The following is my 4 (actually five) step AP Style Guide on Defending Barack Obama. For my examples I use excerpts from Associated Press writer Phillip Elliott in his recent article, Obama Tries to Allay Jewish Concerns. All comments surrounded by parenthesis in bold are mine for demonstration purposes.

Step 1. – Provide the Setup

The first step in creating a defense of Barack Obama is to provide a seemingly objective setup. The goal here is to state the criticisms of his record in a way that also defends his integrity and portrays Mr. Obama as a victim if at all possible.

Example:

CLEVELAND (AP) — Barack Obama has a solid Senate record in support of Israel. (praise)

He sings the praises, too, of Jewish civil rights workers who fought for blacks’ rights in the U.S. And he says he wants to patch up “a historically powerful bond between the African-American and Jewish communities.” (praise)

Yet there is unease among some Jewish voters about the Illinois senator and Democratic presidential contender. (concern that needs to be addressed)

Why? (lead readers into believing that they will get an answer)

Part of it is a division between blacks and Jews that’s been growing for years, a split that Obama has challenged fellow blacks to confront. (action item in defense of cause)

Another element is the praise Obama has received from Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan, whose disparaging comments about Judaism are toxic to many voters. Obama’s own pastor has a history of supporting Palestinian causes. (concern that needs to be addressed)

And there are questions about Obama advisers who some U.S. Jews see as less than ardent advocates of Israel. (concern that needs to be addressed)

Finally, there are rumors and outright lies about the candidate that have gained an audience through repetition in e-mails and on Web sites. (defense, victimization, rumor and innuendo)

Step 2. – Provide the Defense

This step is quite simple. Provide a few fleeting action items, particularly recent events, that the candidate has done on behalf of the cause. Make sure to mix in a couple of statements from experts that are supportive of Barack Obama. Extra style points can be achieved if you take a swipe at conservatives, better yet if that swipe contains statements about rumor and innuendo. Use words and events that evoke emotion such as “lie” and “outrage”.

Example:

On the day of the Mississippi primary this week, Obama took time to call Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to express condolences over the deadly terrorist attack on a rabbinical seminary in Jerusalem. He also reaffirmed his support for Israel’s right to defend itself and for its commitment to negotiations with Palestinians and underscored the need to stop Iran from supporting terrorism or getting nuclear weapons. (recent action item in defense of cause)

The effort by the candidate and his advisers to calm disquiet among Jewish voters began more than a year ago. (action item in defense of cause)

“The Jewish community cannot be taken for granted,” said Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida, one of Obama’s chief surrogates before Jewish audiences. Wexler sent an e-mail last March to supporters urging them not to be swayed by rumors, a message he repeated during a recent forum in Cleveland. (expert defense, mention of rumor and innuendo)

Obama used a speech in January at Martin Luther King Jr.’s church in Atlanta to chastise blacks for latent anti-Semitism. And during a recent debate, Obama alluded to James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, one black and two Jewish civil rights workers murdered in Mississippi in 1964 as they worked together on a campaign to register black voters. (action item in defense of cause, association by mention of famous civil rights figures)

“You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish-Americans who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South,” Obama said. “And that coalition has frayed over time around a whole host of issues, and part of my task in this process is making sure that those lines of communication and understanding are reopened.” (action item in defense of cause, civil rights, superfluous praise)

Still, there remains some “nervousness over Senator Obama” among Jewish voters, said Rabbi Joshua Skoff, who attended a private meeting with Obama in Cleveland last month. “The rumors still have some legs.” (community outreach, concern that needs to be addressed, mention of rumor and innuendo)

Step 3. – Restate the Problem as Setup for Further Defense

This step is essentially a repeat of step 1. Do this in particular if the record of accomplishment is thin as it stretches the defense out. Appear objective. Avoid criticism unless it can be surrounded by offsetting praise or excused away.

Example:

Still, there remains some “nervousness over Senator Obama” among Jewish voters, said Rabbi Joshua Skoff, who attended a private meeting with Obama in Cleveland last month. “The rumors still have some legs.” (concern that needs to be addressed,community outreach, mention of rumor and innuendo)

At the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, President Howard Friedman said Obama’s Senate record on Israel has given his critics no reason to doubt him. (expert defense)

But that record is thin. Just a little over three years ago, Obama was a state legislator in Illinois. (excuse, note how this sentence contradicts the first sentence of the article)

“Right now, Obama’s big problem with the Jewish community is similar to his problem with other communities: He’s just not clearly defined among any voter groups,” said Kenneth Wald, director of Center for Jewish Studies at the University of Florida-Gainesville. “The fact he has a name that sounds Muslim and has a Muslim father underlines questions about what we do and what we do not know about him.” (concern that needs to be addressed)

Step 4. – Provide the Defense

This is a repeat of step 2. By now you should be getting into a rhythm providing excuses and defenses of all criticisms and concerns. Make sure to get some quotes and keep up the efforts to cast criticisms in the light of rumor and innuendo. Extra style points can be achieved if you take a swipe at conservatives, better yet if that swipe contains statements about rumor and innuendo. Use words and events that evoke emotion such as “lie” and “outrage”.

Example:

Some critics on the Internet have gone far beyond raising questions. (defense and set up)

Contrary to some e-mails, Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim. He took his oath of office on the family Bible, not a Quran. (defense, dispel rumor)

“There has been a concerted effort, largely out of the conservative Web sites and anonymous e-mails,” says Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, which set up a Stop The Smears Web site to correct the rumors. (swipe against conservatives even though they have nothing to do with topic, mention of rumor and innuendo, drive people to advocacy site)

“I don’t think it moves tons and tons of votes, but at the fringes, if left unchecked, it could move a few,” he said. (critics are now portrayed as fringe)

In the private meeting in Cleveland with 100 Jewish leaders last month, Obama talked about his 2005 trip to Israel, his views on a Palestinian state and regional Middle East security. He was quickly questioned about his own pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and an award his church magazine gave last year that said Farrakhan “truly epitomized greatness.” (concern that needs to be addressed, action item in defense of cause)

Farrakhan is intolerable to Jewish voters because of a history of anti-Semitic remarks, like calling Judaism a “gutter religion.” (statement of fact not attributed to Barack Obama)

Step 4 (actually five). – Wrap it Up

This is the closer. Provide Barack Obama a platform from which to present his defense. Make sure you get a couple of key quotes. Leave the reader with a sense of calm that dispels all concerns and satisfies those who need an excuse to look past any questions that challenge Barack Obama.

Example:

Obama, who has rejected support from Farrakhan, assured voters his Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago does not endorse such messages. (defense, meaningless words and catch phrases that run counter to facts, tie up loose ends on criticisms for denouncing Farrakhan as opposed to rejecting him*)

“I have never heard an anti-Semitic (remark) made inside of our church. I have never heard anything that would suggest anti-Semitism on the part of the pastor,” Obama said in a transcript of his remarks released later. “He (Wright) is like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don’t agree with. And I suspect there are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things that they don’t agree with – including, on occasion, directed at African-Americans.” (defense, meaningless words and catch phrases that run counter to facts, excuse, distance Obama from subject of concern)

Obama took the title of his 2006 book “The Audacity of Hope” from a Wright sermon. But last year, he asked Wright not to offer a prayer at his campaign’s kickoff in Springfield, Ill. (excuse, distance Obama from subject of concern)

The questioners in Cleveland also raised Obama’s use of foreign policy advisers the doubters say are foes of Israel, including former President Carter’s national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. (concern that needs to be addressed)

Obama replied that Brzezinski is an informal, not a key, adviser, and “I do not share his views with respect to Israel.” (excuse, distance Obama from subject of concern)

He said he has other foreign policy advisers from the Clinton administration who share his belief that Israel has to remain a Jewish state with special ties to the U.S. and that the Palestinians have been irresponsible. And he said critics’ e-mails never mention Lester Crown, a member of his national finance committee who is “considered about as hawkish and tough when it comes to Israel as anybody in the country.” (action item in defense of cause, use of fundraiser turned advisor)

“This is where I get to be honest, and I hope I’m not out of school here,” Obama told Jewish leaders at the private meeting. “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering, pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel, and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel.” (restate honesty, pro-Likud substitute as veiled reference to right wing)

The formula is pretty simple and there are variations to be sure. In the end make sure you advocate for Barack Obama while appearing objective.

* Closing the loop technique. Used to tie up loose end. In this example Barack Obama was quietly back peddling on a previous stance where he denounced Louis Farrakhan in the Russert debate with Hillary Clinton. Obama’s parsing of words, using “denounce” instead of “reject” was capitalized on by Hillary Clinton and has caused great concern in the Jewish community as noted in the LA Times.

That is my take on the unwritten but seemingly understood formula used by many writers in the mainstream media that seek to defend Barack Obama rather than report on him.

We have seen this kind of thinly veiled activism being exercised by the press for quite some time. There is a double standard being applied to Barack Obama. The contrasts are astounding. Many of those defending him from the “guilt by association” of Rev. Jeremiah Wright are the same crowd that attacked John McCain when radio talk show host Bill Cunningham dared to use the full name of Barack Hussein Obama. Likewise Hillary Clinton has been sliced by the knife of intolerance as she distanced herself from Geraldine Ferraro’s statements concerning Barack Obama’s meteoric rise to power. The same goes for select religions. The mainstream media worked overtime discussing the Mormonism of Mitt Romney yet we are essentially being told that we shouldn’t discuss the church of Barack Obama. It goes on an on, defense after defense, excuse after excuse.

The appalling aspect of this whole exercise is that we are talking about media influence and the duty to inform. I have fun with these examples by sarcasm but presidential campaigns are serious events. The people of this nation deserve more.

Terry Trippany is the editor and publisher of Webloggin.com

Other than Trippany’s difficulty with counting, I think it’s dead-on.

The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He’s drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

I would rather hear which of Wright’s statements he agrees with. It isn’t exactly saying much to say you reject any statements that are “at issue.” Are you rejecting every controversial statement your pastor has ever made? I’m assuming he stumbles on a truth accidentally now and again. Oh, and I notice you still referred to Wright as “Rev.” (which, for any libs reading this, stands for Reverend, or “revered-one.”) 

Were you not aware that your pastor went to meet with Qaddafi in Libya with Louis Farrakhan? Did you miss the lifetime achievement award your church gave to the same vile man?  If indeed you didn’t know of these views, what made you (in exercising that superb “judgment” that you’re always talking about) capable of being duped for 20 years by the man who performed your marriage, baptized your children, and who you referred to as your “spiritual advisor” and “mentor?” If you “categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country,” do you denounce your wife’s statement that your campaign is the first time she’s been proud of America in her entire adult life? Should we not question why you are clearly not nearly as perceptive as your wife is, since obviously she understood your mentor’s message regarding America loud and clear? Do you really expect anyone to buy this load of crap you’re trying to sell? How stupid do you think the American people are?  

Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.

As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It’s a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

I love the last sentence. The left will never turn on you as long as you care for the homeless and reach out to those with AIDS. That’s very important, since as your mentor said, the United States invented AIDS to keep poor blacks down. I also appreciate you admitting that these are legitimate concerns. In fact, they end any legitimate chance you have of ever being President of the United States.

Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he’s been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

I’ve heard Wright teach that gospel. That’s where rich white men killed Jesus, right? Mainly Italians, I believe he said.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

You didn’t think it was appropriate to leave the church? There’s that darn judgment thing again. Since this statement was put up, additional tapes and DVDs of Wright saying similar things have come out. Apparently he spewed this garbage regularly. Sorry, you are beginning to come off as a liar. 

Let me repeat what I’ve said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

With Rev. Wright’s retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright’s statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.

You have next to no record. The only way America can know your values is to look to those who have had a profound influence on you. Your judment has been shown to be horrendous. In fact, if you are not lying you are approaching the Eliot Spitzer standard of poor judgment. From what I can tell, you are a two-faced, lying, thief of taxpayer dollars who has no experience or plan. I trust that most Americans will see it the same way. 

“In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office.”

Apparently, Obama “hoped” his wife would be rewarded for Barack’s earmark with a “change” in salary and job title. Sounds like it worked. Oh, and the audacity in all this is that Obama released the list of requested earmarks himself, obviously knowing that the mainstream media would ignore it, which they have so far.
 

Late Wednesday afternoon, Sen.Wayne Allard (R-Co.) introduced Amendment 4246 into the Senate budget debate. The amendment, which Allard calls “The Obama Spend-o-Rama” proposes funding 111 of the 188 spending proposals put out so far during Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) presidential campaign. (These were the proposals which Allard’s staff had time to analyze before the GOP leadership asked him to offer the amendment on the floor.) According to Allard, “There are another 77 proposals with unknown cost estimates that will add billions to this number.”

Allard freely admits that he will oppose his own amendment and urges other Senators to do the same. But, as a senior Senate staffer pointed out to HUMAN EVENTS, “Let’s see how many Senators who have endorsed Obama will actually vote for his budget.”

This is classic. Republicans are so much more entertaining when we’re the minority in Congress. 

Some of the numbers around the federal budget are incomprehensibly large. How do you wrap your mind around a 5-year cost of $1.4 trillion? Senator Allard offers some comparisons to help with that mental exercise:

• This new spending, if enacted, would represent an almost 10% increase over the President’s FY 2009 budget.
• This $300 billion spending proposal would cost more than 42 states’ budgets combined (general fund expenditures).
• It is more than the United States spent last year on imported oil ($294 billion net).
• It is more than 60% larger than any one-year federal spending increase, ever.

Remember, these numbers don’t even include 77 of Obama’s proposals. Frightening. 

An initial draft of the Amendment which was obtained by HUMAN EVENTS shows its purpose of “raisi(ng) taxes by an unprecedented $1.4 trillion for the purpose of fully funding 111 new or expanded federal spending programs.” 

According to Senator Allard’s communications director, Steve Wymer, “This amendment is obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But if leaders in the Democratic Party are going to propose billions…or trillions…of dollars of new spending, at least let’s be honest about it.”

How many of Obama’s supporters realize that Obama’s vision of hope and change is simply recycled socialism? I’m guessing at least 75%, just judging from the ones I talk to on my college campus. 

Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), who spoke immediately after Allard, re-emphasized the point: One year of Obama’s proposed spending increase “is bigger than the 5-year increase (in federal income tax collections) that President Clinton imposed on the American taxpayer.”

“To translate this point into language everyone can understand: if you have an income of $104,000 or more, the plan will cause your tax bill to go up at least an additional $5,300 a year; if you have an income of $62,000 or more, the plan will cause your tax bill to go up at least $2,300 a year. This is on top of the $2,300 increase already assumed by the failure to extend current tax policy.”

So you’re saying I wouldn’t have gotten my new car with my (or, more accurately, my wife’s) tax refund this year if Obama were president? Seriously, what other issue can a president have such a deep impact on people’s lives?   

The Allard amendment went down to a 97-0 defeat late Thursday afternoon, to nobody’s surprise.  Although the measure was hastily prepared, simply getting into the public record the scale of Obama’s spending proposals and the tax hikes required to fund them was a worthwhile endeavor.  Reached for comment after the vote, Senator Allard’s communications director Steve Wymer noted that “(Allard) voted against it with everyone else. But still, the point was made.”

In his closing, Senator Allard noted that this is not simply a hypothetical discussion; the current debate is about the 2009 budget, the first year of the next president’s administration. It is therefore important (and good politics) to show the American public the ugly details of Obama’s pretty talk.

People need to know this stuff. We all know that all Democrat candidates promise way more than they believe they can accomplish, but there can be no arguing Obama and Clinton’s desire to move America towards a more socialist future. It must be stopped.

Here’s the scenario. Hillary Clinton rallies to take the Democrat nomination from Barack Obama, thanks in large part to her campaign’s racial attacks and Obama’s racist pastor. Most people start to realize that there is no way the American people as a whole would ever elect a man whose spiritual advisor has been advising him in this manner for 20 years. White Democrats start supporting Hillary in the same percentages as black voters support Obama, causing Clinton landslides in most of the remaining states.

Black Democrats become so outraged that most of them won’t vote for Clinton in the presidential election. John McCain (unfortunately the only Republican in position to benefit from this, but he’ll have to do for now) wins a landslide victory.

Feeling abused by the Democrat party, blacks begin to re-evaluate the situation. They realize that they have been used by Democrats for at least the last 40 years, and some begin to notice that the Dems have done absolutely nothing for them. Some even begin reading up on their brothers who have been saying the same thing for years. Assuming they just get to the ones I have on my bookshelf, they would find the following:

They read J.C. Watts Jr. explain that conservatism is not a color, and that most blacks truly are traditional conservatives.

They learn from Walter Williams that more liberty really does require less government.

Thomas Sowell teaches the fatal flaws of Democrats’ economic policies.

Clarence Thomas inspires with the stories of his struggle and how traditional conservative values made him into the successful man and person that he is today.

And Larry Elder shows how the left controls blacks by limiting the subjects that can safely be discussed in America today. Speaking of Larry Elder, he’s got a very funny column today on how Obama can bring America together: Here.

As a result, many blacks come back to the party of Lincoln, to the party that is in line with their religious beliefs (unless they attend Barack Obama’s church), to the party that tries to be as color-blind as is humanly possible, to the party where anyone can make it if they are willing to work for it, to the party that appoints qualified blacks to real positions of power, to the party that actually supports their hopes and dreams and knows how to make them happen, and to the party of Ronald Reagan, whose policies did more to improve blacks’ upward-mobility than any president in American history. Assuming John McCain does nothing that would alienate the entire black community (like legalizing gay marriage or trying amnesty again), the Republican party would be in a position to dominate for at least the next 40 years and would actually be more conservative than it is today.

By then Hispanics will be the majority in this country and we will have to teach them that they are in the wrong party as well.

Hey, dreaming is free, right?

 crmzoo.jpg

Rep. John Spratt Jr., D-S.C., presided over passage on a party-line vote of a $3 trillion budget plan for next year, featuring expansions of domestic programs going nearly 5% above President Bush’s budget. It elicited a promise of presidential vetoes on appropriations bills.

…the massive automatic tax increases that would come from the Bush tax cuts being allowed to expire. As if that’s not enough new taxes, House Democrats would also impose $70 billion in unspecified tax increases as the price for permanently fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

Presumably, the U.S. economy will just cooperate and act as if it isn’t getting dealt a body blow of substantially higher tax rates on income and investment. After the Reagan and George W. Bush tax-cut-driven expansions, why is it still too much to expect congressional Democrats to learn from recent economic history?

I’d like to thank President Bush for his promise to veto this budget, and also for the new-used convertible I paid for with my tax return, courtesy of his tax cuts. Yesterday I said the Supreme Court was the biggest reason to hold your nose and vote McCain this fall, but defeating the tax-and-spenders might be an even bigger reason.

Here’s a Wall Street Journal piece on Obama’s Social Security plan: The Obama Tax Hike 

And here’s a Heritage Foundation study on the effect of allowing Bush’s tax cuts to expire on the average American broken down by Congressional district.

An analysis of the House Budget Resolution for FY 2009 (H.CON.RES.312) reveals that the U.S. economy will suffer huge losses in gross domestic product (GDP), job creation and personal income if implemented. Analysts at the Center for Data Analysis estimated the economic costs of the budget resolution by looking at the combined effects of provisions contained within the legislation along with the effects of allowing the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire. The House’s budget could cause a loss of more than $100 billion in GDP in 2012 and could also reduce job creation by over 1 million jobs that year. Furthermore, as a result of the House budget, every taxpayer can expect to pay, on average, more than $2,000 in (additional) taxes in 2012, while also losing an average of $1,767 in personal income.

Ashley Dupre, alleged hooker-friend of disgraced former NY Governor Eliot Spitzer, is cashing in on her newfound fame, according to The Fox Report w/ Shepard Smith.

Dupre, apparently an aspiring singer, released a new song of hers to music websites. The song has already been downloaded a million times. The song features such obvious lyrics as “Can you handle me boy? Sex, money, drugs is what I want.” And now Penthouse magazine wants her on its front cover.

Terrific.

From The Conspiracy to keep you poor and stupid:

Take Barack Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright. This guy is an absolute racist hatemonger, and he’s been Obama’s pastor for 20 years. This guy performed Obama’s marriage. It would be absurd to say Obama’s views have not been informed by the man.  In fact, he says so himself in this video.

Powerline has a good take on the ramifications in: The Audacity of Hate 

Obama has also said that Wright ”is like an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with.” But who takes spiritual guidance from hate-spewing old uncles?

Meanwhile, Eric Deggans takes offense to Ferraro’s statements in “Ferraro’s Race Argument isn’t insulting to Obama; It’s Insulting to Democrats.” The best part of this whole story is how silly liberals are getting over it, and how they are at each others’ throats. Deggans actually calls Ferraro a “so-called progressive.” I couldn’t have said it better myself, but for another liberal to say it for me is the icing on the cake. Then this nugget…

There are more females than black males serving as governors, Congresspeople, and cabinet members. I wonder how any of them would feel about people who said they got their jobs because they were female? (And does Ferraro agree that she got her spot on Mondale’s ticket because she’s female?)

If you read my post yesterday, you know that Ferraro in fact does agree that she got her spot because “Fritz wanted a woman.” The whole thing just illustrates how thin-skinned these people are, and now we’ve got liberal women and liberal blacks killing each other in print and on tv. It’s awesome!

He finishes with the line: “Frankly, Ferraro’s assumption that people like me voted for Obama because he self-identifies as a black man is less insulting to Obama and more insulting to me.”

Too funny. Personally I’d be a lot more worried about people thinking I voted for Obama because I agreed with his socialist stances on the issues. Self-identification is somewhat understandable. Idiocy is not.

Newt Gingrich is correct, as he nearly always is: She said something that probably was true 

Gingrich ridiculed the controversy over Ferraro’s comments as part of “the politically correct left” and asked, “Are we now going to say that nobody is allowed to notice that Senator Clinton is female and nobody is allowed to notice that Senator Obama is African American…are we not allowed to be honest?”

Mickey Kaus gets is correct: Psst!–Ferraro Was Right 

If Obama were white, he wouldn’t embody hopes of a post-racial future. Duh!

That pretty much says it all.

Finally, the Wall Street Journal points out that Obama seems to enjoy playing the race card: Obama and the Race Card

Already, prominent Obama sympathizers, such as Harvard’s Orlando Patterson, are detecting racial overtones where none exist. In a New York Times op-ed, Mr. Patterson said a Clinton political ad designed to question Mr. Obama’s readiness as Commander in Chief contained a “racist sub-message” because none of the people depicted in the TV spot are black. Counting people of color in an ad about national security is hardly consistent with the Obama theme that “race doesn’t matter.”

We suppose some of the current back and forth is due to the diversity preoccupations of Democrats. But it bodes ill for an honest fall campaign if Mr. Obama and his allies are going to play the race card to blunt any criticism. A campaign in which John McCain couldn’t question Mr. Obama’s policies, experience and mettle without being called a racist is not what the country needs. Or wants.

Democrats have repeatedly touted the diversity of their party’s White House hopefuls. And it is true that a Clinton or Obama Presidency would make gender or racial history. Americans of all backgrounds can take satisfaction in watching the country field its first black Presidential candidate with a chance to win. But voters also want their would-be Presidents properly vetted, by the media and by each other. To that end Mr. Obama would do better to focus more on answering his political critics with specifics and less on questioning their motives by crying wolf on race.

And that is exactly what Obama wants. He hopes he can avoid talking about serious issues because there is no way he would ever become a nominee if his ideas were to undergo scrutiny.