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.

On Wednesday's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" on MSNBC, Chris Wallace of Fox News was designated as one of Olbermann's "Worst Persons."

OLBERMANN: Our runner up tonight, Chris Wallace of Fixed News, explaining to the TV critics of America, who were gathered tonight in solemn assembly in Los Angeles, insisting that during the primaries Fox had the straight news reporters anchoring the election coverage, and not someone like Keith Olbermann, who was delivering ten-minute screeds against President Bush, telling him to shut the hell up, telling Hillary Clinton to get out of the campaign.

Chris, I never told Senator Clinton to get out of the campaign.  I never even suggested it.

Really? On his April 23, 2008 program, Olbermann talked with MSNBC political analyst Howard Fineman.  He brought up possible retribution against Clinton if she didn't drop out of the campaign:

OLBERMANN: After last night, nobody is going to do anything.  We‘re going to see how these next two votes take place.  If she doesn‘t deliver in the way that she thinks she can on May 6th, are we now talking about retribution or the threat of retribution to get her out of the race?  Are we now—is it as bloody back as it is emanating from her campaign?

FINEMAN:  Oh, I think there‘s been talk of retribution.  I know there‘s been talk of retribution for weeks.  Well, that‘s only beginning behind the scenes and that‘s what Democratic leaders, if that isn‘t a complete oxymoron is all about.  That‘s what they‘re worried about.

What this is going to require, at some point, all of Chuck‘s excellent numbers aside, there‘s some adults somewhere in the Democratic Party to step in and stop this thing like a referee in a fight that could go on for 30 rounds.  That‘s what‘s going on.  Those are the super-super-superdelegates who are going to have to really decide this.

OLBERMANN:  Right.  The one—somebody who can take her in a room and only he comes out that kind of a question.

Take Clinton in a room and only he comes out?  Perhaps Olbermann doesn't view his words as "suggesting" Clinton close down her campaign.  Others did.  Two days later, Salon's Joan Walsh wrote: "Rachel Sklar is my hero today for this (Huffington Post) blog post calling out Keith Olbermann for his vivid, seemingly violent comment about how to get Hillary Clinton out of the Democratic primary race on Wednesday night."

A month after his take-her-in-a-room suggestion, Olbermann had a "special comment" on Clinton's reference to Bobby Kennedy's assassination.  Why Olbermann designates these rants as "special" is unknown to me; the only difference is he occasionally foams at the mouth slightly more than when he's airing his "normal" unspecial comments.  From the May 23 transcript:

OLBERMANN: The politics of this nation is steeped enough in blood, Senator Clinton.  You cannot and must not invoke that imagery anywhere at any time!

And to not appreciate, immediately—to still not appreciate tonight just what you have done today is to reveal an incomprehension of the America you seek to lead.  This, Senator, is too much because a senator, a politician, a person who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around, in part, just in case the other guy gets shot has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States.

No business, no capacity to be president.  Apparently, that's not "even" a suggestion she drop out.

Perhaps that's how he actually sees things.  Olbermann has long demonstrated a detachment from reality.  Little wonder he's a hero of the Left.

Last month, my NewsBuster colleague Jeff Poor reported on CNN's Lou Dobbs calling for President Bush's impeachment because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not yet identified the source of the salmonella outbreak.  On Tuesday evening's edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, it was obvious the host's rage hasn't diminished.  Airing a report on the salmonella outbreak by CNN  correspondent Louise Schiavone, he followed up:

DOBBS: Well, I'm very sorry that Julie Gerberding and the CDC is frustrated. But I'm a little more concerned about the fact that the American consumer right now is absolutely vulnerable. When the two agencies, the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration still, after more than two months, don't have a clue as to what is going on here.

SCHIAVONE: It's just an astonishing turn of events. We know that the first case was recorded in early April. This thing is not only going on, but it shows no signs of pulling back. And as you say, they just don't have any idea what the cause is.

DOBBS: And yet, we do not have any indication whatsoever that the Department of Health and Human Services is in any way mobilizing extraordinary resources for the FDA, for the CDC to go about inspecting and trying to contain this outbreak.

SCHIAVONE: They just don't know what to do. That's the really amazing thing about it. They just don't have any idea what to do. Now, they're trying to intercept these specialty products. The cilantro, the specialty peppers, ingredients that are found in salsas. But, really, you know, this could just be another shot in the dark.

DOBBS: Well, another shot in the dark, it is more incompetence. Secretary Mike Leavitt of the Department of Health and Human Services, you know, perhaps he could ask his friends in China what to do. Because this administration is operating with abject irresponsibility and this borders on absolutely criminal negligence on the part of this administration and the leaders of these two departments. This is just inexplicable.

SCHIAVONE: Well, the truth is that as consumers, we're all vulnerable. So now the number is up to almost 1,000. We know that that can be multiplied by between 30 and 40. So potentially 40,000 Americans affected by this. There are no answers. When you go to a grocery store, when you go to a restaurant, you have absolutely no idea what you should buy, what you should feed your family. You have no idea how vulnerable you are.

DOBBS: Well, unfortunately, I think we're all getting a sense of that vulnerability. And we're certainly getting a sense of how, well, disappointingly incompetent so many agencies that we depend upon in the federal government are in their efforts, in their, at least, responsibility, if not their efforts, to protect the American consumer. Louise, thank you very much. Louise Schiavone, in Washington.

Certainly the salmonella outbreak should be taken seriously.  The FDA appears to be doing what it can to trace its origins so remedial action can be taken.  At the same time, it's worth noting that, according to a Monday Reuters report, in the three months since the illness began striking people, there have been fewer than 1,000 cases of the poisoning and 130 people have required hospitalization.

Again, I'm not minimizing the seriousness of an illness.  In a nation of more than 300 million, however, it doesn't seem as though Dobbs's anger is proportionate to the extent of the problem.

By their very natures, bureaucracies are inherently inefficient.  Always counting on immediate, comprehensive, and effective action isn't a reasonable expectation.  Ironically, Lou Dobbs has suggested that he'd like to place our health care in the hands of the same disappointingly incompetent Federal agencies that irritate him so much.

In December, 2006, Dobbs hosted on his program a "Special Edition: War on the Middle Class."  He said:

"We can talk about national healthcare, universal healthcare coverage. Call it what you want to. But this country has a responsibility to all the people in this room and Americans, all but the very poor and the very rich, are the ones being hammered, because there is no program for the middle class."

So Dobbs believes it's the government's responsibility to provide a healthcare program.  Why would he imagine the agencies charged with that task would be any more efficient than the FDA, which displeases him so much, has been?

Some in the mainstream media, like Lou Dobbs, find fault with government programs and departments.  That's fine.  Yet at the same time they promote new programs and departments for the government to operate.  Now there's something to get angry about.

On this afternoon's CNN Newsroom, anchor Don Lemon interviewed Carolyn Lochhead, the San Francisco Chronicle's Washington correspondent.  The topic was "Obamacons," conservative Republicans who support Barack Obama for president.  Lochhead wrote a recent article on the phenomenon:

LEMON: Well, we've been hearing about all of these new names being made up during this election season. One is "Obamaicans." We heard that word a lot during the primary season. Now we're hearing about "Obamaicons." Like neocons, you know what I'm talking about? Who are they?

Well, joining me from Washington, Carolyn Lochhead, The "San Francisco Chronicle's" Washington correspondent. Thank you of course for joining us.

All right, really. What is an Obamaicon? Is this really true? Or is this media-driven? Is this true of what's actually happening on the ground?

CAROLYN LOCHHEAD, "SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE": No, if anything, I think the media's overlooked it. There's a great deal of discontent in the Republican party and among the intellectual, the conservative intellectual elite that has powered the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan.

LEMON: How much of an affect, though? And you say the intellectual conservative elite. I mean, is that enough to make a real shift?

LOCHHEAD: Well, it's enough...

LEMON: And who are these people?

LOCHHEAD: It might not yet turn up in the voting booth. But, what it does is it reflects a lot of conservative discontent with the Republican Party, with the Bush administration and with John McCain.

LEMON: OK. Now, are we talking names? Are we not talking you know, like Rush Limbaugh or...

LOCHHEAD: No.

LEMON: What names -- are we talking big conservative Republican names?

LOCHHEAD: Not yet, but they're out there. There are more the -- more obscure people. But, people like Milton Friedman's son David, who is endorsing Obama.

LEMON: OK.

LOCHHEAD: Former economist for the Chamber of Commerce, Larry Hunter, endorsing Obama.

LEMON: OK. We talked earlier with our political analyst, Bill Schneider, who talked about red states turning blue. One of them is Georgia. And just in the crowd, just today in Georgia, a woman spoke out and I guess you could consider her -- a man, I should say. Consider him an Obamaican. This is just a short time ago.

Take a listen. I want to talk to you about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator, I'm a reformed Republican.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: All right, go ahead. You've got to biggest cheer of the day.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll take a cabinet post.

OBAMA: There you go.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I worked for Bobby Kennedy forty years ago, sir. And what you have done this year has restored that faith.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: It's a lot of things that we're hearing even in our own personal lives about people who may be -- you know, who are really just struck by Obama, Republican or Democrat.

You saw the response there. You were smiling, I saw you, during that. Why so? I guess you know, this is one person.

LOCHHEAD: Right, but Obama is reaching out and sometimes in very subtle ways using the language of free markets or various ways reaches out to conservatives in a -- with a very subtle message.

LEMON: Yes.

CNN's Obamacon worked for Bobby Kennedy forty years ago?  Gee, that doesn't sound like much of a conservative to me.    Kennedy was a distinctly liberal candidate by the time he ran for president.  Vehemently anti-war, he went so far as to suggest sending blood to North Vietnam, which then was engaged in killing American soldiers.

Obviously, CNN's Obamacon must have been a reformed Democrat before becoming a reformed Republican.  In all the talk about conservative Republicans jumping to the Good Ship Obama, a nagging question persists:  Who are all these alleged converts?

Lochhead's recent article on the subject names Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of a moderate Republican president, and David Friedman, Milton Friedman's son.  Wow, most impressive.

She also mentions Andrew Sullivan, described as a "conservative blogger."  Not included is the salient point that Sullivan backed John Kerry for president in 2004.  Yep, sounds like a real conservative to me.

Another convert identified is Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich.  Whatever conservative credentials he holds aren't detailed.  He has, however, contributed money to Senator Jack Reed.  The Rhode Island Democrat's American Conservative Union rating last year was a whopping zero.

One uncontested conservative who's thinking about voting for Obama is talk show host Armstrong Williams.  The Chronicle article quotes him as saying he won't vote based on race, yet he's previously admitted, "I don't necessarily like his (Obama's) policies; I don't like much that he advocates, but for the first time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it."  So, other than race, why would he support the most liberal senator in the United States?

CNN and the rest of the mainstream media want us to believe that significant numbers of conservative Republicans are supporting their preferred candidate.  They'll have to do better than trot out guys who worked for Bobby Kennedy, endorsed John Kerry, contributed to liberals, or are thinking about going with Barry.

Today's Chicago Tribune carries a front page story on the late Jesse Helms, "5-time senator 'great patriot' who held fast to his beliefs."

The piece's author, Los Angeles Times staff writer Johanna Neuman, states:

Often he was the lone voice of dissent in the Senate. He was the only senator to vote against confirming Henry Kissinger as secretary of state during the Nixon administration. And he was the only senator to vote against making Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a holiday.

Both assertions are wrong.  MSNBC reported in a 2005 article on secretary of state Condoleezza Rice that Henry Kissinger was approved by the Senate in a 78-7 vote.  And the King Center notes on its Web site that the King holiday bill, sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy, passed in the Senate by a vote of 78-22.

In its eagerness to portray the late Senator as an isolated, extreme extremist, the mainstream media are making up their own "facts."

He may be dead, but Jesse Helms is still driving liberals to distraction.  May he rest in peace.

On Independence Day, CNN anchor Don Lemon reported the death of former Senator Jesse Helms.

LEMON: Conservatives are mourning the death of an icon. Former Senator Jesse Helms has died at the age of 86. The North Carolina Republican was known for his unyielding stands on some controversial issues.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON (voice-over): Ever since he came to the Senate in 1972, Jesse Helms had been the champion of the extreme right. His positions frequently infuriated virtually everyone else.

JESSE HELMS, FORMER U.S. SENATOR: Homosexuals, disgusting people, march in our streets demanding all sorts of things.

LEMON: The American Conservative Union recently gave Helms a 100 percent rating. The American Civil Liberties Union, zero. And no wonder why. On social issues, Helms was a scourge of those he ridiculed as pointy-headed liberals; whether the question was AIDS, abortion, school prayer or funding for the arts.

HELMS: And if others (ph) want to go in a men's room and write dirty words on the wall, let them furnish their own crayons. Let them furnish their own wall. But don't ask the taxpayers to support it.

LEMON: Helms put up massive walls in foreign policy as well. Time after time, he used his ranking position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to block appointment and policies he considered deviations from right-wing true faith. He's courtly southern demeanor camouflaged the reality that Helms was a brutally affected (effective?) political fighter willing to do whatever it took to win.

In his last campaign, he had a tough campaign against a black Democrat. Helms's victory was partially credited to a last minute campaign commercial that many critics called blatantly racist.

Lemon cites Helms's low rating from the American Civil Liberties Union and a high rating from the American Conservative Union (ACU) to support his contention of extremism.  Yet politicians scoring the reverse aren't characterized by CNN as extreme liberals.  Examples include the late Senator Paul Wellstone, described by CNN national correspondent Frank Buckley as "the progressive Democrat here from Minnesota," and Congressman Neil Abercrombie from Hawaii, called "a progressive Democrat" by CNN Congressional correspondent Dana Bash. 

Moreover, Lemon's claim that the ACU "recently gave Helms a 100 percent rating" isn't likely as the late Senator retired more than five years ago.

Lemon mentions a controversial commercial "in his last campaign."  Presumably, that is the famous - or infamous if you prefer - "Hands" ad that centered on affirmative action's impact.  That commercial wasn't run during Helms's last campaign, but rather in the 1990 one.

Lemon says that "Helms was a scourge of those he ridiculed as pointy-headed liberals."  Pointy-headed was a term often employed by the late Alabama Gov. George Wallace, who railed against ""pointy-headed intellectuals who can't park their bicycles straight."  Obviously, I can't assert that Jesse Helms never used the pointy headed device, but a quick check of the Newsbank database doesn't show it if he did.

Mainstream media reaction to the Senator's passing is about what I would have expected.  After all, here was a man routinely condemned when he was alive.

A Washington Post article in 1990 claimed he “may be the nation’s most notorious lawmaker.” The Seattle Post-Intelligencer described him as “the leading symbol of the radical right in the U.S. Senate.” The Dayton Daily News printed a caricature depicting the senator holding a can of spray paint in front of a swastika.  The following day the newspaper tolerantly reported that its editorial board didn’t consider Helms a Nazi after all and apologized.

His early days in the Senate must have been difficult ones.  His was a minority voice in a Senate and there were many legislative setbacks.  But as Andrew Jackson observed, “One man with courage makes a majority.” That man with courage stayed thirty years and, eventually, had a striking impact on the United States of America.

The mainstream media - even CNN - owe their consumers an accurate evaluation of Jesse Helms.

Today's Chicago Sun-Times celebrates Independence Day with "Boeing as amoral as firms that aided Hitler," written by columnist Dick Simpson.  

Simpson tells us:

Boeing pretends to be a good corporate citizen supporting Chicago arts groups and community organizations with grants. The company is listed prominently in playbills and annual reports.

But Boeing also abets torture. It is, after all, a defense contractor as well as a provider of civilian passenger jets. It is locked at the hip and the bottom line with the U.S. government.

Despite our pride in Boeing as a global corporation, it is as amoral as the German corporations that aided Hitler. Only money and contracts count with Boeing.

And what has Boeing done to warrant such withering criticism?  Why, a Boeing subsidiary "since 2001 has provided flight and logistical support for at least 15 aircraft making 70 clandestine flights for the CIA. Jeppesen allows the CIA to transport prisoners such as ACLU plaintiffs Binyam Mohamed, Abou Elkassim Britel, and Ahmed Agiza to secret locations where they were tortured as part of our government's 'war on terror.'"

Oh, the horror of it all.  Can you imagine, an average of less than one flight a month since 9/11 to transport individuals our government believes have terrorist ties.  Outrageous.

Transporting a relatively small number of people for the U.S. government is comparable to the Nazi extermination of  millions in the eyes of liberals like Simpson.  He hasn't changed much since the 1970s when, as a Chicago alderman he backed resolutions calling for withdrawal from Vietnam.  He also enjoyed - if that's the right word- a connection with the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee of Chicago.  By the 1980s,  he was demanding Chicago be deemed a nuclear weapons free zone.  At that time he was the executive director of Clergy and Laity Concerned; Simpson is a United Church of Christ minister.

Maybe if Boeing and its subsidiary would just agree to assignments such as removing our troops from Iraq or assisting Fidel Castro or something along those lines, Simpson could approve.  But aiding the U.S. government is simply beyond the pale.  It's. . . it's. . .  just like what the companies that helped Hitler did.

Happy July 4th, Dick.   

Gerri Willis co-hosts CNN's daily "Issue Number One," a program devoted to the economy.  For her, it appears almost every day is a struggle.

Last Thursday, she spoke of "high gas prices, one of the many cost Americans struggles with in this economy."  She took a break from the struggle on Wednesday, when a CNN anchor filled in for her and co-host Ali Velshi.  

The previous day, however, her question to CNNMoney.com's Poppy Harlow was: "So what do you have to say to folks out there who are struggling to pay those (energy) bills?"  Willis also employed another of her favorite words, tough.  "There are," she noted, "all kinds of programs across the country to make sure that doesn't happen, but times are so tough."  Later on the show, she observed: "These tough economic times can be especially hard on retirees."

On Monday, Gerri experienced multiple struggles.  One was "And students struggle to make ends meet. We'll show you where they're turning to for hope."  In the other, "Faced with rising gas prices and lower donations, the Red Cross itself is struggling to make ends meet."  Of course, she had to fit "tough" in again: "But the organization hasn't been immune to the tough economy."  After the video on the story, Willis commented: "Tough times all around."  Just in case dull-witted viewers weren't picking up on the theme, Gerri followed up on the struggling student story with another "Tough times" remark.

On Friday, June 20, she introduced a story with: "Families across the country are struggling with rising gas prices and subsequently higher food prices."

The other day a realtor told me that the economy in general and the housing market in particular are not as bad as portrayed in the media.  I should have asked her if she watched CNN's Gerri Willis.  For Gerri, the struggle continues.

Yesterday, the Chicago Sun-Times's Web site carried the story "Obama says he avoided city, state corruption."  The piece begins:

Clout and corruption scandals that have plagued Chicago and Illinois politics in recent years have not laid a glove on Barack Obama, he told reporters here Wednesday.

"You will recall that for my entire political career here, I was not the the endorsed candidate of any political organization here," the Democratic presidential hopeful said at the Westin Hotel downtown.

That isn't accurate and wasn't from the time of his very first political race.  When Obama sought state office in 1996, he completed a questionnaire from the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization (IVI-IPO).  Asked what endorsements he'd received so far, Obama listed the 4th, 5th, and 6th Democratic Organizations, Aldermen Preckwinkle and Steele, and the New Party.

The Sun-Times article also reports:

Obama friend Tony Rezko was convicted of corrupting state government, but Obama was never implicated and has returned contributions Rezko made to his Senate campaign.

That is also inaccurate.  The Sun-Times itself disclosed on January 30 of this year that Obama didn't return the Rezko-related $157,835 in contributions, but rather donated it to charity.  Gee, I wonder if the Obama campaign takes a tax deduction for such charitable donations.

The swooning of the mainstream media for Barack Obama continues.  Still, it would be a service to voters if basic fact checking were done on Mr. Clean's claims before passing them off to readers as Gospel.