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?

On today's 3:00 pm edition of CNN Newsroom, anchor Brooke Baldwin teased her next segment:

BALDWIN: Coming up next, House Republicans they want to cut billions of dollars in food stamps. We will talk about who exactly in terms of numbers this would impact and why my next guest calls this whole suggestion appalling -- back in 60 seconds.

Baldwin interviewed Edward Cooney, executive director of the Congressional Hunger Center.  She didn't note that, despite its official-sounding name, the center is just another 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization taking money from companies such as Walmart, Kraft, and Archer Daniel Midland, as well public funding for fellowships.  Nor that Cooney had worked at the Department of Agriculture during the Clinton administration.  Nor that Cooney has made political contributions to Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and ActBlue, which characterizes itself as "the online clearing house for Democratic action."

Given that, it was to be expected that Cooney is less than sympathetic to GOP efforts to reduce the skyrocketing costs of food stamps, also referred to as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program):

COONEY: I think I should also point out though that tomorrow morning, they're going to cut an additional $33 billion that has not gotten the press this other cut has. And they indicated that there will be no harm involved. No one will be hurt because these are technical cuts. I would just like to say to you if you hear that expression from Congress, no one will be
harmed, that's your first notice that you should be running for cover.

BALDWIN: Well, when you mentioned millions of people would be affected, I imagine in that millions we're talking millions of children.

And you do have, as we talk millions, record numbers of people who are in the SNAP, the food stamp program. The numbers they began spiking -- when you look back here, they spiked during the great recession. Then you look from 2007 to today, we have seen the food stamp rolls go from 27
million to 47 million.

Doubtless the recession has had a significant impact on the number of recipients.  But the Department of Agriculture  itself
reported:

The historical relationship between unemployment and SNAP caseloads diverged in the middle of the decade, however. As the unemployment rate fell 1.4 percentage points between 2003 and 2007, SNAP caseloads increased
22 percent, or by 4.8 million participants.

The cost of food stamps has increased from under $18 billion in 2001 to $76 billion now.  As part of President Obama's stimulus, states received additional funding for signing up more participants.  Little wonder food-stamp expenditures have doubled in the past four years.  According to an Associated Press story on ABCNews's Web site:

Many of the immediate (GOP) cuts would return benefit levels to where they would be had Democrats not temporarily increased them in the stimulus measure.  Democrats themselves tapped the benefit increases in 2010 to pay for earlier legislation.

So the GOP's proposed reduction may not be as appalling as opponents contend.  Moreover, the Government Accountability Office states that in Fiscal Year 2011 SNAP had an improper payment rate of 3.8%, costing taxpayers an estimated $2.5 billion.  And that probably doesn't include lottery winners.

Baldwin could have alerted viewers to her guest's background so they could take that into account while hearing his views.  But perhaps that's too much to expect from the self-styled "Most Trusted Name in News."    

On today's CNN Newsroom, anchor Kyra Phillips interviewed Rep. Allen West (R-FL) about several topics.  One was gay marriage (video here).  West said that it's a states' issue and he didn't want to be taken "down a rabbit hole to discuss things that really aren't that important.  This disturbed Phillips:

PHILLIPS: Wait, are you saying that gay marriage is not important?

WEST: I think if you poll the American people, Kyra, I don't think they'll bring up gay marriage as one of the top concerns."

He went on to speak about a troubled small business he'd recently visited and how the economy was affecting it.  The anchor wasn't satisfied:

PHILLIPS: I think no doubt people are concerned about jobs and the economy, but gay marriage is a big issue. You were military. Don't ask, don't tell ...

West returned to his theme of economic security.  Phillips was still not satisfied, becoming increasingly aggravated and pushed back once again, speaking of millions of gay Americans and states that have legalized gay marriage: "I'm just laying out the facts here."

West's assertion that most Americans are more interested in other issues appears to be supported by a survey
commissioned just last month by Phillips's own CNN.  The CNN/ORC Poll asked which issue is the most important facing the country today. "Policies toward gays, lesbians" was one of the selections, which were presented in random order.  The economy, the federal budget deficit, health care, Afghanistan and illegal immigration topped the results.  Only two percent of respondents thought policies toward gays and lesbians were the most important issue.

Yet over at CNN, Kyra Phillips insists it's right up there with major concerns of Americans.  She energetically works on advancing a liberal agenda.  Can Current TV be in her future?    

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.  

On the Chicago Tribune's Web site and in its print edition today, columnist Clarence Page asks hopefully "Could this be the end of Limbaugh?"  

Seizing on the usual Democratic points regarding Rush Limbaugh's comments about law student Sandra Fluke, Page writes that Limbaugh wasn't suspended, "despite his breathtaking assault against a private citizen whose only crime, after all, was to testify before a congressional committee hearing in support of mandatory health insurance for contraception."

But Sandra Fluke didn't testify before a legitimate congressional committee hearing.  As noted by CBS News senior political producer Jill Jackson On February 23:

Led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats held a pretend hearing while Congress is not in session to listen to the views of a third-year Georgetown Law student and activist who was not allowed to attend a Republican run hearing on the matter last week.

Jackson's report also refers to "Thursday's fake hearing" and the "mock hearing." Pretend, fake and mock.  Not, as Page suggests, a genuine congressional committee hearing.

It was merely a session orchestrated by House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other liberals to bolster their spurious contention of a "war on women."  Page has been around Washington long enough to know the difference.  But it might interfere with the narrative he and some other members of the mainstream media wish to advance.           

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.

Yesterday, NewsBuster Kyle Drennen detailed how NBC Today co-host Ann Curry fretted about the latest Kennedy scandal's impact on Caroline Kennedy.  "What about Caroline, who is still alive? " she asked John F. Kennedy mistress Mimi Alford.

Last night on Fox Chicago News, anchor Bob Sirott picked up on the same theme in his "One More Thing" opinion segment:

I wonder if she (Alford) feels guilty now about how President Kennedy's only living child Caroline might feel about her story?

Just a guess, but I imagine the daughter, now older than her father was when he died, didn't go into a state of shock.  Yet the mainstream media worry about her as though she were a teenager, like Alford was when the 45-year-old Kennedy took her virginity. 

 Sirott ended with:

So what does this do, if anything, to the Kennedy legacy? I agree with historian Doris Kearns Goodwin who says we have already factored in the idea there were other women in JFK's life, and after absorbing these stories it hasn't changed the fundamental liking the American people have for his memory.

I do wonder what Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Bill Clinton are thinking about all this -- don't you?

Perhaps many have "factored in the idea there were other women" for Kennedy, but did they factor in a teenager?  Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Bill Clinton shouldn't even be mentioned in the same context.  They've never been accused of jetting women in for their satisfaction.  Of directing girls to have sex with other men while they watched.   Of forcing a woman to inhale a sex drug.

Instead of worrying about how Caroline will take the "news," those in the mainstream media should ponder why it's taken decades - in this case close to half a century - for them to disclose what a shallow lout John F. Kennedy was.  If he hadn't been a liberal hero, it wouldn't have taken nearly so long.

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.

On yesterday's CNN Saturday Morning News, business correspondent Alison Kosik reported on Verizon Wireless's reversal of a day-old plan to charge some customers a $2 bill-paying fee.  Citing recent about-faces by Bank of America and Netflix,
Kosik concluded:

Now, there's no direct connection here, but I can't help but believe that the outrage that we witnessed in the Occupy movement around the country has encouraged consumers to band together and protest what they see as unfair.

The Verizon Wireless fee fight is another example of the growing power of U.S. consumers, especially when they take their case to the internet.

Like others in the mainstream media, Kosik seems determined to credit the Occupy movement with some positive accomplishment regardless of reality.  Forget all the crimes, disturbances, threats, and associated costs emanating from the
malcontents with no discernable agenda other than taking someone else's money.  Their motives are pure and, although the media can't identify a direct connection between their often contemptible behavior and consumer empowerment,
people like Kosik will say she believes there is one.

Guess what, Alison?  Consumers hold the upper hand in a free market.  It's been that way for years.  Look at what happened to the Ford Edsel in the 50s, Studebakers in the 60s, Betamax in the 70s, New Coke in the 80s, the McDonalds Arch Deluxe in the 90s, and HD DVDs in the last decade.

They're not around anymore - except perhaps on eBay - and the reason is consumers didn't like them.  The Internet is, as Kosik contends, playing a role.  Through Twitter and blogs and on-line petitions, feedback is relayed much more quickly to businesses.

Linking the outrage of Occupy's hapless wretches to increased consumer power is more than a stretch, though.  Even for
CNN.                  

There's good economic news today, at least for those who only scan headlines.  On USA Today's Web site, the headline is "Weekly jobless claims at lowest level in over 3 years."  Oh, happy day!  The president's stimulus is finally working.  But if you read the Associated Press story under the headline, the news isn't quite so sanguine:

The number of people seeking unemployment benefits rose last week after three straight weeks of declines to a level consistent with a modest pick-up in hiring.

That broader trend of jobless claims over the past month boltsters (sic) the view that job growth could pick up in 2012.

Weekly applications increased by 15,000 to a seasonally adjusted 381,000 the week ended Dec. 24, the Labor Department said Thursday.

The four-week average, a less volatile measure, dropped for the fourth straight week to 375,000. That's the lowest level since June 2008, before the financial and housing markets meltdown that precipitated a recession.

So contrary to what's suggested by the headline, last week's jobless claims weren't at the lowest level in over three years.  The four-week average, "a less volatile measure," is.  Last week, more people filed claims than the week before.

In fact, the Department of Labor reported that for the week ending December 24, the non-seasonally adjusted number of
initial jobless claims shot up by more than 69,000.

But why let that interfere with a great headline?

On yesterday's Rainbow PUSH Saturday Morning Forum, broadcast nationally on the Word Network, Jesse Jackson spoke of Christmas.  The activist, 1984 and 1988 Democratic presidential candidate, and former Clinton spiritual adviser told
(video here) of "non-Christian" merchants who "use Jesus to lure you in to Santa Claus's birthday party."  Here's what he said:

"This (Christmas) is a holy day for the poor, not a holiday for the merchants.  I once heard some people that I know say that when Christmas Eve is over, they have midnight services in the back of their shops.  These were non-Christian people I was, they say we, say every December 24th around midnight we have, we close our shops and we're not Christian but we start singing "What a
Friend We Have in Jesus." We use Jesus to lure you into Santa Claus's birthday party and unless you have the holiday spirit, which is his songs, his wine, and his stuff you're not welcome at the party of the man whose party it is.  This is, Christmas should be a poor people's holy day."

He then went on to say that Jesus was "born under the cloud of who is his Daddy?"

If Pat Robertson or any other former GOP presidential candidate had said something along these lines, you can bet it would have received considerable press coverage.  But this is Jesse Jackson, self-styled spokesman for the downtrodden and Leftist hero.  So he gets a pass from the mainstream media.

Christmas had been of particular interest to Jackson for many years.  In 1969, he announced his second "Black Christmas" boycott of white merchants.  According to the Chicago Tribune at the time, Jackson claimed his initiative would include "a parade and the appearance in Negro areas, hospitals, and jails of 'Soul Saint,' a black Santa Claus."

In their 1985 book "Jesse Jackson and the Politics of Race," authors Thomas Landess and Richard Quinn write of the Soul Saint "who, according to Jackson, came from the South Pole rather than the North Pole and lingered along the equator sufficiently to take up wearing a dashiki of black, with yellow, red and green trimmings — the colors of the flag of Ghana. Henceforth, the Soul Saint would preside over the season of Christmas, a black figure whose gifts were not toys or sugar plums but 'love, justice, peace, and power.'"

Who wants an iPhone as a gift when you can have love, justice, peace, and power instead?  Plus, you don't have to give your money to those non-Christian merchants who close their shops at midnight on Christmas Eve after a rough season of using Jesus to lure you into Santa Claus's birthday party.  Sounds like a win-win for the Rev.  But don't expect to see a story about it on network or cable news anytime soon. 

This morning the Chicago Tribune carries an Associated Press story headlined "Racine alderman is charged assaulting woman." The piece begins:

A Racine alderman has been charged with assaulting a woman  who worked for him.

Keith Fair was charged Monday with strangulation and suffocation, misdemeanor battery and disorderly conduct.

The woman and the 59-year-old alderman are in a relationship and she is employed by him as a
private investigator and a bartender, according to a criminal complaint.

He was driving her home early Friday when the two argued and  she pushed Fair's face, according to the complaint. Fair then grabbed her by the throat and began to punch her while squeezing her throat, according to the woman, who is pregnant.

Fair is - surprise, surprise - a Democrat, one who worked to elect Barack Obama president.  Sometimes, party affiliation
isn't worth reporting.  As we've seen time and again.