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.

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.