Imagine that FDR, in his first inaugural, instead of rallying Americans with the notion that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," had stoked the nation's unease by harping on how bad the Depression was. If Mike Allen had been around in 1933, perhaps he would have defended FDR by writing "there was plenty of unease before the speech, so it's hard to blame the President."
For that is the same approach that the Politico's Allen took in his Playbook this morning in defending President Obama's divisive remarks of yesterday on Trayvon Martin and the Zimmerman trial. Wrote Allen [emphasis added]: "Many conservatives are complaining that the remarks will stoke division and dissension. But there was plenty of that before, so it's hard to blame POTUS." Some might accuse Allen of the soft bigotry of low expectations. More after the jump.
Is that really Allen's standard? That the President of the United States can't be expected to be a healer and a uniter? That it's enough if he doesn't pour gasoline on the fire? Whatever happened to "there is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America - there's the United States of America"?
Note: for an excellent analysis of President Obama's remarks of yesterday, I highly recommend Jennifer Rubin's column in the Washington Post: "President Obama’s sad view of America."