Obama smear watch: Ann Coulter

Media Matters documents more suggestions that Barack Obama is a traitor, which this time come from (who else?) Ann Coulter:

On the April 30 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck program, conservative pundit Ann Coulter asked of Sen. Barack Obama: "Is Obama a Manchurian candidate to normal Americans who love their country? ... Or is he being the Manchurian candidate to the traitor wing of the Democratic Party?" Host Glenn Beck did not challenge Coulter's remarks.

Coulter has previously referred to Obama as "B. Hussein Obama" in the past and called him "President Hussein." She has also compared Obama to Adolf Hitler, calling Obama's book, Dreams from My Father, a "dimestore Mein Kampf."

Coulter is not the first media figure to apply the "Manchurian candidate" label to Obama. On February 26, conservative radio host Bill Cunningham both referred to Obama as "this Manchurian candidate" and asserted, "I do not believe Barack Hussein Obama is a terrorist or a Manchurian candidate." On February 25, Time magazine political analyst Mark Halperin posted a list titled "Things McCain Can Do to Try to Beat Obama That Clinton Cannot," on his website The Page, in which he suggested that McCain "can ...[e]mphasize Barack Hussein Obama's unusual name and exotic background through a Manchurian Candidate prism."

During her appearance, Coulter also suggested that Obama "secretly agrees with the Weathermen and the Reverend Wright faction."

Sadly, this kind of garbage has taken a toll on Obama's public image:

Mr. Obama has vulnerabilities. Only 29 percent of registered voters said they considered him “very patriotic,” compared with 40 percent who described Mrs. Clinton that way. Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, was considered “very patriotic” by 70 percent of the registered voters.

For more on Coulter, see our extensive writings about her at Spinsanity as well as my posts on her here.

Update 5/2 10:26 AM: In comments, Rob makes the fair point that we can't be sure about whether these smears have had a causal inference on perceptions of Obama's patriotism. That is true. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine they're not having an effect.

Comments

[Rob]

Brendan, who is normally fastidious about attributing causality without evidence, concludes that "this kind of garbage has taken a toll on Obama's public image," citing a poll result about perceptions of the candidates as "very patriotic."

That seems like a huge logical leap, lacking any evidence whatsoever about causality. That is especially true given that (1) nothing in Obama's background, such as heroic military service, suggests that he is "very patriotic," as opposed, say, to simply "patriotic"; (2) Obama's associations with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers have been much in the news lately and might easily influence a perception of whether Obama is comfortable among those who have spoken or acted in ways that might be considered unpatriotic; and (3) much was made of the statement of Obama's own wife that his candidacy was the first time in her life she had been proud of her country.

The point is, there are plenty of reasons why public perceptions of the candidates' being "very patriotic" might differ. Why should Brendan attribute any portion of the difference to the smears he has written about?

[Howard]

It doesn't seemed such a leap of logic to me, except that the recent blather is too current to have had an impact on any polls.

Still, the "garbage" Brendan references is built on the same flimsy "public perceptions" that Rob refers to. It's all part of the same narrative, so to speak.

Rob's comment is similar to the one he made saying that the 'flip-flop' label worked against Kerry because it was already a public perception.

That's taking the result of a campaign to label a candidate and is saying that because the negative PR worked (to some degree) it was built on something of substance.

[Jason]

All the talk of "Manchurian candidates" seems to be done by people who never saw the movie. In the movie (the original, not the horrible) a former prisoner of war becomes a tool of the communist political left (all while seeming to be loyal to the political right).

Now, I don't think Manchurian Candidate references are legitimate political dialog, but if there ever was a candidate who potentially fit that narrative it is John McCain. Prisoner of war who was tortured, espouses political right ideas, yet still isn't completely trusted. Seriously, how much closer to the plot do we need to be?