sr,

sr: "If you'd actually bothered to read the article, instead of embarking on yet another pointless grammar exercise, you might have understood the quote."

I both read the article and understand the quote. In addition, I watched the video clip in its entirety. As to the alleged pointlessness of the grammatical butchery of the former editor of The Harvard Law Review, I suppose that determination will be settled in the eye of the beholder. 

sr: "Of course, that's assuming you would actually bother to pay attention, rather than regurgitating Republican talking points. The quote was referring to the politicians who use anti-immigrant rhetoric to make a name for themselves, people like Tom Tancredo and now Jan Brewer. It's not a strawman, it's a political tactic embraced by the party you support so fervently."

Your regurgitation of Obama's strawman doesn't make it any less a strawman. Until you cite examples of Brewer saying or implying that she is 'anti-immigrant' or that 70% of Arizona voters who support the state's immigration law are 'anti-immigrant', your repetition of the charge is just as fallacious as the original.

But, then, Obama says it, you believe it, and that settles it.

later. iowan15