I think this SNL skit sums it up pretty well:

The O’Drama plot finally begins to thicken…

The left and the Democratic Party (but I repeat myself), have had this nasty habit of being very out-of-touch with the American mainstream. President Jimmy Carter won office by faking an average-guy persona, but ended up being a squishy liberal more concerned about international opinion than America’s interests. John Kerry fit the stereotype of Ivy League snob (no offense to our great Ivy League chapters who are full of great Republican who understand how our country works) and could never really connect with Americans working hard for a better life for their families.

Barack Obama, despite his change-oriented rhetoric attempting to convince people otherwise, is just as out of touch with Americans as these prior two leading Democrats - and I think people are starting to take notice.

Peggy Noonan poses some very interesting questions that she believes many voters are starting to or are about to ask:

Are the Obamas, at bottom, snobs? Do they understand America? Are they of it? Did anyone at their Ivy League universities school them in why one should love America? Do they confuse patriotism with nationalism, or nativism? Are they more inspired by abstractions like “international justice” than by old visions of America as the city on a hill, which is how John Winthrop saw it, and Ronald Reagan and JFK spoke of it?

…

Why is all this actually not a distraction but a real issue? Because Americans have common sense and are bottom line. They think like this. If the president and his first lady are not loyal first to America and its interests, who will be? The president of France? But it’s his job to love France, and protect its interests. If America’s leaders don’t love America tenderly, who will?

Pretty valid questions considering where Barack Obama got his political beginnings.

In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement.

In fact, Ayers and Dohrn are both known quite well for planting bombs in places like the United States Capitol, the Pentagon, and the State Department, and for their leadership in the Weather Underground - one of the most radical domestic terror groups in American history.

The point here is that O’Drama is nothing new, nothing fresh, nothing revolutionary in American politics. While he espouses some vague sort of post-partisan change, he remains of the same far-left, radical political bloodline that has dominated Democratic politics for decades.

Barack Obama is out of touch with America, as America and Barack are about to find out.

Apparently his Texas surrogate had a tough time. When Chris Matthews starts giving a Dem a hard time, you know there’s a glaring problem with the candidate.

Campaign surrogate STUMPED on Obama’a legislative accomplishments

In his “victory” speech (I’m watching now), Barack just said something to the effect of, “I’m going to get rid of the tax cuts for the rich. The tax cuts they didn’t even ask for.”

Well Barack, consider this my application and official request for a tax cut (and I’m most certainly not rich). Here and now, as a member of whatever tax bracket I currently fall into, I ask you for my tax break. If it’s just that simple, can I ask for two?..

This is ridiculous. Of course the entire nation asked for tax relief - they elected and re-elected a president who promised to lower the tax burden!

As so often happens after I finish watching a Barack Obama speech, I am left asking myself, “What did he even mean?”

Hope is great - I hope Barack Obama adds a little substance to his candidacy…

I know I’ve posted about this a few times already (here, here, and here) but here’s another article (this one from RedState and in turn from the NYT) citing concerns about the Dems being able to pull together after this brutal primary.

An interesting fact noted in the article that I had not previously known (or thought about) is that GOP turnout was lower in the primaries of both Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. than in the contemporary Dem primaries, but we went on to win the White House both times. Constantly, I am asked if our party is “depressed” or “tired” and because of this lack of enthusiasm, if we are going to lose the WH. One of the many counters now is that your answer can be found in history…

I will leave most of the talking to an absolutely amazing article from the Washington Monthly, but with the recent Ted Kennedy endorsement I have to say my piece about all these comparisons between Barack Obama and JFK.

Sen. Barack Obama can give some rhetorically amazing (if unsubstantial) speeches, and he can say change as many times in our paragraph as anybody I know - but he is no revolutionary leader. As the article above (and below) explains, while many people claimed JFK to be too inexperienced for the presidency he actually had quite a resume by the time he sought the highest office in the land. He was a WWII hero, a well-traveled US Congressman, and an independent voice on matters of international diplomacy. Sen. Obama was born in Indonesia…yes, that’s it.

Read the whole article. 

During the last Dem debate, I wrote a post about the potential long-term harm their vicious primary might have on the their prospects in coming elections.

Now, it seems that Stuart Rothenberg agrees:

 Could Democrats, who are unified in their dissatisfaction with George W. Bush and have been pleased with their presidential field, really become so divided that they give a surprising opening to the eventual Republican nominee? Yes.

The whole article is very interesting and details how the destructive politics of the Clinton Duo could impose some irreparable damage on the Democratic Party.

So I posted a few days back, while watching the Democratic debate, that I wonder if the Dems will have some lingering hard feelings after all of these vicious attacks. Well, apparently some Dems are worried about the same thing:

A few prominent Democrats, including Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) and Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), have spoken to the former president about the force of his Obama critiques. There is some fear within the party that if Obama becomes the nominee, he could emerge personally battered and politically compromised. And there is concern that a Clinton victory could come at a cost — particularly a loss of black voters, who could blame her for Obama’s defeat and stay home in November.

The Washington Post article talks to some other prominent Democrats that are getting a little nervous about the potential repercussions of the thrown-down fight between Clinton and Obama.

“This is harmful to the party, it’s harmful to the state. And I understand they want to win, but this is about — should be about — a competition of ideas, not who can pull the hammer harder,” he said.

Read the whole article here.

We’ve heard quite a bit out of the MSM this year (and last) about the Republican Party being “fractured”, but I’m watching the Democratic debate on CNN right now and the immediate thought that comes to mind is, “They all hate each other.”

Sens. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all seriously tearing into each other on policy as well as personal terms. Constantly, they are cutting each other off with things like “Barack, that’s just not true…” and “John, why are you still here?” (Ok, that last one was made up, but the point remains that they are really going for the throat with each other here)

One has to wonder if this continues, will their supporters be able to rally around the eventual winner? Iraq is increasingly becoming less of an issue because of the tremendous work of our troops in securing the country. Without this issue as the banner under which all the Democrats can call for defeat, what will they rally around?

UPDATED: Post-debate I found some of the real quotes demonstrating the vicious attack they were all lobbing at each other. Some valid points made by them all, haha. Enjoy -

Hillary on Obama:

“It’s hard to have a straight up debate with you because you never take responsibility for any vote,” Clinton said at one point.

Obama on Hillary:

While he was serving as a community organizer in Chicago, said Obama, Clinton was serving as a “corporate lawyer on the board of Wal-Mart.”

More Clinton on Barack:

Clinton matched Obama’s howitzer with one of her own, noting that while she was fighting Reagan’s policies Obama was “practicing law and representing your contributor Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago “– a reference to indicted real estate developer Antoin Rezko.

UPDATED 2: Mark Halperin has some quotes and links to stories covering the quite tenacious Democratic debate.

Includes a little blurb from me, unfortunately not the comment I had about Barack, but we live to fight another day.   S.C. GOP youth predict strong turnout