama's all that unhappy with his extreme progressive support, but the debate's interesting to monitor nevertheless.

Here's MyDD on the latest dust-up on the left:

Well, interesting things indeed went on in the dead of night as delegate candidates are being evaluated by the Obama campaign in California to see if they're worthy of inclusion as prospective delegates to Denver. Marcy Winograd over at the blog we do not name or link to said...

By dusk on Wednesday, the California Obama campaign had purged almost all progressive anti-war activists from its delegate candidate lists. Names of candidates, people who had filed to run to represent Obama at the August Democratic Party National Convention, disappeared, not one by one, but hundreds at a time, from the Party web site listing the eligibles. The list of Obama delegate hopefuls in one northern California congressional district went from a robust 100 to an anemic 23, while in southern California, the list in Congressman Waxman's district almost slipped out of sight, plunging from a high of 91 candidates to 17. Gone were strong women with independent political bases.

Marcy went on to state that the remaining candidates appeared to be mostly "bundlers and their girlfriends".

Marcy has paid her dues- she ran against Jane Harman in CA-36 in 2006, and got 37.5% of the votes with a lot of progressive support. The wisdom of the Obama campaign pissing off this kind of person remains to be determined.

Over at Calitics, Brian Leubitz is not happy.

Obama Slashes and Burns through the Delegate List

Today, I learned that I have been pruned out of my delegate race. I will say that I didn't really expect to win. There were people in my district that were better organized and better known (Chris Daly). And they both made the cut. However, I didn't figure the campaign to whom I donated money, and to whom I traveled to two different states for, would decide that I wasn't loyal enough. Heck, I spent March 4 working for Buffy Wicks (the CA field director) in Texas at the Election Hotline... this is a function of the Obama campaign, and if they expect to get any more time or money from me, I need to hear some sort of reasonable answer from the campaign.

And we get the so-called "rationale" for eliminating "certain types" of people...

It turns out Huffington Post has protested Obama's progressive purge:

It's hard not to be cynical. Remaining on the list of approved candidates is the slate of candidates (longtime campaign volunteers) that the Obama campaign has officially endorsed, as well as several names recognizable from local politics. These delegate candidates aren't to be faulted for being longtime political activists, but the cynic in me wonders why those names remained while the "nobodies" on the list disappeared. The Obama campaign owes those of us who were cut a fuller explanation of the decision process.

This is followed by MyDD's conclusion:

This is where the real progressives are being asked to get off the bus. Ideologically motivated people, the progressives who have been in Bush's face and raising a stink about the Bush Administration long before it became fashionable, are being seen as not trustworthy.

What Obama's campaign wants is "mules" - people who will go to the convention and vote for Obama, no matter what. It's not about the issues, it's about the candidate. If these delegates have strong dedication to particular causes they might be persuadable, so none of those types are allowed.

Why does this surprise anyone? All along, Obama's campaign has been about getting elected, Chicago style - that's it. Causes come and go, but the pursuit of political power goes on.

"Thanks for the help, liberal blogosphere and grassroots activists, but we'll take it from here". Heh.

Oh, by the way, it's all Hillary's fault - as usual. She MADE them do this.

See also the latest from HuffPo, "'Big Tent' Re-Opens: Obama Campaign Reverses CA Delegate Purge."

The Consequences of Withrawal From Iraq

A couple of years back, when Iraq was descending into an endless spiral of terrorist violence, and hopes for an American victory were fading fast, some analysts warned against a precipitous withdrawal:

Certainly the most damning consequence of failure in Iraq is the likelihood that an American withdrawal would provoke a take-no-prisoners civil war between the Sunni and Shiite Arabs, which could easily reach genocidal intensity.

We're now three years forward, and the calls for an American surrender in Iraq are as loud as ever. No matter that we're experiencing what's been called a "miraculous" strategic turnaround, the hard-left still clamors for a hasty retreat, strategic consequences be damned (see Matthew Yglesias for more cluelessness).

But check out Dr. Sanity's post yesterday, where she quotes an Iraqi blogger on the dangers of failure in Iraq:

The solution of the Iraqi situation cannot be helped by trying to find scapegoats and excuses to run away and escape. The formulae expounded by the Democrats amount to nothing but defeat and escapism. The problem is that this is a situation where defeat is fatal. If anybody thinks that the U.S. can run away this time, and sits safely and happily in tranquil isolation between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans, is in grave error. Solutions can be found to reduce casualties and expenses, but the strategic involvement of the U.S. in Iraq is a necessary and sufficient condition to avert a disaster the scale of which boggles the mind. A disaster that is infinitely more serious and dangerous than the aftermath of the Vietnam defeat. Because the Vietnamese had a clear objective, i.e. to unify their country and once that this objective had been achieved, they had no more business with the U.S. and the West. In the case of Iraq, the objectives and purposes of the enemy are fundamentally different, as has been expounded “maint fois” by people of the like of Al-Zawahiri et. al.; so many times have we heard Al-Qaeda leaders affirm that they consider Iraq the central front in their International Jihad campaign, and as being the more appropriate battle ground, being in the heart of the Arab world and so near to the holy lands apropos to which they share the sick visions of certain of their western (and non-western) counterparts of Armageddon’s and Apocalypses and all such kinds of nonsense and legend.

Yes, but to hear those on the left, this is all a mirage. It's the United States that's the problem, all the more reason to quit the mission:

It is time for the United States to remove itself from the quagmire in Iraq and begin a phased redeployment of troops. Staying on the current path will only continue to strengthen Iran's position in Iraq and the region, a result that undermines America's national security interests.

Right...

Staying in Iraq will "undermine" America's interests, while bolstering the West's implacable foes throughout the region. Such comments are anti-intellectual and grossly misstate the world's ideological, political, and strategic realities.

Obama's Working Class Insensitivity

Barack Obama made a huge gaffe when campaign this week in Pennsylvania, when he suggested that small-town folks become "bitter" and "cling" to guns, religion, and "anti-immigrant sentiment"

Whoo, that's an inconsiderate mouthful!

The Los Angeles Times has the overview:

Battling for support in Pennsylvania and other blue-collar bastions, Barack Obama fended off charges of elitism and insensitivity Friday after painting a harsh portrait of America's struggling small towns.

The controversy -- fanned by rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain -- began when the Huffington Post website published remarks the Illinois senator made last weekend at a closed-door San Francisco fundraiser.

In those comments, Obama said he understood why residents of some hard-pressed communities grew angry.

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Fellow Democrat Clinton, campaigning in Pennsylvania ahead of the state's April 22 primary, suggested Obama was offering condescension rather than solutions. "Pennsylvania doesn't need a president who looks down on them," the New York senator said at a Philadelphia rally. "They need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them."

A strategist for Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) joined in the criticism. "It's a remarkable statement and extremely revealing," said Steve Schmidt. "It shows an elitism and a condescension toward hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking."

Indeed. But get the whole speech at the Huffington Post.

Obama's remarks have created a feeding frenzy on the right side of the blogosphere.

Here's Paul Hinderaker, asking "is Obama's campaign over?:

It may be. I don't see how anyone known to have uttered these words can be elected President:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Barack Obama's arrogance has been evident for some time, and it's no shock, perhaps, to learn that that he shares this bigoted opinion, common among urban liberals, of people who live in "small towns." But to actually express it, in public, at a campaign event, is stunningly stupid.

With respect to the Hindrocket, Obama's campaign's nowhere near done.

As I've chronicled in my recent posting on the Democratic campaign, "No Enemies on the Left," Obama's statements are fundamentally in line with activist thinking among large segments of the Democratic Party's constituent base.

Captain Ed has an excellent post indicating how Democrats and the Obama campaign are tying to distance themselves from the controversy be reframing the debate:

In their attempts to spin away from Barack Obama’s stunningly stupid remarks at a San Francisco fundraiser last weekend, Democrats and the Obama campaign have focused on only the least objectionable portion of the comment as a means to frame the national discussion. In a single sentence where Obama called small-town Midwestern voters overly religious bigots who cling to their guns out of frustration with George Bush, the Democrats have decided to build their defense on “bitter”.

Andrew Sullivan tries to put things in context:

You can see the point he [Obama's] is trying to make - it's the Thomas Frank argument - and you can argue about its merits, back and forth. I don't think it's meant pejoratively about the blue collar workers Obama is trying to engage. But the context of these remarks is political gold for McCain and Clinton. Especially Clinton. You will hear these words on Fox News for a very, very long time.

I hope so.