Today on its Web site and in its printed version, the Chicago Tribune reported on the large crowds greeting former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on her book tour.  More than a thousand enthusiastic admirers greeted her Wednesday in Grand Rapids.  Another thousand were already in line at 7:00 a.m. today for a book signing scheduled for 6:00 p.m. in Noblesville, Indiana.  Hundreds more gathered in line hours ahead of her appearance at a Ft. Wayne Meijer store.

The vision of Sarah Palin being cheered by so many common people in such common towns as Grand Rapids and Ft. Wayne and in such common venues as a Meijer store must be just too much for the deep thinkers at the Chicago Tribune.  Palin Derangement Syndrome kicked in.  Bad.  They had to provide their own version of what's happening.

"All this rightist hoopla is all so predictable," writes the newspaper's former national editor, Charles Madigan.  In the first part of the piece he decries criticism of Barack Obama's how low can you go bow to Japan's emperor and anti-Obama sentiment from the right:

Their congressional caucus, their blurting mouthpieces, their nattering nabobs of neocon nonsense, their Limbeckians (sounds like Jonathan Swift, doesn't it?) their addled and confused tea baggers, their Michelle Backmanians, they are all coming from the same place, a losers fantasyland where there is no reality other than what they think.

Then he moves specifically onto Palin, who "will make a whole fishing trawler full of money from her book."  He ends:

Palin's following will gobble up her book and it will become as much a bible as that King James version, Sarah's version of what happened. They will love her forever. She will become a talk show host where she will also blast Obama for bowing before foreign powers and being a closet socialist.

That part of America has become so predictable, it's hardly worth paying much attention as it continues shouting, primarily to itself.

Then we have the PDS symptoms exhibited by columnist Steve Chapman in "Sarah Palin and the conservative descent."  He didn't care much for the book:

But the priorities of "Going Rogue" are striking poses and attitudes, not making actual arguments about the proper role of government. The book is meant to create an image, or maybe a brand -- folksy but shrewd, tough but feminine, noble but beset by weaklings and traitors, ever-smiling unless you awaken her inner "Mama Grizzly Bear" by scrutinizing her loved ones. No one could be more pleased with her than she is with herself. Reading the book is like watching Palin preen in front of a mirror for hours as she tirelessly compliments herself for courage, gumption, devotion to family and maverick independence.

Sarah Palin just doesn't have the requisite "gravitas" apparently.  But he can think of someone who does:

You could almost forget that for well over a year, Republicans have ridiculed Barack Obama as lighter than a souffle, an inexperienced upstart who owes everything to arrogant presumption and a carefully crafted image. But Obama wrote a 375-page book, "The Audacity of Hope," that shows a solid, and occasionally tedious, grasp of issues.

It is hard to imagine Palin (as opposed to a ghostwriter) producing anything comparable. Almost as hard as it is to imagine that modern conservatives would expect it.

Leaders who can think? That's so 20th century.

Today's Tribune also includes a Sarah Palin paper doll.  One reader's reaction: "I bet a lot of the editorial writers at the Trib would LOVE a Palin BLOW UP DOLL better!"

These are dark days in much of the mainstream media.  Despite the most adamant admonitions from the superior people in the press, those common people in their common communities persist in liking and trusting Sarah Palin.  So when the news is bad, as it is today, the only thing they can do is provide "balance" by slamming her elsewhere in their pages.

They can assert that Palin's America is "hardly worth paying much attention," yet they simply can't stop obsessing on it. 

On CNN Saturday Morning News today, anchor Betty Nguyen interviewed a psychiatrist about Major Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 and wounded 30 others in a shooting spree Thursday in Fort Hood, Texas.  She began by delving into possible reason for Hasan's actions:

NGUYEN: Dr. Paul Ragan, a psychiatrist who specializes in post-traumatic stress disorder joins me now from Nashville. Dr. Ragan, let me ask you this. Are the Ft. Hood shootings the action of someone who might have suffered from PTSD?

DR. PAUL RAGAN, SPECIALIZES IN POST-TRAUMATIC SYNDROME: I think actually that's fairly unlikely. Dr. Hasan just finished a two-year fellowship at the Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress and he had only been an independent Army psychiatrist for about four months. That is at an operational base. So for him to have been suffering from PTSD I think is highly unlikely.

NGUYEN: Doctor, let me ask you this, then. A lot of people find it awfully ironic too, he was a psychiatrist, someone to help people when they have issues, yet he's also accused of shooting of this magnitude. What would cause someone, especially with that kind of training and that kind of background to do something like this?

RAGAN: Well, that's the huge question before us. I don't have the exact answer. I can give a little guidance. To put it bluntly, the wheels came off many, many months or even years probably before he showed up at Ft. Hood. Usually, in the military after you finish your residency, you go and do your operational tour. That's what I did. Then, the Army allowed him to do a two-year fellowship. There's some evidence that he may have been trying to avoid deploying. And so where did he not identify with the military mission? He had been in the military as the soldier said earlier, over 10 years. What was it that happened that he couldn't fulfill his military obligations?

Nguyen then moved on to another potential reason for the massacre:

NGUYEN: Yeah. So, the question, too, is it the fact that he disagreed with the mission or was it taunting, was it teasing, was it harassment? Could these things have played a role as well?

RAGAN: They may have. I can tell you, in the medical community over 25 years I have been intermittently teased for being a psychiatrist. That, I don't think, was the tipping point for him. And clearly, there's a good deal of prejudice in certain areas of our society toward Muslims, but, again, as the soldier told us, the Army has been pretty strict about not engaging in that type of harassment. So again, I don't think that was the tipping point. I think it was earlier.   

So who would taunt, tease or harasss a field grade Army officer?  It's implausible that anyone lower than him in rank would be so foolish.  People at his rank and above are probably astute enough in terms of political correctness to realize that their careers could easily be over with just one career ending utterance.

Moreover, earlier in her program Nguyen aired an interview of an Army sergeant who is Muslim conducted by correspondent Sean Callebs.  When asked about harassment because of his religion, the sergeant responded:

The only experience that I did have was while I was in basic training and a friend, a battle buddy is my own -- basically the guy I room with, the guy who I have to look out for and he has to look out for me, just made a joke regarding my religion and my drill sergeant took that very seriously and had him disciplined from my entire company and he was punished for his actions, even though he was jokingly saying it to me.

Still, Nguyen wanted to explore that as a reason for what happened.  With both PTSD and harassment effectively set aside, she moved on to one last reason:

NGUYEN: What about religious beliefs? Do you think that might have played a role because there were reports that he gave out the Koran the day of the shooting, also reports that he may have yelled Allah akbar right before the shootings. Could religion have played a role?

RAGAN: I think religion did play a role. Evidently he was counseled about proselytizing patients which was clearly a boundary violation. We have a report that he gave in his class at the fellowship, he was talking about endorsing suicide bombings. He was clearly engaging in some type of tunnel vision where this kind of radical view, which is not, as again the soldier said before, is not a part of mainstream Muslim religion. And so, he was -- there was something going on there, very much so.

Hasan's motivation may never be determined with absolute certainty.  Still, it's interesting that some in the mainstream media look for other reasons - as remote as they may be - before considering a more obvious one. 

The Washington Post yesterday afternoon reported "President Obama delivers remarks on Ft. Hood shooting at end of tribal leaders conference." The transcript begins:

SPEAKER: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

[*] OBAMA: Please, everybody, have a seat. Let me first of all just thank Ken and the entire Department of the Interior staff for organizing just an extraordinary conference.

I want to thank my Cabinet members and senior administration officials who participated today. I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow (ph) was around, and so I want to give a shout out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. It's good to see you.

Ah, the dangers of giving shout outs without a teleprompter.  Crow is not a Medal of Honor recipient.  As noted by the Congressional Medal of Honor Society:

The Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force which can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the Armed Services of the United States. Generally presented to its recipient by the President of the United States of America in the name of Congress, it is often called the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Crow's name is not included on the Society's Medal of Honor recipient list.  He was, however, awarded the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, in August.

Obama, often described as "cerebral" by the mainstream media, should know the difference between the Medal of Honor and the Medal of Freedom, especially since he personally awarded the latter to Crow.  Don't expect his blunder to receive wide coverage.  It's not something he can blame George Bush for.       

On her segment of CNN Newsroom this morning, anchor Heidi Collins asked business correspondent Christine Romans about Senate action on extending yet again unemployment benefits:

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: You're right. And Heidi, all of those things that you mentioned are incredibly important to your money and all of them could affect you very, very near-term here. This extension of the unemployment benefits, it would be the third.

The Senate has passed it. It goes to the House. It's expected to be voted on and passed very, very quickly here. Because, remember, your Congress member and your senator, they are being inundated in their offices with questions from people saying, wait, how am I going to survive when this check runs out? Seven thousand checks running out every week.

It would be a 14-week extension nationwide, 20 weeks of unemployment. More unemployment benefits for the states with 8.5 percent unemployment or more. And this would be paid by a two-year extension of an existing -- existing tax on employers. So this would be paid for by a tax on employers.

It would not come out of your pocket and my pocket. But it would be the third extension here, Heidi. And it's critically important. Like I said, so many people are losing their unemployment benefits right now. Some 200,000 have lost their jobless benefits just as the Senate has been negotiating this.

In parroting the liberal theme that big bad business, not taxpayers, will actually foot the tab, Romans does a disservice to viewers.  The late Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate in Economics, explained why in 2005 testimony given the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform:

All taxes ultimately -- the consumer pays the taxes.  Nobody else pays the taxes.  Corporations don't pay taxes.  They collect them, but they don't pay them.  The only people who pay taxes are people and people are all consumers.

Yet Christine Romans claims you and I won't pay for the extension of unemployment benefits.  One way or the other, we will.   

Chief White House correspondent for U.S. News & World Report Kenneth Walsh is mighty impressed.  In "He's Still No-Drama Obama," posted on the magazine's Web site, Walsh writes:

Face to face, President Obama seems even more unflappable, cerebral, and dispassionate than he appears on television.

And later:

I have interviewed each of the past five presidents— Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Obama—and Obama seems the most cerebral and the least emotional of them all.

"Cerebral" is one of the media's favorite adjectives to describe Obama these days.  In the current Newsweek, Anna Quindlen notes:

(Obama) is methodical, thoughtful, cerebral, a believer in consensus and process.

National Public Radio blogger Frank James describes Obama as "the urbane, super cool, cerebral president."

In a Los Angeles Times piece last month, columnist Michael Hiltzik asks, "why are the Democrats so reluctant to drop the hammer on the opposition and pass" ObamaCare?

Could the answer lie in Obama's cerebral personality? Obama seems to believe that if he explains his positions slowly and clearly enough, their fundamental logic will inevitably win the day without the need for arm-twisting.

Barry is very, very brainy.  That's the message.  There are different types of intelligence, of course, and Obama clearly is bright in certain ways.  He did, after all, parlay his community organizer background with a mediocre record as a state legislator and extremely limited experience as a senator into a White House win.

Still, we also know Obama has problems at least occasionally with elemental facts like how many states there are, what language is spoken in Afghanistan, and to whom Memorial Day is dedicated.  Then there was the time last year he claimed 10,000 people perished in Kansas tornadoes.  The actual number was 12.

Tut, tut, advised his media accomplices.  Trivial errors that anyone could have made.  Still, they can't explain why the genius must have several of his favorite teleprompters around him at all times.

Then there are his policies.  How smart does one have to be to think that a country can spend its way out of its economic woes?  That government makes better decisions for people than the people themselves do? That cozying up to ruthless dictators, dithering on important decisions, and constantly apologizing for one's own country are prudent policies?

The mainstream media have a vested interest in making Obama appear successful.  They did much of the heavy lifting necessary to get him into the White House.  As his failures become more apparent and he sinks in the polls, they now hope to persuade us that electing this "cerebral" man was the smart thing to do.

How dumb do they think the American people are?

CNN's Rick Sanchez often describes his Newsroom segment as a national conversation.  Increasingly, however, his program primarily consists of Sanchez mouthing current liberal talking points.

So it was today, as he excitedly asked viewers:

Do you want the public option that could make health insurance more competitive and cheaper, because it's looking like we may get it in some form at this point. Here's who else is going to be speaking in just a little bit, Senator Harry Reid is about to announce his position on this. I asked you this same question, by the way, a little while ago. How you felt about public option. You know, I've got to tell you, the numbers seem to show right now, it's about 61 percent in favor.

That 61 percent figure came from a recent CNN poll.  He could have, but didn't, cite another poll, one mentioned recently in The Hill:

Polling experts, however, have documented that many people don’t know what a public option is, and that small changes in language can cause poll results to vary widely. An August poll by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates showed that only 37 percent of those polled correctly identified the public option from a list of three choices.

So there's substantial confusion over a public option, which more accurately should be termed a government option.  That's to be expected. Neither Obama nor his congressional Democrats seemingly have a clue about what "their" health reform will be, so why should the public?

But noting that confusion might put a crack in Sanchez's perceived momentum for the public option, and he wasn't about to do that:

And you, on Twitter, are in favor as well. Go to the Twitter board if you can, Zack. Look at the first one -- "Yes, it makes not sense why we can't have another public option.

Under that: "Absolutely, it is a must."

I have no idea what just happened that thing. But you know, sometimes technology gets the best of you, as it today. Let me go back here.

"Absolutely, it's a must."

Next one, here's something I want to know, "Would you like to see a public option? Yes, public option is the whole point."

Next one: "Yes, to the public option."

"I would love to see a public option, without the state opt out. Repeal the anti-trust laws, give real choices to us."

"One word: Yes."

Next one, "yes, but it should be for everyone, not just for a few. We should all be able to opt out from our current coverage if we want."

So, you get a sense there that there is starting to be -- a sense that Americans are embracing this idea of a public option in this country. And there are other people now who are getting involved and embracing it as well.

The reason viewers may have gotten "a sense that Americans are embracing this idea of a public option" is Sanchez didn't read a single tweet from anyone opposed to the idea.  I know he received at least two, but they didn't fit into his storyline.  So he simply pretended they don't exist.   

Sanchez still wasn't done with peddling a major feature of ObamaCare.  He had yet another card to play:

Nebraska's conservative Democrat Ben Nelson, is now saying that he -- this is interesting, remember what I just said, conservative Nebraska Democrat and Senator Ben Nelson, who hasn't been keen on the idea in the past, has over the last couple of days maybe possibly going through a shift in this. He's now saying he would not be opposed to the public option in some form.

Wow, even conservatives are jumping on the public option bandwagon.  It's a landslide!  Sanchez didn't tell his viewers exactly how "conservative" Nelson is.

According to interest group ratings compiled by Project Vote Smart, for 2008 the National Taxpayers Union gave him a rating of F.   In 2007, Nelson scored a 5 with Americans for Tax Reform.  The American Conservative Union assigned him a rating of 16 for 2008.  Nelson received a 100 from the AFL-CIO for 2008 and an A for 2007-2008 from the National Education Association.

Ben Nelson may be many things.  A conservative isn't one of them.

To contend, as Sanchez does, that a government option could make health insurance more competitive and cheaper flies in the face of all reality.  What company could possibly compete against an entity with unlimited tax dollars at its disposal?  And if Medicare, which is defrauded to the tune of $60 billion a year is any example, the public option will be staggeringly expensive even if all other waste is squeezed out of it, a highly unlikely occurrence. 

Rick Sanchez may be many things.  An objective journalist isn't one of them.

On his segment of today's CNN Newsroom, anchor Rick Sanchez went for the hat trick, likening Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to the infamous Theophilus “Bull” Connor, Birmingham, Alabama’s late segregationist police commissioner who ruthlessly used police attack dogs and fire hoses to thwart 1963 civil rights demonstrators, no fewer than three times.

Sanchez prefaced his interview with the Arizona sheriff:

Well, perhaps not since Bull Connor whose aggressive police tactics against blacks in the South sparked civil rights legislation in 1964 has our country seen a showdown like the one going on right now between Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio and Washington, as in the feds.

You heard it here on Friday, right? Immigration and Customs Enforcement assistant secretary came on the air and told me that while they do want local sheriffs around the country to help with immigration issues and immigration arrests, he specifically said they don't want Sheriff Joe Arpaio's help.

And during his interview:

SANCHEZ: Like Bull Connor in 1960s, you're going to sit there and tell the feds, you don't care what they say, you're going to do it your way and you're going to do it when you want to do it?

ARPAIO: No, they don't tell me how to do my job enforcing state laws. I worked 25 years as a top Justice Department drug enforcement official. I think I know the federal law and how to operate under the federal blanket. So...

SANCHEZ: All right. Well, for the record, they're saying you don't and they're saying you're violating it.

ARPAIO: Then come on after me, if he thinks I'm violating any of the federal laws.

Then after the interview with Arpaio, he spoke with a columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune:

SANCHEZ: I hope many of you saw my interview just about 20 minutes ago with Sheriff Joe Arpaio out of Maricopa County. He's sticking to his guns. He says he's doing nothing wrong. The Feds are telling him, back off. We don't want your raids anymore. We don't want your sweeps. We don't think that your police procedure is proper. But he's saying he's going to continue to do these anyway.

You know, it reminds one of the standoff between the Feds and Bull Connor back in the 1960s. It began what today we know as much of the civil rights laws that are written in this country.

Has it gone that far? Let me ask somebody who's followed Joe Arpaio since the 1990s. He's a -- a colleague of mine. He's a -- he's a -- I shouldn't say correspondent. He's a writer. He writes columns. His name is Ruben Navarrette.

Unsurprisingly, Navarrette was quite simpatico with Sanchez, beginning with the observation, "I'm glad you talked to Sheriff Joe Arpaio. What would a circus be without the clowns?"

The truth is Joe Arpaio has little in common with Bull Connor.  Connor was an ardent, life-long Democrat who served as Alabama's Democratic National Committeeman.  Arpaio is a Republican.

Connor viciously attacked citizens exercising their Constitutional rights.  Arpaio arrests criminals.

Sanchez isn't the first to liken Arpaio to Connor.  ACORN chief executive officer Bertha Lewis has characterized Arpaio as "the 21st century's answer to Bull Connor."  Says Rev. Al Sharpton:

I am calling for an end to the civil and human rights violations being committed in Maricopa County. . . and the immediate resignation of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The egregious nature of Arpaio’s abuses, marking him as the Bull Connor of the 21st Century, demands nothing less.

The Communist Workers World last month gleefully reported "Racist Sheriff Arpaio greeted by angry, militant protest."  The story noted:

Inside, the event was disrupted by four protesters, one of whom paid the $30 entrance fee and stood in line to get Arpaio’s autograph. When she got to the front of the line, Liliana, a Colombian immigrant, handed Arpaio a certificate and loudly proclaimed, “I am here to present to you the Bull Connor Award for your promotion of racial discrimination, disregard of human rights, abuse of power and general hatred of the ‘other.’

So Sanchez's comparing Sheriff Joe to Bull Connor isn't original.  The only difference is he has a daily show on CNN.  ACORN, Sharpton, and Workers World can only aspire to such exposure. 

ABC News's Web site includes the article "Is Obama 'Too Nice' to Make Tough Decisions?" by correspondent David Kerley.  The piece begins:

With problems for the president in Afghanistan, health care and unemployment, some critics on both the left and right are asking: Is the president essentially "too nice" to make the important decisions?

The National Journal magazine asks in a just-out edition, "Is He Tough Enough?"

"Be decisive," says Tom Tradewell, the commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Even liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd says the president will have to "break some eggs" to cook up a more perfect union.

None of the people quoted assert the problem is Obama's affability.  Rather, the difficulty is the extreme caution he exercises, many times so as to not offend interest groups.  

We know Obama has little reluctance in employing the us-versus-them class struggle rhetoric against private enterprise.  He's accused surgeons of removing legs and tonsils for the money.  (The American College of Surgeons pointed out his statement that a surgeon receives $50,000 for a leg amputation was a little off; Medicare pays between $740 and $1,140).  Obama has no qualms sending his flunkies forth to attack Fox News.  On Saturday, he personally claimed that health insurers are “filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads.”

Too nice?  Not hardly.  Indecisive? Definitely.  Dithering?  You bet.  Waffling?  Absolutely.  Unqualified?  The answer increasingly becomes apparent.  While Obama repeatedly says he wants to make things clear, rarely does he provide specifics.

As he stumbles and vacillates and falters, we've seen the mainstream media supply an arsenal of excuses for Obama's failings.  He inherited it all from Bush.  He set too ambitious an agenda.  Large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress aren't enough.  He's so terribly brilliant and nuanced that it takes the American public quite a while to catch up with him.

And now an excuse is he's just too nice.  That's as empty as Obama's promises, and will last about as long. 

You might think a major metropolitan newspaper that boasts "The Midwest's largest reporting team" on its front page would report on a suburban demonstration attracting thousands of people.  In the case of the Chicago Tribune, you'd be wrong.

Today's Tribune print edition makes no mention of yesterday's Tea Party Express protest in New Lenox, Illinois, located only 36 miles from Chicago's Loop.  The Southtown Star did cover the event on its Web site, noting:

About 6,000 people packed the hillside venue at The Commons Performing Arts Pavilion for the protest, part of a nationwide Tea Party Express tour that includes speeches, musical performances and updates from a traveling Fox News correspondent.

Monday's audience was the largest yet, organizers said.

Today's Tribune devotes two stories, six pictures, and two maps to Oprah Winfrey's "takeover of downtown Chicago Monday."  And there are stories on disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's media blitz to hawk his new book, Chicago students getting free haircuts with which to start the new school year, and how more stores are now accepting food stamps.

Then there's the story titled, "After all the fuss, president to urge kids: stay in school," complete with a photo of Obama smiling.  A large picture of a woman holding a "Health Care Can't Wait" sign accompanies an Obama's Labor Day AFL-CIO speech story, subtitled "President decries 'lies' about health care plans, says debate time is over."

The Tribune even finds space to devote to an article to a suburban man who's installed a faux drawbridge for his Tudor-style home.

Yet the Chicago Tribune, with "The Midwest's largest reporting team," doesn't report on a true grassroots phenomenon.  As this is written, there's no mention of the story on the newspaper's Web site either.  Maybe the mainstream media are just hoping that if they ignore them long enough, Tea Parties, and the people who attend them, will just go away.  I don't think so.     

In yesterday's Chicago Sun-Times, columnist Mary Mitchell lauds Fred Hampton, a Black Panther leader killed 40 years ago by police.  In "Hampton's forgotten legacy:  Today's youth can learn something from Black Panther leader's humanitarian deeds," Mitchell soft-pedals the Panthers' extensive history of violence and radical politics in favor of citing some of Hampton's alleged good works:

He stood up for disadvantaged
People in Chicago are still so divided over Hampton that, a couple of years ago, efforts to erect a street sign in his honor caused an uproar.
Hampton will always be remembered by some for advocating violence.
But for many others -- those who benefitted from his courage -- he will always be remembered for giving hungry children a hot breakfast.
Or for opening a free walk-in health clinic on the West Side.
Or for trying to open a swimming pool, so poor black children could get relief from the heat.
Or for being a bold advocate for justice.

The Panthers' breakfast program for children has long been applauded, even by some conservatives, as a worthwhile endeavor.  Ignored are the severe problems associated with that program across the country.  Chicago was hardly an exception.

In September, 1969, the Chicago Tribune reported that money donated to the Black Panthers

"by merchants and other businessmen to feed breakfast to needy children appears to have been channeled by Panther officials to their own personal use, investigators for local and federal law enforcement agencies indicated after a close scrutiny of Panther activities.  The Tribune reported yesterday that the Panthers' breakfast program, which they claim feeds 3,500 school children a day, is almost nonexistent in Chicago.  Yet, the Panthers continue to solicit money and food to run the program."

The piece went on to identify program money given to Fred Hampton for a suit and books, as well as disbursements to other members.  One I found of particular interest since it involves a current U.S. Congressman:

Bobby Rush, the deputy minister of defense, is listed as receiving $145 on April 9. On the same day, the records show "Che" as the recipient of $20 for tires.  Investigators say that Che is Rush's nickname.

So did media exposure spur the Panthers to make good on their pledge to feed needy children?  In a word, no.  In January, 1970, the Chicago Tribune featured the story "Panther Free Food Project Barely Alive."  The article began:

The Black Panther party's program of feeding hungry school children is barely operating in Chicago, a survey by The Tribune disclosed yesterday.
It was found that only 44 youngsters actually showed up for the breakfasts at four locations yesterday, despite claims by Panther leaders that 1,000 children are being fed each week.

The report also noted:

Since Dec. 4, when Illinois Panther leaders Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were killed in a raid by state's attorney's police, investigators say the party has received many large cash donations for the program. . .
It was Hampton who last September claimed that the Panthers were feeding 3,000 to 4,000 children each week at three locations.  A Tribune survey found at that time showed that on most days the breakfast centers never opened and on others only a handful of children showed up.

Mary Mitchell writes that "Many of us did an (sic) poor job of passing on the spirit of men like Hampton."  Don't beat yourself up too much, Mary.  You liberals are still doing what you can, even 40 years later. 

On yesterday's The Situation Room, CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger spoke with host Suzanne Malveaux about polling done on ObamaCare:

MALVEAUX: Gloria, I want to start off with you.

One thing that the polls were showing is that most Americans, they support this idea of this public option, but they also believe that the president wants the government to take over the health care system.
Well, how does that -- how do you make sense of that?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, in fact, 53 percent believe that Obama wants to take over the health care system, and 42 percent say no. And I think what this shows is that the Republican PR about President Obama being big government, big deficit, big spender, has really taken hold over the congressional recess. People believe that he wants big government.   

What Borger is missing here is that the principal reason Americans view Obama as a big government, big deficit, big spending liberal is because he is.  "Republican PR" might emphasize that simple truth, but the facts speak for themselves and many Americans would have arrived at the same conclusion regardless.

Last month, The Heritage Foundation's Brian M. Riedl reviewed some updated statistics from Obama's own administration:

The Office of Management and Budget has released its annual mid-session review that updates the budget projections from this past May. They show that this year, Washington will spend $30,958 per household, tax $17,576 per household, and borrow $13,392 per household. The federal government will increase spending 22 percent this year to a peacetime-record 26 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). This spending is not just temporary: President Obama would permanently keep annual spending between $5,000 and $8,000 per household higher than it had been under President George W. Bush.

Admittedly, most citizens don't know those precise numbers.  At the same time, as they see Obama's heavy hand of government interference intruding more and more into our daily lives, as they see budget projections that even a year ago were unimaginable, as they come to a realization that there aren't enough "rich" people to fund more socialist schemes, they see Obama for what he is.

That doesn't require Republican PR.  Is they weren't so biased, even the mainstream media could figure it out. 

 Yesterday on The Situation Room, CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger discussed President Obama's rapidly declining approval ratings.  A question was posed by host Suzanne Malveaux:

MALVEAUX: What does it mean, Gloria, for the president to be losing out on these Independents?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: I think it's a real possible for him. Remember that President Obama won the election with 52 percent of Independent voters. That number is down considerably to 43 percent, and Independents are the margin of difference here for him.

Now, the key to keeping those people is, right now, they are worried about the deficit. They see the president as a big spender. They see him aligned with so-called liberal leaders in the Democratic Congress. So, what he's got to do when -- after Labor Day is kind of show them that he is the kind of so-called post-partisan president that many of them thought they were electing.

The good news for President Obama in this is that they are not realigning themselves with the Republicans yet, because the Republican Party still has very high disapproval ratings.

Now, Jessica, you've been watching something as well, which it looks like to be a generational gap in these numbers.

Borger's choice of words was revealing.  By using "so-called," she introduced an element of doubt as to whether Congressional Democratic leaders are, in fact, liberal.  Synonyms listed at thesaurus.com include pretended, dubious, and questionable.

I don't see there's any question as to if the Democratic leadership in Congress is liberal.  These are the folks who, spurred on by Obama, have given us unprecedented spending and deficits, expanded federal meddling in the private sector, and are now attempting to take over the one-sixth of the economy represented by health care.  It's no coincidence that last July's deficit was bigger than that for all of 2007.  Americans for Tax Reform calculated that this year's Cost of Government Day, the day on which the average American has earned enough gross income to pay off his or her share of the spending and regulatory burdens imposed by government at all levels, fell on August 12, a full 26 days later than just last year.

I can only shudder in imagining what damage would be wrought if Obama aligned himself with real liberal leaders in the Democratic Congress rather than Borger's "so-called" ones.   

Washington Post television critic Tom Shales conducts an online discussion on Tuesdays.  Today's session featured this exchange:

Dunn Loring, Va.: Re your column disparaging Liz Cheney's style, what was the last column you wrote so harshly criticizing a liberal pundit?

Tom Shales: Ah yes, it's our dear old Dunn Loringite. Dunn Loringer. Whatever. You have an ideological axe to grind and it's awfully predictable. Where do you get the idea that if someone criticizes a conservative they must also criticize a liberal? Is there some kind of "equal time" law or "fairness doctrine" that applies to everybody who says anything that is broadcast or cablecast? That's absurd. CONSERVATIVES DOMINATE THE BROADCAST AND CABLE MEDIA IN THIS COUNTRY. They have very little to complain about in terms of access to an audience. When was the last time you criticized a conservative? It's a meaningless question whichever way it is asked.

Shales disparages the questioner for having an ideological axe to grind, something he no doubt has never been accused of himself .  Later, there's a follow up question:

Reston, Va.: Tom, I'll give you that conservatives have got the radio all sewn up (mostly because nobody listens to liberal radio shows so they die), but how do conservatives dominate cable media? FOX is only one channel, up against CNN, MSNBC, and don't forget ABC, NBC, CBS, and PBS. Sure FOX's ratings beat MSNBC and CNN and PBS put together, but that's about viewer choice. Clearly on TV, liberals have more voices, but like radio, less people watch them. . ..

Tom Shales: MSNBC as a "liberal" soap box is a somewhat recent development. Frankly I don't like ideology-based channels no matter what they're selling. They're mostly preach-to-the-choir things anyway, so I shouldn't let them bother me. Maybe there are more liberal voices on TV but that didn't stop America from electing Ronald Reagan and not by a Bush mini-margin either.

So in a matter of minutes, Shales goes from all caps certainty to "Maybe there are more liberal voices on TV. . ."  His certitude is challenged by another participant:

Atlanta, Ga.: Tom, I'm a big fan, but can you explain this sentence?
CONSERVATIVES DOMINATE THE BROADCAST AND CABLE MEDIA IN THIS COUNTRY
I think you meant to write that Liberals dominate the broadcast and cable media in the country. True, Fox News has the highest cable ratings, but other left-leaning outlets on cable and, certainly, network television are more numerous than right-leaning.
Do you have examples of the conservative dominance?

Tom Shales: Well now let me see. The networks are all owned by Big Business and Big Businessmen certainly tend to be conservatives. The Fox News Channel isn't a minor detail to be lumped in with other networks; it is a 24-hour-a-day conservative propaganda machine; MSNBC is liberal only during prime-time and late-night, don't you think? Phil Donahue is off the air and has been for years; he was too "liberal." Perhaps with a liberal in the White House, the pendulum WILL swing the other way for a while. . .

So then he's reverting to his first assertion, with a mild slap at those businessmen, like George Soros and Jeffrey Immelt probably, who tend to be conservative.

Shales appears to be confused.  That condition likely is a great credential in the mainstream media.  

AARP the Magazine boasts a circulation that's seven times greater than that of Time.  For the first half of this year, AARP the Magazine's circulation averaged more than 24 million copies.

AARP claims it's a "nonpartisan organization," an assertion increasingly challenged by senior citizens.  The magazine's September-October issue may give members more evidence for that conclusion.  It carries a cover story on rocker Bruce Springsteen, prominent in the presidential campaigns of both Barack Obama and John Kerry.  The piece is adulatory, noting that Springsteen at his upcoming concerts "will play several roles - hero, leader, preacher, rebel - the performances unfolding like a novel."

The magazine devotes several pages to observations from his friends.  One is liberal activist Bonnie Raitt:

It was an incredible boost when Bruce committed to joining the No Nukes concerts.  From the groundbreaking Amnesty International tour, to helping stop Contra aid in the '80s, to a steady stream of benefits, I don't know if any American artist has made as profound a difference.

Other Springsteen friends quoted are author Ron Kovic, Jersey Girl and "truth commission" advocate Kristen Breitweiser, and Senator John Kerry, who states of the singer: "In good times and bad, he had my back. . ."

In another article, "Jill Biden's 'Acts of Kindness,'" the vice president's wife is interviewed.  It starts:

Last spring President Barack Obama signed a $5.7 billion bill that, among other things, provides stipends and scholarships to citizens over 55 who contribute their skills and time to communities in need.

We're relieved to learn that Jill "Biden has emerged, along with First Lady Michelle Obama, as one of the more visible and enthusiastic foot soldiers for the White House in its campaign to encourage Americans to give back."

It's good the Biden's are giving something back.  In 2007 and with an adjusted gross income of more than $300,000, the Bidens gave a paltry $995 to charity.  

A third piece, "The New Patriotism," begins:

Presidents since Lincoln have urged us to follow our "better angels."  Now Barack Obama's call for national service is inspiring a new era of people helping people.
If the Stars and Stripes are the truest symbol of national pride, then patriotism seems to be flying high.  You can feel it as much as see it.  At coffee bars in Seattle, in midwestern farm communities, on college campuses, in New York City subways, Americans from all walks of life - old, young, white, black, Republican and Democratic - are fervently, happily, waving the flag, both literally and figuratively, and bursting with a renewed spirit that is helping redefine what it means to be a patriot.

After several more sentences of recounting the pure joy, "a welcome shift in mood," we're told it's "fueled in part by President Barack Obama's resonant and reiterated call to service. . . "

AARP the Magazine doesn't devote all its pages to promoting Obama, of course.  It also carries vital news, like informing its readers that "The Norman Lear Collection" is now available on DVD.

Two weeks ago, CBS News reported up to 60,000 people had canceled their AARP memberships since July 1; these were attributed to AARP's position on health care reform.  AARP the Magazine and its fawning coverage of Obama and other liberals aren't likely to draw these former members back.