Hillary Clinton is GOP Mouthpiece?

I suppose it's an empirical question as to whether this year's Democratic race is nastier than primary battles of earlier years.

Some have argued that no matter how divisive the race gets, the implications for the November general election contest will be minimal: The party faithful will rally around their nominee to battle a common, despised GOP opponent.

Perhaps, but in the meantime the Obama forces are attacking Hillary Clinton as worse than Benedict Arnold:

Liberal bloggers are slamming Clinton for reinforcing conservative attacks on Obama:

• Arianna Huffington: "John McCain should go on vacation, Hillary Clinton is doing his job for him. [...] Clinton's cynical distortion of Obama's remarks is in keeping with her campaign's modus operandi. On the foreign policy front, we've been fed a steady diet of her RNC-patented attacks: No Democrat can be trusted with national security -- except her. Obama hasn't crossed the threshold to be commander-in-chief. Etc. Now she's turned to the domestic policy section of the RNC playbook, twisting Obama's words in a way that confirms every right-wing demagogic caricature of her own Party."

• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "While I find the whole 'don't repeat right-wing frames' kind of tired if useful, Hillary Clinton's charges of elitism are explicitly reinforcing right-wing charges. How do we know this? Well, because right-wingers are attacking [Obama] with her rhetoric."

• TPM's Marshall: "With the [Jeremiah] Wright business and now with this, the more nuanced version of the Clinton line has been that what 'we' think is not really the point. It's what Republicans will do with it in the fall. And that's a real concern that I definitely have. I won't deny it. I've never thought Obama was a perfect candidate. But as we get deeper into the primary calendar, increasingly so, this 'what the Republicans will do' line has become more of a simulacrum, or a license, if you will, to do what Republicans actually do do. That is to say, to grab for political advantage by peddling stereotypes about Democrats and liberals that are really no less offensive than the ones we're talking about about Americans from small town and rural America."

• Marshall continues: "And seeing Hillary go on about how Obama has contempt for folks in small town America, how he's elitist, well...no, it's not because I think she's either. I never have. But after seeing her hit unfairly with just the same stuff for years, it just encapsulates the last three-plus months of her campaign which I can only describe as a furious descent into nonsense and self-parody. Part of it makes me want to cry. But at this point all I can really do is laugh."

Meanwhile, Balloon Juice's John Cole unloads on Clinton: "I am well aware that I am beyond the point where I can discuss Hillary rationally, but I really can not stress enough how much I have grown to hate her. [...] This past week-end was just the final boiling point for me, as I watched her run to every microphone with a zeal that would impress Chuck Schumer to claim that America's blue collar workers are under assault from a San Francisco effete liberal latte-sipping out-of-touch Obama. [...] This would merely be stupid and offensive if she actually believed that Obama doesn't like or looks down on average Americans, but she knows that isn't true. As it is, though, it is far more than offensive and stupid, as she just thinks she has an angle where she can score some political points. [...] The woman is a moral black hole -- soulless, empty, calculating and nasty all the way to her core."

But at least the bloggers over at American Prospect are consistent:

TAPPED's Kate Sheppard: "I do think Obama's words were poorly chosen, but I don't think they merit 'Bittergate' as we're seeing it play out.

Compare to Ezra Klein: "As far as I can tell, few actually find the argument underlying Obama's statement controversial."

Spoke a little early on that one, no?

Arianna Huffington Okay'd Obama "Cling" Story While Yachting in Tahiti!

This post updates yesterday's entry on Mayhill Fowler, the blogger who broke open Barack Obama's "cling" comment controversy, "HuffPo Blogger Under Fire for Obama Bittergate Uproar."

Today's Los Angeles Times reports that HuffPo's Arianna Huffington made the editorial decision to publish Fowler's blog report on Obama's comments while yachting in French Polynesia:

Obama campaign officials have not publicly criticized the story or complained about Fowler, who had given nearly the $2,300 maximum to his campaign for the Democratic nomination. They declined to comment Monday.

The story was reviewed up the website's editorial ladder all the way to founder Arianna Huffington. Vacationing on a yacht in Tahiti, Huffington gave her assent.

Think about the convoluted juiciness of this:

Barack Obama's in hot water for airing condescending comments arguing the bitterness of religiously opiated Midwestern Americans.

Obama, a Harvard Law School graduate, has been relentlessy and rightly ridiculed as politically inexeperienced - ignorant of the lives of alleged bible-thumping rust-belt gun-owners - while the story that scooped the scandal erupted from a "progressive" online blogging platform published by a Greek-born, Cambridge-educated internationally bestselling author and ex-wife of an openly-bisexual millionaire oil magnate and unsuccessful U.S. Senate candidate.

It's limosine liberalism for the Internet age, Yahoo yachtsmanship for the South Pacific socialist set!

No wonder some in Pennsylvania are up in arms.

Indeed, "the good people of Pennsylvania deserve a lot better than what Barack Obama said!"

Careful With Those Bush/Truman Analogies...

ABC News ran a dramatic piece today on President Bush's public approval ratings, "Bush Defeats Truman."

The article indicates that Bush has lacked a majority of public approval over a longer period than President Harry Truman:

At 39 months in the doghouse, George W. Bush has surpassed Harry Truman's record as the postwar president to linger longest without majority public approval.

Bush hasn't received majority approval for his work in office in ABC News/Washington Post polls since Jan. 16, 2005 — three years and three months ago. The previous record was Truman's during his last 38 months in office.

Click here for PDF with charts and full questionnaire.

Truman's problems included both economic recession and the war in Korea, which, in October 1952, 56 percent of Americans said was not worth fighting. Bush's approval, likewise, has suffered overwhelmingly because of the unpopular war in Iraq; his job rating correlates almost perfectly with views of the war.

In the latest ABC/Post poll, just 33 percent of Americans approve of Bush's work, a point from his career-low 32 percent earlier this year. Sixty-four percent disapprove, with those who "strongly" disapprove outnumbering strong approvers by a 3-1 margin.

Comparing numbers like these requires a little care, of course, and ABC might have been a bit quick off the blocks in suggesting "Bush Defeats Truman."

You see, while Bush may have beaten Truman non-majority approval indices over time, Bush is still well above Truman's public approval ratings from 1953. Truman left office with the lowest presidential support in history, at just 23 percent.

But who cares about precision when one can hammer Bush, one more time, as the "worst president ever"?

See Firedoglake, for example, "It’s Official: Bush Is Objectively The Most Hated President In History."

Actually, he's not, as the numbers themselves indicate.

But the Truman comparison is accurate in other respects, particularly in terms of historical legacy.

Historians, for example, regard President Truman as in the near great category today, and some commentators have suggested that President Bush's historical record will follow a similar trajectory into the near-great pantheon:

With all the talk about President Bush's failed legacy by the nattering nabobs of negativism, one might think he won't have one.

Actually, he has cut a wide and often determined swath in the troubled course that history has dealt him, with 9/11 defining his presidency and the war-footing decade in which he has governed. Other big events, from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to several very large domestic initiatives he started and implemented, will have positive repercussions long after he has left office.

As American progress in Iraq continues, and we see futher consolidation of the Iraqi democratic regime, the positive repercussions will come more clearly into focus.

Obama Sporting Flag Pin at Veterans Event

Well, just two days after Doonesbury ran a "Senator Flag Pin" comic in Sunday's syndication, Barack Obama was seen today sporting one of the patriotic lapel embellishments at a veterans campaign speech today.

As seen below, the sixth panel in the Doonesbury strip reads, "If I DON'T WEAR MY FLAG PIN, PEOPLE WILL THINK I'M MAKING A STATEMENT THAT I'M WITH THE TERRORISTS..."

It turns out a vet gave Obama the pin he donned today, but he might do well to sport them more often, especially now that he's got terrorist-backing antiwar group Code Pink bundling campaign contributions for him.

There's significant controversy over this, so let's see those who say flag pins are idiotic denounce Obama's campaign support from terrorist-backing antiwar groups.

Code Pink Bundling Contributions for Obama

I've noted in a number of posts that Barack Obama's the candidate of choice for contemporary "progressive" organizations (see my series, " No Enemies on the Left? Progressives for Barack Obama").

Don't forget that the terminology of "progressive" has been appropriated by far-left activists in order to secure more general acceptance of their radical agenda. But as I've indicated time and again, some of the left's most hardline organizations are in the tank for Obama (see, "Anti-McCain Mobilization Rooted in Hardline Anti-Iraq Constituencies").

Now it turns out that Code Pink, the left's terrorist-backing antiwar outfit, is bundling campaign contributions for the Obama campaign, according to this report from Human Events:

The co-founder of the radical anti-war group Code Pink has “bundled” more than $50,000 for Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, and pro-troops groups are demanding that he return the money.

Jodie Evans, a Code Pink leader, gathered at least $50,000 from friends and associates and donated it to Obama’s presidential campaign, according to information compiled by the nonpartisan watchdog group, Public Citizen.

Evans and her son, a student who lives at her Southern California address, each also gave the maximum individual allowable donation of $2,300 to Obama’s campaign.

The donations have raised questions about Obama’s association with the more radical elements of his base. Code Pink has harassed, vandalized and impeded military recruiters across the United States in a campaign it calls “counter-recruitment.” The group also gave $600,000 to the families of Iraqi terrorists in Fallujah, whom it called “insurgents” fighting for their homes.

Read the whole thing.

I've been raising questions about Obama's "radical associations" for some time (see here for all of the follow-up entries in the "No Enemies on the Left" series).

Yet so far, this is the most damning bit of information substantiating the radical base of support for the Obama campaign.

So, while some may see Obama as fumbling over the weekend in his intemperate remarks on upper Midwest working-class Americans , others have suggested - not too far off the mark, it turns out - that Obama's indeed got some Marxist class-consciousness bona fides as the likely Democratic Party standard-bearer.

Things on the Democratic side are still shaking out, but certainly Obama, as Andrew McCarthy said the other day, "would radically alter this country" should he take power next January.

I'll have more on these developments in upcoming posts.

Obama's Comments Will Haunt Him in November

Ezra Klein suggested over the weekend that:

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...

Actually, Obama's remarks are turning out to pretty controversial, as members of both the left and right have acknowledged.

Here's John Judis' essay on Obama's likely "bitter" November haunting, which references Klein in the introduction:

Some liberal commentators have downplayed the effect of Barack Obama's fundraising speech at a San Francisco fundraiser last week. But that's wishful thinking. Along with the revelations about Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright, his remarks in San Francisco will haunt him not only in the upcoming primaries in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, but also in the general election against John McCain, assuming he gets the Democratic nomination.

To win in November, a Democratic presidential candidate has to carry most of the industrial heartland states that stretch from Pennsylvania to Missouri. That becomes even more imperative if a Democrat can't carry Florida--and because of his relative weakness in South Florida, Obama is unlikely to do so against McCain. Ruy Teixeira and I have calculated that in the heartland states, a Democratic presidential candidate has to win from 45 to 48 percent of the white working class vote. In some states, like West Virginia and Kentucky, the percentage is well over a majority.

Some Democrats insist that Obama need not worry about these states because he will be able to make up for a defeat in Ohio or even Pennsylvania with a victory in Virginia or Colorado. But in Virginia, McCain will be able to draw upon coastal suburbanites closely tied to the military. These voters backed Democrats like Chuck Robb and Jim Webb, who are both veterans, but they may not go for Obama. And in the Southwest, McCain will be able to challenge Obama among Hispanics. So to win in November, Obama will have to win almost all of these heartland states. Which is a problem, because even before he uttered his infamous words about these voters "clinging" to guns, religion, abortion, and fears about free trade, Obama looked vulnerable in the region. A look at the white working class's relationship with earlier Democratic candidates underscores the various reasons why.

I think this is an imporant analysis, especially with respect to McCain's strengths among more traditional Democratic voting constituencies.

See also, John Fund, "Obama's Flaws Multiply," where he notes:

Michael Dukakis had a healthy lead in 1988 against the elder Bush at this time and right through the political conventions. Then came the GOP's dissection of his Massachusetts record and his tank ride.

I was thinking about the 1988 election this morning on the way to work. Fund is talking about how the Democrats tend to nominate inexperienced candidates, to their peril. My reflections back to 1988 had more to do with party electoral dynamics.

The assumption that 2008's going to be a big Democratic year flawed, and the Dukakis tank ride 20 years ago - not to mention Willie Horton - are the precedents heading into the fall.

Sure, we've got pent-up demands for effective government performance, but back in 1998 we had similar political polarization over the Reagan administration's legacy, yet George H.W. Bush won the White House that year. Indeed, I identified the Dukakis analogy for 2008 back in January, in my post, "Conservative Troubles in '08?"

Of course, Ezra Klein was only 3 years-old at the time of Dukakis' nomination, so some historical significance might be lost on him.

Hat tip: Memeorandum.

Hillary Appeals to Pennsylvania Small Town Values

Courtesy of No Quarter, Hillary Clinton's already smashing the Pennsylvania cable lineups with a new hard-hitting campaign spot taking down Barack Obama's smear of the state's "bitter" working class voters (via of YouTube):

Recall yesterday's report from the Politico, "What Clinton Wishes She Could Say":

Why, ask many Democrats and media commentators, won’t Hillary Rodham Clinton see the long odds against her, put her own ambitions aside, and gracefully embrace Barack Obama as the inevitable Democratic nominee?

Here is why: She and Bill Clinton both devoutly believe that Obama’s likely victory is a disaster-in-waiting. Naive Democrats just don’t see it. And a timid, pro-Obama press corps, in their view, won’t tell the story.

But Hillary Clinton won’t tell it, either....

Skepticism about Obama’s general election prospects extends beyond Clinton backers. We spoke to unaffiliated Democratic lawmakers, veteran lobbyists, and campaign operatives who believe the rush of enthusiasm for Obama’s charisma and fresh face has inhibited sober appraisals of his potential weaknesses.

The concerns revolve around two themes.

The first is based on the campaign so far. Assuming voting patterns evident in the nominating contest continue into the fall, Obama would be vulnerable if McCain can approximate the traditional GOP performance in key states.

The second is based on fear about the campaign ahead.

Stories about Obama’s Chicago associations with 1960s radicals Bernardine Dohrn and William Ayers landed with barely a ripple. So, too, did questions about whether he once backed a total ban on handguns (he says no but in a 1996 state legislative race his campaign filled out a questionnaire saying yes). Obama’s graceful handling of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy may have turned that into a net positive against Clinton.

Well, if the new Pennsylvania "Small Town Values" ad is any indication, I don't think Hillary's afraid to "tell the story" of Barack Obama anymore.

See also my earlier entries, "Should Democratic Party Elders Be Worried?," and "Obama's Circle of Friends: The America-Hating Left."

Muslim Student Union at UC Irvine Backs Suspected Terrorist

FrontPageMagazine is currently running a series, "The Muslim Students Association and the Jihad Network."

Last Thursday's installment covered the group's chapter at UC Irvine, in Orange County, California: "The Muslim Student Union at UC Irvine."

Now, according to Red County, UCI's Muslim group is sponsoring a fundraising drive for Sami Al-Arian, a Palestinian computer engineer and former university professor, who's accused of funding international terrorist organizations:

Thanks to the UC Irvine Muslim Student Union and the greater Muslim community of Orange County, everyone's favorite terrorist uncle, Sami Al-Arian, gets his own hagiographic screening at the Woodbridge 5 Theater on Barranca pkwy in Irvine on April 17. The show costs 10 dollars a ticket, and proceeds will go to this scum's legal defense fund. Among other charges, he is on trial for his involvement in Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and his role in terror attacks responsible for hundred's of deaths in Israel.

See also my earlier post, "Muslim Students Association Seeks U.S. Destruction."

Should Democratic Party Elders Be Worried?

Wolf Blitzer assures us that the current "bitter"-ness of the Democratic nomination is damaging party prospects heading into the summer and fall:

A lot of Democrats are increasingly worried about the tough back-and-forth that is now part of the tense Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama race for the party’s presidential nomination.

There are some very passionate Clinton supporters who clearly don’t like Obama. And there are some very passionate Obama supporters who clearly don’t like Clinton. That is very evident. Just talk to both sides.

In fact, a poll in the current issue of Time magazine has alarmed many Democrats. The poll asked Obama voters if the presidential election were between Clinton and John McCain, whom would they vote for. In the poll, 16 percent said McCain and 16 percent said they don’t know. That’s 32 percent who refused to say flatly they would support Clinton – the other Democrat.

When Clinton supporters were asked whom they would support if the presidential race were between Obama and McCain, 26 percent said McCain and 18 percent said they don’t know. That’s 44 percent who refused to say flatly they would vote for Obama.

Thus, Clinton voters were more likely than Obama voters – at least in this poll – to actually pick McCain if their respective Democratic candidate lost the nomination.

Those of us who cover politics like to caution that all these polls are only snapshots. Once the political dust on the Democratic race settles, and there is an eventual nominee – whether Clinton or Obama – a different snapshot might emerge. Democrats, in the end, might still come together against the Republican candidate.

But right now, I can assure you, a lot of party elders are deeply worried that all this nastiness could wind up helping McCain.

I agree with Blitzer, although some online pundits have suggested for critics of the Democrats to just "CHILL OUT."

Check the Time poll, "Clinton Hangs Onto Lead in Pennsylvania."

HuffPo Blogger Under Fire for Obama Bittergate Uproar

One of the first things I noticed about Barack Obama's Bittergate controversy is that all the key initial links to the breaking story sent readers to the Huffington Post.

Strange?

HuffPo routinely publishes some of the most radical writings on the web, and a number of commentators there had announced they were in the tank for Obama. Why would HuffPo want to slam their own assets?

So it's no surprise to learn that Mayhill Fowler, the blogger who broke the news on Obama's San Francisco "cling" comments, is getting hammered for creating a national political scandal. The New York Times has more:

The backstory of how Senator Barack Obama’s comments about small-town voters became news is getting almost as much attention in the blogosphere as the comments themselves.

Mayhill Fowler, a blogger for OffTheBus.net, a Web site published by Huffington Post and created by Arianna Huffington and Jay Rosen, was the first to report Mr. Obama’s comments — that small-town voters bitter over their economic circumstances, “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” as a way to explain their frustrations.

The comments created an instant sensation in the media and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton seized on them, hoping they would slow Mr. Obama’s momentum in the polls against her in Pennsylvania, which votes in 8 days. If Pennsylvania rejects Mr. Obama by a big margin, and voters in Indiana and North Carolina follow suit, the comment could be seen as the game-changer.

Ms. Fowler told me in an interview Sunday night that she was initially reluctant to write about what Mr. Obama had said because she actually supports him -- which partly explains why she was at the fund-raiser in the first place and why there was a four-day delay between the event and the publication of her post. Ultimately, she said, she decided that if she didn’t write about it, she wouldn’t be worth her salt as a journalist.

Some Obama supporters in the blogosphere were up in arms at Ms. Fowler. They doubt that she really supports Mr. Obama, have called her a plant for Mrs. Clinton and suggested she was deceptive in getting into the fund-raiser.

The whole episode gives a revealing glimpse into yet even more ways in which the Internet is changing the coverage of politics. And Ms. Fowler says she is surprised that she is playing a role in this revolution.

"I'm 61," she said. "I can't believe I would be one of the people who's changing the world of media." But her experience raises questions about whether the roles, rules and expectations for journalists and bloggers are different. Can a person be both? Even Ms. Fowler acknowledged that "clearly everyone is going to be re-thinking how they handle this kind of thing."

My instincts were right all along, so let me say it right here: No, you can't be a journalist and a blogger simultaneously.

Huffington Post epitomizes the problems.

Check the site out: It hosts mainstream wire service stories from sources such as the Associated Press alongside unhinged far-left rantings likely to make the skin crawl on middle-Americans nationwide.

Not only that, they eat their own:

"Faux Obama Supporter Mayhill Fowler Smears Obama."

God help Mayhill Flower!!

Mayhill Fowler is catching holy hell for her post about the San Francisco fundraiser and "Bittergate": The Huffington Post is anti-Obama. She enjoys an "above the fold" space only because she's willing to go after Obama. She must be on somebody's payroll. She's a Clinton operative. An Obama-basher.

There's more of the juicy stuff here.

And people want to tell me this isn't helping John McCain?!!

Gleen Greenwald's Latest Partisan Screed

Out in stores tomorrow is Glenn Greenwald's new book, Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics.

Greenwald's got a self-promotional post up, which links to a number of left-wing reviews already available. One of these is Digby's, where she notes:

I've been thinking about torture all week-end which naturally led me to think about Glenn Greenwald's new book, Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics which is being released today.

It's not that the book is about torture, but it is about the Republican psyche, in particular about their weird cult of masculinity, which is what leads to over-the-top notions of violent necessity in dealing with national security.

Frankly, I suspect that Greenwald's audience consists entirely of those on the far-left of the spectrum. I mean these are his people, assorted antiwar whackos, anti-FISA-fanatics, and irretrievable BDS sufferers.

As Megan McArdle noted last week, Greenwald's pretty much unhinged, always railing against anything and everything, which McArdle identifies as the "non-Glenn-Greenwald power structure."

If you check the Amazon link, most of the reviews are posted by these same hangers-on lefties, a fact which doesn't impart much objectivity to the recommendations. Markos Moulitsas notes, for example, "One of the smartest and most important new voices to emerge in politics in years." Well, that just makes my day!

But check out the Publisher's Weekly blurb-review at Barnes and Noble:

With this provocative book, Greenwald, a former constitutional lawyer and author of A Tragic Legacyand How Would a Patriot Act, purports to expose the "rank myth-making and exploitation of cultural, gender and psychological themes" by the Republican Party. The author begins his attack by targeting John Wayne, whom he sees as a template for right-wing notions of "American courage and conservative manliness." Wayne's avoidance of military service and his string of divorces, both at odds with his public image, are emblematic in this account of a fundamental hypocrisy implicit in conservative mythologies. Greenwald goes on to argue that prominent Republicans from Ronald Reagan to Mitt Romney display the same hypocrisy in their public ideologies and personal lives. Shouldering much of the blame are the press and the media, including Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter, Chris Matthews and even Maureen Dowd, all of whom propagate popular attitudes about virile Republicans and effeminate Democrats. Despite the antipathy the author feels for Coulter, his writing is much like hers. More a partisan screed than a reasoned argument meant to persuade undecided readers, this repetitive text frequently devolves into personal attacks and vast generalizations.

Not surprisingly, Greenwald doesn't link to Barnes and Noble.

I can tell you right now, though, from getting the gist of Greenwald's thesis from his blog posts, "personal attacks" and vast generalizations" pretty much sum up his writing.

Mind you, I'm planning on reading the book, so I can't claim authority beyond the snippets of Greenwald's thesis I've reluctantly absorbed from his online screeds.

But to refer back to Digby's review, where she praises this notion of the GOP's "weird cult of masculinity" .... well, this so-clalled "weird cult" might be the biggest myth going, something to which only the crazed BDS-types might attach significance

The same aggressive "warmongering" that Greenwald denounces (again and again) is more likely described as America's historical reverence for traditional values of discipline and sacrifice, support of nation, the willingness to see threats for what they are, and a culture of pro-military conservativism holding the armed forces as an essential element in the preservation of democratic society.

These are hard notions to grasp for those who see every GOP national-security talking point as the latest communique from a reincarnated Joseph Goebbels totalitarian propaganda machine.

I'll have more on Greenwald's fantasies in upcoming posts.

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