Such is the atmosphere described by David Litt, an Obama speechwriter who joined the frathouse at age 24 and then wrote his tell-all book, naively thinking the public wouldn't be disgusted. From the Daily Mail :

So it comes to light in the latest Obama tell-all book that President Obama ran a very, very undiversified Animal House in his speechwriting operation. And all those soaring speeches that made the New York Times swoon were actually the work of a cynical leftist white-boy frat house operation, tailoring their soaring Obama lines for the elites between swigs of beer and gropes of women.

Inside the White House, Litt depicts a scene that is less House of Cards, and more of a fraternity house, particularly within his team. Working alongside speechwriters Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, and Jeff Nussbaum, he tells how they called each other 'bro' and showed off their status in and outside of the White House. 'I studied the West Wing with my anthropological intensity, and had learned to translate my boss's unique dialect: the curt, one-line message,' he writes. 'The final category of email, and by far the most precious, was any message containing the words "boom!" or "bro," he adds. 'These were special. They meant you were totally killing it and had established yourself as a valued member of the team.' As far as the dating scene in Washington, Litt describes, seduction was 'almost painfully easy,' as colleagues used their White House credentials to pick up women.

What he's describing, in fact, is something typical of the hypocrisy of the left. They foist their diversity "narrative" on all of us Little People but refuse to enforce it for themselves – OK for the White House speechwriting staff to comprise all white male Ivy-Leaguers, but not the board of Exxon.

A few weeks ago, American Thinker got a note from some government bureaucrat using her Washington office email, maybe to intimidate us, advising us she wouldn't be reading our publication due to the absence of female editors, based on her reading of the masthead (I had not updated it with my own entry, so she assumed incorrectly). But her broader objection suggests that the content would somehow be different, or better, or more relatable or something, if our written words, recording the content of our minds, were somehow written by a female instead of a male. It's absurd, but I bring this up to show that liberals really believe this.

This is their justification for non-merit-based affirmative action, for quotas, for diversity counselors. They really think "diversity" in superficial coats of paint such as skin color can outweigh a person's class origin in content, or that more color tones in the chocolate box necessarily make for a "richer" experience. Diversity of thought, the real proof of the pudding, counts for nothing with these people, because they believe that women and minorities think as groups rather than individuals – and they all think alike. That's why they want "women's" voices, but not Margaret Thatcher's, or "black" voices, just not Thomas Sowell's. The only exception might be if a lily-white racist who's spent her life oppressing dark-skinned Mexican Indians in her homeland comes up here to the states and can claim the title of oppressed "Latina." Or if someone wants to claim American Indian ancestry, no matter how pink and gold and blonde, to fill a quota at Harvard.

The solidly white-boy leftist team at Team Obama, as you recall, was the group that was caught photographing its denizens groping Hillary Clinton in some of its basic piggery before hotfooting it off to Hollywood, where such behavior in the power slots, based on items in the news, appears to be perfectly normal.

Sure, the Obama frat boys were embarrassed when they were found out, but with this going on – in that place of political correctness known as the White House – is it any wonder that Team Obama was so confident in always assuming that all whites who belong to fraternities are somehow just as piggish as they are? Their hostility toward frats may well have been projecting, given what went on in the White House.

And to consider the speechwriting operation itself, is it possible that Obama wanted their non-diverse, solidly white elitist operation for his speeches to ensure that the "I've got mine" intelligentsia and Beltway elites would react favorably to each and every line he uttered? The frat boys obviously spoke their language and knew which buttons to push to please the elites. A black kid from Obama's own claimed South Side of Chicago wouldn't make the speech team for that alone.

Don't forget also that Ben Rhodes was part of this speechwriting team before becoming Obama's "mind meld" claiming the title of deputy national security adviser without a security clearance, and going on to deceive the American public with his phony Benghazi talking points, his false Iran deal "narrative," and his no-strings opening to Castro's Cuba.

As a final note, I can say I remember these people, punkish hipsters, who dotted the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver, which, Styrofoam pillars and all, nominated Obama for president. In their black t-shirts and jeans, they were smug, self-satisfied, addicted to the latest technology, always at the local Starbucks, and utterly convinced they knew more than the others. They were the ones closest to the Obama circle, and some probably got spots on that speechwriting team. They stood in stark contrast to the far humbler and more recognizably normal Democratic delegates – far nicer people – who supported Hillary Clinton from places like Colorado, Texas, and upstate New York whom I found pleasant to talk with.

The bottom line is that Obama's voice never was the work of a team of diverse voices, but purely the work of the white elite frat boys, who stapled their black president on as their voice and thrilled the left. And word is now out.

Are these people proud of themselves?