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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YELLIN: (INAUDIBLE)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

King later addressed a question to another guest:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And later:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure.  I believe that. 

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?