Senator Obama acuses President Bush of making a "false political attack" in his speech earlier today at the Israeli Knesset. What is false, exactly, about the President's statement. Bush said:"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

Hasn't Barack Obama specifically suggested face-to-face negotiations with iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? And isn't Ahmadine-wack job a "terrorist and radical?" If Iran is the world's leading supporter of terrorism (and it proudly is) doesn't that make the president a terrorist?

And even if you resist the idea of classifying the President of Iran as a "terrorist," surely he counts as a radical, doesn't he?

In what sense, then is, the controverisal passage a "false attack."?

Obama, of course, welcomes a confrontation with the President of the United States -- it enhances his own stature, and President Bush is considerably less popular right now than Barry's real oponent, John McCain.

But concerned citizens ought to look behind the posing and think about the substance of these words -- and how well they really do apply to Senator Obama (even thought Mr. Bush was gracious enough never to mention him by name).

If you've been listening to the radio show, you know I've been traveling this week (California and Georgia), so it's been difficult for me to keep up with the blog.  Nevertheless, my wife, Dr. Diane Medved, wrote such a beautiful piece about Israel's birthday that it seemed to me appropriate to share it with you here.

Happy 60th Birthday, Israel

It's modern Israel's 60th birthday. As every day, today is a miracle; even more so for Israel.

I grew up wondering what it was about Israel that had all my Jewish friends so reverent, so stalwart. Israel was one topic about which you did not joke, about which there was no dissent, a rare subject for a group of argumentative people. Most of my childhood friends were "very Reform," meaning they didn't even know, much less keep mitzvot (commandments). They ate "kosher style" bagels and sandwiches at Junior's Deli (on Westwood Blvd. near Pico in West L.A.). They went to services, usually at some overflow location, for the High Holidays; they lit menorahs. That was about it.

My family did none of it; my Jewish father had married a non-Jew and our home was basically devoid of religion, save for the Guideposts pamphlet-size magazine my mom got by subscription every month, the "God loves you" publication of Norman Vincent Peale. Though she kept each issue by her bed, she never spoke of it.

Though all my school friends were Jewish, there had been the interlude when at age ten a new friend moved onto the block--the daughter of an Episcopal priest, who made it a condition of our friendship that I attend their church in Beverly Hills. Dutifully, I tagged along with the "PK" and sincerely wanted some of the spiritual goodies that family lived by--but try as I might (and I did try, learning their liturgy and even becoming "confirmed" at age 12 along with my friend), that lightening bolt from heaven never struck, and when my friend moved away, so did any attachment to her brand of religion.

That left me back with all the Jews, just when they were having bar and bat mitzvahs. I had a great time attending those, but watching my friends give speeches about the arrival of their adulthood was more ludicrous than meaningful. In high school, along with my friends, I joined the George Gershwin chapter of the B'nai B'rith Girls (the Reform youth group, the goal of which is to insure that Jews date only Jews). This was before the Reform branch declared that lineage moves through the father as well as the mother, so I was the group's blond "ringer." I dated the Jewish guys, cozied in with my new best friend, whose family ate chocolate babka, and attended high holiday services, leaving the tedium with my cohort for acceptable breaks and then tip-toeing back to the endless prayers.

What does all this have to do with Israel? Even in such a non-spiritual Jewish world, Israel was sacred. It was understood that Israel was God's apology for the Holocaust. You gave tzadaka (charity) to Israel. You prayed for Israel. You planted trees in Israel. You evaluated political candidates on their support for Israel. Then you voted for the Democrat.

My family was conservative. My Jewish daddy, who never made any reference to his birth-faith, read US News and World Report at the dinner table. He voted for Nixon and in 1964 Goldwater--I still have a metallic gold campaign button that reads, "I'm an extremist, I love liberty!" written around Barry Goldwater's smiling, bespectacled face. But when it came to Israel--well, Israel was special and worth defending at all cost.

My first trip to Israel was 22 years ago, after my Orthodox conversion and much intense study. In order to make a phone call then, you had to deposit hexagonal silver tokens with holes in their centers into the pay phone--if you could find one. Then, you hoped there was an operator to put the call through. Sometimes people lined up waiting to use the public phones, since many private citizens did not have their own. The traffic was sparse; the country had the feel of a third-world, developing nation where not everything worked as it should.

I have been to Israel many times since; this summer my husband and I will escort 200 tourists there again (taking our fourth tour), eager to amaze and awe them with the ruach (spirit) so palpable there. Our daughter lived in Jerusalem for a seminary year; close relatives have made Jerusalem their permanent homes. Israel has emerged as a high-tech center for the world (the assonance nearly compelled me to write "a high tech mecca," but I just couldn't do it), where cell phones are ubiquitous and sophisticated. The pace is fast; cars squeeze through non-lanes and park on the sidewalks. And religiously, as the level of Jewish connection around the globe has grown, its fervency and urgency in observance at its source and center has burgeoned exponentially.

So, Happy Birthday, Israel! Sixty years is not a long time in the sweep of history, and only a blink after an exile of 2,000 years. But the amount of change, advancement and strength that has gathered in that short span only confirms it as the Land wonder-fully blessed and unique.

Many observers expected the collapse of the two-party system in 2008. Lou Dobbs of CNN wrote a bestseller called “Independents Day,” predicting an “independent populist” would win the presidency.  

There’s scant prospect of any viable third party, however, when potential fringe contenders have an air of “round-up-the-usual suspects”—Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Mike Gravel, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin. Soaring turnout in primaries shows no mass desertion from the two-party system, and the Gallup Poll of under-30 voters notes a scant 8%—unchanged from four years ago—who consider themselves “independents.”  

The predicted “independents day” never materialized because likely nominees McCain and Obama, both of them once considered underdogs, give a fresh flavor to each party and show  the best way to work for change is within—not outside—the system that served us reasonably well for the last 150 years.

With Newsweek running a cover story on “The Post American World” and Democrats complaining that President Bush destroyed our influence abroad, it’s instructive to consider a recent string of election successes for foreign candidates who support our values and our policies.  

In Canada , Mexico , Germany , Denmark , Greece , Ukraine and France the parties identified as “pro-American” swept to important victories. Most recently, the conservative candidate in Italy , Silvio Burlesconi, won a smashing triumph to return to power and Rome elected its first right-wing mayor in 50 years. Then in local elections throughout Britain , the Conservatives thumped the ruling Labor Party, 44% to 24%, and turned out the anti-American mayor of London , “Red Ken” Livingstone. The global trend favors politicians who back free markets and welcome U.S. leadership—hardly a sign of a “Post American World.” 

Amidst all the raging controversy, a few brave voices have come forward to defend Pastor Jeremiah Wright. They deserve more attention than they’ve received because they illustrate the pompous fatuity so typical of the religious left. 

For instance, within his own denomination, the Rantin’ Rev most certainly enjoys his supporters. Reverend Richard Wagner of Union Congregational Church, a United Church of Christ congregation in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, says the Pyrotechnic Pastor displays Biblical stature, and speaks “with the same passion and hyperbole as the Hebrew prophets.” The New York Times adds that “clergy members have cited Amos, who cursed all the nations, saving his harshest words for his own.” 

There are no end of ridiculous elements to this comparison, but we might as well start with the fact that Jeremiah Wright doesn’t see the U.S. as “his own” nation; he considers himself a loyal son of the African Motherland, and speaks no harsh words about the continent that produced his ancestors. 

Moreover, the Hebrew prophets lived ascetically and humbly (remember Elijah being fed by ravens in a cave?) and it’s hard to imagine them relishing a multi-million dollar home built with congregational funds, or gleefully commanding the spotlight on PBS or the National Press Club. 

Finally, the prophets were profoundly serious people, virtually possessed by the voice of God, willing to disregard their personal welfare to convey a message.  

Despite the carefully cultivated image as a dashiki-wearing rebel, Jeremiah Wright is a self-serving careerist, a media-mad showoff who will even say things he knows to be untrue (lying about the nature of the Tuskegee Experiment to make people believe the government created AIDS) in order to advance his own standing and interests.  

His egotistical behavior in putting his own standing and publicity ahead of the fate of his supposed friend, Barack Obama, simply provides the latest indication that this unbridled showman is more about profit than he is about prophet.  

In every presidential campaign, a candidate’s character plays a crucial role. We can't predict the challenges and issues a new president may face (who would have suggested George W. Bush would become a war time president?) but considering questions of temperament and competence and decency allows voters to predict how well a potential president might respond. Unfortunately for Senator Obama, his performance in the Jeremiah Wright controversy shows weak leadership and deeply flawed integrity.

His startling inability to work with his own former pastor to prevent serious damage to his campaign hardly inspires confidence in his capacity to unite Democrats, deal with a fractious Congress, or cope with foreign powers. If he can't manage to coordinate a message with his friend and mentor of twenty years, or else separate himself from that association before launching his campaign, then he'll find it even more difficult to work together with hostile strangers. Meanwhile, he offers no credible explanation for his abrupt change in attitude toward Rev. Wright. Six weeks ago he said “I can no more disown him that I can disown the black community.” Obama now denounces Wright and cites “anger” at statements at the National Press Club. But none of Wright's positions there departs from radical attitudes he’s expressed consistently for twenty years.

If Obama now says he's shocked to discover that Wright is, indeed, a crackpot who poisons the discourse, and not just a lovable and eccentric "old uncle," then the Senator is either distorting the truth or admitting incompetence. A president will need to evaluate complicated intelligence reports to determine the situation with foreign powers and terrorist threats. If Obama remained blithely oblivious to his own pastor's anti-American radicalism for twenty years, if he new less about his friend than did most members of press and public, his judgment and ability look deeply questionable. This is not a matter of "guilt by association"  (as so many Obama defenders insist) but an issue of capability and reliability and honesty that goes to the very core of the candidate's suitability as President of the United States. The whole sad affair highlights the weakness, poor judgment and waffling of an increasingly desparate presidential contender. 

Now that Barack Obama has finally and unequivocally denounced Jeremiah Wright, the next move is up the rantin' Rev himself.

How is he likely to respond?

It seems obvious that the Obama camp would greatly prefer an angry attack-- featuring insults like "Judas" and "Uncle Tom" and "Zionist Tool." If anything, Obama's comments today seemed designed to provoke Rev. Wright and to produce the kind of bitter (to use one of Barack's favorite words) reaction that would do more than anything else to separate the pastor from his former protege', once and for all.

If Al Sharpton and other race-baiting radicals and extremists joined in with their own condemnations of Senator Obama, it would be all the better for his campaign and his candidacy.

Then, and only then, would Obama be able to get back on track as the "post racial unifier" who stood up to hate-mongers on all sides and spoke directly to the broad American middle.

If Pastor Wright remains uncharacteristically silent -- with no angry words about the "anger" which Barack explicitly aimed at him -- then it's a sure sign that he's so deeply enraged by his former friend's betrayal that he wants, above all, to damage the Obama campaign.

Ironically, if he maintains any remaining affection for the Junior Senator from Illinois, he'll speak up within the next few days and attack him as a sell out.

It's precisely the sort of verbal assault that will help assure primary victories in both North Carolina and Indiana on May 6th.
 
Every Hollywood producer knows that the best way to build up a hero is to provide him with a compelling, charismatic villain as his chief enemy. At the moment, in political terms, Jeremiah Wright qualifies as the most useful enemy in the world.

The Ranting Rev is back, trailing malodorous clouds of sulfurous new controversy, imperiling the Obama campaign at its very core. The Obama promise of “a more perfect union” directly contradicts the Jeremiah Wright insistence on unbridgeable racial difference and distinction. 

Nothing makes this pastor-protege? conflict more obvious or more significant than Wright’s crackpot theories on education, and his fiery insistence that the different “brains” of black kids and white kids require totally different educational approaches. 

In his Detroit NAACP speech on Sunday night, Dr. Wright cited (and somewhat distorted) the controversial work of a professor at Wayne State University named Janice Hale, suggesting that “in comparing African-American children and European-American children in the field of education, we were comparing apples and rocks.” 

And which group of kids, according to Reverend Wright, count as “rocks” – not shiny, juicy fruit capable of providing nourishment, but inorganic pieces of dead matter notable mostly for their threat of smashing school windows? If he thinks of black kids as “rocks” (on which teachers might break their teeth) he’s recycling hateful white supremacist ideology. If it’s white kids who are only rocks, he’s a black racist. Either way, he’s an idiot. 

But there’s more from this “mighty man of God,” as he hails Dr. Hale for research that “led her to stop comparing African-American children with European-American children and she started comparing the pedagogical methodologies of African-American children to African children and European-American children to European children. And bingo, she discovered the two different worlds have two different ways of learning.” 

In other words, Wright suggests that race differences are so profound, so overwhelming that African-American kids whose ancestors left “the Motherland” more than 300 years ago have more in common with children in Senegal or Sierra Leone than they do with the white kids who grew up down the block and whose families have functioned in the same American society for generations. If this absurd notion that race trumps every other historical and psychological and cultural factor isn’t racism, then what, exactly, is racism? 

Dr. Wright continued in his Detroit dementia: “European and European-American children have a left-brained cognitive object oriented learning style…Left brain is logical and analytical… African and African-American children have a different way of learning. They are right brained, subject oriented in their learning style.  Right brain that means creative and intuitive.” 

In other words, Dr. Wright makes the same sick and silly claims about fundamental, genetically determined, unbridgeable difference between “left-brained” whites and “right-brained” blacks that white racists have advanced for years.  

To him, it’s wrong to compare “African-American” and “European-American” kids with one another because they are virtually different species. 

His claims raise a hugely uncomfortable question that Senator Obama must now confront.  

If it’s in any sense true that black kids and white kids possess “from the cradle” a “different way of learning,” and if this difference is indeed based on inherited distinctions in brain structure, shouldn’t they then be placed in separate classrooms? 

Let me make my own position clear: I believe that the idea of racial segregation in the classroom is evil, outrageous, un-American, un-Constitutional and in every way unacceptable. Of course, the epic Supreme Court Case of Brown-vs.-School Board was rightly decided --- declaring that separate-but-equal is not equal. The government cannot force kids into separate schools or separate classrooms based on race. 

But if Wright is right (and like all fair-minded or decent people I know he is completely wrong) then isn’t separate-but-equal exactly what we need in our schools? If blacks and whites really do possess such vastly different styles of learning (according to Wright, “logical and analytical” vs. “creative and intuitive”) then wouldn’t they actually benefit from the segregation that the NAACP itself so conspicuously (and nobly) worked to end? 

In other words, this great Civil Rights organization seems to have come full-circle—from supporting Thurgood Marshall and other lions of justice in demanding that black kids can- and must- learn and compete directly with white kids, to now cheering the lunatic Dr. Wright who says it’s wrong to even compare achievements of black children with the performance of white children because the two races are so completely different. 

While Obama tries to rally his followers with the chant of “Yes We Can,” Dr. Wright shrieks at African-American children, “No You Can’t” --- you can’t compete with white or Asian kids because your lack of “logical and analytical” and “left-brained” wiring makes it impossible for you even to engage your white neighbors on the same playing field.  

Wright says to black children that it’s better, more appropriate, to liken you to deprived youngsters in dusty, destitute townships in sub-Saharan Africa, where previous generations suffered from colonialism and starvation and, yes, dysfunctional, pre-literate tribal cultures, than it is to group you with American children from families that have lived for generations in the same city.  

In other words, Jeremiah Wright’s appalling educational theories in no way comport with Senator Obama’s celebrated claim that we should have no “red states” or “blue states” but just “the United States of America.”  

The questions for the Presidential candidate are urgent and overwhelmingly important: 

--Do you agree with Dr. Wright that in shaping education for our African-American young people, we should look to African rather than American models?  

--Do you share his belief that black children must remain so incurably different from their “European-American” counterparts that it’s wrong even to compare them to their white classmates? 

--If these differences really are as huge, as fundamental (“comparing apples and rocks”) as Pastor Wright contends, would you support a new educational approach that separates our children at school? 

-- Given the fact that Jeremiah Wright has been talking and writing about such offensive and inane educational theory for at least two decades, when did you first realize that your Pastor and “spiritual guide” was actually a raving racist with more in common with Dr. David Duke than Dr. Martin Luther King? 

Of course, the mainstream media won’t pose such questions for Senator Obama. 

But they should—because any continued effort to justify or excuse the appalling idiocy of Jeremiah Wright undermines the very essence of the Illinois Senator’s “more perfect union” campaign. It’s now blindingly obvious that it’s not just a few “out of context” statements by Dr. Wright that count as offensive and illogical, but his entire race-based world-view and philosophy.  

Senator Obama should reject that “Afro-Centric” world-view and admit that he was wrong in ever treating it with honor and respect. If he continues in his refusal to do so, then he admits that his much-heralded role as a “unifier” is nothing more than a convenient political pose.

The other cartoon figure cheerfully responds: “Beer Drinking and Bowling Scores.”

The punch-line is intended to highlight the stupidity and vapidity and shallowness of voters --- influenced by nonsense when our nation faces grave challenges.

The problem with this entire argument is that when it comes to “Major Issues” there are simply no differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

What’s the “right” or appropriate answer to the query in the cartoon? Were voters supposed to be influenced by their miniscule differences on government health insurance? On raising taxes? On surrender in Iraq regardless of the advice of our generals?

What are the “major issues” where these two candidates disagree?

Since they’ve both signed on to a virtually identical “progressive” agenda, of course it all comes down to personality --- which candidate inspires more “hope” based on vague promises, or which one is better equipped to answer late night phone calls based on vague experience. Obama says he can bring “change” and unite the country, without fully explaining how; Clinton claims she’s proven her ability to handle emergencies, without showing where (other than the devastating sniper fire in Bosnia).

When policies are interchangeable and indistinguishable, personality inevitably becomes the focus of the campaign.

And in this regard, voters have discovered that neither “Wonder Boy” (Barack O) or “The Energizer Bunny” (Hillary C) is especially likable.

Monday’s column by “minister” Oliver “Buzz” Thomas in USA TODAY deserves recognition as one of the dumbest in recent history not just because of its environmental and “population bomb” hysteria, but for its explicit comparison of the Aztec cult of human sacrifice with today’s Catholic Church.

“We all remember the Aztecs,” Thomas writes. “Some say their religion, with its penchant for violence and human sacrifice, played a critical role in the destruction of their civilization….Now, consider the Roman Catholic Church’s continued opposition to modern birth control…Clergy should consider voicing the difficult truth that having more than two children during such a time is selfish. Dare we say sinful?...When Aztec society was threatened by disease and military defeat, their religious leaders appear to have let them down… Let’s hope we can learn from their mistakes.”

The most appalling aspect of this sort of argument is its blind and fanatical moral relativism, and its denial of anything like ultimate truth (and falsehood).

The fact is that Aztec “religious leaders” didn’t just “let down” their people in a time of crisis– they misled them from the beginning into a monstrously cruel and profoundly evil death cult, based on cutting the hearts out of the chests of hundreds of thousands  of victims.

If the prophetic books of the Bible are correct on this issue (and I very much believe that they are) then those who practiced human sacrifice as part of worshipping stone idols  weren’t just making “mistakes” from which we can learn; they were practicing unspeakable evil that we should abjure and condemn.

The real irony here is that the Catholic Church represents the polar opposite of the Aztec cult, with no similarity whatever.

As the Holy Father made unmistakably and beautifully clear during his inspiring visit to the United States, the Church promotes a “culture of life” – valuing, not discarding or denigrating, even the most powerless among us.

The Aztecs, on the other hand, practiced a Cult of Death that celebrated mass murder as the ultimate act of religious worship.

If anything, it’s the promoters of abortion (who celebrate the sacrifice of millions of the unborn) who resemble the pagan killers and mutilators of children and adults.

The Church, on the other hand, deserves credit for emphasizing life over death---an emphasis that the Reverend Thomas apparently seeks to change.

His column might be alarming, were it not so deeply silly.

We’ve tried to contact the gentleman to ask him to appear as a guest on my radio show – so far without success.

If he is able to join me, I promise not to cut his heart out – but to slice up his arguments with humane surgical precision.

The recent headline in the New York Times proclaimed:  

“81% IN NEW POLL SAY THE NATION IS HEADED ON THE WRONG TRACK.” 

When you read the body of the poll (by the New York Times and CBS News) the numbers tell an oddly contradictory story. 

“How would you rate the financial condition in your household—72% Good, 27% Bad 

“In the last couple of years have you been….”Getting Ahead or Staying Even, 71%, Falling Behind, 28% 

“How concerned are you that someone in your household might be looking for a job in the next year---Not at all Concerned, 45%; Somewhat concerned  26%, Very Concerned, 28%” 

As usual with these polls, in other words, the respondents make a clear distinction between the state of the country at large (which they learn about from the media) and their own situation (which they know first-hand). 

The contradiction looks as striking as always – 72% who say their own financial condition is “good,” while 81% say the nation at large is on the wrong track. 

Once again, the people express the sense that “I’m Okay…. But everybody else is in a mess.” 

When a majority embraces this puzzling contradiction, it’s evidence of confusion and uncertainty – not desperation.

  For the book I’m currently completing (“THE TEN BIG LIES ABOUT AMERICA”) I’ve been reading through some recent Inaugural Addresses and I came across a truly alarming line from Bill Clinton’s stunningly banal big speech of January 21, 1993.

 

  “We must provide for our nation the way a family provides for its children,” the handsome new president declared.

 

   What in the name of heaven could he possibly have in mind?

  

   In the family model, parents work hard and earn money to support children who, before their teens years at least, don’t earn at all. Did Clinton believe – does his wife now believe – that some American (like parents) should toil away in order to support those who don’t work?

 

   The context encourages that interpretation. In the lines immediately preceding the exhortation to “provide for our nation” in the way “a family provides for its children,” Clinton emphasized sacrifice.

 

  “We must invest more in our own people, in their jobs, in their future,” he declared. “It will not be easy. It will require sacrifice. But it can be done, and done fairly, not choosing sacrifice for its own sake, but for our own sake.”

 

   Beyond the vapid platitudes, he seems to warn the public to expect big tax increases (whenever Democrats talk about “investing more in our own people” they mean they want to raise taxes).

 

   But then, after that hint, comes the chilling bit about “providing for our nation” and the comparison of its citizens to “children.”

 

   In the Clintonian view of the world, do we live in a society made up of helpless, infantilized kids (or adolescents) who depend on a few grown-ups to generate wealth for the whole “family”? Did President Clinton in 1993 himself represent the ultimate Daddy, with Hillary the mother-of-us-all?

 

   I wish someone would ask Senator Clinton whether she agrees with her husband’s analogy, and believes that we have an obligation “to provide for our nation the way a family provides for its children.”

 

   Does she still see a parental role for our leaders?

 

   It shouldn’t take a village to answer such questions.

 

An important new study of divorce and out-of-wedlock birth shows that taxpayers lose more than a hundred billion each year to cover the costs of family break-up.  

The Institute for American Values and allied organizations analyzed the additional costs to the legal system, welfare programs, and anti-poverty efforts as bureaucrats, cops and social workers try to cope with the tens of millions of kids and adults in fatherless households.  

The report proves that even a minor improvement in family stability would save the taxpayer billions. A mere 1 percent decline in family fragmentation would, for instance, save the taxpayer at least $1.1 billion every year. Defending and repairing the institution of marriage is therefore not just a moral issue: it’s a major factor in healing a wide range of social problems, rejuvenating our troubled economy, and avoiding governmental bankruptcy.  

Those who can’t depend on strong families far too often become the dependents of government.

Rabbi Mark Glickman of the very liberal Reform branch of Judaism recently wrote a Seattle Times column decrying Christian congregations that celebrate their own Passover Seders. Rabbi Glickman claims the Seder was developed long after the Exodus events it commemorates, and was supposed to convey powerful anti-Christian messages, making Christian participation inappropriate.  

In truth, there’s nothing in the ancient formulation of the Passover Haggadah—the book of Seder liturgy—that disrespects or contradicts Christianity or Jesus, and most Jews passionately disagree with Rabbi Glickman. Retelling the story Exodus and affirming Jewish faith doesn’t amount to an attack on Christianity – any more than affirming Christian faith amounts to an attack on the Old Testament or Judaism.  

The two religions certainly disagree on key theological points, but share a commitment to remembering God’s deliverance from Egyptian bondage as a liberating moment in human history. Christian rediscovery of the Jewish roots of Christianity is actually good for Jews, Christians and humanity. 

The controversy surrounding Barack Obama’s recent speech at a San Francisco fundraiser highlights his most glaring weaknesses as a presidential candidate. To the well-heeled and sophisticated audience, Obama spoke about working class Americans and their hardships under both the Clinton and Bush administrations. He then commented, “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.” Under criticism from both Senators Clinton and McCain, Obama responded by defending his conclusion that voters are, indeed, bitter. “No, I’m in touch,” he commented. “I know exactly what’s going on…. People are fed up, they’re angry, they’re frustrated, they’re bitter and they want to see a change in Washington.” 

Of course, this line ignores the most serious questions about his previous statement. 

The right way to pose a challenge to Obama would be to ask: 

“Senator, do you really believe that religion is something people ‘cling to’ in bitterness, or is it something they embrace in joy? 

“Senator, do people cling to guns out of bitterness, or own them proudly as a means to protect their families, in celebration of a Constitutional right? 

“Senator, is ‘anti-trade sentiment’ merely a product of bitterness for struggling blue collar Americans or is it, I’ve you’ve suggested elsewhere, a sentiment you actually share?” 

The truth is, there’s no good way to answer these questions for Obama. He ought to admit he misspoke and expressed himself poorly. His unwillingness to do so—and insistence on defending indefensible remarks-- demonstrates one of his obvious weaknesses as a candidate.  

The fact that Obama delivered his original remarks at a San Francisco fundraising makes them all the more damning and damaging. 

The episode also demonstrates that for all his polish and charm and self-assurance when reading a carefully scripted speech, Obama simply isn’t that great when speaking off the cuff. In debates, Hillary Clinton frequently outperformed him. In interviews he can sound awkward and stilted – if never quite inarticulate. 

Aside from revealing his condescending attitude toward working class voters, Obama’s words in “Bitter-Gate” reveal a candidate whose political skills may not prove as formidable as his adoring minions in mainstream media would have us believe.