The day before Thanksgiving brought encouraging news on unemployment.  CBS News.com reported "New Jobless Claims Plunge to 466K."  Investors.com headlined "Jobless Claims Dive To 466,000."  CNN Money.com issued a special report titled "Jobless claims plummet to 14-month low."  And the Financial Times included a link to the Calculated Risk blog article "Weekly Initial Unemployment Claims Decline Sharply."  

Such good news, reported widely throughout the media, doubtless gave hope to many Americans.  If some of them wished to attribute this dramatic turnaround to Barack Obama's stimulus program, so much the better.  The truth, however, is that improvement in the number of jobless claims was less than electrifying.  The numbers touted in the media are, according to the Department of Labor, "seasonally adjusted" with a statistical technique designed to accommodate fluctuations in the job market.  Set that aside, and the numbers are not nearly as rosy.  As DOL's Employment and Training Administration reported:

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 543,926 in the week ending Nov. 21, an increase of 68,080 from the previous week.

Only CBS News.com, in its Associated Press article noted: "Excluding seasonal adjustments, claims rose."  And that was in the fifth paragraph.

Back when George Bush was president, CNN Money.com had no difficulty detailing the difference between the actual number of jobless claims and the massaged number in its article, "Jobless claims drop, but... Report shows sharp drop in those filing for benefits, but seasonal factors distort results."

In the Age of Obama, highlighting such information isn't necessary.  No use confusing the public with those dry old facts when such hope and change are breaking out all over.  At least in the mainstream media.  

In today's Chicago Sun-Times, columnist Mary Mitchell elevates talk show host Oprah Winfrey to a new level:

You might not think you're going to miss Oprah, but you are. There are stories that only Oprah can do, and there are things that only Oprah and God can make happen.

 

Mitchell's adulation for Oprah is shared by many in the mainstream media.  From early shows devoted to male-bashing through attacks on free enterprise and limited government to her campaigning for Barack Obama's election, Winfrey has burnished her liberal credentials.

In bracketing Oprah with God, however, I wonder why Mitchell didn't include Obama, as in "There are things that only Oprah and God and the Federal government under the unparalleled leadership of Barack Hussein Obama can make happen."

In January, Mitchell wrote:

Hopes for the Obama administration are high, not only when it comes to fixing the economy and stemming the job losses that have dampened the spirits of so many Americans.

 

Who knew it would take almost a year to fix the unemployment problem with the magic wand of a "jobs summit"?  Months of serial failures may finally have some of even The One's most ardent worshipers questioning his magnificence. 

Still, there are bright, shining rays of hope.  Oprah and God.  It's lonely at the top.  

On today's American Morning, anchor Kiran Chetry engaged Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele in a discussion of the Democrats' health care bill.  Citing a recent CNN poll, she claimed that a majority wants "some kind of public option":

CHETRY: I know one of the things that Republicans are very much against is the public option. And this is a huge hurdle that has to pass. This would mean that the government would have a government-sponsored insurance plan competing with private insurers. And that's a very controversial move.

But our latest CNN poll shows that 56 percent are now in favor of some sort of public option. What is that telling you, as Republicans go out there and talk to their constituents...

STEELE: Well, it doesn't...

CHETRY: ... about the need for some sort of affordable insurance?

STEELE: Well, it's a nice poll. I like to see how the question was asked to the people, because that number tells me that they don't know exactly what it is. When you say some kind of public option...

CHETRY: Well, let me -- this is...

(CROSSTALK)

CHETRY: Let me just read it to you so we're not confused here.

STEELE: That could be anything.

CHETRY: Just asked, would you be in favor or a public health insurance option administered by the federal government. In favor, 56 percent, opposed, 42 percent.

Interestingly, what Chetry claimed had been asked in the survey wasn't the actual question.  The CNN poll, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation, was worded this way:

Now thinking specifically about the health insurance plans available to most Americans, would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?

That private health insurance companies would still be available to compete with a public option is a major consideration in how Americans answer such questions.  Gary Langer, director of polling at ABC News, wrote in August:

While we found 62 percent in favor of a public option in June, that dived to 37 percent if it would put many private insurers out of business because they couldn’t compete, as critics charge.

Contrary to what Chetry intimated, her own network's poll doesn't show 56 percent simply favoring "some sort of public option," but rather one that specifically would be in competition with private insurers.  She's the one who's confused, not Michael Steele.

When outrage erupted this week over a government panel's recommendation that women have fewer mammograms, health and human services secretary Kathleen Sebelius was prepared with the Obama administration's favorite talking point: It's all Bush's fault.  Appearing Wednesday on CNN's The Situation Room, Sebelius told anchor Wolf Blitzer:

This panel was appointed by the prior administration, by former President George Bush, and given the charge to routinely look at a whole host of services to make sure that new preventive services which had benefit were being looked at by health care providers and that things that they felt did not have as much benefit as we move forward were also looked at by health care providers.

Senate majority whip Richard Durbin (D-IL) continued the theme on Friday as reported by Politico:

“The recommendation by this medical panel has been rejected by virtually everyone, including the current administration,” Durbin said. “They were appointed by President Bush.”

Not according to the New York Times's Gina Kolata.  Her piece, "Mammogram Debate Took Group by Surprise," includes background information on some members of the federal Preventive Services Task Force.  She writes:

They also said they never thought of themselves as being political appointees, much less being Bush appointees.

Medical experts become members of the task force by nominating themselves or, as usually happens, by being nominated by colleagues and professional organizations.

They are vetted by Health and Human Services to be sure they have no conflicts of interest, their names are published in the Federal Register, and they are appointed by the head of the Agency for Health Care Quality and Research, which is part of Health and Human Services.

“I grew up in the ’60s,” said one panel member, Dr. J. Sanford Schwartz, a professor of medicine, health care and economics at the University of Pennsylvania. “My kids grew up under a banner saying ‘Question authority.’ That’s where I am coming from.”

Dr. Russell Harris, a professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina, whose term on the task force recently ended, said, “I’m sure George Bush would never have appointed me to anything.”

In an article published on the Washington Post's Web site Saturday, Michael D. Shear and Dan Eggen note:

The task force is made up mostly of primary-care doctors and nurses who serve four-year terms and are appointed by the director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The current members were appointed during President George W. Bush's administration; no new members have been nominated since Obama took office.

OK, so members were appointed during George W. Bush's administration, but not by him. That was done by the director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.  The organization's Web site indicates that person, since 2003, has been Carolyn M. Clancy, M.D.

Judging by her political contributions listed on OpenSecrets.org, the doctor doesn't appear to be a Republican.  Contributions were made to Democrats Paul Wellstone, Bill Bradley, Paul Soglin, Miles Rapaport, and Paul Alexander.  She's also contributed to Emily's List, which states its "members are dedicated to building a progressive America by electing pro-choice Democratic women to office."

Obviously, the members of the Preventive Services Task Force were not, as Sebelius and Durbin assert, appointed by Bush.  Yet I've seen no news organization call them on their blatant falsehood.  No reporter or interviewer has challenged them on this significant point. 

The Associated Press can assign 11 people to fact check former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's book.  CNN can fact check a Saturday Night Live sketch poking fun at Obama.    
As long as the target is George W. Bush, no fact checking is necessary.   

Yesterday, CBS News.com's Political Hotsheet blog reported on "Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and the Politics of the Health Care Vote."  It notes:

The focus is also on some Democrats with doubts, notably Louisiana's Mary Landrieu and Nebraska's Ben Nelson, who aren't up but do represent very red states, and Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln, who is, and could face a tough test in 2010.

The piece later states that Nelson:

has cast many a conservative vote in representing a state that, while historically willing to send Democrats to the Senate, is nonetheless firmly Republican overall.

Many a conservative vote?  According to interest group ratings compiled by Project Vote Smart, for 2008 the American Conservative Union assigned Nelson a rating of 16.  The National Taxpayers Union gave him a rating of F. Nelson received a 100 from the liberal AFL-CIO for 2008 and an A for 2007-2008 from the liberal National Education Association.  For 2007, Nelson racked up a 5 with Americans for Tax Reform.

Quite clearly, Nelson's voting record isn't conservative.  It appears that at CBS News, as in much of the mainstream media, a conservative is anyone to the right of Barack Hussein Obama. Mmm. Mmm. Mm!    

On today's CNN Newsroom, anchor Kyra Phillips went after the kids who supposedly bully a 10-year-old boy who refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance because homosexual marriage isn't widely accepted.  Some of his classmates allegedly call him names.  Phillips's weapon of choice was name calling:

And a message to you boys who are bullying Will, shame on you. It's obvious you are jealous that Will is smarter and more well spoken than you are. Hopefully one day you will grow up and realize that you were being the wads, dork wads.

Phillips didn't say how she knows that Will is smarter and more well spoken than his purported tormentors.  On Monday, she reported that Will is "a terrific kid."  So what makes him so smart and terrific?

That was answered earlier Monday in an interview with anchor John Roberts on CNN's American Morning:

ROBERTS: A 10-year-old boy from Arkansas is taking a stand by sitting down. Will Philips is refusing to pledge allegiance to the flag in his fifth grade classroom until there really is, as the pledge says, liberty and justice for all. He says until gays and lesbians have equal rights.

Joining us now in an exclusive interview are Will Phillips and his father, Jay. They're in West Fork, Arkansas this morning. Will and Jay, good to see you this morning. Thanks very much for being with us. And Will, let me ask you first of all, when did you decide that you weren't going to stand up and recite the pledge?

WILL PHILLIPS, WONT SAY PLEDGE UNTIL GAYS HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS: I decided that I was going to do that the weekend before when I did it. I was analyzing the meanings of it because I want to be a lawyer.

ROBERTS: All right. So what did you decide in analyzing the meanings of it that caused you not to stand up and recite the pledge?

WILL PHILLIPS: Well, I looked at the end and it said "with liberty and justice for all." And there really isn't liberty and justice for all. There's -- gays and lesbians can't marry. There's still a lot of racism and sexism in the world, yes.

ROBERTS: All right. So you think that the country isn't living up to the ideals of the pledge and you took it upon yourself to sit down and not recite the pledge of allegiance until the country comes in line to embody the ideals that are embodied in the pledge?

WILL PHILLIPS: Yes.

ROBERTS: All right. So, your teacher, who is a substitute teacher at the time, was giving you grief about not standing up. This went on for a few days. What did you eventually say to that teacher?

WILL PHILLIPS: I eventually very solemnly with a little bit of malice in my voice said, "Ma'am, with all due respect, you can go jump off a bridge."

And later:

ROBERTS: Got you. All right. Let's bring in Will here again. Will, why is this issue so important to you that you would commit as your dad said this atypical act of juvenile delinquency?

WILL PHILLIPS: Because I have many -- I've grown up with a lot of people and good friends with a lot of people that are gay and I really -- I think they should have the rights all people should. And I'm not going to swear that they do.

ROBERTS: So what's the reaction been from your fellow students at school to you not standing up for the pledge and the views that you hold about this issue?

WILL PHILLIPS: Not very good. They've taken from what I said an assumption that I'm gay and the halls and the cafeteria, I've been repeatedly called a gay wad.

ROBERTS: A gay wad. What's a gay wad?

WILL PHILLIPS: I really don't know. It's a discriminatory name for homosexuals.

Roberts spoke again with the child's father briefly and then:

ROBERTS: He does seem to have very strong opinions we should say and obviously they are very reasoned out. We should say that he's an extraordinarily bright child. He skipped the fourth grade, went right from the third grade to the fifth grade.

But Will, as we prepare to leave you here, what will it take for you to stand up and say the Pledge of Allegiance? And I ask this question based on what we saw in the off year election just a couple of weeks ago. Same-sex marriage initiative was put to the test, put to the voters in the state of Maine. And every state across the nation where it has been put through the voters, it has gone down to defeat.

So, the Democratic process is taking place here, it seems to be something that voters at large do not support. So what will it take for you to return to saying the pledge?

WILL PHILLIPS: For there could truly be liberty and justice for all.

ROBERTS: And what does that entail?

WILL PHILLIPS: That entails everyone being able to marry.

ROBERTS: All right. Will Phillips, Jay Phillips, great to see you this morning. Thanks so much for joining us. We'll keep watching the story. It's certainly an interesting one.

ROBERTS: Wow. He's got his arguments down.

Yes, he certainly has his arguments down.  But isn't a 10-year-old who asserts he's "grown up with a lot of people and good friends with a lot of people that are gay" worth a journalistic follow-up?

Not at CNN obviously.  There it's just a matter of him being smarter, and terrific, and having his arguments down.  And if other children disapprove, then they're nothing but wads, dork wads. Back in the day, Kyra Phillips must have been one tough cookie down by the schoolyard.   

Today on its Web site and in its printed version, the Chicago Tribune reported on the large crowds greeting former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on her book tour.  More than a thousand enthusiastic admirers greeted her Wednesday in Grand Rapids.  Another thousand were already in line at 7:00 a.m. today for a book signing scheduled for 6:00 p.m. in Noblesville, Indiana.  Hundreds more gathered in line hours ahead of her appearance at a Ft. Wayne Meijer store.

The vision of Sarah Palin being cheered by so many common people in such common towns as Grand Rapids and Ft. Wayne and in such common venues as a Meijer store must be just too much for the deep thinkers at the Chicago Tribune.  Palin Derangement Syndrome kicked in.  Bad.  They had to provide their own version of what's happening.

"All this rightist hoopla is all so predictable," writes the newspaper's former national editor, Charles Madigan.  In the first part of the piece he decries criticism of Barack Obama's how low can you go bow to Japan's emperor and anti-Obama sentiment from the right:

Their congressional caucus, their blurting mouthpieces, their nattering nabobs of neocon nonsense, their Limbeckians (sounds like Jonathan Swift, doesn't it?) their addled and confused tea baggers, their Michelle Backmanians, they are all coming from the same place, a losers fantasyland where there is no reality other than what they think.

Then he moves specifically onto Palin, who "will make a whole fishing trawler full of money from her book."  He ends:

Palin's following will gobble up her book and it will become as much a bible as that King James version, Sarah's version of what happened. They will love her forever. She will become a talk show host where she will also blast Obama for bowing before foreign powers and being a closet socialist.

That part of America has become so predictable, it's hardly worth paying much attention as it continues shouting, primarily to itself.

Then we have the PDS symptoms exhibited by columnist Steve Chapman in "Sarah Palin and the conservative descent."  He didn't care much for the book:

But the priorities of "Going Rogue" are striking poses and attitudes, not making actual arguments about the proper role of government. The book is meant to create an image, or maybe a brand -- folksy but shrewd, tough but feminine, noble but beset by weaklings and traitors, ever-smiling unless you awaken her inner "Mama Grizzly Bear" by scrutinizing her loved ones. No one could be more pleased with her than she is with herself. Reading the book is like watching Palin preen in front of a mirror for hours as she tirelessly compliments herself for courage, gumption, devotion to family and maverick independence.

Sarah Palin just doesn't have the requisite "gravitas" apparently.  But he can think of someone who does:

You could almost forget that for well over a year, Republicans have ridiculed Barack Obama as lighter than a souffle, an inexperienced upstart who owes everything to arrogant presumption and a carefully crafted image. But Obama wrote a 375-page book, "The Audacity of Hope," that shows a solid, and occasionally tedious, grasp of issues.

It is hard to imagine Palin (as opposed to a ghostwriter) producing anything comparable. Almost as hard as it is to imagine that modern conservatives would expect it.

Leaders who can think? That's so 20th century.

Today's Tribune also includes a Sarah Palin paper doll.  One reader's reaction: "I bet a lot of the editorial writers at the Trib would LOVE a Palin BLOW UP DOLL better!"

These are dark days in much of the mainstream media.  Despite the most adamant admonitions from the superior people in the press, those common people in their common communities persist in liking and trusting Sarah Palin.  So when the news is bad, as it is today, the only thing they can do is provide "balance" by slamming her elsewhere in their pages.

They can assert that Palin's America is "hardly worth paying much attention," yet they simply can't stop obsessing on it. 

On CNN Saturday Morning News today, anchor Betty Nguyen interviewed a psychiatrist about Major Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 and wounded 30 others in a shooting spree Thursday in Fort Hood, Texas.  She began by delving into possible reason for Hasan's actions:

NGUYEN: Dr. Paul Ragan, a psychiatrist who specializes in post-traumatic stress disorder joins me now from Nashville. Dr. Ragan, let me ask you this. Are the Ft. Hood shootings the action of someone who might have suffered from PTSD?

DR. PAUL RAGAN, SPECIALIZES IN POST-TRAUMATIC SYNDROME: I think actually that's fairly unlikely. Dr. Hasan just finished a two-year fellowship at the Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress and he had only been an independent Army psychiatrist for about four months. That is at an operational base. So for him to have been suffering from PTSD I think is highly unlikely.

NGUYEN: Doctor, let me ask you this, then. A lot of people find it awfully ironic too, he was a psychiatrist, someone to help people when they have issues, yet he's also accused of shooting of this magnitude. What would cause someone, especially with that kind of training and that kind of background to do something like this?

RAGAN: Well, that's the huge question before us. I don't have the exact answer. I can give a little guidance. To put it bluntly, the wheels came off many, many months or even years probably before he showed up at Ft. Hood. Usually, in the military after you finish your residency, you go and do your operational tour. That's what I did. Then, the Army allowed him to do a two-year fellowship. There's some evidence that he may have been trying to avoid deploying. And so where did he not identify with the military mission? He had been in the military as the soldier said earlier, over 10 years. What was it that happened that he couldn't fulfill his military obligations?

Nguyen then moved on to another potential reason for the massacre:

NGUYEN: Yeah. So, the question, too, is it the fact that he disagreed with the mission or was it taunting, was it teasing, was it harassment? Could these things have played a role as well?

RAGAN: They may have. I can tell you, in the medical community over 25 years I have been intermittently teased for being a psychiatrist. That, I don't think, was the tipping point for him. And clearly, there's a good deal of prejudice in certain areas of our society toward Muslims, but, again, as the soldier told us, the Army has been pretty strict about not engaging in that type of harassment. So again, I don't think that was the tipping point. I think it was earlier.   

So who would taunt, tease or harasss a field grade Army officer?  It's implausible that anyone lower than him in rank would be so foolish.  People at his rank and above are probably astute enough in terms of political correctness to realize that their careers could easily be over with just one career ending utterance.

Moreover, earlier in her program Nguyen aired an interview of an Army sergeant who is Muslim conducted by correspondent Sean Callebs.  When asked about harassment because of his religion, the sergeant responded:

The only experience that I did have was while I was in basic training and a friend, a battle buddy is my own -- basically the guy I room with, the guy who I have to look out for and he has to look out for me, just made a joke regarding my religion and my drill sergeant took that very seriously and had him disciplined from my entire company and he was punished for his actions, even though he was jokingly saying it to me.

Still, Nguyen wanted to explore that as a reason for what happened.  With both PTSD and harassment effectively set aside, she moved on to one last reason:

NGUYEN: What about religious beliefs? Do you think that might have played a role because there were reports that he gave out the Koran the day of the shooting, also reports that he may have yelled Allah akbar right before the shootings. Could religion have played a role?

RAGAN: I think religion did play a role. Evidently he was counseled about proselytizing patients which was clearly a boundary violation. We have a report that he gave in his class at the fellowship, he was talking about endorsing suicide bombings. He was clearly engaging in some type of tunnel vision where this kind of radical view, which is not, as again the soldier said before, is not a part of mainstream Muslim religion. And so, he was -- there was something going on there, very much so.

Hasan's motivation may never be determined with absolute certainty.  Still, it's interesting that some in the mainstream media look for other reasons - as remote as they may be - before considering a more obvious one. 

The Washington Post yesterday afternoon reported "President Obama delivers remarks on Ft. Hood shooting at end of tribal leaders conference." The transcript begins:

SPEAKER: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

[*] OBAMA: Please, everybody, have a seat. Let me first of all just thank Ken and the entire Department of the Interior staff for organizing just an extraordinary conference.

I want to thank my Cabinet members and senior administration officials who participated today. I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow (ph) was around, and so I want to give a shout out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. It's good to see you.

Ah, the dangers of giving shout outs without a teleprompter.  Crow is not a Medal of Honor recipient.  As noted by the Congressional Medal of Honor Society:

The Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force which can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the Armed Services of the United States. Generally presented to its recipient by the President of the United States of America in the name of Congress, it is often called the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Crow's name is not included on the Society's Medal of Honor recipient list.  He was, however, awarded the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, in August.

Obama, often described as "cerebral" by the mainstream media, should know the difference between the Medal of Honor and the Medal of Freedom, especially since he personally awarded the latter to Crow.  Don't expect his blunder to receive wide coverage.  It's not something he can blame George Bush for.       

On her segment of CNN Newsroom this morning, anchor Heidi Collins asked business correspondent Christine Romans about Senate action on extending yet again unemployment benefits:

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: You're right. And Heidi, all of those things that you mentioned are incredibly important to your money and all of them could affect you very, very near-term here. This extension of the unemployment benefits, it would be the third.

The Senate has passed it. It goes to the House. It's expected to be voted on and passed very, very quickly here. Because, remember, your Congress member and your senator, they are being inundated in their offices with questions from people saying, wait, how am I going to survive when this check runs out? Seven thousand checks running out every week.

It would be a 14-week extension nationwide, 20 weeks of unemployment. More unemployment benefits for the states with 8.5 percent unemployment or more. And this would be paid by a two-year extension of an existing -- existing tax on employers. So this would be paid for by a tax on employers.

It would not come out of your pocket and my pocket. But it would be the third extension here, Heidi. And it's critically important. Like I said, so many people are losing their unemployment benefits right now. Some 200,000 have lost their jobless benefits just as the Senate has been negotiating this.

In parroting the liberal theme that big bad business, not taxpayers, will actually foot the tab, Romans does a disservice to viewers.  The late Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate in Economics, explained why in 2005 testimony given the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform:

All taxes ultimately -- the consumer pays the taxes.  Nobody else pays the taxes.  Corporations don't pay taxes.  They collect them, but they don't pay them.  The only people who pay taxes are people and people are all consumers.

Yet Christine Romans claims you and I won't pay for the extension of unemployment benefits.  One way or the other, we will.   

Chief White House correspondent for U.S. News & World Report Kenneth Walsh is mighty impressed.  In "He's Still No-Drama Obama," posted on the magazine's Web site, Walsh writes:

Face to face, President Obama seems even more unflappable, cerebral, and dispassionate than he appears on television.

And later:

I have interviewed each of the past five presidents— Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Obama—and Obama seems the most cerebral and the least emotional of them all.

"Cerebral" is one of the media's favorite adjectives to describe Obama these days.  In the current Newsweek, Anna Quindlen notes:

(Obama) is methodical, thoughtful, cerebral, a believer in consensus and process.

National Public Radio blogger Frank James describes Obama as "the urbane, super cool, cerebral president."

In a Los Angeles Times piece last month, columnist Michael Hiltzik asks, "why are the Democrats so reluctant to drop the hammer on the opposition and pass" ObamaCare?

Could the answer lie in Obama's cerebral personality? Obama seems to believe that if he explains his positions slowly and clearly enough, their fundamental logic will inevitably win the day without the need for arm-twisting.

Barry is very, very brainy.  That's the message.  There are different types of intelligence, of course, and Obama clearly is bright in certain ways.  He did, after all, parlay his community organizer background with a mediocre record as a state legislator and extremely limited experience as a senator into a White House win.

Still, we also know Obama has problems at least occasionally with elemental facts like how many states there are, what language is spoken in Afghanistan, and to whom Memorial Day is dedicated.  Then there was the time last year he claimed 10,000 people perished in Kansas tornadoes.  The actual number was 12.

Tut, tut, advised his media accomplices.  Trivial errors that anyone could have made.  Still, they can't explain why the genius must have several of his favorite teleprompters around him at all times.

Then there are his policies.  How smart does one have to be to think that a country can spend its way out of its economic woes?  That government makes better decisions for people than the people themselves do? That cozying up to ruthless dictators, dithering on important decisions, and constantly apologizing for one's own country are prudent policies?

The mainstream media have a vested interest in making Obama appear successful.  They did much of the heavy lifting necessary to get him into the White House.  As his failures become more apparent and he sinks in the polls, they now hope to persuade us that electing this "cerebral" man was the smart thing to do.

How dumb do they think the American people are?

CNN's Rick Sanchez often describes his Newsroom segment as a national conversation.  Increasingly, however, his program primarily consists of Sanchez mouthing current liberal talking points.

So it was today, as he excitedly asked viewers:

Do you want the public option that could make health insurance more competitive and cheaper, because it's looking like we may get it in some form at this point. Here's who else is going to be speaking in just a little bit, Senator Harry Reid is about to announce his position on this. I asked you this same question, by the way, a little while ago. How you felt about public option. You know, I've got to tell you, the numbers seem to show right now, it's about 61 percent in favor.

That 61 percent figure came from a recent CNN poll.  He could have, but didn't, cite another poll, one mentioned recently in The Hill:

Polling experts, however, have documented that many people don’t know what a public option is, and that small changes in language can cause poll results to vary widely. An August poll by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates showed that only 37 percent of those polled correctly identified the public option from a list of three choices.

So there's substantial confusion over a public option, which more accurately should be termed a government option.  That's to be expected. Neither Obama nor his congressional Democrats seemingly have a clue about what "their" health reform will be, so why should the public?

But noting that confusion might put a crack in Sanchez's perceived momentum for the public option, and he wasn't about to do that:

And you, on Twitter, are in favor as well. Go to the Twitter board if you can, Zack. Look at the first one -- "Yes, it makes not sense why we can't have another public option.

Under that: "Absolutely, it is a must."

I have no idea what just happened that thing. But you know, sometimes technology gets the best of you, as it today. Let me go back here.

"Absolutely, it's a must."

Next one, here's something I want to know, "Would you like to see a public option? Yes, public option is the whole point."

Next one: "Yes, to the public option."

"I would love to see a public option, without the state opt out. Repeal the anti-trust laws, give real choices to us."

"One word: Yes."

Next one, "yes, but it should be for everyone, not just for a few. We should all be able to opt out from our current coverage if we want."

So, you get a sense there that there is starting to be -- a sense that Americans are embracing this idea of a public option in this country. And there are other people now who are getting involved and embracing it as well.

The reason viewers may have gotten "a sense that Americans are embracing this idea of a public option" is Sanchez didn't read a single tweet from anyone opposed to the idea.  I know he received at least two, but they didn't fit into his storyline.  So he simply pretended they don't exist.   

Sanchez still wasn't done with peddling a major feature of ObamaCare.  He had yet another card to play:

Nebraska's conservative Democrat Ben Nelson, is now saying that he -- this is interesting, remember what I just said, conservative Nebraska Democrat and Senator Ben Nelson, who hasn't been keen on the idea in the past, has over the last couple of days maybe possibly going through a shift in this. He's now saying he would not be opposed to the public option in some form.

Wow, even conservatives are jumping on the public option bandwagon.  It's a landslide!  Sanchez didn't tell his viewers exactly how "conservative" Nelson is.

According to interest group ratings compiled by Project Vote Smart, for 2008 the National Taxpayers Union gave him a rating of F.   In 2007, Nelson scored a 5 with Americans for Tax Reform.  The American Conservative Union assigned him a rating of 16 for 2008.  Nelson received a 100 from the AFL-CIO for 2008 and an A for 2007-2008 from the National Education Association.

Ben Nelson may be many things.  A conservative isn't one of them.

To contend, as Sanchez does, that a government option could make health insurance more competitive and cheaper flies in the face of all reality.  What company could possibly compete against an entity with unlimited tax dollars at its disposal?  And if Medicare, which is defrauded to the tune of $60 billion a year is any example, the public option will be staggeringly expensive even if all other waste is squeezed out of it, a highly unlikely occurrence. 

Rick Sanchez may be many things.  An objective journalist isn't one of them.

On his segment of today's CNN Newsroom, anchor Rick Sanchez went for the hat trick, likening Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to the infamous Theophilus “Bull” Connor, Birmingham, Alabama’s late segregationist police commissioner who ruthlessly used police attack dogs and fire hoses to thwart 1963 civil rights demonstrators, no fewer than three times.

Sanchez prefaced his interview with the Arizona sheriff:

Well, perhaps not since Bull Connor whose aggressive police tactics against blacks in the South sparked civil rights legislation in 1964 has our country seen a showdown like the one going on right now between Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio and Washington, as in the feds.

You heard it here on Friday, right? Immigration and Customs Enforcement assistant secretary came on the air and told me that while they do want local sheriffs around the country to help with immigration issues and immigration arrests, he specifically said they don't want Sheriff Joe Arpaio's help.

And during his interview:

SANCHEZ: Like Bull Connor in 1960s, you're going to sit there and tell the feds, you don't care what they say, you're going to do it your way and you're going to do it when you want to do it?

ARPAIO: No, they don't tell me how to do my job enforcing state laws. I worked 25 years as a top Justice Department drug enforcement official. I think I know the federal law and how to operate under the federal blanket. So...

SANCHEZ: All right. Well, for the record, they're saying you don't and they're saying you're violating it.

ARPAIO: Then come on after me, if he thinks I'm violating any of the federal laws.

Then after the interview with Arpaio, he spoke with a columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune:

SANCHEZ: I hope many of you saw my interview just about 20 minutes ago with Sheriff Joe Arpaio out of Maricopa County. He's sticking to his guns. He says he's doing nothing wrong. The Feds are telling him, back off. We don't want your raids anymore. We don't want your sweeps. We don't think that your police procedure is proper. But he's saying he's going to continue to do these anyway.

You know, it reminds one of the standoff between the Feds and Bull Connor back in the 1960s. It began what today we know as much of the civil rights laws that are written in this country.

Has it gone that far? Let me ask somebody who's followed Joe Arpaio since the 1990s. He's a -- a colleague of mine. He's a -- he's a -- I shouldn't say correspondent. He's a writer. He writes columns. His name is Ruben Navarrette.

Unsurprisingly, Navarrette was quite simpatico with Sanchez, beginning with the observation, "I'm glad you talked to Sheriff Joe Arpaio. What would a circus be without the clowns?"

The truth is Joe Arpaio has little in common with Bull Connor.  Connor was an ardent, life-long Democrat who served as Alabama's Democratic National Committeeman.  Arpaio is a Republican.

Connor viciously attacked citizens exercising their Constitutional rights.  Arpaio arrests criminals.

Sanchez isn't the first to liken Arpaio to Connor.  ACORN chief executive officer Bertha Lewis has characterized Arpaio as "the 21st century's answer to Bull Connor."  Says Rev. Al Sharpton:

I am calling for an end to the civil and human rights violations being committed in Maricopa County. . . and the immediate resignation of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The egregious nature of Arpaio’s abuses, marking him as the Bull Connor of the 21st Century, demands nothing less.

The Communist Workers World last month gleefully reported "Racist Sheriff Arpaio greeted by angry, militant protest."  The story noted:

Inside, the event was disrupted by four protesters, one of whom paid the $30 entrance fee and stood in line to get Arpaio’s autograph. When she got to the front of the line, Liliana, a Colombian immigrant, handed Arpaio a certificate and loudly proclaimed, “I am here to present to you the Bull Connor Award for your promotion of racial discrimination, disregard of human rights, abuse of power and general hatred of the ‘other.’

So Sanchez's comparing Sheriff Joe to Bull Connor isn't original.  The only difference is he has a daily show on CNN.  ACORN, Sharpton, and Workers World can only aspire to such exposure. 

ABC News's Web site includes the article "Is Obama 'Too Nice' to Make Tough Decisions?" by correspondent David Kerley.  The piece begins:

With problems for the president in Afghanistan, health care and unemployment, some critics on both the left and right are asking: Is the president essentially "too nice" to make the important decisions?

The National Journal magazine asks in a just-out edition, "Is He Tough Enough?"

"Be decisive," says Tom Tradewell, the commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Even liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd says the president will have to "break some eggs" to cook up a more perfect union.

None of the people quoted assert the problem is Obama's affability.  Rather, the difficulty is the extreme caution he exercises, many times so as to not offend interest groups.  

We know Obama has little reluctance in employing the us-versus-them class struggle rhetoric against private enterprise.  He's accused surgeons of removing legs and tonsils for the money.  (The American College of Surgeons pointed out his statement that a surgeon receives $50,000 for a leg amputation was a little off; Medicare pays between $740 and $1,140).  Obama has no qualms sending his flunkies forth to attack Fox News.  On Saturday, he personally claimed that health insurers are “filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads.”

Too nice?  Not hardly.  Indecisive? Definitely.  Dithering?  You bet.  Waffling?  Absolutely.  Unqualified?  The answer increasingly becomes apparent.  While Obama repeatedly says he wants to make things clear, rarely does he provide specifics.

As he stumbles and vacillates and falters, we've seen the mainstream media supply an arsenal of excuses for Obama's failings.  He inherited it all from Bush.  He set too ambitious an agenda.  Large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress aren't enough.  He's so terribly brilliant and nuanced that it takes the American public quite a while to catch up with him.

And now an excuse is he's just too nice.  That's as empty as Obama's promises, and will last about as long.