In today's Chicago Sun-Times, columnist Carol Marin writes that "Jackson is off the stage, but not forgotten."  The article starts:

For the first time since 1984, after six successive appearances on the podium, the Rev. Jesse Jackson will not address the Democratic National Convention in Denver later this month.

There are people who will applaud that fact. I won't be among them.

In her tribute to Jackson, Marin claims that "the unassailable fact of the matter is that he helped set the stage for the history that has already been made this year as an African American and a woman finished first and second in the race to nomination."  Whether he indeed "helped set the stage" is in my mind questionable given Jackson's polarizing influence, but that's just a matter of opinion.

Then, however, Marin also asserts:

By the time the 1984 Democratic convention rolled around, the party finally got the message. Jackson had come in third behind Walter Mondale and Gary Hart. He'd picked up 18 percent of the vote and won contests in five states. He'd proved that whites, not only blacks, would vote for a black man.

This suggests that Jackson garnered substantial white support in his 1984 candidacy.  That isn't what happened.

The candidate himself admitted as much. The March 22, 1984 Boston Globe reported:

With the three Democratic presidential candidates looking anxiously toward the crucial New York primary in 12 days, Rev. Jesse L. Jackson yesterday accused white voters of having a "disregard for the intelligence of black people."

Jackson, who has had trouble attracting whites to his self-styled rainbow coalition, told reporters during a campaign visit to Virginia, "It's not my fault that whites over their history have developed a disregard for the intelligence of black people.

Reinforcement of stereotypes in the media also has hindered his candidacy, Jackson said, adding that blacks are depicted as "comic relief, singing, dancing, ballplaying . . . and generally less intelligent and hard-working."

And what of those primary victories Marin points to?  According to the May 3, 1984 Washington Post, "Jesse L. Jackson's overwhelming Democratic primary victory here Tuesday was a celebration of black political power in the District of Columbia, but it further underscored Jackson's inability to attract white support to his 'rainbow coalition.'"

Three days later the Post reported on Jackson's Louisiana win:

Jesse L. Jackson won his first state primary of the 1984 Democratic presidential campaign today because of an unusually large turnout of enthusiastic blacks and widespread apathy on the part of whites.

State officials had predicted that turnout would be less than 25 percent. It was about 18 percent, and Secretary of State Jim Brown said it was the lowest statewide voter turnout he could remember.

Later in the month, the Post looked at voting patterns and found:

Jackson seldom has drawn more than 5 or 6 percent of the white vote in the presidential primaries. In the new Post-ABC News poll, taken May 16-22, 5 percent of the registered white Democrats and independents who lean toward the Democrats said they preferred Jackson to Walter F. Mondale or Sen. Gary Hart (D-Colo.).

Marin's contention that Jackson proved that whites in substantial numbers would vote for a black man - at least that black man - for president isn't supported by history.

Yesterday's New York Times carried the story, "Indiana Senator Offers Obama Risks and Rewards."  The article focuses on Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, described as "one of the leading candidates to be the running mate of the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama."

The article notes:

Mr. Bayh and Mr. Obama made a joint campaign swing in Indiana last week that would have provided an opportunity for the Obama campaign to gauge the personal and political chemistry between the two men, who have worked together in the Senate on an initiative to promote responsible fatherhood — a signature issue for both.

“Evan has a lot of experience,” said Lee H. Hamilton, a former House member from Indiana and a respected Democratic elder. “He has got Hollywood good looks, and he speaks well. He would be very loyal.”

Mr. Bayh, whose father, Birch, was a liberal Democratic senator and presidential candidate in 1976, has compiled a moderate-to-conservative record both as governor of Indiana from 1988 to 1996 and as senator since 1999. He was first elected to state office in 1986 at age 30, as Indiana secretary of state.

A moderate-to-conservative record?  The Times itself continues:

In the past few years, Mr. Bayh has been a more reliably Democratic vote on social policy, and he opposed President Bush’s nominees to the Supreme Court.  But this spring, he frustrated Democratic leaders by holding out against new spending in the federal budget. But that reflects his fiscal conservatism; in Indiana, his record on cutting taxes as governor and leaving office with a $1.6 billion surplus is a hallmark.

Budget surpluses are not unusual for Indiana.  Even in today's "tough times," as incessantly painted by the media, Indiana ended the last fiscal year with $1.4 billion in its main checking account and primary savings accounts.

So let's briefly examine the rest of that moderate-to-conservative record.  Project Vote Smart collects ratings given by a wide variety of special-interest organizations.  Evan Bayh's record shows that in 2007, NARAL Pro-Choice America gave him a grade of 100, as did the AFL-CIO and the Children's Defense Fund.  The Americans for Democratic Action assigned him a 95 percent rating and the ACLU awarded him an 86.  For 2005-2006, he earned a 100 percent rating from the National Education Association.

In 2007, the National Taxpayers Union gave him a grade of D, the American Conservative Union rated him at 12 percent, and both the Gun Owners of America and U.S. English assigned him an F.

Oh, yes, that sounds moderate-to-conservative.  I'd imagine that to most of us on the right, the word "conservative" isn't one that applies to Evan Bayh.  You can bet, however, that if he's chosen for the veep slot, we'll see that many in the mainstream media will try to portray him exactly that way.

Today ABC News's Web site asks "Are Democrats Now Pro-Life?  As Convention Draws Near, New Talk of a Pro-Life Presence."  The story points out that after many years of being strongly pro-choice, "the party and its presumptive nominee, Barack Obama, are rethinking how they talk about the issue."  It continues:

"As a party we have to remember we are the big tent and have to make room for people with diverse views on this issue," said Kristen Day, the executive director of Democrats for Life in America, a group that opposes capital punishment and euthanasia in addition to abortion.

The proposed new language mentions better care for pregnant women and newborns, the need for easier adoptions and an overall effort to reduce abortions.

"We're hopeful that some language will be included that will say pro-life Democrats welcome, but at the end of the day we're still Democrats and we're gonna work hard to work on things that we strongly believe in," Day said.

Diverse views on abortion?  Not likely.  NARAL Pro-Choice America used to travel under the more honest name of the National Abortion Rights Action League.  It still rates members of Congress based on abortion votes.  Its most recent scorecard for the U.S. Senate shows 45 members achieving a 100% pro-choice rating.

Of that number, only three are Republicans.  The remaining 100 percenters are Democrats and independent Senators Lieberman and Sanders, who caucus with the Democrats.  The tally for the House of Representatives shows a similar pattern.  Overwhelmingly, Democrats - including presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama and possible vice presidential selection Evan Bayh, who's often painted as a moderate, - vote in favor of abortion.        

So it's no wonder that, as the executive director of Democrats for Life admits, a little respect would be nice, "but at the end of the day we're still Democrats."  Regardless of what side of the abortion issue you're on, it's evident that the Democratic Party has a long-standing commitment to it.

Are Democrats now pro-life?  Of course not.  The story title is absurd.  Yet by using the question as the headline for an article, maybe ABC News can place doubt in the minds of some folks.  Folks who haven't been paying much attention.

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Carol Marin today explains "Why polls aren't worrying Obama's team."  As it turns out, there are several reasons:

Obama can certainly lose this race. But McCain's going to have to find a better way to win it than by invoking Paris Hilton or by sniping in his most recent ad how "life in the spotlight must be grand but for the rest of us, times are tough."

What's tough for McCain is that despite having had a practice run at the presidency once before, it didn't limber him up, cause him to realize that even the elderly now skillfully navigate the Internet or help him craft a "vision thing."

In the short run, jealous jabs at Obama for having too much face time on the covers of Rolling Stone and GQ may appear to close the gap in national polls. But the aggregation of images -- Obama in Germany, Obama with his cute girls and beautiful wife, Obama visiting his grandmother in Hawaii -- is by dribs and drabs helping America feel familiar with him, visualize him on foreign soil, and see him, perhaps, as both human and presidential.

In some ways the tightening numbers work for Obama, not against him.

"No cause for panic," said Kupper (one of Obama's political flacks). No, indeed, he's off to splash in the Pacific surf with his family.

Hallelujah!  It's gonna be OK.  Sure, Obama is running against a party that has terribly low approval ratings.  Obama has enormous financial backing.  Obama receives unprecedentedly favorable coverage from a mainstream media eager to serve as his lapdogs most of the time.

And yet, and yet. . .  the race is extraordinarily close at the same time he should enjoy a huge lead.  So it's great that media types can assert McCain isn't limber.  He's not an Internet wiz and doesn't have a "vision thing."  But Obama's pregame victory lap in Germany, his cute girls and beautiful wife, his visiting his typical white person grandmother and other things will ultimately turn things around.

In the media, hope springs eternal.      

The Chicago Sun-Times today includes Mary Mitchell's column, "We can deny it, but race slithers into campaign."  The subheadline reads "Obama, his campaign trying to transcend it -- but can't."  The article makes a startling assertion about Senator Barack Obama:

Obama tries to avoid talking about race, as do his surrogates, staffers and supporters.

Say what?  Obama's recent remarks that he "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills" clearly referred to his race.  Even his chief strategist admits that.

And it was hardly the first time he introduced the subject. In June, Mitchell's colleague Lynn Sweet mentioned a pool report from the New York Times's John Broder:

Obama “The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?"

If Mary Mitchell isn't an Obama supporter, one of the groups she claims tries to avoid talking about race, she does an excellent imitation.  She doesn't exactly avoid talking about race.  There was her column last month, "Ebony covers the real meaning of 'black cool'" which begins:

Black Cool. Ebony Magazine has defined Black Cool by giving readers a glimpse of "The 25 Coolest Brothers of All Time."

There's Sen. Barack Obama, of course.

Of course.  Mitchell suggests the desperation of Obamatons in today's piece with choice material like:

Indeed, it says a lot that McCain, who dumped his first wife to marry a wealthy heiress, is perceived to possess more of the values that resonate with voters than Obama does, according to some polls.

And a few paragraphs later:

Voters there said Cindy McCain -- a former drug addict and thief -- better fits their idea of a first lady than Michelle Obama, someone who has not had a hint of scandal attached to her name.

But of course the column is really about race and how it has managed to slither into the presidential campaign.  Even though Obama and his minions do their darndest to avoid talking about it.  

CBS News's From the Road Blog carries a report this afternoon titled, "Obama Speech Interrupted by Hecklers."  In Florida today, it's noted,

Three young African-American men stood up holding a sign that read "What About the Black Community, Obama?" as Barack Obama was talking about the economy at a town hall meeting here.  Once the crowd realized what the sign, many started booing loudly, which caused Obama to turn around and look at the protesters.

Later, the piece updates with:

During a question and answer session, Obama called on one of the hecklers.

The word "heckle" is defined  as "to harass (a public speaker, performer, etc.) with impertinent questions, gibes, or the like; badger."  The word conveys an element of disrespect and incivility.

The word "protest," on the other hand, carries little of the acrimony associated with heckle.

So it's interesting to see that in June when John McCain addressed the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials and was heckled, CBS News's From the Road blog reported it differently:

Then ten minutes into his speech, McCain was interrupted by the first of four protestors.

“We want a peace candidate,” a woman yelled. As she was escorted out of the large room she continued to yell “He doesn’t represent Arizona! We want a peace candidate!”

“That’s a long trip out,” McCain laughed. The crowd cheered as he said, “The one thing Americans want us to stop doing is yelling at each other. That’s the one thing they want us to stop doing.”

The second and third protestors were escorted out just as quickly as the first, and the fourth protestor only made a larger stir among the press, as he had been seated within the press section.

Obama gets hecklers.  McCain gets protesters.  I see.

Posted on the Los Angeles Times's Web site is the story "John McCain ad irritates many in Hollywood."  The referenced ad, of course, is the one that uses Britney Spears and Paris Hilton to portray Barack Obama as a shallow celebrity.

Despite the headline citing "many," only two Hollywood types are quoted. "'I didn't think McCain could look silly,' mused Norman Lear. 'But that ad diminishes him and makes him look silly.'"  And publicist Howard Bragman criticizes the commercial as "inauthentic."

If there are so many people who are irritated, you wouldn't know it by this article, which mainly conveys how much Hollywood heart Obama.  The piece reports McCain used to enjoy some popularity there:

McCain's latest attempt at discrediting his handsome, photogenic young rival particularly galls stars and executives with a memory, because only eight years ago, McCain was a fixture in Hollywood fundraising circles when he tried to raise money from the very people his ad now ridicules.

At the time, dozens of people in Hollywood -- including Lear, Harrison Ford, Quincy Jones, Berry Gordy and Michael Douglas -- gave to McCain because they thought he was a Republican celebrity ď with a great personal story. And, dare we say, some celebrities, namely Warren Beatty, even became friends with the Arizona senator.

But the truth is most of Hollywood won't return McCain's calls nowadays because many of the stars and executives he initially impressed now believe the maverick stance they found so attractive was just a pose. Hollywood doesn't object to a good pose -- unless, of course, it doesn't work.

What goes unmentioned is the reason that many in Hollywood supported McCain: he was viewed as an alternative to someone perceived as significantly more conservative, George W. Bush.

The LA Times article really isn't about irritation with McCain or his ad.  That was merely a hook used to point out, just in case we missed it, that Hollywood is terribly enthused about "his handsome, photogenic young rival."

How's that for objective journalism?      

In today's Chicago Sun-Times, columnist Mary Mitchell writes of a panel conducted at the UNITY convention of minority journalists:

Earlier, an NPR editor asked panelists whether it was appropriate for journalists to clap for Obama -- and the question uncorked a mounting frustration among many black reporters.

"The total duality of it gets to me," said Les Payne, a member of the panel.

Payne is a founding member of the National Association of Black Journalists and an editor at Newsday.

"There's no question that mainstream journalists completely adore McCain and cover him favorably," Payne said.

"Now it is: You cannot do what we do routinely . . . and have been doing for a century," he said.

"You have been writing favorable stories about [President] Bush for eight years. This is a serious problem and one of the reasons why this organization was founded," he said.

That the mainstream media adore McCain comes as a surprise to all of us continually irritated by its fawning and swooning over Barack Obama.

Even more incredible is Payne's assertion that journalists have provided favorable coverage of President Bush for all of the last eight years.  The world of the MSM must be even more detached from reality than previously believed.

The Newsday columnist provided useful information as to one of the reasons UNITY was established: To stem the flow of all those gushing pieces about Bush. 

Now there's a change they can believe in.    

On today's CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, network White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux moderated a discussion with Barack Obama at the UNITY convention of minority journalists.  Beforehand, Blitzer asked her about someone who wasn't attending the conference:

BLITZER: Senator McCain, I take it, he was invited to address this conference, as well. Is that right?

MALVEAUX: Yes, he certainly was. His campaign said there was a conflict of interest, that he had a lot of other things that were going on. He wasn't able to attend. This is a conference that has spanned across four days or so here in Chicago. Thousands of people have attended. It happens every four years. And so it really is very important to the journalists here, a lot of writers, a lot of people who represent media throughout the country are going to be paying very close attention. It is a shame that he wasn't able to attend.

McCain begged off because of other commitments.  That may well be true, but even if it weren't it would have been a mistake for him to participate.  He would not have been received nearly as warmly as Obama and the contrast would have given the mainstream media an opportunity to joyfully focus on the disparity.

What would most likely have happened is suggested by what occurred when incumbent President George W. Bush and Democratic opponent John Kerry addressed the same group at their 2004 convention.   From the August 7, 2004 Washington Post:

The journalists' reaction to Bush was tepid compared with their enthusiastic reception for Kerry, who spoke at the same convention Thursday. Breaking with journalists' custom of neutrality, the audience gave Kerry a standing ovation even before he began speaking and interrupted his remarks with applause nearly 50 times.

In contrast, Bush drew a smattering of polite applause and a standing ovation at the end of his appearance. At one point, his speech was interrupted by a heckler who cried out "Shame on you for lying to the media, misleading the public" before being evicted from the room.

Ernest Sotomayer, a Newsday Web journalist who is president of Unity '04, echoed the views of many audience members when he said of Bush, "I wish he would have been able to give us much more detail on things like affirmative action and commitments to get more (minority) hiring in the media industry."

Little wonder, then, that a crowd of media types brought together by their sense of minority identification would cheer much louder for the candidate ready, willing, and able to encourage the grievance industry.  Looking for a candidate who'll make "commitments to get more
(minority) hiring in the media industry," obvious government interference in private industry, is indicative of the UNITY mindset.

NewsBusters senior editor Tim Graham has already detailed the reception Obama received, including a couple of ovations from many audience members.  CNN's transcript of Obama at the UNITY convention reflects multiple interruptions for applause and laughter as he spoke.

It was far from a shame that John McCain didn't attend. For whatever reason, he was right to have skipped the event.  He's realized, as others have, that "breaking with journalists' custom of neutrality" is the standard again this year.

Much of the mainstream media is gushing over French President Nicolas Sarkozy gushing over Barack Obama.  The Chicago Sun-Times's Lynn Sweet, for example, wrote that "The beaming looks Sarkozy showered on Obama needed no interpretation."  Unfortunately for the media, those looks of love didn't lead to an explicit Sarkozy endorsement, something they could have really gushed over.

While overseas, Obama did receive an outright endorsement.  John McCaslin yesterday reported in his "Inside the Beltway" Washington Times column:

Minutes after both Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and the U.S. Supreme Court denied appeals to spare his life and he was put to death by lethal injection Wednesday evening for his role in a 1998 claw hammer bludgeoning of a friend, 34-year-old Dale Leo Bishop urged Americans to vote for the Illinois senator for president.

According to the Natchez Democrat, after being strapped to a gurney Wednesday evening and apologizing for the crime, the goateed Bishop uttered these final words:

"For those who oppose the death penalty and want to see it end, our best bet is to vote for Barack Obama because his supporters have been working behind the scenes to end this practice. God bless America; it's been great living here. That's all."

There doesn't appear to be much coverage of this Obama endorsement from the same mainstream media that breathlessly report on every advance Mr. Wonderful makes.  No doubt Obama enjoys considerable popularity among inmates across the Nation.  Why, maybe he's as admired in prisons as he is by Germans and Frenchmen and others who dislike the U.S.  But it's unlikely he'd get as much love as he receives from the major media.  That would be close to impossible.

On the Reuters Web site this morning appears this cryptic headline:
"ADVISORY: Baghdad story on views on Obama is withdrawn"
After that, it merely states, "The BAGHDAD item headlined 'Iraqis say they like Obama, divided on his policies' is withdrawn. The story was transmitted in error."

What that error was isn't identified.  The original article begins:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is popular among Iraqis.

In two dozen interviews across the country, many told Reuters a black man would understand their plight.

Obama arrived in Baghdad on Sunday on only his second trip to Iraq. He wants to bolster his foreign policy credentials and counter accusations from Republican presidential rival John McCain that he has not seen conditions in Iraq for himself.

"I support Obama. I think he is the best for Iraq and for the world ... if McCain wins I will be devastated," said Mustafa Salah, an office worker in the southern city of Basra.

Hisham Fadhil, a doctor in northern Kirkuk added: "He is much better than others because he is black and black people were tyrannized in America. I think he will feel our suffering."

It reads like the typical puff piece on Obama.  Iraq's population approaches 30 million, but interviews with two dozen people, and quotations from even fewer, are sufficient to prove the point:  Iraqis love Barry just like everyone else does.

Now the story has been withdrawn.  But not until after it was propagated widely.

Maybe the problem was the article wasn't flattering enough.  Quick, get me rewrite!

Today's Chicago Tribune features "Left speechless?," by columnist Clarence Page.  Page, who also serves on the Tribune's editorial board,  writes:

Besides whispering to another guest on the set that he would like to de-sex the Democratic presidential candidate, Jackson also accused Obama of "talking down to black people . . . telling niggers how to behave."

Jackson has since issued two statements of apology for his self-described "trash talking." He also might issue this word of advice: If you want to whisper something that could be damaging if traced back to you, don't whisper it over a microphone.

Am I surprised by Jackson's use of the racial slur? Not really. I was more surprised to hear that so many other people are shocked, especially non-African Americans.

Ethnic etiquette has always given greater latitude to epithets expressed about one's own ethnic group, as long as they are expressed inside of one's ethnic group. That's how people talk within one's family or ethnic group, especially when you regard your ethnic group as affectionately as you regard your nuclear family.

But if we hold Jackson to a higher standard, it is because he has held us to one too.

This higher standard must be the one Jackson used in describing Jews as "Hymies" and New York City as "Hymietown."  Perhaps the standard didn't apply because, as Jackson was quoted in the New York Times:

''It was not done in the spirit of meanness,'' he told an overflow crowd in the synagogue, Temple Adath Yershurun. ''However innocent and unintended, it was wrong.''

Oh, OK, since it wasn't done in the spirit of meanness and was innocent and unintended, it's not all that offensive.

Interestingly, Clarence Page has not always been so openminded about those using the N-word.  When in 2006 comedian Michael Richards was, in Page's words, "spewing the N-bomb," Clarence's judgement wasn't so generous:

Meanwhile, Richards is living with his own punishment, properly condemned by the court of public opinion. Even his hip and edgy comrades in comedy are acknowledging that there still are lines of decency that none of us should cross.

A line that shouldn't be crossed unless you're Jesse Jackson, that is.  Then it's not surprising.  Epithets apparently are acceptable as long as they are applied with appropriate ethnic etiquette.

Last night's CBS 2 Chicago's newscast led off with a segment on Barack Obama's visit to Kuwait.  The station's Web site includes a written report headlined "Soldiers Overjoyed To Meet Obama In Kuwait."  The accompanying video is titled "Troops In Kuwait Thrilled By Obama Visit."  Obama was "applauded thunderously" by "excited soldiers," according to Carlson.  How the media determined the troops were both overjoyed and thrilled isn't detailed.  President Bush and others have been greeted by our troops with similar enthusiasm, but I doubt that overjoyed or thrilled were used in describing it.

This typifies the caliber of detached, objective reporting we've come to expect when Mr. Wonderful is the subject at hand.  The mainstream media will be tossing bouquets - and probably their undies - in the direction of Obama.

Carlson did mention on her video report that Obama's campaign hopes his overseas trip will "overcome criticism that he lacks experience in world affairs."  He needs major help in that area.  As noted on CNN.com earlier this year:

At a campaign stop in November, Obama told an Iowa audience that "probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia."

Can you imagine?  Four whole years as a grammar school student provide him, by his own admission, with his strongest experience in foreign relations.  I'm certain his supporters are overjoyed and thrilled by it all.  As well as the mainstream media, of course.

It's going to be a very long week.