That's the odd claim Andrew Malcolm makes today. Even more peculiar is the fact he doesn't quote a single Democrat, or provide a single link, to back up his wishful assertion.
Yes, the Times' Obama-hating blogger used to work as Laura Bush's flack. And yes, today his job revolves around either cherry picking polling data or making stuff up. (Nice work if you can get it.) But no, Malcolm is definitely not plugged into Democratic D.C. circles.
And that's what makes this passage from his birther-related blog entry so entertaining [emphasis added]:
Within minutes, of course, online critics were predictably questioning the document's legitimacy. Less predictably, D.C. Democrats also privately questioned the timing and wisdom of their party leader's action. Why three years of stonewalling over personal privacy to hide nothing worth hiding?
Why do it on Wednesday and drown out the more desirable orderly transition story of crucial national security staff changes (Robert Gates out at Defense, Leon Panetta in as replacement and Gen. David Petraeus as the new CIA director). Those and other changes will be officially announced this morning.
And why, of all things, did Obama release the certificate to appear to cave to the mediagenic demands of Donald Trump, the rich real estate barker who's dominating the Republican news these days simply because there's no one else actively out there yet, while Trump teases a possible presidential candidacy with the kind of plainspoken critiques that Americans apparently crave this time?
See, according to Malcolm it's nameless Democrats who are angry with Obama for releasing his birth certificate. It's nameless Democrats who wonder why the president has been "stonewalling" on the issue.
Yeah, right. Nice try Andrew.