Obama on a roll, much to the 'disappointment' of angry liberals

When historians look back on Barack Obama's presidential campaign many years from now, let's hope they pick up on one of the most important story lines. You've heard how the 1994 midterm elections were shaped by the angry white male. Well, 2008 should be dedicated to the annoyed white liberal. Even before his electrifying victory in Iowa, Obama had managed to smoke that creature out of its hole. As an African-American with a serious shot at winning the Democratic nomination, Obama ran into condescension and hostility from white liberals who had other ideas about who should be president. Much of this hostility comes from what he represents -- an attempt by an African-American to shake up the Democratic electoral drama by going from supporting role to lead actor.

First, Joe Biden condescendingly referred to Obama as "articulate." Then, Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire co-chairman, Billy Shaheen, suggested that Obama could be unelectable in the fall campaign if Republicans claimed that he had been a drug dealer in his youth. Then, just a couple of weeks ago, former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, another Clinton supporter, said of Obama that he liked "the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim." Later, in explaining his remarks, Kerrey threw another jab by saying he wasn't troubled by the fact that Obama "spent a little bit of time in a secular madrassa."

Obama has said repeatedly that he is a Christian. And CNN debunked the madrassa story when a reporter visited the school Obama attended in Indonesia and found it didn't fit the description of a religious academy. Kerrey sent a letter to Obama, apologizing for his remarks.

At a time when Democratic leaders like to talk about "Republican dirty tricks," it's becoming clear that Democrats know a few of their own. It's all so disappointing.

That's the word liberals tend to use whenever members of minority groups think for themselves, as if all those years of supporting expanded opportunity have just blown up in their faces by creating a batch of ungrateful affirmative action babies. It's the word angry liberals hurled at me when I defended former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales against a political smear campaign. And it's the word that Elizabeth Edwards recently used to describe how she felt about Michelle Obama after she heard that Mrs. Obama was trying to discourage people from voting for John Edwards. Isn't this exactly what presidential candidates -- and their spouses -- do in a campaign?

Nonetheless, Elizabeth Edwards got testy when a voter claimed that Michelle Obama had told his 17-year-old daughter not to support John Edwards for president because the former North Carolina senator's decision to take federal matching funds subjected him to spending caps that would hurt his chances in a general election.

"I'm surprised and disappointed in Michelle," Mrs. Edwards said at a campaign event last week.

Elizabeth Edwards has the right to defend her husband, and Michelle Obama -- having stepped into the arena -- is fair game. But she didn't have to say she was disappointed. When Mrs. Edwards uses that word, it sounds as if she's talking down to Mrs. Obama.

Barack Obama isn't off-limits. His opponents are free to criticize him. But it's how you go about criticizing someone that defines your character. Democrats have much of their brand tied up in the assertion that they're more progressive than Republicans, especially on racial issues. What if enough people conclude this isn't so?

With his Iowa victory, Obama is on a roll. It's still a long way to the nomination. However this quest turns out, his supporters will be expected to forgive and forget the way their candidate was treated and support the Democratic nominee. They may forgive. But they shouldn't forget.

© 2008, Washington Post Writers Group