The front page of Saturday's Washington Post featured a story titled "Obama looks to harness anti-Wall St. angst" directly below a picture of a wild-looking protester strangling a police officer with this caption: "A man affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street protests tackles a police officer during a march in New York. Police arrested 15 people during demonstrations Friday, but the movement gained a victory after a plan to clear people from a Manhattan park was halted."
This, it turns out, is an element of President Obama's reelection strategy. "President Obama and his team have decided to turn public anger at Wall Street into a central tenet of their reelection strategy," the Post reports.
The Post concedes that this posture might be a bit preposterous. "Much of [Obama's] top economic team has roots in the financial services industry, and in recent months Daley and top campaign aides have devoted much of their time improving the relationship with big-dollar donors on Wall Street."
Yet the paper fails to ask whether the White House is endorsing the violent--and unlawful--elements of the protest. (There is also the question of rampant anti-Semitism, which goes completely ignored here, as well.)
Given the choice between siding with the law or with a protest made up of hooligans who place police officers in headlocks, who would you pick? For the presidnt of the United States, it's supposedly a politically prudent choice to side with the criminals.