As one who's been critical of CNN's Lou Dobbs a time or two, I was glad to see him and correspondents Louise Schiavone and Kitty Pilgrim perform a valuable public service on Friday's edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight.  They detailed political contributions made by finance, insurance and real estate firms to four members of Congress taking lead roles in crafting the Wall Street bailout:

DOBBS: Just four members of Congress will lead the negotiations of what President Bush and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want to be the largest government bailout in history. Democrats, Senator Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Congressman Frank, Chairman, House Financial Services Committee. Republicans Senator Judd Gregg, ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, Congressman Roy Blunt, House Minority Whip.

That's your lineup, folks and over the past two decades, those four men have accepted almost $20 million in donations from finance, insurance and real estate firms. Yes, the very same firms that stand to benefit from that almost trillion dollar federal bailout.

We have two reports tonight. We begin with Louise Schiavone and the Democrats.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): As the financial world awaits a lifeline from Washington, they're looking to friends in Congress whom they've helped over the years. Friends who have stood by in key committees as debts bloomed and regulation waned.

DANIEL CLIFTON, STRATEGAS RESEARCH PARTNERS: They had politicians on both sides of the aisle that were pushing for easier credit. Chairman Frank and Chairman Dodd have been the facilitators of that on the committees. And moving forward legislation that has created a lot of this systematic risk that we are facing.

SCHIAVONE: According to Opensecrets.org, the Web site for the Center for Responsive Politics, on the Democratic side from 1989 to present, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd has accepted a total of $13,205,556 in campaign contributions, both in PAC and individual money, from the finance, insurance of real estate sectors.

MASSIE RITSCH, CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS: The last time that Congress took out the structure of the financial industry, Senator Dodd supported letting banks get even larger and get into new lines of riskier businesses.

SCHIAVONE: House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank has accepted a total of $2,494,611 in campaign contributions from the same sectors. In Frank's case, top donors include employees from the American Bankers Association, the company that's just bought Washington Mutual, JPMorgan Chase, and the National Association of Realtors. In the case of Senator Dodd, top donors include Citigroup, Bear Stearns and JPMorgan Chase. Dodd and Frank now play key roles in bailout talks.

JD FOSTER, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Certainly Congress bears some responsibility for this coming to pass. There are a lot of federal policies that contributed to the current situation.

SCHIAVONE: House Financial Services Committee Chairman Frank told LOU DOBBS TONIGHT quote, "specifically, I have been a consistent supporter of strong consumer protection, support for adequately funded affordable housing, and support for efficient functioning of financial institutions in our economy, and I find no contradiction in working for all three objectives."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCHIAVONE: Lou, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Dodd had no comment for us. But in this instance, the three objectives outlined by Frank appear to have been at cross-purposes, with homeowners threatened by institutions near collapse, the economy in shambles and consumers on the hook for a massive bailout -- Lou.

DOBBS: Louise, thank you very much. Louise Schiavone. Well let's turn our attention now to the Republicans, represented by Senator Greg and Congressman Blunt, the second ranking Republican in the House.

Kitty Pilgrim now with the Republicans.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Congressman Roy Blunt and Senator Judd Gregg are no strangers to the banking industry. According to OpenSecrets.org, the Web site for the Center for Responsive Politics, Congressman Roy Blunt's top political donors are in securities, investment, real estate and commercial banks, contributing an estimated $2 million over the course of his career.

And this year alone, employees and political action committees from financial and securities firms gave $144,000. Commercial banks contributed $83,000. And real estate contributed $107,000. Blunt, who is up for re-election this year, has a history of supporting business and has given a 93 percent approval rating by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for voting in their interest. Bill Allison is with the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan group that advocates greater government transparency.

BILL ALLISON, SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION: He's also been somebody who's been very much, again, a creature of Kay Street (ph) and very much -- lobbyists have had his ear and he's been very much kind of an insider in terms of how he's run his or how he's you know functioned in Washington.

PILGRIM: Blunt also voted back in 1999 to roll back banking regulations and sided with the banking industry on overhauling the bankruptcy code in 2005 to make consumers repay more of their debt during bankruptcy. Senator Judd Gregg's top funding sources this election year are the securities and insurance industries which provide 21 percent of its funding.

RITSCH: Since Senator Gregg has been in Congress, he's collected about $1 million from the financial sector and the industries that are most interested in this bailout. The insurance industry is his number one contributor.

PILGRIM: Citigroup is listed as the number four top contributor in this election year. Senator Judd Gregg has a Chamber of Commerce ranking voting 88 percent of the time pro business.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: Now, public advocacy and watchdog groups say because of the deep ties to business and banking, members of Congress involved in crafting the bailout should not be allowed to negotiate behind closed doors without the knowledge of the public -- Lou.

DOBBS: Well in point of fact, and Judd Gregg, how much has he taken from...

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: $1 million.

(CROSSTALK)

PILGRIM: Yes.

DOBBS: Well he and -- I mean that's sort of shocking. He and Blunt are pikers (ph). I mean Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank have been making them look silly. I mean you're talking tremendous sums of money on the Democratic side. I'm a little embarrassed for the Republicans. They're supposed to be the party of business and they're not getting their fair share of the business.

Dobbs is right.  The Republicans received chump change compared to the bucks pulled down by their Democratic counterparts.  Then again, it seems to me that the Democrats bear considerably more culpability for the financial quagmire we find ourselves in.

More than a year ago, the $13 million man Dodd told CNN's Gerri Willis that predatory lenders were responsible for the impending mortgage crisis: "The fact that any reputable banker or lender would make these kinds of loans so widely available to wage-earners, to elderly families on fixed incomes, or to lower-income, unsophisticated borrowers, strikes me as unconscionable and deceptive." This is the same Dodd who for years has demanded, along with Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Jesse Jackson, that lenders make loans to "lower-income, unsophisticated borrowers."  Unsophisticated folks have been a core Democratic constituency for decades.

Then there's $2.5 million Barney Frank, who was quoted by the New York Times in 2003:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Lou Dobbs deserves commendation for detailing the money trail.   Politicians immersed in developing the bailout need to be watched carefully.  Their past performances justify little optimism for the legislation they'll draft. We know who's going to pay. With these characters, the big question will be who benefits.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank appeared as a guest on the September 24 "Lou Dobbs Tonight". Just minutes before interviewing the Massachusetts Democrat, Dobbs featured a report from CNN correspondent Louise Schiavone on political contributions made by mortgage financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Schiavone stated Frank has received more than $42,000. His party's standard bearer, Barack Obama, has gotten over $126,000.

Yet Dobbs didn't even question Frank about taking those contributions from two of the major institutions involved in the present financial crisis. Or perhaps he could have asked Frank about what he told the New York Times in 2003:

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Moreover, he could have asked Frank if his relationship with the former director of housing initiatives for Fannie Mae, a man Barney considered his lover, had anything to do with the congressman's view that everything was hunky-dory over there.

Dobbs could have inquired what specific oversight Frank, who has been either the ranking Democrat or the chairman of the financial services committee for several years, and his committee had exercised over financial institutions. According to its Web site, Frank's committee "oversees all components of the nation's housing and financial services sectors including banking, insurance, real estate, public and assisted housing, and securities." How's that working out for you, Barney?

Rather than getting some substantive responses from Frank, Dobbs was satisfied with asking process questions about how the bailout package is developing. He also gave Frank a platform to parrot a few Democratic talking points:

DOBBS: What you're basically talking about, the Republicans are going to get this administration is going to get a bailout of Wall Street. The Democrats are going to get a new deal. And the result is going to be what? A nationalized --

FRANK: No. Nothing nationalized. The ownership we're going to take is going to have no voting rights. I don't think it's Wall Street -- here is the problem, a lack of regulation going back to Ronald Reagan allowed the private sector to make the mistakes that put us in this situation.

DOBBS: May I point out that the President Jimmy Carter is the one who started deregulation in 1978. The partisan thing doesn't work for me.

FRANK: I'm not being partisan. If you'd stop interrupting me -- he never said it was the problem. He never said government is dumb and markets are smart. I'm sorry, Lou. We're not going to have a serious conversation. Jimmy Carter is very different from Ronald Reagan. He moved for regulations in two specific industries, but we're talking about not about whether or not you lack regulation or if you have no regulation. And Carter never regulated the financial markets.

All in all, a pretty disappointing performance from Dobbs. Is he worried Barney and friends won't appear on his program if he questions why they've ignored, or in some instances aggravated, the problems leading to the current financial mess?

There's a heartwarming story in today's Times of Northwest Indiana.  Jane Pauley, one-time co-host of NBC's Today and Dateline NBC programs, made an appearance yesterday for Barack Obama.  Joining her was Steve Skvara, the retired steelworker who in August of last year tearfully asked Democratic presidential candidates at a debate, "What's wrong with America? And what will you do to change it?" The Times reported:

PORTAGE  Former television news anchor and Hoosier native Jane Pauley returned to her professional roots Monday during a local appearance on behalf of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

Pauley, who said she worked for the state Democratic Party before launching her successful news career, took part in a panel discussion aimed at touting the benefits of Obama's economic plans for Hoosiers over that of his Republican challenger John McCain.

While the subject matter was complex at times, Pauley occasionally took the opportunity to inject partisan humor into the discussion.

"Why would you want a maverick when you've had a cowboy in the White House for two terms already?" she asked, referring to McCain's description of himself.

Alas, Jane's witty comment didn't enjoy as much currency as it deserved.  That's because only eight people showed up for the rally.  Late notice was cited for the pathetic turnout.

The small gathering didn't discourage Skvara, a favorite with the Communist People's Weekly World.  He gave the obligatory McCain "scares me to death" statement and continued:

He said McCain opposes federal rules and regulations and yet that has repeatedly led to catastrophes, whether it was the savings and loan crisis during the 1990s or the current mortgage crisis.

Playing off President Bush's claims of wanting to put more control into people's hands as part of an "ownership society," Skvara said the country is headed in the opposite direction.

"It's going to be the homeless society," he said.

Last year Steve tugged on liberal heartstrings with his plaintive, "What's wrong with America?"  That only eight people showed up to see the Pauley-Skvara duo supporting Obama is evidence of what's right with America.  

Not long ago, many in the mainstream media were bemoaning the deterioration of public discourse in this year's presidential campaign.  Stories of lipsticks and pigs and other nongermane matters were irrelevant and time-wasters, they tut-tutted.  Let's get back to the real issues.

So the September 29, 2008 Newsweek strikes a blow for substantive journalism and giving voters information they really need to know.  "All the Candidates’ Cars" begins:

When you have seven homes, that's a lot of garages to fill. After the fuss over the number of residences owned by the two presidential nominees, NEWSWEEK looked into the candidates' cars. And based on public vehicle-registration records, here's the score. John and Cindy McCain: 13. Barack and Michelle Obama: one.

The article goes on to detail the vehicles, pointing out that some McCain cars were not - get out the smelling salts - made in America.  If readers make it through this piece they'll learn in the last paragraph that of all the McCain rides, "Only the Cadillac is registered in the candidate's name."

They could have investigated more thoroughly.  Somehow, I can't imagine Michell Obama standing on a Chicago corner waiting for the bus.  Then again, reporting that would have ruined an otherwise perfect story.

Stirring up a little class envy must be an example of the intrepid, hard-hitting journalism the mainstream media were demanding only days ago.  Fortunately, they're going to "educate" voters on the critical issues that genuinely matter.

I'd rather read about Sarah's lipstick.

Friday on CNN's American Morning, network correspondent Alina Cho conducted a "reality check" of a John McCain ad that labels Barack Obama the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate.  These "fact checks" are increasingly popular in the mainstream media this presidential year.  Cho started:

ALINA CHO, CNN, CORRESPONDENT: Good morning. And a whole team of researchers, John, the truth squad as you're calling it, and we're starting today with a charge that the McCain campaign has been making against Barack Obama's voting record. Out on the campaign trail, John McCain has been calling Obama's record the most liberal in the Senate. Many people have heard that. The charge was also leveled early this month at an ad comparing Sarah Palin to Obama. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The "Journal" says Governor Palin's credentials as an agent of reform exceed Barack Obama's. They are right.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He has a record of bipartisan reform.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's the Senate's most liberal.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She took on oil producers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He gave big oil billions in subsidies in giveaways.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She's earned a reputation as a reformer.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: His reputation, empty words.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHO: Well there's the ad. Here's the reality check. The "National Journal Magazine" which bills itself as a non-partisan publication did report recently that Obama moved so far to the left last year that he did rank the most liberal senator after ranking 16th and 10th most liberal in his first two years in the Senate.

But the Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal activist group disagrees.  No surprise there.  The group says when you look at Obama's entire Senate voting record, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy actually have higher liberal ratings.  So is Obama the most liberal senator? The verdict, true, according to the "National Journal." But this is the only source we could find. Other groups say liberal but not the most liberal.

So, John as you can see, not always black and white and this is where the campaigns seize on it and use to it their advantage as you well know after covering politics for a very long time.

Using the words "not always black and white" may steer viewers to conclude that the McCain ad is less than accurate.  Cho's declaration on the ad's veracity: "The verdict, true, according to the 'National Journal.'  But this is the only source we could find" is misleading.  The only source cited in the McCain ad was the National Journal, with a shot of the Web page designating Obama the most liberal senator in 2007 and the words "most liberal" captioned below it.

Cho states that that Americans for Democratic Action says other senators have higher career liberal ratings.  That may be true, but the McCain ad didn't speak in terms of lifetime voting records.  Moreover, the reason for Obama's receiving a relatively low 75 percent rating from the ADA for 2007 is because he missed votes, probably because of campaigning.  On every single measure on which he did vote, Obama embraced the liberal ADA position.

So where does "not always black and white" fit in?  Clearly it doesn't apply to the McCain ad Cho did a "reality check" on.

And noting that the National Journal "bills itself as a non-partisan publication," is a nice touch from CNN, which, as has been reported multiple times on NewsBusters, identifies some obviously partisan organizations as non-partisan merely because they "bill" themselves that way.

This isn't the first media report - nor will it be the last - that suggests a McCain ad is less than correct.  That may well be right in some instances, but it's worth our time to fact check the fact checkers before buying into their findings.   

On PBS's Web site today, ombudsman Michael Getler writes of complaints over an incident during last Sunday's pledge drive.  He describes the cheap shot taken by actor Mike Farrell against vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin:

According to Joseph Campbell, vice president of fundraising programs, here's what happened:

"During the broadcast of 'The 60s Live!: My Generation, My Music,' a special featuring Eric Burdon (of the Animals), the Mamas and the Papas, Roger McGuinn (of the Byrds) and others, celebrity host Mike Farrell made an unscripted remark regarding the presidency of the United States. Mr. Farrell's spontaneous comment was entirely unplanned and does not represent the views of PBS, its employees or its member stations."

Campbell explained that, aside from performance clips by many stars of the 60s and pledge breaks featuring station-produced testimonials, a number of celebrities appeared live, including Farrell. "He made the comment live and gave us no indication of his intentions. Immediately after he went off the air he was confronted about his comments and promised that he would stay 'on script' for the remainder of the telecast, and did."

The exact exchange is as follows:

While Farrell is introducing Michelle Phillips of the Mamas and Papas, Phillips says: "People may even know us as boyfriend and girlfriend from (the TV show) 'Providence.'" Then Farrell says: "'Providence' that's right. Now I've been thinking about the fact that with all your qualities and the fact that you don't know anything about economics or foreign policy that you could be in line for the Presidency!"

Getler rightly notes that making political statements while asking viewers for contributions "is just plain stupid, and contradictory to the purpose and credibility of PBS."  He includes a sampling of letters received, all of which are critical. 

Actor Mike Farrell's extremely liberal views and eagerness to voice them are well known and his comment should not have been totally unexpected.  Still, at least PBS is recognizing that - at least during fundraisers - it's prudent to dial down the bias.

CNN's Situation Room today featured a Wolf Blitzer interview with former Defense Secretary William Cohen.  As a lead in to the interview, White House correspondent Elaine Quijano reported on President Bush's actions to quiet the country's financial jitters.  She wrapped up:

QUIJANO: Meantime, fellow Republicans are blasting the Bush administration, questioning why taxpayer dollars are being used to bail out private firms, and they say officials did not consult with them ahead of time. But the White House says, officials did the best that they could amid the fast-moving crisis -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, Elaine, thanks very much. Let's assess what's going on with the former Defense Secretary William Cohen, a former U.S. senator. He's chairman and CEO of the Cohen Group here in Washington.

First of all, you were a Republican member of the House, a member of the Senate a long time. We're seeing these Republicans, including Republican leaders, now coming out pretty -- pretty critical of the president himself.

WILLIAM COHEN, CNN WORLD AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, Wolf, I said for many, many years, government is always the enemy, until you need a friend.

And I think that has been the posture, I think, of too many political leadership, always pointing the finger, saying, get government off our backs. You're nothing but a bunch of bureaucrats.

Well, bureaucrats are public servants, civil servants. The government is necessary. You can't have a totally unlimited free market economy without the government having some regulatory responsibility.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: So, what you're saying is, all this deregulation in recent years, some of it may have been counterproductive.

COHEN: What you need is a Goldilocks solution, not too heavy, not too light, not too hot, not too cold, something in which there is a regulatory scheme which in fact does oversee the responsibilities of the Congress and also the administration, to make sure that you don't have cowboys, basically, ignoring the fundamentals of our economy.

Interestingly, Blitzer didn't ask Cohen about his connection to American International Group (AIG).  Cohen serves on AIG's board of directors and has since his election to that position in 2004.

AIG, of course, received an $85 billion government bailout earlier this week.  Blitzer could have introduced a line of questions centering on what responsibilities board directors have in avoiding the turmoil that's afflicted the U.S. economy.  Were directors asleep at the switch?  What fiscal oversight should they have provided?  Does Cohen accept any personal responsibility for what's happened?

No such potentially embarrassing questions were asked.  Instead, Cohen was allowed to speak about the prudence of government intervention.  No doubt he thinks it's great AIG has "a friend" in Washington to prop it up.     

So what do you do if you're reporting on an MSNBC interview with McCain adviser Carly Fiorina in which she states that neither of the major party presidential candidates nor their vice presidential running mates qualify to run a major corporation?  If you're the folks at CNNPolitics.com, you headline the story "McCain adviser Fiorina: Palin not ready to run a corporation."

The MSNBC story, "If she can't run a major company..."  cites a recent Fiorina radio interview in which she was asked if Sarah Palin has the experience to run a major company like Hewlett-Packard, which Fiorina formerly served as CEO:

"No. I don't," Fiorina said. "But you know what? That's not what she's running for [laughs]. Running a corporation is a different set of things. I would just remind you that it is Barack Obama who is running for president, John McCain who is running for president. Sarah Palin has more executive experience than Barack Obama has. Barack Obama has never made an executive decision in his life. He has been a state senator and during his time there when a difficult issue came up, he voted present over 100 times instead of standing up and being accountable to a yes or no vote. He has been in the U.S. Senate for a very short period of time and has been running for office most of that time.
 
"Sarah Palin as a mayor and a governor has made executive decisions, challenged her own party, taken accountability for those decisions, so I find it quite stunning actually that the Barack Obama campaign is questioning Sarah Palin's experience who's got more executive experience than he does -- and she's the vice presidential nominee. Barack Obama is the presidential nominee."

But later she told NBC's (Andrea) Mitchell that neither McCain nor Obama nor Biden were qualified to run a major corporation.
 
"Well, I don't think John McCain could run a major corporation; I don't think Barack Obama could run a major corporation; I don't think Joe Biden could run a major corporation. 

CNNPolitics.com started its report:

Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO turned top John McCain aide, said she doesn't think Sarah Palin is qualified to run a major corporation. For that matter, Fiorina said, McCain, Obama and Biden aren't capable of that kind of job either.

To the right of CNN's headline are "Story Highlights."  These are listed in this order:

Carly Fiorina also tells MSNBC John McCain isn't ready to run a corporation
Fiorina was the CEO of Hewlett-Packard and is now a McCain adviser
She also says Barack Obama, Joe Biden not ready to be CEOs

So even though the former HP CEO went out of her way to praise Palin and to point out that governance requires different skill sets than business, CNN chose to highlight Palin's supposed inadequacies. 

This just shows, once again, that skimming mainstream media headlines can be very misleading.  Even - perhaps especially  - if the Web site is run by the self-styled "most trusted name in news."

With Barack Obama losing his lead in a variety of polls, CNN anchor John Roberts on American Morning today decided to look elsewhere for encouragement.  He and CNN London correspondent Becky Anderson, with the bottom of the screen announcing, "The world wants Obama," looked at a BBC poll showing that, at least among foreigners, Obama is still a superstar:

ROBERTS: It has been said that politics is a popularity contest. And according to a new BBC Poll, Barack Obama is more popular among people overseas. CNN's Becky Anderson is looking at the poll results for us this morning. She is live right there by Carnaby Street in London.

Good morning to you, Becky.

BECKY ANDERSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, John.

You're absolutely right. An overwhelming majority of the 22,000 people who are polled across 22 countries around the world favor an Obama presidency. Now, let's be honest. Obama did have an advantage going into this campaign as far as the rest of the world is, was and will be concerned, John. It's anybody but Bush. And by dent of association, therefore, anyone but John McCain.

So, let's take a look at these numbers, shall we. And see what's surprising about them. What isn't surprising is you get something like an 82 percent approval rating for Obama. In Kenya, for example, is where many of his siblings, step siblings, members of his family live. They like, know Obama. They like him, they know him, and know a lot about him, and they want him for presidency.

Perhaps more surprisingly, John, is when you look at the numbers from NATO allies. For example Canada, France, Germany, good approval rating of over 50 percent for Obama. And these are people who dealt with the Bush administration in the past and are looking for international affairs, foreign policy and experience in both of those. So, that's where perhaps the numbers are a bit more surprising.

Anderson then mentioned that in 2004 Monsieur John Kerry also enjoyed substantial foreign support, although not quite as much as The One.  The report continued: 

ROBERTS: So, Becky, overseas, President Bush has got very long coattails that John McCain seems to be attached to. But here in the United States, John McCain is presenting himself as an agent of change now. He's going back to that maverick attitude that he had back in the year 2000, and it's starting to work among some independents. Is there anything he can say to change opinion worldwide?

ANDERSON: It's interesting, isn't it? I wondered whether there might be, a few weeks ago, until he took Sarah Palin on to the ticket. That's been interesting to see people react to Sarah Palin and John McCain as an item, because there's an awful lot of skepticism about Sarah Palin.

When you hear words like creationism, when you hear words like -- or phrases like, I don't support the arguments for global warming, for example, it's arguments like that and it's a Sarah Palin ticket, I think, which is, to a certain extent hurting John McCain.

There really isn't very much, it seems, that he can say or do at this point, even on foreign policy interestingly enough -- John.

ROBERTS: We should point out, though, that only people in the United States, people who are Americans, get the opportunity to vote. But it's interesting to look at that worldwide opinion. Becky Anderson for us this morning. Becky, thanks very much.

Roberts's question asking if there's anything McCain can do to change foreign opinion is revealing.  In a world that harbors substantial anti-Americanism, why should a candidate for the United States presidency worry about the paper tiger of overseas opinion?

According to Anderson, the deal breaker for McCain was when Sarah Palin joined the ticket.  Foreigners may not have cheered, but Americans certainly have.  Perhaps, like some in the mainstream media here, people overseas object to her not having traveled to Europe or not even appearing on "Meet the Press."

Concluding by pointing out that only Americans get to vote for president suggests Roberts must not have much respect for his viewers' intelligence.  That's rather common knowledge.  Or maybe it just annoys him that foreigners can't help determine our elections.  

On Saturday, CNN presented the special "Joe Biden Revealed." 

Anchored by Abbie Boudreau, the show touched on why Biden dropped his 1988 presidential bid. 

Discussing it with Boudreau was Senior Biden adviser Ted Kaufman (Kinnock spelled incorrectly throughout transcript):

BOUDREAU (on camera): Do you think he was ready at that point to become president?

KAUFMAN: Yes, I think he was ready to become president.

BOUDREAU (voice-over): On June 9th, 1987, Biden in his home state of Delaware announced that he would run for president. He says fewer than one in five Americans even knew who he was.

BIDEN: Today, I announce my candidacy for president of the United States of America.

BOUDREAU: It was his first time on the national stage, and Biden seemed to love it.

BIDEN: I'm here to have you look me over, and if you like what you see, I'd like your help.

PROF. JOSEPH PIKA, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Biden is the kind of guy that is very charming when you meet him in person. He has got a megawatt smile and he's very attentive. He's very interested in the people that he meets. When you meet Joe Biden, you are impressed and you remember the encounter.

BIDEN: Hello, again. I'm Biden.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Live from the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines.

BOUDREAU: One of the primaries major events, a forum of the legendary Iowa State Fair. It was August, 1987.

BIDEN: I started thinking as I was coming over here, why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university?

BOUDREAU: But his speech sounded familiar. Just like a speech by British Politician, Neil Kinnick.

NEIL KINNICK, BRITISH POLITICIAN: What am I? The first Kinnick in a thousand generations...

BIDEN: Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university?

KINNICK: Why is Kinnick is the first woman in her family.

BIDEN: Why is it that my wife, who is sitting out there in the audience, is the first in her family to ever go to college?

BOUDREAU: Biden had attributed Kinnick's speech many times before, but this time he didn't give credit. Three weeks later, it was front page news. Joe Biden was accused of plagiarism.

KAUFMAN: And the irony is after the speech was over, he was standing around with some of our advisers, and somebody said, hey, you didn't attribute it. Everybody kind of agreed -- well, let's not make a big fuss of this note, because the press has already heard him attribute it so many times before.

BOUDREAU: One week later, more plagiarism charges. The press was zeroing in. Biden held a news conference to address the crisis and to admit he failed to properly footnote a portion of a law school paper. He claimed he misunderstood the rules of citation.

BIDEN: I made no mistake in my view in using the Kinnick quote, and on all but one occasion to the best of my knowledge, I attributed directly to Kinnick, or I even went and told the whole story about Kinnick. I'm in this race to win and here I come. Thanks a lot, folks.

BOUDREAU: But six days later, a complete turnaround.

BIDEN: The exaggerated shadow of those mistakes has begun to obscure the essence of my candidacy and the essence of Joe Biden. I've concluded that I will stop being a candidate for president of the United States.

CNN didn't detail the extent of Biden's deceptions.  David Broder and Eleanor Randolph wrote in the September 17, 1987 Washington Post:

After that (Kinnock) report, individuals associated with other campaigns pointed out to reporters other passages from Biden speeches containing nearly verbatim repetitions, without acknowledgement, of lines first uttered by the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy (D-N.Y.) and former vice president and senator Hubert H. Humphrey (D-Minn.).

A week later, the Minneapolis Star Tribune's Cliff Haas reported:

Biden's Feb. 3 speech at the California state democratic convention echoed almost word for word parts of speeches Robert Kennedy gave in 1967 and 1968 during his presidential campaign. Biden did not attribute his remarks to Kennedy.

The same story summarized Biden's plagiarism in law school:

On Sept. 17 academic officials revealed that Biden was accused of plagiarism in 1965, his first year at Syracuse University Law School. Biden admitted that he copied five pages of material from a law review without attribution in a term paper for a legal methods course. He received an F for a grade, which was changed to a B when he repeated the course.

Also noted was:

In a heated exchange with a questioner at an April 3 political gathering, Biden claimed that he graduated in the top half of his law school class, received a full academic scholarship, won an international moot court competition, won an award as outstanding political science student and graduated from the University of Delaware with three degrees. In fact Biden graduated 76th in his law school class of 85, had only a half-scholarship based on financial need, was only nominated to be named outstanding political science student and graduated from Delaware with a single B.A. in political science and history. Biden later said that he exaggerates when he is angry.

He sure does, managing to turn a single degree into three and graduating in the top half of his class when the reality is he was ninth from the bottom.  Copying five pages without attribution is considerably more than an innocent failure "to properly footnote a portion of a law school paper."

Joe Biden wasn't truly revealed in "Joe Biden Revealed."  His numerous duplicities over an extended period of time warranted more specifics than those provided by CNN.  Just a guess, but I imagine the network would have covered similar failings by Sarah Palin in much greater depth.   

"Palin should be laughingstock to all feminists" is the title of Mary Mitchell's column in today's Chicago Sun-Times.  In that calm, detached tone readers have come to expect, Mitchell begins:

Sarah Palin makes me sick. I hate that she was able to steal Barack Obama's mojo just by showing up wearing rimless glasses and a skirt.

I hate that she makes Joe Biden look like John McCain and John McCain look like the maverick he is not.

I hate that Palin reminds me of Susan Sarandon's feisty character in "Thelma & Louise." I loved Sarandon in that movie, yet I couldn't stand Palin's feistiness at the Republican National Convention.

Sarah Palin makes me sick -- not because she may speak in tongues -- but because she is a fast talker.

Not even ABC's Charlie Gibson can slow Palin's mouth.

There's yet another reason Mitchell's feeling nauseated:

Sarah Palin makes me sick because although black Democrats have been responsible for giving white candidates the boost they needed to beat their Republican opponents in tight races, these voters are now being insulted by feminists who say they will cross over into the McCain camp because of her.

So we know Mitchell's primary symptom, but what's the underlying cause?  As it turns out, it's an all too common complaint among the many suffering from Palin Derangement Syndrome:

"Frankly, Sarah Palin scares me."

Don't feel lonely, Mary.  It's going around these days.

Former New York mayor Ed Koch says of Palin, "She scares the hell out of me."  Actor Matt Damon calls the GOP vice presidential candidate "terrifying."  New Republic editor Noam Scheiber writes:

The reason Palin scares me has more to do with mechanics than demographics: Palin is such a sensation, and draws such large crowds, that anything she says--particularly attacks on Obama--immediately become part of the campaign conversation.

 "Rock matriarch" - I guess that's a nice way of putting it - Sharon Osbourne admits, "I’m scared of that woman with the glasses and gun! Ugh!"       
And at a Web site that boasts "the latest in green gossip," we learn that singer Pink "is terrified of Sarah Palin, says she 'hates women.'"

The fear and terror engendered by Sarah Palin among Obamatons make Adrian Monk look like John Wayne.  Then again, this could be an opportunity.  Over at the official Barack Obama site, there's a group designated Pagans for Obama.  Perhaps the campaign could institute a group named Sissies for Obama.

Or would that be redundant?