The Tea Party has no leader. It has no address, no phone and no Washington headquarters. It is everywhere and nowhere. For Barack Obama, the Tea Party is the quintessential asymmetrical enemy, much like the Taliban in Afghanistan. The president stands a chance of losing on both fronts. 
 
 The Post set up a posse and went in search of the Tea Party. Of the 2,300 local groups claimed by one Tea Party organization, The Post could verify or reach only 647. As for the rest, "it is unclear whether they are just hard to reach or don't exist," The Post said. Most of the known groups back no candidate, have no platform, raise little money and are not exactly sure of what they stand for. This is pretty close to what Will Rogers said of his own political allegiance: "I am not a member of any organized party. I am a Democrat." 
 
 The difference between being an early-20th-century Democrat and an early-21st-century Tea Party member is the Internet. With it, the middleman is eliminated -- in this case an actual political party, Republican or Democratic, which was once called the organization because it actually organized. Now that's done laptop to laptop so like-minded people can get together, even if they do not actually get together. The Tea Party exists in the vapors. For Obama, it's a refutation of what Joe Louis said before his 1941 bout with Billy Conn: "He can run, but he can't hide." The Tea Party can do both. 
 
 As a result, the vexed Obama has been swinging wildly, punching at ghosts. He has tried elevating the colorless John Boehner as a worthy opponent, but his face is as unrecognizable as his name is unpronounceable. Obama tried to make the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Public Enemy No. 1, but to most Americans the chamber is a group of guys in short-sleeve shirts and clip-on ties who sponsor the July 4 parade. He has tried going after Big Business and Evil Finance, but they are where the jobs are -- or used to be -- and while they are both more or less disliked, the message is mixed. 
 
 Obama is stuck in the classic dilemma of asymmetrical warfare: Who and where is the enemy? In Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus carrots-and-sticks the Taliban -- battling them while also inviting them to peace talks. The strategy might work and, if it does, Obama might wonder why he did not do something similar. "Why should he be negotiating with the Taliban and not with the Tea Party?" the Democratic political consultant Douglas E. Schoen asked me. 
 
 The Post's survey of the Tea Party movement suggests Schoen is on to something. Despite a repellent stream of racism in the Tea Party ranks -- The Post found that 11 percent of the Tea Party members said that Obama's race, religion or ethnic background was either "very important" or "somewhat important" for the movement -- the overriding emotion is anger. Anger is ugly to behold, but it is both understandable and widespread. Who besides the odd walrus was not angered by the bridge to nowhere? Who is not angry about earmarks and exorbitant government pensions and lousy roads and awful schools and taxes that seem too high -- in other words a political system in dire need of reform? 
 
 The desire for change -- an emotion one step short of anger -- was what propelled Obama into the White House. As the Tea Party gained attention, he could have made common cause with it -- not on social issues, of course, but these are not as important as economic ones. 
 
 Those and a general distrust of government are what motivate most Tea Party members, The Post discovered. Their allegiance to any political party is minimal. Obama, with almost no political record, might have made inroads with these people. Instead, he managed to become the personification of Big Government -- not just with his programs (necessary though they might be) but with his persona and isolation in the White House. He banned lobbyists but managed to transform himself into the biggest one of all. He blew it. 
 
 The Tea Party is here to stay if only because the Internet is here to stay. But its emotions and its grievances can be co-opted, engulfed, absorbed and made part of the engine of change that Obama himself once both personified and promised. As I recall, the original Tea Party was open to anyone. All you needed for admittance was anger. 
 
 cohenr@washpost.com ||||| The juxtaposition was striking: an abundance of diversity on the stage and a dearth of it in the crowd, with the exception of a few minorities like the young black man who carried a sign that read “Quit calling me a racist.” 
 
 They saved the best for last, however: Alfonzo “Zo” Rachel. According to his Web site, Zo, who is black and performs skits as “Zo-bama,” allowed drugs to cost him “his graduation.” Before ripping into the president for unconstitutional behavior, he cautioned, “I don’t have the education that our president has, so if I misinterpret some things in the founding documents I kind of have an excuse.” That was the understatement of the evening. 
 
 I found the imagery surreal and a bit sad: the minorities trying desperately to prove that they were “one of the good ones”; the organizers trying desperately to resolve any racial guilt among the crowd. The message was clear: How could we be intolerant if these multicolored faces feel the same way we do? 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 It was a farce. This Tea Party wanted to project a mainstream image of a group that is anything but. A New York Times/CBS News poll released on Wednesday found that only 1 percent of Tea Party supporters are black and only 1 percent are Hispanic. It’s almost all white. 
 
 Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. 
 
 And even when compared to other whites, their views are extreme and marginal. For instance, white Tea Party supporters are twice as likely as white independents and eight times as likely as white Democrats to believe that Barack Obama was born in another country. 
 
 Furthermore, they were more than eight times as likely as white independents and six times as likely as white Democrats to think that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites. 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 Thursday night I saw a political minstrel show devised for the entertainment of those on the rim of obliviousness and for those engaged in the subterfuge of intolerance. I was not amused.
– The Tea Party is mad as hell and ... that's about it, writes Richard Cohen in the Washington Post. Beyond anger, the Tea Party "has no leader. It has no address, no phone, and no Washington headquarters. It is everywhere and nowhere." When a Post posse tried to track down 2,300 local tea-drinking groups, it could verify only 647. Cohen writes that "the Tea Party exists in the vapors," bound only by anger and the Internet. The latter eliminates the middleman—"in this case an actual political party, which was once called the organization because it actually organized." "Now that's done laptop to laptop so like-minded people can get together, even if they do not actually get together." This creates an "asymmetrical," impossible-to-nail-down enemy for Obama, but it's an enemy who is seeking change—which is exactly what pushed Obama into the presidency. "The Tea Party is here to stay if only because the Internet is here to stay. But its emotions and its grievances can be co-opted, engulfed, absorbed and made part of the engine of change that Obama himself once both personified and promised. As I recall, the original Tea Party was open to anyone. All you needed for admittance was anger."