Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal pulls no punches in the opening lines of its opinion column attacking President Obama.
"Britons now know how Americans feel. The most politically polarizing U.S. President in modern history decided on Friday to inject himself into the British debate over the June referendum to leave the European Union, as ever leading with a dubious political threat."
Wow. Really? The most politically polarising president of modern times? Leaving Nixon in the shade? Clinton? Johnson? That's some claim. But it is very much the right-wing mantra. Take a UK observer, Tim Montgomerie. Normally a man of moderation and common sense, Montgomerie lets go of his moorings when he writes about Obama. He started his Spectator attack piece by comparing Obama negatively against Donald Trump, suggesting Trump was a bit of a shrinking violet when stood against Obama's over-weening self-confidence. "King Barack" Montgomerie called him, presumably to distinguish him from non-imperial presidents like Nixon, Johnson, Reagan et al.
The trans-Atlantic right's hatred of Obama merits serious academic study at some point (and Alex Massie pens a vigorous current assessment here), but for the moment it is worth just noting that his main sin is to be an articulate spokesman for liberalism, and that the facts on the ground point as much, if not more, to a laager-retreating Republican Party than a dementedly dividing president when it comes to polarising American politics. Obama, after all, continues to enjoy buoyant and improving ratings as this election year goes on. Every time a right-wing spokesman demonizes the president they manage to do it in such a way as to invite serious questions about their mental stability. Which explains a lot about the current rosta of Republican leaders and presidential contenders.