"Palin claim on eBay plane sale doesn't fly" claims a story appearing on page 3 of the printed edition of today's newspaper and on on its Web site.  The article begins:

JUNEAU, Alaska — When Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin sought to illustrate her frugality and flair to delegates at the GOP convention Wednesday, she described how she disposed of a corporate jet acquired by her unpopular predecessor.

"That luxury jet was over the top," Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, said to loud cheers. "I put it on eBay."

Palin's statement implied the plane was sold through the online auction site revered for empowering millions of small entrepreneurs, and Palin's spokeswoman insisted Thursday that the transaction occurred. But the plane failed to sell on eBay.

Instead, the 23-year-old 10-seat Westwind II was sold in August 2007 for $2.1 million to a Valdez, Alaska, entrepreneur; that's about $300,000 less than a broker's asking price, according to news accounts.

So what part of Palin's claim doesn't fly?  She didn't assert the plane sold on eBay, merely that "I put it on eBay."  Seems like the Tribune, in its eagerness to expose the "real Sarah," came to an incorrect conclusion and not one supported by the governor's original contention.

While the Tribune inferred wrongly, I'm certain it won't be deterred.  It and other components of the mainstream media don't appear willing, even after being caught, to give up their slanted coverage of the Republican vice presidential candidate.

According to U.S. News and World Report's Web site, Robert Schlesinger is the magazine's deputy editor and oversees all opinion editorial content.  Schlesinger blogs from the Republican National Convention on "Cindy McCain's $300,000 Outfit:"

ST. PAUL—Remember Pat Nixon's "respectable Republican cloth coat?" It's come a long way, baby.

To wit: According to Vanity Fair, Laura Bush's outfit cost between $3,400 and $4,300. But of course that's chump-change compared to the roughly $300,000 that Cindy McCain's cost (the biggest line-item being $280,000 for three-karat diamond earrings).

For those of you keeping track at home, Cindy McCain's outfit could pay for a four bedroom, three bath, 3,400 square feet house in Wasilla.

Schlesinger cites Vanity Fair, but he doesn't provide complete information.  The Vanity Fair piece concludes:

(All prices except Laura’s shoes and Cindy’s watch are estimates, and the jewelry prices are based on the assumption that the pieces are real.)

That pertinent fact wasn't included by Schlesinger, and you can bet as the story is picked up by other media outlets and bloggers, it won't be added.

Despite my reputation as quite the fashion plate, I wouldn't hazard a guess as to the actual cost of Cindy McCain's outfit.  I did check with a manager of a fine jewelry store and was told the estimated cost for the earrings is "highly unlikely."  Regardless of the real cost, what is the news here:  That wealthy people spend money on clothes and jewelry?  Quick, the smelling salts!

If Vanity Fair worked up a similar estimate for Michelle Obama's outfits at last week's Democratic Convention, I must have missed it.  Vanity Fair did place Mrs. Obama on the top of its best-dressed list recently "because she's our commander in sheath."

With Sarah Palin on the ticket, the mainstream media are worried and getting increasingly desperate.  The over-the-top bashing is obvious and the public is catching on.            

Mainstream media complicity to destroy the candidacy of Sarah Palin is obvious.  Numerous instances have been cited here at NewsBusters, some outrageously blatant.  Slightly more subtle bias was evident in today's print edition of the Chicago Tribune.  Nine letters to the editor were printed; eight of them were overtly anti-Palin and/or anti-Republican.  The remaining letter was a plea for "the birth control education and access" that kids "so obviously need."

A few opinions expressed in today's "Voice of the People:"

But Sarah Palin herself is entirely fair game. The Republican Party has failed governing for eight painful years, all the while rubbing family values and their self-righteousness in the faces of the rest of us. Now that it has been revealed that Palin's 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant, the GOP is unmasked and shown to be patently hypocritical and duplicitous. It's absolutely repugnant, and the stench is sure to last well beyond Nov. 4.

Who is going to take care of the 4-month-old while Sarah Palin travels the country campaigning? The 17-year-old? For the experience?

The revelation of the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's daughter does make one curious about Palin's ambition. What would possess someone, knowing that her teenage daughter was facing an unplanned pregnancy, to accept an offer to run for national office?

If family values are so important to Palin, she should have proved it by putting her family's privacy above political ambition.

Amazingly, the "Voice of the People" is strikingly similar to the views advanced by liberal Democrats and their lapdogs in the media.  Accompanying the letters is an unflattering sketch of Sarah Palin.  Might as well cover all bases, just in case someone doesn't read the submissions.

Does anyone  - other than maybe Keith Olbermann or Jack Cafferty, who works his own magic in distilling the public's opinion - believe that 90 percent of the letters to the editor received by the Chicago Tribune are anti-Palin?  That what the newspaper printed today is a typical sampling?  I don't.

Say what you want about the mainstream media, but one point is indisputable:  They're a tenacious lot.  So they're not going to let Hurricane Gustav dampen efforts to advance the Democratic presidential ticket.

Today's Chicago Tribune informs us - just in case we've missed it - that "Obama and Biden (are) a dynamic duo."  The article begins:

Over the last several days, as Barack Obama and Joe Biden have campaigned together in Pennsylvania and Ohio, a dynamic has emerged for the new Democratic ticket.

Where Obama tends to employ his trademark soaring oratory and sweeping gestures, Biden has served as a change-up. He's a go-for-the-throat gambler, tending to condense policy points into bumper stickers. Saturday, when asked about the approaching Hurricane Gustav, he simply said: "Don't ride it out. Ride it out of town."

Physically, where Obama tends to stay fixed in one spot, Biden sweeps the perimeter, brandishing the microphone as though he's hosting a daytime talk show.

He makes the case for his ticket in man-of-the-people terms, preferring to begin sentences with "Ladies and gentlemen" and "Folks . . ." as if he's standing in for Ed Sullivan or Will Rogers. And so far at least, crowds have responded, especially when he mixes in references to his "small-town" roots in Scranton, Pa., and Wilmington, Del., and talks about his father telling him "Champ, when you get knocked down, get right back up."

OK.  Obama's got his "trademark soaring oratory" while Biden speaks "in man-of-the-people terms."  That Obama's oratory must be teleprompter enhanced or that Biden's man-of-the-people routine is already sounding paralyzingly artificial isn't mentioned.

By now there may be a question as to what these guys are running for:  president and vice president of Scranton?  Regardless, they're dynamic.

Just to show how objective the Tribune can be, in its print editions an article about McCain running mate Sarah Palin appears on the same page as the one about the dynamic duo.  Oddly, this isn't as favorable, reporting:

Property tax cuts and a focus on bread-and-butter matters like roads, sewer and water supplies helped her win re-election in 1999. But her rapid rise came with sharp elbows and led to enemies, said Alaska state Senate President Lyda Green, a Republican who represents the area.

"You go under the bus and find a crowd there," said Green, a former friend who had a falling-out with Palin. Others here worry that Palin's growing family — she and husband Todd have five children —could preoccupy her in Washington.

Sharp elbows, under the bus, too preoccupied with her family.  And now, with news breaking that Palin's 17-year-old unmarried daughter is five months pregnant, there's even more reason to wonder about her candidacy.

The message is obvious:  Obama and Biden are dynamic.  McCain and Palin are not.  What would we do without the mainstream media filtering the information we need to know to arrive at the "right" conclusion?  

In today's Chicago Sun-Times, media reporter Robert Feder writes:

Anchor's cheering section

•   •  Chicago reporters covering the Democratic Convention in Denver were stunned to witness WGN-Channel 9's Allison Payne cheering and applauding for speakers Wednesday night while she was seated with the Illinois delegation in the Pepsi Center.

The veteran newswoman has been co-anchoring convention coverage for the Tribune Co.-owned station.

Earlier in the week, Payne was quoted in the Chicago Tribune apologizing to viewers for her bizarre performance on Channel 9's 9 p.m. newscast Aug. 21. "I was not drunk," she said.

She attributed her slurred speech and erratic behavior to a series of ministrokes.

Chicago reporters were probably not taken aback by Payne's enthusiasm for the Democrats, but by her showing it so publicly.

It's supposed to be a secret that the mainstream media are in the tank for Democrats, Allison.  Didn't you get the memo?

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Carol Marin today writes "Daley is Moses-like in keeping ruffians in line at Democratic convention."  She begins with a pop history lesson for any youngsters who might be reading:

I'd swear Mayor Daley is channeling Ward Cleaver here in Denver.

If you're too young to remember the now-ancient TV series, it's on YouTube.

Jerry Mathers starred as Beaver Cleaver, a wide-eyed, excitable kid. Ward was his calm and reasoned dad.

"Gee whiz, Dad!" The Beaver would exclaim.

"Now, now, son," Ward would soothingly say.

That's Daley this week in the midst of a combustible bunch of Illinois delegates.

Marin indirectly references the contretemps resulting from Emil Jones, state senate president and Barack Obama mentor, calling another Democratic delegate an "Uncle Tom."  She then applauds "life coach" Daley for serving as the conciliator:

Rich Daley, who was forged in the convention mayhem of 1968 and the acrimony of the convention of '72, is 66 years old now. There is a lot stored in his brain about the past and about the future. Invoking Teddy Kennedy and Michelle Obama, he spoke yesterday of the "tears in our eyes and a smile on our face."

It doesn't sound at all like the Chicago politics we know.

I don't understand how individuals would store a lot about the future in their brains, but perhaps other Democrats are now assuming the God-like abilities of their presidential candidate.

Insofar as her assertion that recent events don't sound like the Chicago politics we know, Marin is examining matters through rose-colored glasses.  Yesterday in the Chicago Tribune Daley is quoted:

“Like anything else in a primary, a lot of discussions, a lot of debate goes on and a lot of accusations. But it’s over with. And now we have to move on. The primary is over with. And let’s all unite on behalf of Barack Obama. We don’t want to hear any dissent,” he said.

We don't want to hear any dissent.  Now that's pure Chicago politics as usual.  Ward Cleaver has left the building.

In an Associated Press article written by Julie Watson and published yesterday, we learn that "Mexicans deported from US face shattered lives."  The piece begins:

TIJUANA, Mexico (AP) — The towering black gate opens silently to an alley with walls of corrugated metal. Scrawled in large white letters on one wall is: "The End."

For those deported from the United States, the words are an unnecessary reminder. Nearly every hour of the day, guards unlock this gate that leads back into Mexico, clicking open the padlocks hung on each side, in each nation.

Every time the gate slams shut, it wipes out a dream, divides a family, ends a life lived in the shadows of the law.

We later read:

In a week spent at the Tijuana gate, The Associated Press watched busload after busload of deportees arrive, some in a daze, still stunned over their sudden expulsion. Many stumbled over the Mexican official's question, "Where are you from?" after spending decades in the United States.

The faces of those who stream through reflect how tough and far-reaching the U.S. crackdown on illegal immigration has become.

The article details the experiences of several illegal immigrants sent back.  One is Nestor Ortiz, who's being sent back for the third time in ten days.  In his last entry into the U.S., he injured his leg and feet in a 20-foot jump from a wall.  Ortiz received treatment at Scripps Mercy Hospital in San Diego. The reporter doesn't indicate who paid for that treatment.

Ortiz calls his two sons in California:

"I'm not coming back," he says, choked up as he talks to his 17-year-old son by phone from Tijuana's Salvation Army shelter. "I can't walk. Both my feet are in bad shape."

He asks Juan to consider moving to his hometown of Tlalnepantla, on the edge of Mexico City.

The conversation turns tense. Juan has lived in the United States since he was 7 and doesn't want to leave his friends.

"I think you should not be alone over there," Ortiz says, sighing. "Finish high school and then you can come here. At least here you have your grandparents, your cousins. Over there, what do you have?"

Ortiz breathes in deeply, holds his brow and reels in his overwhelming grief.

He tells his other son, 23-year-old Nestor, to cancel his father's gym membership, put the Chevrolet Suburban in his name and take Juan to live with him.

Fortunately, reeling from the overwhelming grief didn't keep him from forgetting to cancel the gym membership and transfer the SUV's title.

Obviously intended to evoke sympathy for the plight of illegals sent back, the article makes little if any mention of why these people find themselves in such difficult circumstances.  It's because they broke American law.  They are uninvited intruders. 

All the heart-wrenching anecdotes in the world don't change that most important fact.  The unhappy people described by the AP are responsible for their own plight.  They broke the law. It's a point worth highlighting.  The AP didn't.     

Time Magazine names the "Worst Vice Presidents in U.S. History."  It's explained: "As the nation waits for John McCain and Barack Obama to announce their running mates, TIME looks back at the worst ever to occupy the nation's second highest office."

Any such list by its very nature is nothing more than subjective opinion.  And in Time's opinion, every vice president in this century who warrants such scorn is a Republican.  Calvin Coolidge, Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle and Dick Cheney are on the list.

Perhaps Time overlooked one of Franklin Roosevelt's vice presidents, Henry Wallace.  Surely Time knows about Wallace; in 1965 the magazine described him as having been in 1948  "a candidate and captive of the Communist-dominated Progressive Party."

And what of Lyndon Johnson, who mysteriously became a multimillionaire why earning only a modest government salary?  And "won" a major  election under equally mysterious circumstances.  As Time itself reported, Johnson in one county received 4,622 votes.  His opponent got 40.

Then there's Walter Mondale.  Time disdains Dan Quayle for his alleged stupidity, but it was Mondale who brilliantly proclaimed "that four years of Ronald Reagan has made this world more dangerous.  Four more will take us closer to the brink."  He also asserted that "Reagan operates from fundamentally flawed premises about preventing war and keeping peace."

Finally there's the miracle man, Al Gore.  He was able to collect huge donations from Buddhist monks and nuns who had taken vows of poverty.  Even Time reported:

Vice President Al Gore claims to have been entirely unaware that an April luncheon he attended at a Buddhist temple in California was an illegal fund raiser. With a face as straight as only his can be, Gore said in a radio interview last week that he thought the function, organized by Huang and the D.N.C., was a "community-outreach" event. More observant guests, however, have said it was plain to them that what was reaching out was an open palm. Attendees included deep-pocketed members of the local Asian-American community. The D.N.C. says it collected $140,000.

Maybe, just maybe, there could have been a Democrat who qualified for Time's evaluation.  But no.  Time's list of terrible vice presidents should be taken no more seriously than many of the other articles it publishes. 

On CNN Newsroom this morning, Capitol Hill correspondent Jennifer Yellin did a piece on how Barack Obama is attempting to exploit John McCain's uncertainty over the houses he and wife Cindy own.  From Yellin's report:

YELLIN: And top surrogates are hitting 16 states to mock John McCain for, in the campaign's words, losing track of his houses. Obama supporter and VP short lister Virginia Governor Tim Kaine made the case on CNN.

GOV. TIM KAINE (D), VIRGINIA: He couldn't count high enough apparently to even know how many houses he owned.

YELLIN: The Obama campaign believes this line of attack will persuade voters that McCain is out of touch with regular folks and can't fix what he doesn't know is broken. It could also diffuse charges that Obama is elitist. It's as if they're saying, who's the snob now?

OBAMA: And if you're like me and you got one house, or you are like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so they don't lose their home, you might have a different perspective.

YELLIN (on camera): Remember when George H.W. Bush went to the supermarket and was astonished to see the cashier using a scanner? That moment devastated his campaign because it allowed his opponent to argue that Bush was out of touch with middle America. Well, now the Obama campaign is saying John McCain's house gap is another scanner moment.

The myth involving the first President Bush and his supposed amazement is one that, if the mainstream media have their way, just won't go away.  

The tale began when the New York Times ran a front-page account under the headline, "Bush Encounters the Supermarket, Amazed." Writers and cartoonists widely lampooned the president for being out of touch.

Shortly after, the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz titled his column "The story that just won't die."  It began:

The story of George Bush and the incredible supermarket scanner has become the media yarn that wouldn't die.

First the New York Times gave front-page prominence to Bush's alleged amazement at seeing a quart of milk, a light bulb and a bag of candy rung up at an ordinary checkout stand, spawning a tidal wave of satiric columns and late-night comedy routines about an out-of-touch president.

Then came a round of debunking stories, disclosing that Times reporter Andrew Rosenthal never saw the incident but wrote the story from two paragraphs in a pool report. The author of the pool report, Gregg McDonald of the Houston Chronicle, didn't even mention the incident in his own story.

The Times returned fire Thursday, saying it had reviewed a network videotape of the Great Scanner Scandal and that Bush "was clearly impressed" by the garden-variety gadget.

Not so,  says Newsweek, which screened the tape and declared that "Bush acts curious and polite, but hardly amazed."

It was a fresh demonstration of how a single, hazy anecdote -- Jimmy Carter's "killer rabbit" comes to mind -- can suddenly become larger than life when it seems to match the public perception of a prominent figure.

White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater called the story "totally media-manufactured," saying Bush had actually been impressed by more advanced scanner technology. "In hindsight, I probably should've done a better job of saying how new some of this stuff was," McDonald says.

Time magazine's Michael Duffy, another pool member, called the incident "completely insignificant as a news event. It was prosaic, polite talk, and Bush is expert at that. If anything, he was bored."

Some newspapers admitted that the Bush and the scanner anecdote was bogus.  On February 21, in the Tampa Tribune, the story was "Scanner caper an amazing exaggeration:"

It turns out the supermarket scanner that drew President Bush's attention at a grocers' convention recently really did have some  unusual features.

It can read labels - the so-called universal product codes - that are  ripped up and jumbled.

That is apparently what prompted Bush to tell the National Grocers  Association in Orlando Feb. 4 he was "amazed'' by the technology.

It was widely reported that Bush was surprised to see an ordinary supermarket scanner. Columnists and cartoonists seized upon the report as evidence that Bush was out of touch with everyday life after 11 years ensconced in government mansions.

"The whole thing is ludicrous,'" Bob Graham, an NCR Corp. systems analyst who showed Bush the scanner, said in a telephone interview from Pleasanton, Calif. "What he was amazed about was the ability of the scanner to take that  torn label and reassemble it."

The Tampa Tribune went on to report that "Charles Osgood, the CBS radio correspondent, offered a mea culpa in his  daily broadcast Tuesday.  'Fair is fair, and especially since I joined the herd last week and took the occasion to pontificate about how unfortunate it is that we isolate our presidents so much,' said Osgood. The scanner Bush saw 'is amazing, and what  it does is really something.'"

In the Greensboro News & Record, the story was "Ease Up - Bush Was Right."  The Chicago Tribune wrote:  Media learn an amazing fact: Reality."  At the St. Petersburg Times, the conclusion was "President isn't that out of touch after all."

Still, all these years later CNN's Yellin keeps the fable in circulation.  Maybe she believes it herself.  After all, it sounds like a mistake one of those elitist Republicans would make.  

Associated Press writer Douglass K. Daniel today reports "A housing issue: McCain not sure how many they own."  The article points out that John and Cindy McCain are affluent.  It then links McCain's age with his difficulty in responding to the question of "how many houses he and his wealthy wife actually own:"

With most Americans feeling the pinch of a worsening economy, the remark allows McCain's opponents to suggest that he personally is far beyond its grip and cannot feel their pain. It also displays the vast wealth of the McCains — his wife Cindy's fortune has been estimated at $100 million. It's also another example of how McCain, nearly 72, can be fuzzy and forgetful on some facts.

Not mentioned are the several examples of Barack Obama being fuzzy and forgetful on some facts.  In a May, 2008 TV interview he repeatedly called Matt Lauer “Tim.” In late April, he advised a North Carolina crowd that it was March. He has even mentioned there are 57 states. Perhaps his most notable memory loss is the one associated with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. After 20 years, Obama couldn’t remember a single objectionable comment from his former pastor. In similar vein, the candidate appears to have forgotten his positions on a wide array of issues ranging from Iraq to gun control.

The mainstream media focus on John McCain's age.  What explanation do they have for Obama's confusion?  Then again, perhaps one isn't needed;  they don't harp on the Democrat's fuzziness and forgetfulness.

This evening on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, the host expressed amusement at something he'd heard earlier today on his own network.  Ironically, the source of his merriment was a question posed by anchor Jack Cafferty on CNN's The Situation Room:

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Polls indicate the race is tightening. CNN's latest Poll of Polls showing Barack Obama leading John McCain now by just a single point, 45-44 percent, down from a three-point lead yesterday. And down considerably more than that from a few weeks ago.

While Obama was on vacation in Hawaii, McCain had the stage pretty much to himself. And then one bright, sunny morning, the Russians rolled into Georgia and John McCain was in the cat bird seat. Also, some of McCain's negative ads, those Paris Hilton and Britney Spears celebrity spots, seem to have resonated some with voters. It looks now like McCain made inroads with some members of the Republican base with his interview at Rick Warren's church.

All of this creating a problem for Barack Obama, who has gone out of his way up to this point to run a pretty positive campaign based on the issues, and for the most part, has chosen not to get into the schoolyard kind of stuff that characterizes U.S. politics. He may no longer have that luxury.

Obama is now out with some hard-hitting TV spots that are running in local markets in some of the key battleground states. He spent $400,000 just last Sunday to run two negative spots on McCain more than 600 times focusing on the economy and McCain in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida.

These new ads are complemented with a tougher tone out on the stump, where Obama is going after McCain for saying that Iraqis would greet Americans as liberators and for challenging Obama's patriotism. Some Democratic strategists say Obama's aggressive tone reflects the reality of the race and that he should have gotten tougher sooner.

Here's the question: In light of the tightening polls, does Barack Obama now have to go negative against John McCain?

On his program, Dobbs introduced CNN Congressional correspondent Jessica Yellin to do a piece on Obama's increasingly aggressive attacks on McCain.  She completed her report:

YELLIN: Lou, on a conference call with reporters that I was on this afternoon, one of Obama's top surrogates accused John McCain of practicing dishonest gutter politics, her word. Apparently the campaign is saving the harshest attacks for Obama's surrogates so the candidate himself can appear to stay above the fray -- Lou.

DOBBS: Oh we've never seen that before, have we, Jessica?

YELLIN: (INAUDIBLE)

DOBBS: I love -- well there was a question on this network earlier today whether or not -- asking whether or not viewers believed that Senator Obama should go on the attack to improve his standing against Senator McCain. The implication being that he hadn't already. I found that amusing, if I may say. Thank you very much, Jessica. Jessica Yellin.

Dobbs is right: the implication that Obama hasn't forcefully assailed McCain is absurd.  Cafferty - similar to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann but without the personality - apparently seeks notoriety with his fashionably "progressive" statements, no matter how ridiculous.

Now, even CNN hosts are snickering at you, Jack.  Better dust off that ol' resume and get it over over to MSNBC pronto.

Andrew Greeley's column in today's Chicago Sun-Times is "American warmongers excel at talking a good game."  Greeley's writings are often unintentionally amusing, filled with the sort of kneejerk liberalism we'd expect from aBarack Obama contributor.  This morning's article is typically hilarious:

If we chant "USA!" Often enough, sing God "Bless American!" fervently enough, wear flag pins, fly the flag in front of our house and croak the national anthem loudly enough, we will win victory and honor our dead heroes.

Who are those who reject compromise of a useless and criminally deadly war like Iraq? They are the blusterers, members of "veteran's organizations," mountain folk, crackers, West Texans, blue collar workers, evangelical clergy, neo-cons, Republicans, white ethnics, Sox fans, folks who want Cardinal George to "get rid" of Father Pfleger, those who tell you with a straight face that the country isn't ready yet for a black president and that the United States must rid itself of "illegal aliens." (I hasten to add that all these groups number some men and women who are innocent of bellicose patriotism.)

There's something about the American flag that drives liberals loonier than usual.  It certainly must irritate them that candidate Obama has been forced to sport a flag pin just to fool the crackers, the blue collar workers, etc.

I'm not certain why he placed quotation marks around "veteran's organizations."  Is that not what they are called?  The apostrophe, of course, is misplaced, but maybe we shouldn't expect too much from a PhD.  

Using the marks with "illegal aliens" is more obvious.  The correct term is undocumented workers.  Everyone knows that except for white ethnics, mountain folk, evangelical clergy, etc.

A nice touch is Greeley's hastening to add that "some men and women" in the groups he's identified are innocent of the charges he levels.  Even Sox fans.  How warm.  How understanding.  How compassionate.

Greeley writes commentary and is entitled, obviously, to his opinion.  At the same time, I think it's fair to ask how many other Obama supporters view matters in the same light - and terms - as he does.

Last night the Reverend Rick Warren questioned Barack Obama and John McCain at California's Saddleback Church.  Post forum coverage at CNN was hosted by network chief national correspondent John King.

He began by asking CNN senior political analyst Candy Crowley and network congressional correspondent Dana Bash for their impressions.  Crowley found McCain to have been "very direct" while Bash observed the GOP candidate addressed the audience rather than Warren.  Both stated that Obama was "nuanced" in his answers.

When King asked Bill Schneider, another CNN senior political analyst, for his take on the event, the word of the day shifted from nuanced to thoughtful:

SCHNEIDER: Each candidate used the opportunity I think to showcase his strengths. Barack Obama's answers were complex, thoughtful, very subtle. He stretched the theme of unity. He wants to be a unifier. And he stood by his principles on issues like abortion and gay rights. But he was respectful of people who disagree with him and said he would listen to people on the other side.

King later addressed a question to another guest:

KING: Tony Perkins, there perhaps as much as any question, the stylistic difference between these two men. More of an assertive, defiant, I will get evil from John McCain, and a more thoughtful, subdued answer from Barack Obama. Is one right and one wrong or are they just different?

Then we heard from yet another CNN senior political analyst, David Gergen:

GERGEN: In some ways, John McCain's night -- I think this is one of the issues at this point that will trouble people on the progressive side of politics and even perhaps some in the middle -- is he too forward looking on the use of force and sort of going out and looking for and beating back trouble in the world? Do we need someone who is more thoughtful, wants to work with others, a little more humble, not quite as self-righteous. And I think that's going to be a big, big question for voters.

Minutes later, Gergen again described Obama as thoughtful, just in case we missed it.

Also participating in the discussion was Roland Martin.  He was identified as a mere CNN political analyst, but demonstrated he's definitely ready to move up in the organization:

MARTIN: John McCain keep the personal stories going, also toe the line from appeal to evangelicals, but also be very mindful of independents. Senator Barack Obama cut the long winded questions. His best segment tonight frankly was the last one where he gave the short, snappier answers where he was much more clear. He was still thoughtful. But also emphasize character, his family, his children, drive that home. That's going to be critical as opposed to relying just on issues.

That Obama is just so darn thoughtful.  This isn't just CNN's judgment.  Over at MSNBC, political director Chuck Todd noted that "every Obama answer was certainly thoughtful enough. . . "  San Francisco Chronicle political writer Carla Maninucci writes that Obama "appeared more thoughtful and comfortable discussing faith and domestic issues, exploring with relish the issues and moral dilemmas with Warren."  Dan Glaister, Los Angeles correspondent of the UK Guardian, reports: "Where Obama was thoughtful and cautious, McCain was abrupt - so abrupt in fact that his short responses meant he got to answer more questions in his hour than his rival."

I watched the forum and would describe many of Obama's responses as vague.  Thoughtfulness, like beauty, apparently is in the eye of the beholder.  At CNN and in other mainstream media outlets, they all behold it the same way.

Today's contribution from the Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page, who also serves on the newspaper's editorial board, is "Enquirer scores— but about the aliens."  Clarence frets about mainstream media credibility under attack for not pursuing John Edwards's affair:

The blogosphere is abuzz with criticism of the mainstream media for allegedly failing to pursue the story of Edwards' alleged "love child" when the National Enquirer first reported it last year. In fact, major media did try to confirm the story without using the Enquirer as a source. It appears most of us in the MSM tend to be hung up on stodgy old-fashioned virtues like facts. The Edwards bombshell became problematic when none of the main parties in the story would go on the record to confirm the allegation. If you're going to use unnamed sources, which is questionable enough as a practice, at least make them your own sources, not those of a supermarket tabloid.

And later:

Nevertheless, now that the Enquirer bagged Edwards before anyone else, probably because of an insider's tip, bloggers from the right-wing loonasphere already are using the Edwards scoop to grant unearned credibility to other tabloid stories. These include loads of claptrap about Sen. Barack Obama, among other political newsmakers.

Page's denunciation of "the right-wing loonasphere" should be read with his own politics in mind.  Clarence is a standard issue liberal and has been one for a very long time.  Back in the 1980s he admitted that he'd been criticized for being too hard on President Ronald Reagan.  Another Page column at the time was typical:

If you think about the poor too long, you might not think so well of the Teflon President`s policies. Though he has yet to advocate starvation, one would be hard pressed to find anyone since Ebeneezer Scrooge who has asked the poor to put as much water into their daily soup.

In a statement that should assume its rightful position among his great bloopers--right up there alongside missiles that can be called back and trees that cause air pollution--Reagan said poor people get hungry because of their ``lack of knowledge`` of available food programs.

He ought to know. There once was a time when the federal government helped hungry people get the knowledge they needed. Beginning with the presidency of Richard M. Nixon, the federal government required that states provide such ``outreach`` services as home visits for the elderly and then it matched state expenditures. Then along came the Reagan administration and
federal outreach funds were eliminated during the big 1981 budget slash.

Who would have guessed it would take Ronald Reagan to make Richard Nixon look good!

Given his agenda, it's little wonder Clarence would focus on "the right-wing loonasphere" while having little criticism for the Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, and other highly credible sources.  It must be because he and his cohorts are " hung up on stodgy old-fashioned virtues like facts."  

Sure.  I believe that.