He seems to generalize a lot, and make claims that are tendentious at best.

Generally, he keeps talking about "the party" doing this, and "the party" doing that.  But he never explains who he means?  Is he talking about individual party members?  The DNC?  Does "the party" mean different things depending on what the accusation is?

As for his substantive claims, here is a good example:

But when he came out looking like Steve Urkel bowling and drinking Yuengling for votes in the same state, the media and party ate it up -- another "precious" Obama moment.

I don't remember this.  I remember him being heavily mocked by Joe Scarborough and Maureen Dowd for his bad bowling.  I also recall someone (and here I'm doing the Tony Smith thing of making a non-specific allegation) pointing out that his mockery of Hillary's shot-takin' gun-totin' act rang false when he was doing man-of-the-people photo ops himself.

If this was an essay that I was grading, I would give Tony Smith a D for making assertions without supporting them with evidence.  His rhetorical eloquence is the only thing that would save him from an F.