We know from the mainstream media that Barack Obama can walk on water, but I now realize that he's quite the multitasker as well.

"Is Senator Obama’s Campaign Booking CNN?" asks Greta Van Susteren on her "On the Record" Web site.  Looks like it.  According to Greta:

I debated whether to tell you this or not…but I did promise behind the scenes information here on GretaWire….so here it is…yesterday at 9:00am I personally booked Reverend Sharpton to appear ON THE RECORD at 10pm eastern to discuss Don Imus. At 8:12pm, less than 2 hours before we were to begin our 10pm news show, I received a call in my office from Reverend Sharpton…he said that Senator Obama’s campaign had called and asked him to appear on CNN at the same time he was due to appear on ON THE RECORD and thus could not make our show at the top. I told him that our first segment was the one he had been booked for almost 12 hours earlier and which we had discussed …he said Senator Obama’s campaign called and wanted him on CNN and that he was sorry.

So…here is my question: is Senator Obama’s campaign booking CNN now?

What's next?  Will the Obama campaign start writing copy for CNN's newsreaders?  Perhaps Barry can give an instaff training session on working a teleprompter.  He's got that down pat.

And now we should ask:  Exactly how close is Obama to Rev. Sharpton?  Maybe Al is the candidate's new spiritual advisor.  Not that the Chicago messiah needs one.

On her Tuesday evening "On the Record" program, Greta Van Susteren interviewed Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.  The cost of gasoline was the first topic discussed.  The speaker told of actions the Democrat-controlled Congress has taken.  Charitably, these are marginal at best, yet Van Susteren didn't challenge Pelosi.  Then the host asked about assigning blame for high gas prices:

VAN SUSTEREN: Do you assign all of the blame for the high prices on the Bush administration, or do you look back historically to a number of factors, including appetite by the American people, other administrations, other Congresses?

PELOSI: No, I don't assign blame to the Bush administration, I accuse them.  I am more direct than that. I accuse them of ignoring something that was becoming apparent over time.

Ten years ago the price was under $11 in 1998--under $11.  Two weeks ago, the cost of oil went up in one day nearly $11.  So the policy decisions made by this administration in terms of energy have contributed to this oil crisis by not accepting early on the need for us to have renewable and other alternatives.

This would have been a perfect time to ask Nancy Pelosi about promises she and other Democrats made only two years ago.  Three months before the 2006 elections that put her party in control of Congress, Newsweek and Princeton Survey Research Associates found that Americans trusted Democrats to do a better job of handling gas prices.  A much better job, by better than a two to one margin over the GOP.

Was that confidence justified? The week the Democrats smashed Republicans in the 2006 elections, the retail price of regular reformulated gas was $2.22, according to data compiled by the U.S. Department of Energy.  This week, the price is more than $4.00.

Before the election that made her House speaker, Nancy Pelosi cranked out a press release announcing: “Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. . ."

Where, oh where, is that commonsense plan?  Greta Van Susteren didn't even bring such assurances up.  She just let Pelosi pass more Democratic gas.  Quite a newshound and seeker of truth, that Greta.

Yesterday's edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight included a report from Kitty Pilgrim on product recalls from China and the administration's efforts to reduce importation of unsafe products. "Bush administration officials are going through the charade of tougher enforcement with few results," according to Correspondent Pilgrim. Using "charade" prepared viewers for where this segment was going:

PILGRIM: HHS Secretary Leavitt says he is optimistic the Chinese government will approve the opening of three FDA offices in China some time soon. The Consumer Product Safety Commission says if recalls continue at the current rate, it will be a 70 percent increase over last year. Lou?

DOBBS: Secretary Leavitt says he's optimistic.

PILGRIM: That's what he said. And it's been an ongoing discussion, but there's no approval...

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: Three offices in China...

PILGRIM: In China.

DOBBS: ... for 11 inspectors for $300 billion worth of products.

PILGRIM: The numbers don't quite work, do they?

DOBBS: They don't seem to work maybe just for all of us. I'm sure they work for Washington because they think we're a bunch of idiots. How big a fool do you suppose Secretary Leavitt is to think that we're this stupid?

PILGRIM: He says that the Chinese manufacturers should be held more accountable and he would like them to put the FDA certification, the Chinese government to put the FDA certification on to say they meet FDA standards which is his general approach to the problem.

DOBBS: That's brilliant. That goes along with this administration's request that Wall Street regulate itself. When does George Bush leave office?

PILGRIM: The good news is that there is legislation coming through that may tighten up standards for American manufacturers.

DOBBS: I heard this nonsense before. Thanks for trying to boost my spirits any way. We all appreciate it. The American consumer, you're on your own. We're on our own in this country. This government is completely indifferent to the welfare and people and safety of the consumer. It's disgusting.

What's disgusting is that Dobbs, Pilgrim and many of their cohorts in the mainstream media apparently believe that the government can protect everybody from everything. Setting aside the not insignificant question of what constitutes legitimate Federal functions, it should be apparent to even the most ardent statist that no matter how big Big Brother is, he can't handle the job.

Created in 1972, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was mandated to, among other charges, 'protect the public against unreasonable risks of injury from consumer products." Unsurprisingly, "unreasonable" wasn't defined.

A 1977 Washington Post news article reported it took the CPSC two and one half years to come up with a safety standard for matchbook covers. Two years for standards and 15 pages in the Federal Register on swimming pool slides. Three years for standards for the glass used in doors, windows and walls.

It's obvious that the government cannot guarantee the safety of millions, perhaps billions, of individual products ranging from power tools to toys, cribs to household chemicals, bicycle helmets to water heaters. Tossing a few million more at the CPSC or opening new FDA offices in China will accomplish little if anything. And it might lull citizens into a false sense of security, believing that the products they use are safe when the truth may be far different.

The seductive promise of the nanny state never loses its allure. At least for people like Lou Dobbs and Kitty Pilgrim. Insofar as unsafe imports go, it really doesn't make a difference when George Bush leaves office. Then again, just asking the question does give the mainstream media something to look forward to.

The Nation's Campaign '08 blog features an entry by John Nichols on the endorsement of Barack Obama by John Edwards, "Obama-Backing Edwards Elbows Aside Clinton."

One observation was of particular interest:

No one missed the fact that Barack Obama and John Edwards looked right together. "They looked fantastic together," gushed Jill Zuckman, the Chicago Tribune's able political writer. "They looked like a ticket."

Ms. Zuckman is a Chicago Tribune national correspondent and her gushy enthusiasm may strike readers as something less than what would be be expected from an unbiased, detached reporter. Although it's not the first time Ms. Zuckman's conveyed her appreciation for the combo.

In her June 28, 2007 dispatch, "Fighting the 'Who?' factor - Candidates considered outside the top tier struggle to get even a once-over from voters," she writes of:

Obama, an electrifying orator and the most formidable African-American presidential hopeful in history; and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, a handsome Southerner and his party's most recent vice presidential nominee.

Certainly Barry Obama gives good teleprompter, but I don't know that qualifies him as an electrifying orator. He sometimes looks as though he's viewing a tennis match. And John Edwards might be a handsome Southerner, but would the Chicago Tribune's national correspondent ever refer to Hillary Clinton as a beautiful Midwesterner? I mean, if that were in fact the case. I doubt it, Sweetie.

Now that Ms. Zuckman has said how fantastic Obama and Edwards look together, it'll be interesting to see how objectively she reports on them in the future.

MoveOn.org sponsored a contest for the best 20-second pro-Barack Obama TV commercial. The winner, according to the Associated Press's article, "MoveOn ad features pro-Obama Republican," was an ad starring Air Force veteran John Weiler. The spot includes Mr. Weiler, whose military service is to be commended, saying "I've been a Republican since before I could actually vote." Not only that: "I'm a lifelong Republican and I'm voting for Barack Obama."

I don't know if Mr. Weiler is a lifelong Republican as he claims. I do know that if the Associated Press is accurate in its reporting, he must have been an extraordinary serviceman.

"He served in the Air Force from 1983 to 1989, leaving the service as a master sergeant," according to the AP. Is that not amazing? The Air Force Enlisted Promotions Fact Sheet shows promotion to Master Sergeant (E-7) requires eight years in the service. According to Military.com, "The average service wide active duty time for advancement to the rank of Master Sergeant is 17.06 years."

I wasn't in the Air Force, and I only made it to E-5, but Mr. Weiler's accomplishment is as astounding as a lifelong Republican abandoning his party for the ultraliberal Obama. Mr. Weiler says part of the reason is "We need somebody who's gonna represent the left and the right."

I would think representing, simultaneously, the left and the right would be impossible, given the differences. But I guess if you can make E-7 in six years, anything is possible.

Today's Chicago Tribune carries a story centering on talk show pioneer Phil Donahue and the anti-war documentary he's peddling these days. The article is headlined:

"Phil Donahue, 'Body of War' battle to get into theaters
Former talk show host makes truth his mission, now on other side of the camera"

The headline would have been more accurate had it allowed that Donahue makes his truth his mission. An example of the truth, Donahue-style, included in the Tribune's story:
"He's (Donahue) convinced the anti-war tone of his MSNBC talk show, which aired for a little more than six months, contributed to its demise."

The contention that Phil's MSNBC program was dropped unfairly is a popular theme with him. In the November 1, 2006 Fairfield (CT) Citizen News, Donahue is quoted: "We were canceled because of my political posture; my stance against the war. Our ratings entitled us to be nurtured not canceled."

Just needed a little nurturing, heh, Phil? How much nurturing is necessary when a show draws, as Donahue's did on at least one occasion, a puny 0.1 rating, an indicator that only 137,000 households are watching? How much nurturing is required when you're getting clobbered in the ratings by CNN's "Connie Chung Tonight"?

Chicago Sun-Times media reporter Phil Rosenthal wrote in his February 26, 2003 column that Donahue began his MSNBC venture by declaring that "if we don't make noise in six months, it's going to be hard for me to tell my family that I was treated unfairly."

Yet that's precisely what Donahue did. A February 28, 2003 Associated Press story begins:

"Phil Donahue struck back at MSNBC on Wednesday for his firing, suggesting the network was too quick to pull the trigger and that it might be trying to 'out-fox Fox' with conservative voices."

That's the sort of prescience we've come to expect from Donahue. With conservative stalwarts such as Keith Olbermann and Chris "Obama sends a thrill up my leg" Matthews filling the hours at MSNBC, we can see how it's managed to out-fox Fox.

It's all part of the truth, Donahue-style.

Last evening, Chicago's Fox News at Nine aired the segment "Cardinal George Talks About Pope's Visit to America." Reporter Nancy Pender's interview with Chicago's Cardinal Francis George included video of Pope Benedict XVI touring the United States as Ms. Pender provided the voice-over:

"The Cardinal says the visit reinforced his view of the Pope as a warm, compassionate man, and not the hardline conservative he's reputed to be."

CARDINAL GEORGE: None of us is totally responsible for our reputations, it's what you make of it. So if that's the reputation he had, then it turns out not to be entirely true, because the man I saw during this visit is the man I've known for the last 20 years since being a bishop.

In speaking with Ms. Pender, did the Cardinal himself contrast the "warm compassionate man" with his supposed reputation as a "hardline conservative"? That we don't know because we didn't hear him use those words.

What we do know is that Nancy Pender's language advances one of liberaldom's hoariest myths. that conservatives are by nature cold and uncompassionate. By contrast, liberals - who for obvious reasons now often prefer to be called "progressives" - are filled with love and concern.

They demonstrate this love and concern by using other people's money to operate huge social-welfare schemes. The fact these programs usually, if not always, fail is of no consequence. Just the realization that the original intention was noble is all that matters.

Nancy Pender's statement that His Holiness isn't a "hardline conservative" might assure some, but I wonder if she asked folks from, say, the National Abortion Rights Action League - which for obvious reasons now prefers to be called NARAL - whether they'd concur.

Today's Chicago Tribune carries a frontpage article titled, "Michelle Obama's mission: Show voters humble roots." Mrs. Obama's recollections of how she and her husband not so long ago were deluged with bills and calls from collection agencies have become a major component of the campaign, designed to demonstrate that Senator Barack Obama understands financial difficulties and the folks encountering them. He feels their pain.

The article reports that Barack Obama "by all accounts, rose from humble beginnings and isn't that far removed from financial hardship in his own life."

But who's providing all those accounts on which the Tribune relies? The tenth paragraph, buried on page 23, notes that Mrs. Obama "doesn't come with documentation to back up her story about financial hardship. Asked to provide evidence of the Obamas' recent debt or contact from bill collectors, a campaign aide said the family was trying to find the records in response to a Tribune request last week but could not do so immediately."

It may take a while. To his credit, Senator Obama released his tax returns going back to the year 2000. On their joint 2000 return, the Obamas reported an adjusted gross income of more than $240,000. Their following year's AGI was over $270,000. In the past eight years, the Obama's worst was in 2004, when their AGI was a pitiful $207,000. Thank goodness for that wonderful child care tax credit, which the Obamas routinely took.

So here's a couple making over $200,000 annually and in most years quite a lot more. Yet they still had to sweat opening the mail and were plagued by calls from collection agencies. It's little wonder that it was only recently that Michelle (finally!) was proud to be an American.

In the meantime, I know we can depend on the Chicago Tribune and other mainstream media outlets to confirm all those accounts proving that the Family Obama actually experienced the difficult challenges they're now claiming.