Retired steelworker Steve Skvara tugged at the heartstrings of liberals everywhere when he asked Democratic presidential candidates at an August debate sponsored by the AFL-CIO, "What's wrong with America? And what will you do to change it?" The underlying premise of his question, that something's wrong with this nation because taxpayers aren't picking up the tab for his spouse's health insurance, made him an instant celebrity in certain circles.

Chris Matthews invited Mr. Skvara to his MSNBC Hardball program and told him, "You're a great American to speak so well to the needs of this country." Matthews later fawned, ""Well, can I pay tribute — can I pay tribute to you, sir?" The CBS Evening News described Skvara's query as a time when "a moment of truth breaks through a political campaign event." Since his debut, Mr. Skvara's popped up in the media numerous times, including Oprah Winfrey's show.

In its October 4 edition, People's Weekly World reports on a recent Chicago rally demanding single-payer health care. More than a third of the article is devoted to Steve Skvara, who "personified the devastating effects of a broken health care system on working families."

On Sept. 28, Skvara rallied with other health care advocates and groups at the State of Illinois building in downtown Chicago as part of a national day of action for single-payer health care.

“This country has the finest doctors and nurses in the world,” he told the World at the rally. “But it has the worst health care delivery system known, based on profit and greed and not on need.”

Skvara said people need to push lawmakers to back HR 676, the “Medicare for All” bill, a national health care bill that promotes universal health care in the United States.
“Who’s going to run this country? The corporations or the people who vote? We have to realize our potential and our power as voters,” he said. Ah, that old class struggle yet again.

People's Weekly World has an interesting history. It contends it's "the direct descendant of the Daily Worker" and "enjoy(s) a special relationship with the Communist Party USA, founded in 1919, and publish(es) its news and views."

Sometimes it's humorously asserted that great minds think alike. I don't know if that's true, but it certainly seems as though liberal minds think alike. It's only a hop, skip, and a jump from being paid tribute by Chris Matthews and garnering the attention of Oprah to Mr. Skvara finding himself approvingly quoted by People's Weekly World, a publication with that special relationship with Commies.

A September 23 piece in the (Northwest Indiana) Post-Tribune noted that "Skvara warned his four children not to look for him on the Internet" because of distressing stuff they might read. I don't blame him. If I were given favorable coverage in a publication that brags of being a direct descendant of the Daily Worker, I wouldn't want my kids to see it either.

Then again, Chris Matthews hasn't paid tribute to me as a great American. Yet.

In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman's commentary, "Conservatives Are Such Jokers," begins:

In 1960, John F. Kennedy, who had been shocked by the hunger he saw in West Virginia, made the fight against hunger a theme of his presidential campaign. After his election he created the modern food stamp program, which today helps millions of Americans get enough to eat.

But Ronald Reagan thought the issue of hunger in the world’s richest nation was nothing but a big joke. Here’s what Reagan said in his famous 1964 speech “A Time for Choosing,” which made him a national political figure: “We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet.”

Today’s leading conservatives are Reagan’s heirs.

Krugman could have noted that candidate Kennedy himself backed off from that estimate. In a September 28th speech during the 1960 presidential campaign, Kennedy responded to criticisms of his use of that number:
"They may not go to bed hungry every night, (emphasis added) but they don't go to bed very well fed and here is my source." He then cited a Republican senator and President Eisenhower's agriculture secretary. Interestingly, the secretary's statement was made in arguing against a food stamp program.

Days later at their second debate, Republican candidate Vice President Richard Nixon made a point of Kennedy's backtracking:
"I don't think it was helpful when he suggested - and I'm glad he's corrected this to an extent - that 17 million people go to bed hungry every night in the United States." For his part, Kennedy didn't dispute he had corrected his previous charge, going on to repeat the sources he'd used earlier.

Victor Lasky, in the heavily documented 1963 book "JFK: The Man & The Myth," dealt with the controversy:

But Kennedy's most dramatic claim - one he had to drop - was this: "The facts are that 17 million Americans go to bed hungry every night." And, naturally, it was all the Republicans' fault. "We'll admit the young Senator's figures are startling - but where did he get them?" the irreverent New York Daily News asked. "Did that amazing total include citizens on diets or ginmill patrons who plain forgot to order a sandwich?" Apparently Kennedy - or one of his ghost writers - seemed to have misunderstood a 1955 Agriculture Department study of the nation's eating habits. It found that many American families do indeed suffer from nutritional deficiencies. But again, while such deficiencies are most common in low-income groups, it was also found that between 13 and 17 percent of households with incomes of $10,000 and over suffer from various nutritional shortages.

The mainstream media just can't stop knocking conservatives in general and Ronald Reagan in particular. Whether their knocks have any merit or not is inconsequential. The important thing is to maintain their story line that conservatives are heartless because, unlike liberals, they don't believe in demonstrating their compassion with someone else's money.

Today's Chicago Tribune includes the editorial, "Protect us from Sally Field?" The Tribune is displeased that Ms. Field, who pretty much exhausted her acting ability 40 years ago with "The Flying Nun," was censored by the Fox Network.

In an acceptance speech on Sunday's Emmy Awards program, Sally shared her wisdom: "If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no god-damned wars in the first place." Fox cut out the last half of her sentence. Concluded the editorial:

Some would have been offended by Field's choice of words. Some would have been offended by her political sentiment. But everyone ought to feel a chill over the fact that they didn't get to hear the end of her sentence at all.

So, OK, the Chicago Tribune opposes that chilling effect. Hurrah.

The Trib's outrage might be more persuasive if it didn't selectively edit a story in the same day's paper.

In the article, "Taped voice said to be O.J.'s," the piece describes the latest episode of the ongoing O.J. Simpson saga. The second paragraph:

"Think you can steal my property and sell it?" a man believed to be Simpson angrily says on the audio obtained by TMZ.com after it was surreptitiously taped by auctioneer Thomas Riccio, who had arranged for Simpson to meet with men who reportedly were trying to sell his mementos.

But if you go to TMZ.com and listen to the audio, that purported question from Simpson is not to be heard, at least not as quoted. In an article yesterday from the Associated Press, one carried on the Trib's own Web site, the question from the voice identified as Simpson's is: "Think you can steal my s--- and sell it?"

Is the Tribune not concerned that its changing the quote will make all its readers "feel a chill" because they didn't get to read what actually was said?

It appears the Chicago Tribune doesn't believe in selective editing - unless it's the Chicago Tribune doing it.

When television cook and personality Rachael Ray signed a deal with Oprah Winfrey's production company to host a daily syndicated talk show, she said, "People know me for my love of food, but I have so much more I want to share."

Viewers of her program today got a good look at one of the things she wants to share: Her undiluted enthusiasm for guest Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. Ms. Ray devoted almost a third of today's program to Elizabeth.

Rachael expressed her admiration for Mrs. Edwards in her continuing battle with cancer and said "her speeches help inspire women across the country." She told Mrs. Edwards that her book "is a great read and you're a wonderful writer." Other sentiments from Ms. Ray included, "We all love you so much," and "I feel this connection with you."

There were giggles as the two women discussed children's eating habits, Elizabeth's first date with John, whether the couple has nicknames for one another (you'll be relieved to know they don't), and preferences in lounge wear. The audience, which gave Mrs. Edwards a standing ovation at the beginning of the segment, also applauded when Elizabeth said she liked wearing pajamas rather than sweat pants or blue jeans.

All the talk wasn't so apolitical. There was a video of a man telling Mrs. Edwards on the campaign trail: "Thank you for being so strong. We've got to get that man (John Edwards) into the White House." Not surprisingly, Mrs. Edwards concurred, saying "We do, we do."

When Mrs. Edwards spoke of her and her husband celebrating anniversary dinners at Wendy's, Rachael gushed, "These are people you can relate to!," these people being, apparently, Mr. and Mrs. John Edwards.

Moving on to more serious matters, Ms. Ray told the candidate's wife: "What a wonderful listener you are. You really understand and comprehend what people are saying to you." She then asked her what were the top three issues with which voters are concerned. Mrs. Edwards answered universal health care, the safety of their children in the military, and economic inequality. Coincidentally, all of these have served as routine talking points for her husband.

All too soon for Rachael, the segment was over. She ended by pleading with Elizabeth, "Please come back time and again! Move in! We love you. We respect you so much."

Rachael Ray's interview with Mrs. Edwards wasn't blatantly political, but it undoubtedly served well the interests of her husband's campaign. "These are people you can relate to!" Obviously you can, Rachael, but not all of us can.

What would Oprah do?

Today's New York Times includes the article, "A General Faces Questions From 5 Potential Bosses," an account of yesterday's testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by General David Petraeus and Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker. The item noted an exchange between Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), both Democratic presidential candidates:

The senators were allowed only seven minutes each for questions, a limit that Mr. Biden, as a committee chairman, tried to enforce. But he did not try overly hard to cut off Mr. Obama, perhaps because he did not want to be seen in the ungentlemanly act of silencing a political rival. “Why don’t you try to summarize quickly what you said, O.K.?” Mr. Biden genially asked him as his time ran out.

A review of the C-SPAN video of the incident shows that isn't what happened. Senator Obama spent almost all of his alloted time for questions in a monologue. With time running out, he posed one long, winding question that essentially was if there were any set of circumstances or scenarios that would cause the witnesses to recommend immediate withdrawal of the troops.

Ambassador Crocker replied to Senator Obama by gently mentioning he'd already outlined those in response to a similar question posed by Senator John Sununu (R-NH). "Can you repeat those?," asked Senator Obama. That's when Chairman Biden asked Ambassador Crocker, not Senator Obama, to summarize quickly.

If Mr. Obama isn't careful, he may develop a reputation similar to that of the late Senator Joseph Montoya (D-NM), who served on the 1973 Watergate committee. Time Magazine’s Walter Shapiro noted the senator provided comic relief during the hearings by dutifully reciting the questions staffers had given him, even if other senators had already asked the same questions.

Not that much of the mainstream media would want readers to arrive at such a conclusion. To many journalists, Barack Obama is intellectual, thoughtful, uncommonly bright, and shrewd. And they're doing their best to make us believe that.

Then again, perhaps Elisabeth Bumiller, who reported this story for the New York Times, wasn't paying any more attention to the proceedings than Mr. Obama was.

Earlier this month, ABC News's Rick Klein reported on the network's "Political Radar" Web site:

When an Iowa resident asked former senator John Edwards Thursday whether the United States should follow the Cuban healthcare model, the 2004 vice presidential contender deflected the question by saying he didn't know enough to answer the question.

"I'm going to be honest with you - I don't know a lot about Cuba's healthcare system," Edwards, D-N.C., said at an event in Oskaloosa, Iowa. "Is it a government-run system?"

It's difficult to believe that any American adult, let alone a former senator and current presidential candidate, doesn't know that in Cuba the government runs virtually everything. Can you imagine the scathing news coverage, the fuming editorials, and interminate talk show jokes if a Republican presidential candidate had made an equivalent blunder?

Yet the mainstream media, with the notable exception of ABC News, didn't find the incident very newsworthy.

For his part, I think John Edwards probably knows more than he admits about Cuban healthcare. He'd probably prefer avoiding any comparisons between it and his own healthcare scheme. And, by overlooking the incident, much of the mainstream media has helped him do that.