“Watch!” Krueger bellowed at me. “He’s gonna start Snow over Minor tomorrow night! He’ll do what he always does! He never plays the hot hand!”

Krueger was wrong. Baker started Minor that series, and for the next month or so, until the unfortunately named rookie, the Titan of Triple-A, went consistently cold. Minor was hitless against the A’s, the Giants dropped two out of three and fell four games behind the Arizona Diamondbacks, and the Baker-hating continued, unabated: Sure, he’d benched Snow, but he played another one of the critics’ whipping boys, veteran Shawon Dunston, who fouled out with the tying run at third in the last game.

That led to my personal low moment of the season, watching Baker chew out reporters after the game. “I know you still have faith in Shawon Dunston,” one began gently. But the short-fused manager, his energy and patience drained by prostate cancer surgery six months earlier, cut him off. “If I didn’t, I wouldn’t keep playing him! I hear people saying, ‘Dusty’s so loyal, Shawon’s your boy.’ I hear all that shit. But he can do it. If I didn’t think so, I wouldn’t keep running him out there.” The post-game press conference broke up shortly thereafter, and so did the Giants, or so I thought. You saw it on TV, a week or so later, after the team dropped two out of three to the sad Baltimore Orioles: The Thrilla in San Diego, the Rumble in the Dugout. Barry Bonds had Jeff Kent by the throat, team trainer Stan Conte was holding back none other than Baker himself, and if you thought you’d tuned into the WWE instead of ESPN, you had company. This was a team in free fall.

Fast forward to the League Championship Series victory against the St. Louis Cardinals: Bonds and Kent are hugging, not hating. A resurgent J.T. Snow, batting .282 in the playoffs with several crucial hits, vied with catcher Benito Santiago (another has-been revived by Baker; more on him later) for Most Valuable Player. Shawon Dunston had a clutch hit during a ninth inning two-out rally in the final game, setting up the gritty game-winning single by Kenny Lofton, another Giants’ retread. Baker outmanaged his mentor Tony La Russa, the only other guy to win three Manager of the Year awards, and the Giants were going to Disneyland for a World Series against the Anaheim Angels. While Baker, Snow and Dunston were drinking champagne, Krueger and their other critics had to eat some crow. “Look, managers have good and bad years, and Dusty’s had a very good year,” Krueger told me after the big win. There is a God.

But the doubters haven’t disappeared entirely. In fact, while most baseball analysts say the Giants and Angels, both wild card winners, are amazingly evenly matched, most give the edge to the Angels anyway — even though, in category after category, it’s the Giants who have the statistical and psychological advantage. And I don’t get it.

In other years, I’d have written that off as East Coast media bias. They’re all in bed in Bristol, Conn. by the time many Giants games are over, so some team highlights don’t even make it onto ESPN. But the Angels play three time zones away, too, so that won’t explain it. And it’s not that the Angels have fared better in postseason play, one of the so-called “intangibles” that can give one of two evenly matched teams the edge. While the Giants haven’t won a World Series since 1954, they’ve been there twice since then, in 1962 and 1989, and five Giants players have World Series experience with other teams. This is the Angels’ first trip in their 42-year history, and nobody on their roster has World Series experience.

Which is not to say the Angels aren’t a great team. They’re fantastic, a lot like the Giants, in fact. Both teams put themselves in holes during the first half of the season, and fought back like champions. Neither team could really afford to lose a single game in September, and when it counted most, neither did.

I think the Angels bandwagon, though, is mostly powered by two things: The historic sense that the Giants choke in the spotlight, and the media’s lessened but still significant dislike for Barry Bonds. The Bonds factor alone should give the Giants the edge in any close matchup. He spooked La Russa and the Atlanta Braves’ Bobby Cox, taking the two best managers in the National League behind Baker completely out of their games. But instead the Bonds factor seems to work the other way in the analysts’ minds: it translates into their overestimating, and maybe subconsciously pulling for, their opponents.

That anti-Giants, anti-Bonds prejudice was not at all subconscious in a juvenile Jeff Pearlman column on CNNSI.com this week, which judged the Giants’ victory over the Cardinals final proof that “There is no God.” Pearlman’s evidence? That Bonds and Lofton, whom he depicts as an arrogant asshole and a lowlife thug, respectively, are going to the World Series, and the team of Darryl Kile and Jack Buck are not.

There was nothing juvenile or even hostile to the Sporting News’ Ken Rosenthal’s column giving the nod to the Angels. There was nothing to it, period. He walked through all the reasons smart baseball folks think the Giants have the edge, and then picked the Angels anyway. Why? “My head tells me the Giants, but my heart tells me the Angels,” he wrote.

No matter. The motto of Dusty Baker’s team is, “We don’t start nothin’, but we don’t take nothin’ either.” The disrespect will rile them up a little, while the natural advantages the analysts ignore make them the favorites on the field. My head tells me the Giants, and my heart tells me the Giants, too. Here’s why.

First of all, the 2002 Giants aren’t underdogs anymore. They’ve got some top dogs: three starting All-Stars from 2001 in Bonds (last year’s MVP and certain to be this year’s too), 2000 MVP Jeff Kent, who hit .317 with 37 HRs this year, and shortstop Rich Aurilia, whose 2002 season didn’t match 2001 (.324, 37 HRs) because he was injured, but whose bat came alive against the Cardinals. This isn’t the 1997 team, on which Kent hadn’t proven himself, Aurilia was a green backup shortstop, Bonds was great but still a mere mortal, and the season hinged on the heroics of journeyman catcher Brian Johnson, a truly great guy who’s not even in the major leagues anymore.

Still, beyond Bonds and Kent, every Giants hitter hovered around .250 this season — but that’s what makes the team easy, and dangerous, to underestimate. Key Giants hitters — especially Snow, Aurilia and Santiago, who finished with a .280 average — surged as the season ended. Even at the bottom of the order there’s menace: third baseman David Bell, who hits eighth, clubbed 20 home runs with 73 RBIs and was clutch with men in scoring position. Right fielder Reggie Sanders, who hits seventh, was a disappointment after his great 2001 season with Arizona, but he still wound up with 23 home runs and 85 RBIs, and all I can say is he’s due. (If he wakes up from his dismal postseason slump, it’s Giants in five.) So while the Angels have the edge at a few posts in the starting eight — clearly at right field with Tim Salmon, and maybe at center with Darin Erstad (over Lofton) and third with Troy Glaus (over Bell) — the Bonds factor alone gives them the overall advantage. Walk him or pitch to him, he’s on base most of the time either way.

Likewise in starting pitching, most people judge the Giants better equipped, with four guys who could be Baker’s first starter in any given playoff. In fact, he’s used three: Russ Ortiz against Atlanta, Kirk Rueter against St. Louis and now Jason Schmidt against the Angels. That leaves Livan Hernandez — who looked dreadful many times during the regular season, but has come on and is unbeaten in eight postseason starts — to start Games 3 and 7. The Angels probably have an edge in the bullpen, but I can’t even roll over on that one, now that Felix Rodriguez and his 97 mph heat has returned to 2001 form. For the sake of argument, though, let’s give the bullpen to the Angels — and remember the Braves had the best bullpen in the National League, and it couldn’t help them once their starters were clubbed by the Giants.

The only hands-down advantage the Angels have is at the designated hitter spot, though the Giants starting pitchers kick the butts of the Angels when they have to bat in San Francisco. Then there’s the manager’s spot, where inexplicably, lots of analysts are calling it a tossup, even though Baker has 10 years, three trips to the postseason and three Manager of the Year awards, to the talented Mike Scoscia’s three years and zip in the awards and postseason category, until now. I’ve spent too much time singing Baker’s praises over the years to bother with it here. He doesn’t need me. Let’s just say ESPN’s Joe Morgan calls him the best manager in baseball, and gives the nod to the Giants. Enough said.

Then, of course, there are the intangibles. Everybody knows about Baker’s cancer, but another thing that has held this fractious team together is the presence of two amazing old players. The first is Benito Santiago, the onetime Rookie of the Year who admits he squandered years of his prodigious talent on bad baseball decisions and some partying. In January 1998 Santiago had a catastrophic auto accident that seemed certain to end his baseball career, if not his life (the Web site Stiffs.com tracked him on its “sickticker” for days, waiting to add him to its database of the celebrity dead). Instead, Santiago jumped back onto a baseball roster, bouncing from the Blue Jays in 1998 to the Chicago Cubs in 1999 to the Cincinnati Reds in 2000, until he found himself without a team well into spring training 2001. That’s when an old buddy of Baker’s, Dodgers catcher turned Miami gym-owner Paul Casanova, phoned the Giants manager after watching Santiago train and told him, “Benny’s ready.” The Giants picked up the Carlos Santana lookalike, and he picked up the team, coming into his own in 2002 with trips to the All Star Game, a playoff MVP trophy and now his first World Series at age 37.

But my favorite story is Shawon Dunston. He was an All-Star shortstop with the Chicago Cubs who couldn’t get over not playing every day once his body, inevitably, declined. He credits Baker for the tough love that taught him to adjust to being a role player, not a starter. “He took me aside and he told me, ‘OK, you were an All-Star. But you ain’t no Hall of Famer. You ain’t God’s gift to baseball.” Years later Dunston still looks sucker-punched as he tells the story. But after sulking briefly, Dunston said, he came around. It still hurts that he’s mostly on the bench — when I talked to him midseason, he said it was painful hearing the calls for him to retire “when I still know I can play.”

Yet Baker endured the heat for keeping him on the roster for a reason besides loyalty: Dunston’s an unrivalled clubhouse leader, the only guy who can clown around as an equal with both Bonds and Kent, who still aren’t buddies. He was the first guy to soak the aloof Bonds with champagne after the division series win. But my favorite Dunston memory, before the final championship game, came in April, when I watched him clowning around with Kent in the dugout while most teammates were still being frosty to him, after he broke his wrist doing wheelies on his motorcycle and lied about it, and started the season on the disabled list. Clowning with Dunston began Kent’s slow rehabilitation with his teammates, which still isn’t complete. (If Kent gets hot in the playoffs, it’s Giants in four.) Now Dunston’s going to the World Series for the first time, at 39, and his teammates will happily pay his World Series share even if he doesn’t get another hit.

Yet the doubters still carp about Baker’s tendency to stick with guys like Dunston. “Dusty likes to champion the underdog, which is an admirable trait, but it loses you games,” says Larry Krueger. Clearly, Baker’s well-documented affinity for the underdog (which hasn’t been on display much this year anyway) hasn’t kept him from winning plenty: The Giants are second in wins to only the Atlanta Braves during his 10 years at the helm; he has 7 stirring victories in 10 postseason games this October.

But I’ve thought some about this underdog issue, too. If you always identify with the underdog — as Baker does, as I do — can you ever be the top dog? Even beyond Baker, is there something about the Giants’ long tradition of losing — they haven’t won a World Series since 1954, and before that it was 1933 — that sets them up for more losing? Honestly, the only place I think the Angels might have an edge over the Giants is when it comes to fans. Sure, we pack Pac Bell Park. But we always expect the worst. Closer Robb Nen will blow the save! Dunston will strike out! Dusty yanked the starting pitcher too early/too late. Does anybody really believe this team can win its first World Series in San Francisco, their first in 48 years?

I do. And at long last, so do virtually all Giants fans. This is the year they throw it all off, and become the underdogs who play like top dogs. Just watch. It’ll be Giants in six. (My head says seven, but my heart can’t take the stress.)

The piece is just factually wrong. First of all, the Project for Excellence in Journalism tracked Obama-Romney media coverage this year and found that the president received far more negative coverage than Romney did. GQ’s Devin Gordon took apart VandeHei and Allen here. He said everything I wanted to about the piece – most notably, the Times took the lead in reporting on Obama’s ties to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, starting with Jodi Kantor’s piece in April, 2007. Gordon found 2,950 references to Wright in the Times archives. Even if Gordon’s math is off by a factor of 10, that’s a lot of coverage.

Politico’s faux-outrage that both the Post and Times “ignored” David Maraniss’s story about Obama epic high school weed-smoking is silly, too: The future president inoculated himself against almost all drug revelations by revealing them himself in “Dreams from My Father.” The memoir leaves little doubt that Barry Obama was a lost stoner in high school. Who cares?

Meanwhile, Matt Drudge’s favorite journalists are angry that the Post published revelations about Romney’s high school bullying. They seem to think high school behavior matters in the case of Obama but not Romney, just another example of the pervasive partisan double standard in media. But I don’t want to say I learned nothing from the piece: It features populist Haley Barbour defending Ann Romney from the mean Times this way: “The New York Times does a huge exposé that Ann Romney rides horses. Well, so does my wife, and a few million other people. Watch out for equine performers!” You are so fricking losing the dressage vote, Team Obama! Take that!

The ultimate moral vacuum at the heart of the story is its failure to care that just two days after its “exposé” of Ann Romney’s fondness for seven-figure horses and the silly costumes that go with them, the Times ran a chilling investigative piece about Obama’s “kill list” process, with damning details about how the president decides on drone strikes and other methods of killing suspected terrorists.

The Times piece revealed that the administration has minimized its reported civilian casualties by counting all males killed, including minors, as “militants.” It contains the detail that echoes George Zimmerman’s thoughts about Trayvon Martin – that any young men in the vicinity of suspected terrorists must be “up to no good.” The single most haunting revelation, to me, was the fact that political guru David Axelrod sits in on the “Terror Tuesday” meetings, evidence that the president’s process is at least partly political. Oh, and “Terror Tuesday” isn’t my juvenile label for the meetings; according to the Times, that’s how they’re known in the White House. I hope they got that detail wrong. It even quotes Bush CIA director Michael Hayden praising the president but urging a little more transparency in his process. When a Bush-Cheney intelligence operative is telling you you’re keeping too many secrets, you maybe ought to think about it. (I’m going to write more about Obama, the Democrats, national security and “kill lists” next week.)

Politico’s only mention of the piece comes within Times editor Richard Stevenson’s email rebuttal to its charges. Clearly, VandeHei and Allen think a story about the president’s controversial drone policy is less grave and potentially damaging than a close look at Ann Romney’s dressage hobby. I can’t think of a better example of the mindset that drives trivial, democracy-degrading political coverage. Politico didn’t create that world, but it’s the news outlet that was most deliberately invented and perfected to make sure we continue to live in it.

Broadcast in New Hampshire, the swing state that also leads the nation in per capita student debt, the ad highlighted “the fact that the president has not been able to help students deal with this crushing debt,” according to Romney spokesman Ryan Williams. Unfortunately, the ad used footage of New Hampshire students complaining about their loan burden without their permission, and one of them happens to plan to vote for Obama. “Considering I am not a supporter of Mitt Romney, this is not exactly sitting well with me,” said Southern New Hampshire University sophomore Matt Raso. The campaign pulled the footage when a local television station objected, but Ryan Williams told the Associated Press that the campaign plans to run ads blaming the student loan crisis on Obama in other swing states.

That takes a kind of chutzpah Romney rarely exhibits. He won’t stand up to birther bully Donald Trump or the misogynist Rush Limbaugh, but he apparently has the cojones to blame student debt on Obama. We’ll see how it goes. In fact, American student debt is a scandal in which state and national lawmakers in both parties share some blame. But by far the lion’s share of responsibility for the debacle belongs to Republicans. The roots of the crisis go back to California Gov. Ronald Reagan, who imposed the first “fees” on the formerly free University of California system in 1968, declaring “the state should not subsidize intellectual curiosity.” As president, Reagan helped nationalize that disdain for well-funded public higher education in the 1980s.

But it took a long roster of Republican governors to turn the problem into a crisis, and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney led the way a decade ago, dramatically slashing public higher-education funding and hiking fees during his one term. According to the Boston Globe, from 2003 to 2007, fees and tuition jumped 63 percent at Massachusetts’s once-stellar system of public higher education as Romney slashed state funding year after year, for a total of $140 million, or 14 percent, in four years. Not surprisingly, average student debt in Massachusetts jumped 25 percent while Romney was governor. Between 2001 and 2011, tuition and fees have more than doubled at the state’s community college, state university and UMass campuses, but the bulk of the added burden piled up under Romney.

Romney also wanted to spin off the flagship UMass-Amherst and privatize three other colleges, including the medical school, a harbinger of what he says he’ll do as president. That agenda failed in Massachusetts, but it would be a shame to give him a second chance as president.

It’s tragic that Republicans have become the dismantlers of public universities, since it was Abraham Lincoln who signed the Morrill Act in 1862, creating the system of land-grant colleges that made the U.S. a country of unusually broad opportunity. (Of course, today’s GOP has betrayed Lincoln in many other ways.) “Abraham Lincoln is weeping today,” university president Graham Spanier told reporters when Pennsylvania’s Republican Gov. Tom Corbett slashed Penn State funding by $182 million last year. It was the aggressive expansion of college education access after World War II that helped create the vast American middle class. In 1946, only one in eight college-aged student got higher education; by 1970, one in three did. And the balance of enrollment shifted to public institutions: In the 1940s, most students attended private colleges; by 1970 three-quarters were enrolled in public ones.

Presidents from Truman through Eisenhower and Nixon to Carter continued to endorse and enable broad college access, but the tide began to turn in the 1960s as universities became hotbeds of political protest and the new educated generation began to use its college smarts to question society rather than become cogs in the corporate machine. But we can make too much of Reagan’s resentment of Berkeley radicals as a factor in his push to end free UC tuition. He and his backers were anxious to dismantle the public sector and the tax structure that made it possible as well as to privatize all sorts of formerly public institutions, creating lucrative new money-making opportunities for their wealthy friends.

The result: University tuition is up 128 percent nationwide since 1980, the year Reagan became president (and coincidentally, the year I graduated from the University of Wisconsin, when I paid less than $400 a semester). Public university tuition has tripled since then. In that same period, the middle class has shrunk, the poor have gotten poorer and the rich have gotten richer. Is it all connected to our breaking our promises to our kids about higher education? Not entirely, but it’s not a random coincidence, either.

The Romney-Reagan approach to higher education has a lot in common with their overall approach to the economy. Let’s take jobs as an example. Under Reagan, median wages for the working and middle classes began to stagnate and fall – but household debt began to rise. It was as if the GOP-unleashed private sector figured out how to make money lending families the money that they were no longer making in income. Republicans have the same approach to higher education: They slashed public funding and then let their banker friends “help” students afford higher tuition by lending them the cash to pay for it. Now, of course, the nation’s student loan debt is larger than its credit card debt, and graduates leave college carrying about $25,000 in loans. It’s like a mortgage, but without the house.

Andrew Leonard wrote a great piece Tuesday about Romney’s ties to the for-profit education industry and his commitment to relax Obama administration regulations on that high-profit, low-student-success sector. That’s the other key to Romney’s higher education agenda: slash public funding, increase the student loan burden and privatize the whole system as much as possible. Leonard explains what’s wrong with Romney’s priorities more succinctly than I could:

The biggest for-profit schools generate 80 to 90 percent of their revenue from federally guaranteed student loans. Only one out of every ten American college students attends a for-profit institution, but these students account for a quarter of all student debt and almost half of all student loan dollars in default. There’s no sugar-coating it: The booming for-profit industry is one of the worst possible examples of the “free market” in action that one can find in the entire U.S. educational sector. For-profits charge higher tuition rates than their public school competitors, graduation rates are lower, and the entire business would not exist without massive government subsidization in the form of cheap student loans.

Romney is also pledging to undo one of Obama’s most progressive reforms: his overhaul of the student loan system, taking banks (and their gouging) out of the middle of the government-guaranteed loan relationship.

It’s against that backdrop that Romney is trying to blame Obama for the student loan crisis. It won’t work. Democrats need to pay much more attention to Romney’s higher education record in Massachusetts. It’s no wonder he doesn’t like to talk about those years.

Obviously Blitzer could have cut “beginning to look a little” from his put-down, but those were harsh words coming from Blitzer. Trump had already insulted the CNN anchor’s ratings, telling him, “Frankly, if you would report [the birther conspiracy] accurately, I think you would probably get better ratings than you’re getting, which are pretty small.”

So Obama surrogates Hilary Rosen and Cory Booker were almost universally denounced for ill-chosen words on behalf of the president, but Trump gets to insult not just Obama but an influential cable news anchor on behalf of Romney with no reprisals? That’s the old IOKIYAR double standard at work, but this time, it might actually backfire and hurt Romney.

For his part, Romney refused to either cut ties with Trump or denounce him. And his refusal to do so was a craven exercise in electoral groveling. “You know,” he told reporters Monday night, “I don’t agree with all the people who support me, and my guess is they don’t all agree with everything I believe in. But I need to get 50.1 percent or more, and I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.” What else will Romney do to get to 50.1 percent? Stay tuned.

Of course, that’s not the first time Romney has refused to denounce or distance himself from a Republican supporter. When Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute,” he merely said it was “not the language I would have used.” When Ted Nugent said “if Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will be either be dead or in jail by this time next year,” Romney simply asked for more civility in politics. When a supporter said Obama should be “tried for treason,” Romney didn’t challenge her at all and later told reporters: “I don’t correct all of the questions that get asked of me. Obviously I don’t agree that he should be tried.” Romney keeps getting served big fat pitches to let him take a swing at a defining moment of political courage, pitches that he could knock out of the park. He just watches them float by.

Maybe Romney thinks he needs the birther loons to get elected. The base isn’t crazy about him. And Salon’s Alex Seitz-Wald reveals that Orly Taitz and Joseph Farah are thrilled that Trump continues to advance their cause. But this can’t end well. For better or worse, independents are likely to decide this election, and birther nonsense isn’t going to win them over.

I’ve probably reached my own personal low when I’m fact checking Trump’s lies, but today he consistently claimed – referencing a Breitbart.com story – that Obama’s “publisher” wrote that he was born in Kenya; in fact, the dubious story makes clear it was his literary agent, in a publicity brochure about her clients. (A former agency assistant quickly took the blame for the mistake and said the information didn’t come from Obama.)

Also, when talking about the agent’s brochure to the Daily Beast, Trump said it was a mistake made by a young man who “didn’t know he was running for president, so he told the truth.”  But when dismissing Blitzer’s reference to the Honolulu Star Bulletin’s Barack Obama birth announcement just days after he was born, Trump argues “many people put those announcements in because they wanted to get the benefit of being so-called born in this country.” So his parents knew enough to fake a birth announcement, but the young Harvard Law Review president threw all their hard work away to sell a book? Uh oh, I’m trying to find consistency in a Donald Trump argument. Time to close. Romney owns everything Trump says, and it will cost him in November.

The Breitbart.com empire must be proud Trump is using their story as “proof” of his birther nonsense. Even as they printed the allegation, they stressed that Breitbart himself didn’t support birtherism, and they insisted that they only published the story about the agent’s brochure just to prove the media didn’t vet Obama. Let’s get this straight: So they’re chiding the media for not publishing something that they themselves believe to be false. That’s awesome journalism.

In related news: Regarding the revival of Trump birtherism, I said Friday on “Hardball” that Breitbart’s journalistic proteges were “bottom feeders,” and one of them quickly proved it.  I appreciate all the support I got on Twitter, but to me it was a dog bites man story, and utterly predictable. (I apologize to dogs everywhere for that unfair comparison.)

I talked about how Trump hurts Romney on MSNBC’s “Politics Nation” Tuesday afternoon:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Today it’s appalling: puffed up by Romney’s flattery, the preening, orange-haired narcissist doubled down on his idiotic birther claims against the president, telling the Daily Beast’s Lloyd Grove: “Look, it’s very simple. A book publisher came out three days ago and said that in his written synopsis of his book, he said he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia. His mother never spent a day in the hospital.”

If you haven’t been following the story, and I tried not to, the addled spawn of Andrew Breitbart found a dusty 20-year-old catalog from Obama’s former literary agency that said he was born in Kenya. An assistant quickly said that she wrote down incorrect information. Trump doesn’t believe her.

“That’s what he told the literary agent,” Trump told Grove. “That’s the way life works … He didn’t know he was running for president, so he told the truth. The literary agent wrote down what he said … He said he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia … Now they’re saying it was a mistake. Just like his Kenyan grandmother said he was born in Kenya, and she pointed down the road to the hospital, and after people started screaming at her she said, ‘Oh, I mean Hawaii.’ Give me a break.”

Give us a break, Mitt. It was already embarrassing that you were using Trump as a fundraising lure – why not raffle off a dinner with Dick Cheney, who’s hosting a fundraiser for you in July? At least Darth Vader has gravitas; Trump is a joke. Pretending to run for president, Trump made birtherism his big issue, and ultimately Obama responded by prevailing on the state of Hawaii to release his long-form birth certificate – a truly sad moment for this country, when the overwhelmingly elected president, a black man, has to show a nasty rich white guy his papers.

If you ever want an example of the vicious political double standard that helps Republicans in this country, here it is: Democrat Hilary Rosen said something inartful about Ann Romney being a stay-at-home mom, and the entire Democratic Party had to denounce her; Obama campaign leaders tripped over themselves to be the first to push her under the bus; Rosen immediately apologized. But Romney has been able to keep his ties to Trump as well as misogynist Rush Limbaugh without political penalty — so far.

This is a moment for the presumptive Republican nominee to stand up for sanity and distance himself from the crackpot birther fringe, and tell Trump he’s going to have to cancel their dinner date. Maybe he’s got to wash his hair that night. Or one of Ann Romney’s cars.

Does Romney have the integrity and courage to do that? I don’t think so, but I’d love to be surprised.

Throughout the president’s first term, his most ardent supporters have reacted to those of us pushing him to do – and say – more on such issues with frustration and anger, some of it nasty and personal, some of it thoughtful and well-argued. They rightly blame Congress for blocking action on key progressive priorities, but strangely downplay the power of presidential leadership. Late last year, New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait twice attacked liberal Obama critics for being “unreasonable” about what the president alone could accomplish, because “liberals, on the whole, are incapable of feeling satisfied with a Democratic president.”

Chait took particular aim at lefty image guru Drew Westen, a one-time Obama admirer who criticized the president in the New York Times not merely for what he hadn’t accomplished, but for failing to tell a compelling story. Chait accused Westen and other progressives of embracing:

…a model of American politics in which the president in not only the most important figure, but his most powerful weapon is rhetoric. The argument appears calculated to infuriate anybody with a passing familiarity with the basics of political science. In Westen’s telling, every known impediment to legislative progress — special interest lobbying, the filibuster, macroeconomic conditions, not to mention certain settled beliefs of public opinion — are but tiny stick huts trembling in the face of the atomic bomb of the presidential speech. The impediment to an era of total an uncompromising liberal success is Obama’s failure to properly deploy this awesome weapon.

Chait caricatured Westen’s argument (and the beliefs of those who agreed with it), but he got lots of love for both pieces in the pro-Obama blogosphere, where folks finally felt they had a real diagnosis for the illness of those they dismissed as “emoprogs.” But now that we see the changes wrought by Obama’s politically risky embrace of gay marriage, maybe it will be easier for folks to understand that it’s the job of political advocates not merely to praise, but to push their leaders forward.

Steve Kornacki runs down the astonishing political changes we’ve seen in the mere two weeks since the president carefully announced his supposed change of heart on gay marriage. The nation’s largest African-American organization, the NAACP, has come out behind it – and maybe most important, recognized it as an important civil rights issue. Maybe most dramatic, in Maryland, African-American voters have now flipped to support the state’s gay marriage ballot measure 55 to 36 percent –almost the exact percentage by which they opposed it in previous polling on the state issue. And in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, African-Americans’ support for gay marriage jumped to 59 percent from 41 percent in the wake of the president’s historic announcement.

Now, I’m not going to argue that Obama’s turnaround alone caused this sea change. The arc of the moral universe has been bending toward justice on gay rights for a long time, and as I wrote last week, the president gave it an additional tug. There have been advocates within the NAACP working to make this happen for a long time, and they deserve a lot of credit. African-American voter opinion had already been trending in this direction, even if black voters had been less receptive to gay marriage than other demographic groups. There is also an emotional and personal component to the president’s stance that makes his moral suasion hard to replicate on behalf of, say, the jobs bill or the public option. (And let’s also remember it’s white voters who are most hostile on some of those economic issues, thanks to the divide and conquer politics of the GOP over the last 40 years.)

Still, it’s hard not to conclude that Obama’s words made a significant difference in the political course of this debate. Ironically, it was once critics of Obama who mocked the power of words, and specifically the candidate’s own oratorical gifts. Obama shot back at them many times.

“Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” he told Wisconsin Democrats in February 2008. “‘I have a dream’ — just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ — just words. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’ – just words. Just speeches.” At many times over the last three years, I’ve been amazed at how Obama’s critics and supporters seemed to change sides on the question of the power of his words.

I give the folks who call themselves “prag progs” – pragmatic progressives, as opposed to “unreasonable” emoprogs – a lot of credit for fixing attention on what the president has accomplished, and reminding others not merely to fixate on what he hasn’t. But I think it’s time that all of us acknowledge that there’s a role for constructive pressure, too. Progressive change has always required impatient agitators – and it will continue to.