On his segment of CNN Newroom today, anchor Ali Velshi cited a CNNN/Opinion Research poll showing that only a quarter of Americans believe Obama's stimulus program has wasted little or no money.  He then set up an interview with a pro-stimulus academic:

Let's talk about this with Kenneth Rogoff, professor of public policy and economics at Harvard University. Ken, you have looked at this very, very carefully. I have to say, back when the stimulus bill was being discussed, most economists fell into the camp of timing and how much to spend. Very few said there is no need for an economic stimulus bill at all. Do you think this was a necessary thing to do a year ago?

Velshi's claim that few economists opposed government spending to stimulate the economy is false.  Last January, Frank Ahrens, the Washington Post's business reporter, wrote "Cato Lines Up 200 Economists Against Obama's Stimulus."  It began:

The conservative Cato Institute plans to buy full-page ads in The Washington Post and New York Times over the next several days urging President Obama to avoid what it considers excessive government spending as a way to get the U.S. out of recession.

In the form of a letter to Obama, the ad is signed by some 200 economists, including three Nobel laureates -- Edward Prescott and George Mason's Vernon Smith and James Buchanan -- listed prominently at the top.

Its point: Not everyone agrees that massive government spending -- say, Obama's $825 billion stimulus plan -- is the right way out of recession.

A group of 200 economists, including three Nobel laureates, doesn't qualify as "very few."  Many in the mainstream media are eager to protect and defend the man they helped put in the White House.  We can expect more rewriting of recent history as that crusade continues.          

Certainly there's enough domestic adoration of Barack Obama.  A year of consistent failure has done little to diminish Obama's support among the mainstream media, Hollywood celebrities, and academics.  Overseas, the fascination with Obama also continues.  Associated Press writer Kirsten Grieshaber reports "Obama musical set to open in Germany."  The article begins:

A musical about Barack Obama's "Yes we can" election campaign premieres in Germany this weekend, including love songs by the president to his wife Michelle and duets with Hillary Clinton. . .

In all, 30 singers, actors and dancers are to perform in the musical "Hope - the Obama Musical Story" when it opens at the Jahrhunderthalle concert hall in Frankfurt in a bilingual mix of English and German. The audience may recognize that many songs quote from the politicians' stump speeches during the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign.

The venue for the premiere seems appropriate since the optimism of Obamania remains largely intact in Germany, about a year after Obama, an accomplished public speaker, became America's first black president.

What's interesting is how Obama's simply described as "an accomplished public speaker."  Then again, what else could have been said about him?  That he had a short, mediocre term as a U.S. senator during much of which he ran for president?  That his undistinguished record as a state legislator was most memorable for his "present" votes?  That after graduation he went to work for a law firm with close connections to the Chicago political machine?  That his community organizing efforts were less than a success?

Even claiming he's an accomplished public speaker is pushing it.  We've seen the trouble he can get in without his trusty teleprompter close by to protect him.

There will be songs based on Obama's campaign speeches.  Maybe there'll be one about his health care reform being televised on C-SPAN.  Or a tune about not signing bills with earmarks.  Or a ditty about allowing five days of public comment before signing legislation.

No, reality would be too much to expect.  No doubt the show will be gushingly worshipful.  Hollywood types are probably kicking themselves for not coming up with "Hope - the Obama Musical Story" first.

In this age of political correctness, using appropriate language can be challenging, even for those with the best PC intentions.  So it was last week at the New York Times, which clarified an earlier article (h/t Regret the Error) :

An appraisal on Dec. 31 about David Levine, the caricaturist for The New York Review of Books who died on Dec. 29, may have left the incorrect impression that the Russian writer Aleksandr Pushkin, the subject of one of Mr. Levine’s drawings, was homosexual. The description of Pushkin as “a gay man” was a reference to his demeanor, not his sexual orientation.

No doubt some nitpickers will think the correction should have ended:  Not that there would have been anything wrong if he were a homosexual.

There's just something about Sarah.  A morsel, any morsel, about former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin that can possibly be used to belittle her is rabidly devoured by many in the mainstream media.  On his CNN Newsroom segment today, anchor Rick Sanchez highlighted Palin's difficulty in keeping Joe Biden's name straight.  Four different times, he played the same video from last year's vice presidential debate in which she referred to him as "O'Biden."  Sanchez played part of an interview with McCain campaign staffer Steve Schmidt, who described Palin's error as "a verbal tic" that could prove "devastating beyond words." Then:

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: How did you get around it?

SCHMIDT: Multiple people, and I wasn't one of them, all said at the same time, just say, "Can I call you Joe?" Which she did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Despite that precaution, look at what happened interestingly enough, during the debate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PALIN: Barack Obama and Senator O'Biden, you have said no to everything in trying to find a domestic solution to the energy crisis that we're in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Hmm. "O'Biden." She said it.

The interview was based on "Game Change," that new book about the 2008 presidential campaign. The authors of that book say that many McCain staffers were so worried about Palin's inexperience that they became terrified about what would happen if their guy won and Palin actually became vice president. . .

Sanchez's observation would have had more kick if not for the fact that the former Alaska governor already covered her use  of "O'Biden" in her book published months ago.  As quoted on National Review Online:

During rehearsals, I accidentally called Randy “Senator O’Biden” — a slip of the tongue combination of Obama and Biden. The blunder struck too often, even tripping up campaign staffers. (Jay Leno later made the same slip on his new talk show, so we were in good company.) We laughed about it but knew that if I said it even once during the debate, it would be disastrous. Then somebody said, “You ought to just call him Joe.” . . .  

Slips of the tongue are routine with politicians.  The late Senator Ted Kennedy famously called the current president "Osama Obama."  VP candidate Biden introduced Obama as "Barack America."  At the same event, Obama came dangerously close to hailing Biden as the next president of the United States.  And then there was the CNN interview during which Obama referred to one of his daughters by the wrong name.
   
But with Sanchez, it's Sarah's slip of the tongue that's still newsworthy and qualifies for four replays in a single program.  She's obviously viewed as a threat, one that must be denigrated at every opportunity.   

It was business as usual at CNN yesterday.  On The Situation Room, anchor Wolf Blitzer reported:

North Dakota's Democratic senator, Byron Dorgan, just announced he won't run for reelection to the U.S. Senate in November. The surprise announcement could give Republicans a chance to pick up a Senate seat in that red state. Dorgan was first elected to the Senate back in 1992 after serving a dozen years in the House. The moderate Democrat says he wants to pursue other interests.

Hours later on her program, Campbell Brown announced:

On the political front, a big blow to Democrats' hopes of keeping control of the Senate. North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan announced today he won't run for reelection this year, a big surprise here. Dorgan was expected to easily win a fourth term, so a boost for Republicans there.

Is Dorgan a moderate, as Blitzer described him?  Interest group ratings compiled by Project Vote Smart show:

A 100 percent rating for 2008 from NARAL Pro-Choice America
A 90 percent rating for 2008 from Americans for Democratic Action
A 100 percent rating for 2008 from the AFL-CIO
A grade of A from the National Education Association for 2007-2008
A 100 percent rating for 2007-2008 from the American Civil Liberties Union
An 8 percent rating for 2008 from the American Conservative Union
A grade of D for 2008 from the National Taxpayers Union

And what of Brown's claim that Dorgan was expected to easily win reelection?  Last month, The Bismarck Tribune headlined, "Poll shows Hoeven leading Dorgan."  It began:

Health care reform could hurt Sen. Bryon Dorgan’s re-election bid, according to a new poll released Monday. Rasmussen Reports, which lists itself as an electronic publishing company that does public opinion polling, found Gov. John Hoeven leading Dorgan by 22 points — 58 percent to 36 percent with 6 percent undecided.

A Zogby poll taken in November showed Dorgan losing to Hoeven by 55% to 36% with 9% undecided.  The same poll also disclosed strong opposition to Obama's health care bill, legislation supported by Dorgan.

Yet CNN saw an easy win for the moderate Dorgan.  As Democratic politicians drop like flies out of their races, it should be pretty obvious that an association with Obama's policies can be hazardous to one's political health.  Even CNN may eventually figure that out. 
 

In a Politico interview yesterday, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien provided some insight into herself.  No, not in the part where she admits to cursing "all the time."  It was her response to another question:

If you were the president of the United States for enough time to make only one executive decision, what would it be?

Improve public schools.

None of that preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States for Soledad.  Or faithfully executing the laws.  Or protecting our country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Or serving as Commander in Chief.

O'Brien would improve public schools.  As admirable as that goal may be, it isn't a principal responsibility of the president or the Federal government.  Neither "schools" nor "education" appears in the U.S. Constitution.  Even if one believes there is a legitimate Federal role, education is primarily a State and local responsibility.  Who says so?  Well, the U.S. Department of Educaton for one.  From its Web site:

Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant State and local role.

It goes on to say that the Federal contribution to elementary and secondary education is a little under 8 percent of the total spent.

The Federal role in education was accelerated by the establishment of the Department of Education under President Jimmy Carter. The Washington Post noted at the time:

The creation of this department is a response by both the President and the Congress, to one specific organization, the National Education Association.

Former Representative Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) warned:

No matter what anyone says, the Department of Education will not just write checks to local school boards. They will meddle in everything.

That's precisely what happened.  Although providing a small portion of education dollars, Washington's created a great deal of red tape and with dubious outcomes.

The president of the United States bears many responsibilities, but improving public schools should be far, far down on that list, if on it at all.  O'Brien's statement epitomizes the mainstream media mindset that citizens should look to the Federal government for solutions.  Based on results, that doesn't seem prudent.     

In her Washington Post column today, Sally Quinn frets that White House security breaches divert attention from Barack Obama's accomplishments.  In "Time for accountability at the White House," she writes:

Obama has had some real successes this fall. He did a masterful job of bringing together incredibly disparate positions to craft a strategy for Afghanistan. He put himself on the line and will probably come up with a reasonable health-care plan. He left Copenhagen with at least promises of cooperation from other world powers regarding climate change. But he is not getting credit that he deserves because he is being ill served by those around him who will not step up as needed and take the fall for him.

Real successes, heh?  Obama's dithering on Afghanistan justifiably earned him criticism both here and abroad, where England's defense minister and others voiced their concerns.  It's impossible to know if Obama's health-care plan, cobbled in backroom deals, is reasonable because so many specifics are still obscure.  One thing we do know is negotiations weren't, as promised by Obama, aired on C-SPAN.  Moreover, Obama failed to go over it line by line with members of Congress, another promise made and broken.  Only in the mainstream media could Obama getting "at least promises of cooperation from other world powers regarding climate change" count as a success.

Then again, what could Quinn have pointed to?  Unprecedented spending and debt, nonexistent shovel ready jobs, persistent high rates of unemployment, and setbacks on terrorism hardly qualify as achievements.  Perhaps she could have pointed with pride to Obama's decision to end a 22-year-old immigration ban preventing those with HIV/AIDS from entering the United States.  Or his naming of the first transgendered woman to be an advisor to the Commerce Department.  Or bringing people like Van Jones into government. 

Quinn's solution to the purported problem of Obama not receiving adequate credit is for Secret Service director Mark Sullivan and White House social secretary Desirée Rogers to resign.  Millions of Americans would agree that White House resignations are called for, but at a much higher level.        

On this afternoon's CNN Newsroom, anchor Rick Sanchez briefly updated his audience on Rush Limbaugh's medical condition.  He completed his comments with "We wish him well."  Sanchez's good wishes didn't square with the Twitter messages that crawled at the bottom of the screen for his entire program.

Here is a sampling of the tweets he aired:

rush is an excuse for people to be vicariously racist. I have nothing good to say about him except "gotta love karma"  

Rick can we get some answers on if rush's insur. will pay for his hospital stay if it is found out drugs were a part of this

I don't like to wish bad luck on people, but a 2010 without Rush's mouth going off would be fine with me

under yr new health plan Rush may pay higher premiums cuz of weight. Time to hit the treadmill and lose the weight Rush

May rush be worked on by a liberal democrat, feminist doctor who is pro gun control :)

Rush shld take this opportunity, being a New Year, 2 reflect on his treatment of ppl who disagree w/him. His ways R is wrong  

Rush: I hope it's nothing serious; just something that will keep him off the air for the next 40 or so years :)

re Rush, ummm. . .I have to go try that old saying, "if u can't say anything nice, dont say anything at all" lol (biting my tongue)

I'm not fond of Rush L. but I wish him the best. Maybe he will be a little kinder. . . nah

Can't you just feel the love?  Liberals like Sanchez often characterize conservatives as mean-spirited.  Mean-spirited is the ultimate epithet in the liberal lexicon. It's the adjective that they never tire of using, of ascribing to anyone who doesn't share their views. For decades we've been subjected to its wearisome reiteration.

If Sanchez truly wished Rush well, he could have provided some balance to those mean-spirited comments.  He didn't.  Then again, judging by their spiteful observations, many of his viewers wouldn't want him to.    
 

Numerous police visits to his home, reported gunshots and screaming, attempted burglaries, loud arguments, reported assaults, whispers about having sex with young men.  North Carolina state senator R.C. Soles certainly leads an interesting life.  Soles is the Democratic caucus chairman in the Senate, but you wouldn't know that by reading today's dispatch from the Associated Press. 

"No re-election bid for NC pol who shot intruder" begins:

North Carolina's longest-serving state senator won't seek re-election next year as he faces possible criminal charges over a shooting at his home in August.

Sen. R.C. Soles said in a statement Wednesday he won't seek a 22nd consecutive term. He was first elected to the General Assembly in 1968, more than four decades ago.

State prosecutors announced this month they plan to seek an assault charge against the 75-year-old after a grand jury found probable cause he acted criminally when he shot a former law client.

The article makes no mention that Soles is a Democrat.  The News & Observer did, however, in a story earlier this month that also noted:

Records show police were called to Soles' house and law office at least 40 times in the past four years. Some calls were routine, such as burglar alarms going off. But dozens involved circumstances such as neighbors hearing gunshots and screams, attempted burglaries, loud arguments, reported assaults and complaints of young people on mopeds circling Soles' house. During a two-week period in September of last year, police were called to Soles' house seven times.

The young men who hang around Soles' law office and home have long fueled whispers in Tabor City, but Soles adamantly denies having sexual relations with any of them. Soles and Cheshire have said Soles has generously given to his clients after they are released from the criminal justice system, hoping to help them transition to a successful life.

If a Republican had been involved in all this, my guess is party affiliation would be included in all news stories about him.  Just a guess.

On CNN's American Morning today, anchor John Roberts talked with correspondent Jim Acosta about "the politics" of terrorism.  Part of the exchange:

ACOSTA: There is plenty punting going on in Washington, John. Hearings on the Detroit scare are planned for early next month, and the top Republican on that committee has already said there should have been a big red flag next to the suspect's name, and there are plenty of other issues, such as Guantanamo. Republicans are saying the president should shelve his plan to close Guantanamo at this point, John.

ROBERTS: So, shelve Guantanamo, but, at the same time, the president is trying to get some of his key appointments filled. They're being held up. And some of the key appointments that are still vacant are ones that are absolutely essential when it comes to maintaining security at our airports and on our jetliners.

ACOSTA: That's right. Those men and women at the airport wearing the blue shirts that say TSA, they don't have a full-time, permanent boss at this point. The temporary head of the TSA is a holdover from the Bush administration and, right now, the - the current appointee from the Obama administration to take the head of the TSA, a man by the name of Erroll Southers, he is still waiting to - to get his appointment confirmed. He is currently the assistant chief for the LAX Police Department, the Los Angeles International Airport out there in California, and his duties are head of Intelligence and Homeland Security. But, at this point, that nomination is on hold by Jim DeMint, the very conservative Senator from South Carolina. He's opposed to unionizing - fully unionizing the TSA, something that Southers apparently wants to do.

Oh, OK.  "Absolutely essential" appointments are held up, one being the chief of the Transportation Security Administration blocked by "the very conservative Senator from South Carolina."

What Roberts and Acosta failed to report was that Barack Obama's selection for the post, Erroll Southers, was, according to the Library of Congress's Web site, nominated by Obama barely three months ago, on September 17.  Moreover, the nomination wasn't reported out of the Democratic-controlled Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs until November 19.  That isn't a great deal of time in a Senate where nominations can - and have - languished for years.

Additionally, it isn't as though the Republican senator's hold couldn't be broken with a modicum of effort.   In today's "Republican senator DeMint holds up nomination for TSA chief" by Margaret Talev of McClatchy Newspapers and appearing on the Washington Post's Web site, she notes:

DeMint's objection creates a procedural hurdle that will probably take at least three days of debate and test votes to overcome.

It took Obama almost eight months to nominate someone to the TSA post.  It would take possibly as few as three days for the Democrats to push it through the Senate.  Yet somehow it's all that "very conservative" Senator DeMint's fault.  Heck, maybe he's personally responsible for the Christmas terrorist attempt.  

CNN's American Morning is increasingly popular among those of us who like to start our day with a laugh.

On CNN Newsroom today, anchor Rick Sanchez talked about terrorism with Octavia Nasr, CNN senior editor for Arab Affairs:

SANCHEZ: And good, good, good, good, good, good. You see, this is a point that I'm trying to make, Octavia.

The terrorists weren't in Iraq. We know that now. There was really a small band of them along with the mujahedeen which became al Qaeda in Afghanistan, as we know. But we have known for 10 years now that these really bad terrorists, the guys we really should have been going after a long time ago, are in Yemen. We knew that a long time ago.

The assertion that Iraq was terrorist-free prior to our intervention has become an article of faith for liberals like alleged journalist Sanchez.  Yet it conflicts with evidence, including evidence many liberals once found compelling.  The Clinton State Department, for example, reported on Patterns of Global Terrorism 1999.  Among its findings:

Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999. Although Baghdad focused
primarily on the anti-regime opposition both at home and abroad, it continued to provide
safehaven and support to various terrorist groups. . .

Iraq continued to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the
Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front (ALF), and the former head of the nowdefunct
15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of US aircraft.
Iraq provided bases, weapons, and protection to the MEK, an Iranian terrorist group that
opposes the current Iranian regime. In 1999, MEK cadre based in Iraq assassinated or attempted
to assassinate several high-ranking Iranian Government officials, including Brigadier General Ali
Sayyad Shirazi, Deputy Chief of Iran’s Joint Staff, who was killed in Tehran on 10 April.

As quoted in the Congressional Record, in 1992 Senator Al Gore (D-TN) said Saddam Hussein "had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and (President George) Bush looked the other way."

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) claimed Hussein "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. . ."

Sanchez ignores liberals he usually sides with.  He says there weren't terrorists in Iraq.  Or maybe there were, but it was merely a small band.  I have to wonder: Is he auditioning for MSNBC?

Former president Jimmy Carter is doing one terrific job.  So reports the Associated Press today in its "Carter finds happiness in foreign missions."  According to the article:

Since leaving the White House, he's logged millions of miles and visited dozens of countries on missions to wipe out diseases, mediate conflicts, advocate for human rights and monitor elections. He's built a legacy that few, if any, American ex-presidents can match.

Writer Greg Bluestein found a few observers to comment on the wonders of Mr. Jimmy:

Walter Mondale, his vice president, says that Carter took the political heat up front "so we could all be better off." Andrew Young, Carter's ambassador to the United Nations, says it might take a few more decades for historians to realize the impact of Carter's term in office.

"It took 100 years to understand Jefferson. It took 100 years for people outside the North to understand Lincoln. And it's got to take at least 50 years to understand Carter," says Young.

And Douglas Brinkley, a Rice University history professor who has written a book about Carter, says Carter's presidency may be more fondly remembered overseas than at home.

"Pick the country - they view him as one of the most successful presidents," said Brinkley. "He has helped America's image around the world because he's been able to make everyone trust him. And he earns that trust because he's honest"

Before buying into this effort to rehabilitate the reputation of - until Barack Obama came along - the worst president in many decades, we may want to reflect on Carter's post-presidency.  The late New York Democratic Senator Patrick Moynihan had Carter's number in 1980: "Being unable to distinguish between our friends and our enemies, Carter has adopted our enemies' view of the world."  When the first President Bush asked for United Nations action in the Persian Gulf, Carter wrote to world leaders trying to block it.  Even Carter later admitted his effort "was not appropriate perhaps."  According to ABC News earlier this year:

In the 90s (President Bill) Clinton was said to resent some of Carter’s freelance diplomacy.

In a 1998 Time Magazine piece, Lance Morrow wrote of Carter:

Some of his Lone Ranger work has taken him dangerously close to the neighborhood of what we used to call treason.

Long proclaiming his unswerving devotion to human rights, Carter has over the years cozied up to the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega and Yasser Arafat.  National Review Online's Jay Nordlinger observed in 2002:

While in North Korea, Carter lauded Kim Il Sung, one of the most complete and destructive dictators in history. Said Carter, "I find him to be vigorous, intelligent,...and in charge of the decisions about this country" (well, he was absolute ruler). He said, "I don't see that they [the North Koreans] are an outlaw nation." Pyongyang, he observed, was a "bustling city," where shoppers "pack the department stores," reminding him of the "Wal-Mart in Americus, Georgia."

The Associated Press is correct in one point:  Carter's established quite a legacy for himself.  But it's far from an admirable one and, if we're fortunate, other former presidents won't try to match it.

How does someone qualify for description as an "eminent politician" by the New York Times?  Being very, very liberal seems to help.

Today on its Web site, the newspaper reports "Percy Sutton, Eminent Politician, Dies at 89."  Mr. Sutton maintained a long list of liberal bona fides.  In a book last year he was quoted:

"I like the fact that my family was a family of protesters. I like the fact that some of them were Communists."

He also spoke of his satisfaction of "being in jail with Stokely Carmichael and other revolutionaries."  In the December 14, 1972 issue of Jet Magazine (page 32), Sutton acknowledged it would be nice to be mayor, but "I don't think that New Yorkers are ready for a person with my liberal views and for someone with the color of my skin."

The New York Times covers some of lawyer Sutton's more notorious associations: He represented Malcolm X and later his daughter when she was accused of hiring a man to kill Louis Farrakhan.  Sutton helped pay some of the slander damages owed by Al Sharpton in the Tawana Brawley case.  When Mike Tyson left prison and came back to Harlem, Sutton was there to welcome him.

The newspaper advises readers that Sutton "displayed fierce intelligence and exquisite polish in becoming one of the nation’s most prominent black political and business leaders."  He invariably applied that "fierce intelligence" to very liberal causes.  No wonder the mainstream media view him as eminent.     

On CNN's American Morning today, anchor Carol Costello advanced a theory on who's responsible for the Let's Make a Deal environment permeating the Senate as it stumbles to completion of a health care bill.  Here is part of her exchange with CNN political analyst and GOP strategist Ed Rollins:

COSTELLO: Might (the) Republicans blame in part themselves for this, because none of them were going to vote? Didn't they sort of force Senator Reid's hand in making some of these sweetheart deals?

ROLLINS: Senator Reid could have made a sweetheart deal with the Republicans months ago. They could have knocked down walls and let insurance companies deal across state lines. There are a lot of things that Republicans...

COSTELLO: But the public option is out --

Yes, if only those intransigent Senate Republicans has been more accommodating, the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, expanded Medicare coverage to “individuals exposed to environmental health hazards recognized as a public health emergency in a declaration issued by the federal government on June 17," and other special considerations wouldn't have been necessary.

Costello ignores that the public option is far from the only objection Republicans have to the Senate bill.  There's the feature of mandating Americans buy insurance.  There are the projected expenditures and savings figures that are as patently bogus as the shovel ready jobs number "Sheriff" Joe Biden spouts.  There's the problem that, other than the sweetheart deals, details on the plan and its implementation are as thin as a certain former community organizer's résumé.

And that's just for starters.  Yet Costello wonders if Republican senators might be blaming themselves for the travesty.  If only they'd set aside their principles, Democrats might not have been reduced to such flagrant bribery.

Sure, Carol, we believe that.

Anchoring CNN Tonight, correspondent Erica Hill reported the findings of a new poll:

While Democrats and the president may be cheering the bill's passage, a majority of Americans still oppose the Senate plan. According to a CNN Opinion Research Corporation poll, 56 percent say they are against the measure. Now that's a slight shift actually in favor of the plan from a weeks ago. When as you can see opposition was as high as 61 percent, 42 percent support the plan, that number also up at six points.

And when asked for the effect the health care bill would have on their own family, 34 percent of respondents thought it would change things for the better, 37 percent thought it would make things worst. While 39 percent said it would have no effect. And when you figure the sampling error, almost works out to even across the board.

The responses to the second question total 110 percent, an unlikely result.  Unless, of course, the poll were taken in Chicago by federally funded ACORN operatives.  That doesn't appear to be the case.  The actual poll question (#23) and results:

Thinking about the health care and health insurance that is available to you and your immediate family, do you think the proposals in the Senate bill would change things for the better, change things for the worse, or not make any real changes at all?
Dec. 16-20, 2009
Change things for the better 22%
Change things for the worse 37%
No change 39%
No opinion 2%

So more than three out of four respondents think that the Senate plan will either have no effect or change things for the worse for their own families.  Only slightly more than one out of five persons polled believe the Senate bill will make it better.  Hill was completely wrong in concluding the result "almost works out to even across the board."

It's likely the erroneous number came from replies to another question in the survey, one that asked respondents about the impact on "most Americans" rather than their own families.  That larger number could be attributable to the barrage of mainstream media stories highlighting people seemingly hurt by the current system.  

No, I don't think Erica Hill intentionally misrepresented her network's findings.  It's interesting, however, that neither she nor her script writer nor anyone else at CNN caught the error, especially since the graphic (I believe) reflected the correct numbers.  Could it be because they'd expect more public support for the Senate's health care plan?  

Will CNN correct the record for its viewers?  It is, after all, the most trusted name in news.