How desperate is the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to stop the independent Scott Brown from defeating the woefully incompetent Martha Coakley in Massachusetts? This desperate.

The DSCC is making hay this morning of this clip in which Scott Brown, in the process of praising President Obama’s mother for deciding to have him at age 18, expresses some doubt — and chuckles uncomfortably — over the question of whether his parents were married when he was born.

So naturally the DSCC is now calling Scott Brown a right-wing extremist and member of the Birther movement, facts and context be damned.

How pathetic and long is this stretch? Left-tilting Ben Smith explains:

The claim is a wild stretch. The fact that Obama’s mother was young and had to marry on the fly (his mother was pregnant when they were married in Feburary, 1981) is central to his biography, as is his father’s absence, and while Brown seems confused on that biographical point, he doesn’t suggest in any way that he’s aligned with the Birthers. Indeed in a GOP where Birther claims are common on the Hill and on the airwaves, Brown’s words are practically a vote of confidence.

In fact, Barack Obama himself highlights this part of his biography. He’s talked about both his mother’s pregnancy and father’s absence extensively, as have the media and fellow Democrats. It’s usually considered part of the “inspirational” story.

But suddenly recognizing that biographical fact is indicative of one being a right-wing extremist and Birther? Only because the DSCC is desperately grasping for strays. It’s quite pathetic.