It's probably a pretty safe bet to say that we're much keener on Obama than on Romney, just because he seems far more in line with general British politics than Romney. Things like Obamacare are very much in line with the kind of health care system we have in the U.K.

Just in case readers missed the point, page 17 includes "Europe: Not a swing continent," a dispatch from Henry Chu, the Los Angeles Times's London bureau chief.  That article notes:

A survey of seven European nations, including longtime U.S. allies Britain and France, has found that Obama would win more than 90% of the vote if the respondents could cast ballots in Tuesday’s race.

Old Europe has a heritage of autocrats, dictators, welfare statism and forced redistribution of wealth.  Many Europeans, propelled in some cases by envy, hold an antipathy for America and what it represents.

Given all that, it's to be expected that a majority of polled Europeans would be attracted to a candidate advocating a command economy while he finds fault with free enterprise, not to mention his own country.

So while Obama has difficulty maintaining a 50 percent approval rating here, the mainstream media point to how well he does among foreigners.  If only those darn Americans were as smart.  Since they aren't, they have to be reminded with two stories on the same topic in the same newspaper on the same day.     

On Sunday's CNN Reliable Sources, host Howard Kurtz spoke of President Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the
Democratic National Convention:

Bob Cusack, Obama gave a pretty good speech overall. The media acted like it was terrible. And it seems to me that perhaps we have set a standard for him that (if) he doesn't he doesn't hit the stratosphere, he has somehow failed.

The media acted like it was terrible?  Kurtz must not have been watching CNN immediately after Obama's speech.  Observed CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer: "Anderson, he clearly still has that oratorical skill that he's always had over these many years." CNN chief national correspondent John King opined: "I think a very smart, well-crafted speech, both strategically and tactically."  CNN senior political analyst David Gergen said, ". . .I thought it was a very strong speech."

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper noted: "Although it certainly wasn't a speech full of soaring rhetoric like some of his speeches four years ago. Some of it comparing sort of to a State of the Union almost in terms of kind of going down a checklist."

Saying that a speech isn't filled with soaring rhetoric isn't the same as saying it's terrible.

Kurtz need not be concerned that if Obama "doesn't hit the stratosphere, he has somehow failed" in the eyes of the mainstream media.  He's always been their hero and will continue to be.  At least until Election Day.     

Los Angeles Times film critic Betsy Sharkey didn't like "2016: Obama's America," a movie that's surprised many with its box office appeal.  In a review on the Los Angeles Times's Web site titled "'2016: Obama's America' goes by the book,'" Sharkey is
sharply critical, writing that the movie doesn't demystify President Barack Obama, but rather "does more to illuminate its filmmaker, Dinesh D'Souza, and his ego instead."  Moreover, "it's intent on laying out the arguments of a man who has given the same lecture countless times."

I have to wonder how seriously Sharkey approached the movie.  She misquotes a tag line, saying that it's "Love him, hate him, now you know him," when in fact it's "Love him, hate him, you don't know him."  She praises career leftist Michael Moore for his supposed objectivity:

But Moore's work and the genre itself come with an implicit understanding that whatever truths emerge, they were ultimately forged by the process, not set in stone beforehand.

She compares the new film unfavorably to Moore's work:

That "2016" was built on a book is one of its fundamental weaknesses, its course determined before the first frame was shot.

She ends her review by citing a particular scene, writing that it's "merely another piece of heavy-handed drama conjured up by the filmmakers — nothing more, nothing less."

As good a filmmaker as Moore is, he's not bad as a stand-up
either.

The documentary is in its own way an activist love letter for a different time, one he feels passionately we should reclaim. . .

There are heartbreaking vignettes of foreclosed families.

And there is the trademark Moore confrontational fun: the filmmaker wrapping Citibank, Chase, et al. in yellow crime scene tape, trying to make a citizen's arrest of their boards of directors.

The film gets tougher and tougher as it goes along with his hometown priests, among others, denouncing capitalism as not just a failed economic system, but as an evil that must be eradicated.

After a standing, cheering ovation as the final credits rolled, more than half the audience stayed for the Q&A after.

Was he angry over the deification of President Regan? He was.

I must have missed when "President Regan" was in the White House.  Reviews are by nature subjective.  But couldn't the LA Times have found an analyst who's not an unabashed fan girl for Michael Moore to report on a conservative movie?

Liberals look to government, often the Federal government, for solutions to almost everything.  Chicago's murder rate is appalling, with at least six people killed and another 31 shot  last weekend.  So to whom does Chicago Sun-Times columnist Stella Foster turn for help?  President Barack Obama.

On the newspaper's Web site today appears Foster's plea, titled "Letter to President Obama: Please help address city violence."  The article also appears in the newspaper's print edition with the headline "Dear Mr. President: Help our city!"  It begins:

PRESIDENT OBAMA, you came into your hometown of Chicago last weekend to attend the backyard wedding of the daughter of your personal friend and senior advisor Valerie Jarrett in your Kenwood neighborhood. I am sure the affair was lovely and heartwarming. Hopefully, your schedule, one day soon, will allow you to return to Chi Town to spearhead an anti-violence rally of huge proportion to speak out against the senseless gun violence that has overwhelmed various areas of our city. . .

Later she writes:

. . . I truly do care that our people — yes, I said “our people” or minorities — are continuing to hurt, kill and disrespect each other, especially when the hot sun comes out to play.

I VOTED for you, Mr. President, and now I am personally asking you to care enough to come back to Chicago and speak out. Who knows, coming straight from the president’s mouth may just deter potential criminal activity or touch the soul of a person contemplating killing someone!

She ends by preparing for less than a positive response:

BUT, Mr. President, if you can’t make it, I will certainly understand, and will still continue to catch you whenever you are on the news and talk shows. . .

Over the years, Chicago has held dozens, perhaps hundreds, of anti-violence marches.  They've been headed by Chicago mayors and other politicians, police superintendents, and community activists such as Jesse Jackson and Father Michael Pfleger.  The killing continues.

Thinking that Obama showing up at a rally would have any significant impact on Chicago crime is, charitably, unrealistic.  Despite his disastrous record on jobs, the debt, deficits, home foreclosures, gas prices, etc., some in the mainstream media still view him as The One.  OK, OK, so the rise of the oceans hasn't slowed and our planet hasn't healed like he promised.  The mainstream media know what the solution is:  Four more years.  In the meantime, marching in Chicago would sure help.

The rainbow halo over President Barack Obama's head on Newsweek's cover isn't sufficient for some in the mainstream media.  Now the meme is shifting to the inevitability of his re-election.  Or so it would seem based on CNN's Your Money today.  Anchor Ali Velshi devoted his heavy intellectual resources to the subject after discussing Mitt Romney's opposition to the auto bailout:

VELSHI: Joining me now from Washington is, CNN's chief national correspondent John King. John, I have a thesis I want to run by you. Mitt Romney has already lost the election because of this.

Voters in Ohio, auto workers and union members are alienated by his stance on the bailout. You know, John, because you spend a lot of time in Ohio like I have. It is GM country in large part.

They will hand that state to President Obama and without Ohio, probably Romney doesn't get to the White House. What do you think?

King at least partially agreed with Velshi's thesis: "You're absolutely right about the last part, without Ohio Romney most likely doesn't get to the White House."  He went on to say that "Romney needs to get off this," meaning the topic of the auto bailout.  "Would have, could have, should have, this is not a winning argument for him," said King.

Would have, could have, should have might well qualify as an Obama campaign slogan.  Obama's successes were denied him by George W. Bush, Congressional Republicans, earthquakes, Fox News, tsunamis, the Arab Spring, ATMs. . . the list is endless.

The one thing he's got on his side are huge segments of the mainstream media.  Having assiduously labored to get Obama elected, they're not about to admit their complicity in his many failures.  The canonization, complete with rainbow halo, will continue.  If Americans can be persuaded that the election's already been decided and Obama will work his miracles for the next four years, so much the better.  It might tamper down GOP turnout.

President Barack Obama has apparently completed his evolution on gay marriage.   On CNN Newsroom's 3:00 pm segment today, anchor Brooke Baldwin spoke with chief national correspondent John King on the subject and he began by noting "we should say up front it's a bold, personal choice for the president to decide to do this publicly."  His analysis included what he perceives as possible risks:

Critically to me, Brooke, in this calculation, African-Americans and Latinos. Many Latinos who are Catholics. They go to
Catholic Church, where their priest tells them every Sunday homosexuality isn't just wrong, it's evil. That's what their priest tells them. It's evil.

A lot of African-American preachers in the Southern Baptist -- Southern churches across this country, but particularly in Virginia, North Carolina, states the president carried last time, say the same thing.

King should, if he can, document his sweeping assertion on what priests say "every Sunday."  Having attended more than a thousand Catholic Masses in my lifetime, I don't recall homosexuality being mentioned very often.  I'm pretty certain that if it were regularly condemned I'd recollect that.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in part: "tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically
disordered.'  They are contrary to the natural law."  It further states:

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

King should apologize for his gross exaggeration of what takes place on Sundays in Catholic Churches, but perhaps he was just caught up in the moment.  He's clearly dazzled by Obama's "bold, personal choice:"

KING: And this is a -- this is a big risk by this president. And give me him credit for taking the risk. Many politicians duck from risks. . .

But not Barack the Bold, right, John?

Today on the Chicago Tribune's front page, above the fold, is the headline "Pricey gas seen as good, in a way."  The story also appears on the Los Angeles Times's Web site with the title "Gas prices' jump attests to upbeat economy."  Yes, happy days are here again and much of the mainstream media are feeling glad all over, hoping the purported much-improved economy will
enhance President Barack Obama's re-election bid.  The article notes:

The U.S. recovery has solidified through the fall and so far this year, as shown by strong job reports and last week's news of 1.1% increase in retail sales in February.

The job reports aren't really that strong when you consider the recession ended almost three years ago, as determined by National Bureau of Economic Research, and this is the most sluggish recovery in post-WWII history.  As to the increase in February's retail sales, the Associated Press reported:

One factor driving the retail sales increase was a 3.3% rise in gasoline sales last month. It was the biggest increase in nearly a year and reflected a surge in gas prices.

So let's see how this works: Higher gas prices are a significant factor in increased retail sales, which in turn are a reflection of a stronger economy, which in turn is a reason gas prices are higher.  Yep, definitely a win-win situation.  And ain't Obama doing just one heck of a job?

In recent weeks we've seen press items contending the president can do little, if anything, about higher gas prices.  Also we've seen the stories suggesting that, placed in "proper" perspective, gas prices aren't really all that high.  Now
we're instructed that sky-high prices are just more evidence that the economy is rebounding.

The truth is the mainstream media, having helped sell the American electorate on an unvetted empty suit in 2008, are heavily invested in making him appear a success.  We can expect much more of the same through November.  

Saturday morning, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appeared alongside Rev. Jesse Jackson on his weekly Rainbow PUSH program, prior to her endorsement of Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) in this month's Democratic primary.  The Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times, WLS AM, and the local affiliates of NBC and ABC all covered the the event.

Moments after saying it's "a badge of honor" for President Barack Obama to be known as the food stamp president, Pelosi made an incredible assertion (video here):   

Look, remember the inauguration? Remember that, OK.  There he was, saying I'm calling for swift, bold action now to create jobs, to educate our children. you know the list goes on, to protect our seniors, (garbled).  One week and one day after the president's inaugural address, the House of Representatives passed his recovery stimulus package.  And that, not by us, don't take it by me, by the economists who studied this, three and a half million jobs saved or created.  And that was the beginning of taking down this 800,000 jobs being lost on a regular basis.  He had inherited a terrible thing.  Professional and statesman that he is, he was about getting the job done rather than pointing fingers, but I'll do it for him.

Obama doesn't point fingers?  That's absurd.  He's repeatedly blamed President George Bush, and there are many examples of that.  Here are but a few. In his very first presidential press conference, Obama said: "What I won't do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place."  In August of the following year, CNN's Ed Hornik asked, "Will Bush-bashing help Democrats win over weary voters?"  From the article:

President Obama has made a point recently to invoke Bush's name in what many say is a calculated effort to remind voters of the previous administration's economic policies, which Democrats argue led to the worst recession in modern history.

In June of last year, the Washington Times headlined, "Obama wants credit for cleaning up ‘big mess.’"  The article begins:

President Obama told supporters at a fundraiser in Miami on Monday night that he deserves credit for cleaning up the mess he inherited.

“My job over these first two years has frankly been to clean up a big mess,” Mr. Obama said at a $10,000-per-ticket event at a gated mansion in Miami Beach.

Yet Pelosi's ridiculously over-the-top contention wasn't reported by any of the news outlets.  Serving as stenographers, they dutifully detailed the Pelosi-designated story of the day, her endorsement of the younger Jackson.  When it comes to satisfying the wishes of liberal Democrats, the mainstream media can be most compliant.  

Weeks ago, Jesse Jackson accused GOP presidential candidate of "name calling" for referring to President Barack Obama as the "best food-stamp president in American history."  But last Saturday morning at his Rainbow PUSH forum, broadcast nationally on the Word Network, Jackson appears to have decided that being characterized that way isn't so bad after all.

As he often does, Jackson directed (video here) the audience to repeat his words of wisdom on the subject:

Say, it's an honor to be a food stamp president.  Food stamps feed the hungry.  Food stamps save the children.  Food stamps help the farmer. Food stamps help the truck driver.  Food stamps help the warehouse.  Food stamps help the store.  Food stamps hire people and feed people.  Food stamps save people from starvation and malnutrition.  Whenever you attack feeding the hungry, you undermine the moral authority of our faith.  Give President Barack Obama a big hand.  Show your love.  Show your appreciation.

So is what Gingrich called Obama an insult or a plaudit?  It's unlikely the mainstream media will ask Jackson the question or if he truly believes it's an honor for a president to oversee the addition of more than 10 million people to the food stamp rolls.  The sensitive souls who report our news loathe ever putting the Most Reverend Jackson on the spot.

It was a routine Saturday morning at Rev. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH forum, broadcast nationally on the Word Network.  He was all over the map.  Jackson trashed Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney.  He warned that enterprises such as black funeral homes and black insurance companies are “under attack.”  He condemned a proposed change in Grammy Award classifications.  Jackson also spoke out against Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who, he said, “did the ultimate insult.  She put her finger in his (President Barack Obama) face.”  Jackson wants people to call and complain (video here):

Also, while it’s on my mind, Gov. Janice K. Brewer, the finger person.  Gov. Janice K. Brewer, who gave President Obama the finger, governor of Arizona, call 1 800 253 0883.  Keep that line real busy.  1 800 253 0883.  We’ll give you the number later a little later today and this week on the email number of her press secretary.  We want to keep Arizona. . . until she can put her hands in her pocket and have some good. . . do you know how insulting it is to put your finger in somebody’s face?  Try it with the cameras rolling, she knew the cameras.  She knew what she was doing.  She was telling him off.  She was cutting him down to his size.  She must never get away with that.  Even George Wallace did not put his finger in Dr. King’s face.  Say, enough is enough.

Being the pious, innocent, saintly man he is, perhaps the Most Rev. Jackson deserves a pass.  Maybe he doesn’t actually know the difference between giving someone the finger and waving one’s finger in another person’s face.   But does he really consider the latter to be “the ultimate insult”?  For a man who’s referred to Jews as “Hymies,” said in the last campaign that “Barack’s been talking down to black people” and that he would like to cut Obama's testicles out, and admitted to, as a young waiter, having spit into the food of white customers he didn’t like, Jackson has a remarkable notion of what comprises the ultimate insult.

Naturally, Jackson’s blunder will be ignored by the mainstream media.  He’s always given a pass.  But the very next time “the black view” is needed on a story, he’ll be front and center and ready for his close-up.  

On the Chicago Tribune's Web site today, columnist Clarence Page writes of "The umbrage card trick."  Page lights into GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich for assorted misdeeds, one of which is calling Barack Obama a "food stamp president":

Yet Gingrich's food stamp claim is misleading on several counts. For one, food stamp recipients increased during seven of President George W. Bush's eight years, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The growth came largely because of policy changes that encouraged more participation by eligible Americans. But Gingrich is not about to let details get in the way of a chance to sound offended.

Page asserts Gingrich misleads "on several counts," but then doesn't cite them.  The food stamp program, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is administered by the Department of Agriculture.  According to its figures, average food stamp participation during the Bush administration was 17 million in 2001 and increased to 28 million in his last full year as president.  That's certainly nothing to brag about.  But during Obama's three years in office, that number skyrocketed to 44 million by last year and was more than 46 million last October.

So how is Gingrich misleading on food stamps?  He's not.  The awkward truth that Page and other liberals are loathe to admit is that Barack Obama is the food stamp president.  After three years and trillions of dollars spent on his failed recovery schemes, the economy remains in shambles.

Forget those polls.  In the mainstream media, there's always good news  for President Barack Obama.  So it is on the Minneapolis StarTribune's Web  site.  An Associated Press article appears  under the headline "Voters weathering economic downturn sticking with Obama — because they like him" and includes this heartening news:

People who have lost their jobs or homes during Obama's  presidency nonetheless say they want him to succeed and, what's more, they're  working to help re-elect him because of the affinity they feel for him.

And how did the AP arrive at this conclusion in its 31-paragraph  story?  They talked to people, that's how.  Specifically, the article  includes quotes from two, count'em, two women who have lost their jobs, one  woman who has lost her house, and one woman who has a law degree but "cobbles  together work as a caterer, cake decorator and office manager."  The AP  supplemented its exhaustive research by talking to a few Democratic operatives,  to assure an objective and complete analysis no doubt.

Let's see. There are currently  14 million unemployed Americans, an increase of  2.4 million since Obama took office.  Last year, foreclosure filings  were reported on a record 2.9 million properties.  Yet the Associated Press interviews four people  and reports they and others hit by the Obama Depression are "working to help  re-elect him."  Guess they just couldn't find anyone who isn't.

Yes, indeed.  There's always good news for Obama.  The mainstream  media would have it no other way.

Next week, President Obama will unveil his jobs plan.  Details haven't been revealed, but that didn't make a difference today on CNN's American Morning.  Anchor Carol Costello announced the day's "talk back" question and anchors Ali Velshi and Christine Romans promptly chimed in:

COSTELLO: So today's talk back question -- doesn't bode very well, does it? The question is President Obama's jobs plan DOA before it is even unveiled? Facebook.com/americanmorning. I will read your comments later this hour.

VELSHI: Let's hope it is not DOA.

ROMANS: I hope not.    

Not knowing the specifics, Velshi and Romans express hope that it isn't dead on arrival.  Suppose it's a repeat of Obama's disastrous stimulus program.  That's a distinct possibility, with insiders such as ABC's George Stephanopoulos reporting Obama "wants the government to invest in clean energy and new construction projects."  Oh, and provide government-sponsored training to the jobless "while allowing them to still collect their unemployment benefits."  Sound vaguely familiar?

It doesn't matter.  Sight unseen, Ali and Christine are already worried about Obama's proposal.  Last year Ali held up a cake and sang "Happy Birthday" on the stimulus's "first birthday."  Maybe he and Romans can host a shower for Obama's new and improved plan next week.   I'll bring the diapers.

Yesterday on CNN's The Situation Room, the story of President Barack Obama's uncle's arrest on charges of driving under the influence was reported.  Make that Barack Obama's half-uncle, as anchor Wolf Blitzer and correspondent Brian Todd identified him that way at least nine times.  Todd even presented a wall chart detailing "a complicated and very fascinating family tree." 

CNN and Blitzer haven't always emphasized Obama's precise relationship with other relatives.  From The Situation Room of April 12, 2011:

BLITZER:And President Obama's sister is speaking out about Donald Trump and the birther controversy. Stick around. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

The sister is Maya Soetoro-Ng, who is the president's half-sister.

And from May 17, 2010:

BLITZER: Lisa Sylvester is monitoring some of the other top stories in THE SITUATION ROOM right now. What do you have Lisa?

LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi Wolf. Well a U.S. immigration judge says President Obama's Kenyan aunt is allowed to stay in the United States. The ruling ends a six-year battle over her status. Zeituni Onyango is the half sister of the president's late father. She applied for political asylum in 2002 because violence in her homeland.

Zeituni Onyango is actually Obama's half-aunt, although not described in that manner.

On the same day, anchor Richard Liu on CNN Newsroom:

LUI: OK, checking our top story this hour.

Just in, a U.S. immigration judge says President Obama's Kenyan aunt can stay in the United States, ending a six-year legal battle. Two government sources confirmed the ruling will give legal status to Zeituni Onyango.

 Here's a portion of Todd's report on yesterday's The Situation Room:

TODD: CNN has done many stories investigating that so called birth issue and we've never found any evidence that the president is not a natural born American.

But the president has a complicated and very fascinating family tree. I'll try to run it by you here. His grandfather was married three times. His third wife, a woman named Sarah Onyango, is the one who gave birth to the half-uncle who is in question in this case. That is the president's half-uncle.

Now, it's his sister, Zeituni Obama, who as we mentioned in the piece, involved in that legal case she was denied asylum in 2004 and then was granted the right to stay in the country legally last year. That's half-aunt, half-uncle on the father's side from the grandfather's third wife.

Now, remember, this family tree is only on Mr. Obama's father's side of the family. That's what makes this so fascinating. So his grandfather's second wife is the one who gave birth to Mr. Obama's father, Barack Hussein Obama Senior. And then he had -- was the father who was married to Ann Dunham who gave birth to President Obama. So we wanted to show you kind of the different people on the family tree just on the father's side of the family.

You've got the grandfather having different wives, and Mr. Obama's family also had three different wives and a partner. So a lot of people to keep track of just on Mr. Obama's father's side of the family -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Brian Todd with a good explanation of that side of the president's family.

Looks like when an Obama is in trouble, CNN feels the need to get fastidious about who's who in the family tree. 

Posted today on the Chicago Tribune's Clout Street blog is the story"GOP attacks Obama bus, but Bush did same," written by Rick Pearson. It begins:

As President Barack Obama traveled to the first of two “town hall” stops in western Illinois today, top national and state Republicans criticized his campaign-style visit and criticized his use of a taxpayer-funded Canadian-manufactured bus as part of a jobs tour.
 
But no mention was made by Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus or Illinois GOP Chairman Pat Brady that a re-election seeking President George W. Bush used a bus from the same manufacturer, Quebec-based Prevost, for a spring 2004 “Yes, America Can” campaign tour through the Midwest.

The writer reports, as the Associated Press has, that the $1.1 million Obama bus was purchased with tax dollars.  But he ignores that the bus used by President Bush was leased by his 2004 campaign, using voluntary contributions.  There's a world of difference, but why let facts get in the way of yet another effort to cover for the most inept president in history?

A May 5, 2004 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article titled "A busload of election fodder: Bush campaign rides into heart of manufacturing on Canada-built vehicle" reported:

The guts of the 45-foot-long bus were made in the United States, including the sturdy Detroit Diesel engine. And much of the value of the imposing coach was added during its conversion by a Nashville firm that also has included as its clients Aerosmith, Toby Keith, Britney Spears and Christian performers Amy Grant and Third Day.

And later:

The Bush campaign is leasing the president's bus and seven others from the Hemphill brothers of Nashville, from whom the campaign leased in 2000.

$1.1 million in tax dollars for Obama to travel in luxury for a few days as he bashes Republicans.  We're the ones getting taken for a ride. But don't expect that to be worth a story in the mainstream media.