In its continuing coverage of Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), the Associated Press now reports:

A government watchdog group filed an ethics complaint against Idaho Sen. Larry Craig Tuesday after Craig said he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges stemming from complaints of lewd conduct in a men's room. . .

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint with the Senate ethics committee seeking an investigation into whether Craig violated Senate rules by engaging in disorderly conduct.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) may qualify to be described as a government watchdog group. What the Associated Press should have told its readers is that CREW is an extraordinarily partisan watchdog group.

According to its Web site, CREW has initiated lawsuits or lodged complaints against Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL), Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA), and House minority leader John Boehner (R-OH).

Moreover, CREW has launched Federal Election Commission complaints against the campaign committees of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), and former speaker of the House Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL).

Oh, and then there's CREW's complaint against Rep. Duncan Hunter's (R-CA) leadership PAC. And, of course, CREW has sued the Bush administration.

Even the Associated Press should be able to recognize a pattern here. It owes it to readers to clarify that this watchdog group only watches one side.

Today's front page of the Chicago Tribune carries the story "Vast army of 'Hillary haters' has claws out." Written by Tribune national correspondent Jill Zuckman, the article cites a handful of people and organizations opposed to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's White House ambitions:

Armed with new technologies and fueled by animus, they are bent on preventing "four more years" of Clintonism. Every old charge, it seems, is being repackaged and sold as new. Every rumor is given a new, blog-stoked currency.

Correspondent Zuckman writes of the "venomous opposition" to Mrs. Clinton:

Ever since she uttered those famous words about staying home, baking cookies and holding teas rather than fulfilling her professional goals, Clinton has been a magnet for passionate criticism.

Ms. Zuckman quotes an advisor of another Democratic presidential candidate:

"There's clearly a sliver of the right wing in the country that's unhinged over both of the Clintons. Their hatred is simply pathological," said Jim Jordan, who is advising Sen. Christopher Dodd's presidential bid. "I'm sure some of these kooks look back at the Clinton White House as the good ol' days - they were energized and relevant then."

Ah, the old dependable: Conservatives are nuts.

I wonder if mainstream media operatives like Ms. Zuckman ever consider the possibility that Mrs. Clinton's opponents despise her position on public policies, not necessarily her personally. Or are they merely satisfied to quote Democrats who view her critics as "simply pathological?"

Now that Ms. Zuckman has focused on "Hillary haters," perhaps we can anticipate similar reports on "Rudy haters," "Mitt haters," "Fred haters," etc. And how could the Tribune's national correspondent have overlooked for so many years the vast army of "Bush haters?" As we know, there's a considerable number of people who blame President Bush for willfully killing thousands of young Americans in Iraq for no reason, for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, and for practically every bad thing that's happened since his election or - as they prefer - his "selection."

Ms. Zuckman views a small number of people and organizations and sees a vast army. Perhaps she's confusing them with the millions of Americans who don't want Mrs. Clinton in the White House. They disagree with her belief that government knows best. They question her supposed "experience," which for the most part is nothing more than serving as First Lady. They dislike her use of the politics of personal destruction while at the same time she condemns the politics of personal destruction. They despise the sleaze of her husband's administration and her willingness to put up with anything just to stay close to power. They detest the shallowness and self-concern exhibited by her statement that another devastating terrorist attack could help Republicans.

Mrs. Clinton has successfully played the victim card before. It looks like some in the meainstream media think trying it again can help her.

They may not be YouTube-friendly, but the Chicago Sun-Times has on staff at least two Obama Girls cranking out their undiluted admiration for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Columnist Lynn Sweet, the newspaper's Washington Bureau Chief, has expressed her displeasure with not being able to follow him into the East Bank Club's locker room. When Obama announced his candidacy, Ms. Sweet deemed his speech "soaring" and "inspirational," an evaluation not shared by everyone seeing it.

Columnist Jennifer Hunter is married to the publisher of the Sun-Times, which might explain why she can avoid even the pretense of detachment. She's favored us with accounts of Republicans who weren't really Republicans. She's written unbiased columns with titles such as "Could Obama end centuries of corruption?" and "Obama has fresh ideas on terrorism."

Yesterday, we learned Ms. Hunter's Obamamania now extends to his wife. In "Michelle gets stronger all the time," we learn that while campaigning for her husband, Mrs. Michelle Obama talks "straight from the heart with eloquence and intelligence."

Moreover,

She speaks with more emotion than her husband; you feel she is the power propelling him, that she has the psychological mettle, the tough skin, the searing ambition.

My colleague Mary Mitchell asked Michelle how she was able to "snag Barack." But Obama knows he is the lucky one. At least he should know. Michelle is an incredible asset to his campaign.

Obviously, the Sun-Times's Obama Girls are also doing their best to be assets to his campaign. At the rate they're going, Barry may have to start reporting their coverage of him as an in-kind campaign contribution.

But please, ladies, stay off YouTube. It's the merciful thing to do.

On yesterday's Hardball on MSNBC, Chris Matthews was in hyper rabid mode, even for him. The subject was the report on Iraq progress scheduled for September:

Is the White House going to pull a Lucy again with the football trick all over again? For months, President Bush has been asking us to wait for a report from General Petraeus. How many times did we hear that phrase, Wait for the report from General Petraeus? Now we learn that the White House is going to write the report - the White House! - and that the general will testify publicly before Congress only after the report has been written by Bush‘s people.

And later as he hosted a panel discussion on the topic:

We have got the president over and over and over again saying don‘t believe me, believe this guy Petraeus. And now we‘re told he‘s going to be Cyrano de Bergerac to Petraeus. He‘s going to write it for him?

MSNBC's bio on Matthews claims he's a "television news anchor with remarkable depth of experience." Apparently that depth of experience doesn't lend itself to knowing what he's talking about.

The Congressional appearances of Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker were, as was another Iraq status report from the President, mandated by legislation passed last May in Public Law 110-28. After requiring the President to report on specific benchmarks by July, 15, 2007, the law continues:

The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above.

Two sentences later comes this:

TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS. —Prior to the submission of the President’s second report on September 15, 2007, and at a time to be agreed upon by the leadership of the Congress and the Administration, the United States Ambassador to Iraq and the Commander, Multi-National Forces Iraq will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress.

The law requires the President to submit a report and the general and the ambassador to testify. Shouldn't the "ever wired" Chris Matthews have known that before ranting?

As time goes on, Mr. Matthews appears to be getting as far removed from reality as his former boss, the sadly pathetic Jimmy Carter.

ABC7 Chicago's Andy Shaw reported today on a Democratic rally at the Illinois State Fair. Speaking was former steelworker Steve Skvara, who the mainstream media made an instant celebrity, not to mention health care authority, after he tearfully asked "What's wrong with America? And what will you do to change it?" at last week's AFL-CIO debate.

Shaw reports:

The governor's rally on a sweltering afternoon with a heat index above 100 attracted hundreds of Democrats, including a steelworker from Indiana who lost his job and health care and repeated an emotional plea that highlighted a presidential debate in Chicago last week.

"I want to hear a roar! Who's going to change America? Who's America is it? Is it the corporations' America or is it the citizens that vote?" said Stephen Skvara, former steelworker.

That gentleman was brought in by the governor.

Just a minute. Mr. Skvara did indeed lose his job, but it was because of an auto accident, not, as may be interpreted by the way it's presented, the evil corporations against which Skvara now rails. And Mr. Skvara has health care. As he told Chris Matthews, he's covered under Medicare. It's his wife who he claims doesn't have health care coverage and he can't afford to buy any.

He prefaced his questions at the debate by mentioning he "sit(s) at the kitchen table across from the woman who devoted 36 years of her life to my family, and I can't afford to pay for her health care."

Perhaps one of the reasons Mr. Skvara was so effective in his presentation is he received help. As outlined in the August 10, 2007 Madison, WI Capital Times, another union activist explained details on how the debate was orchestrated:

Back in Madison on Thursday, Lowe was saying that he was one of about 20 people chosen by the AFL-CIO, which sponsored Tuesday night's debate at Soldier Field, to "have the possibility of asking a question.". . .

On Monday, Lowe rode the Amtrak train to Chicago and, along with the other potential questioners, met with officials from the AFL-CIO and MSNBC, which was televising the debate. . .

The meeting was a training session and was mostly about paring down the questions, Lowe said. They were told questions had to be 20 seconds or less.

The group convened again mid-afternoon Tuesday -- the debate was scheduled for 6 p.m. -- and after a final reading of the questions, Lowe was not selected to ask his during the debate.

He described his question as having to do with health care and pensions and a secure future for coming generations of Americans. Lowe recognized immediately that another prospective questioner, 60-year-old Steve Skvara of Indiana, had circumstances from which to frame a more compelling health care inquiry.

"His story was better than mine," Lowe said, and Skvara was chosen to participate.

No, you just can't beat a good story, particularly after it's been preselected by both the AFL-CIO and MSNBC.

Andy Shaw did note that Mr. Skvara was "brought in by the governor." It'd be interesting to see who paid for that. Last month it was reported that Illinois taxpayers paid $600 to a makeup artist so their pretty boy governor, Milorad Blagojevich, looked as good as possible in delivering his annual budget speech. It was only after the story surfaced that Blagojevich reimbursed the state.

Perhaps Mr. Shaw and his colleagues could look into who paid for Mr. Skvara to grace the Democratic rally. Or maybe they're too busy focusing on how he lost his job and doesn't have health care.

The question was, according to a reporter on the CBS Evening News, an example of when "a moment of truth breaks through a political campaign event." On MSNBC's Hardball, Chris Matthews told Mr. Skvara, ""You're a great American to speak so well to the needs of this country." Chrissy later gushed: "Well, can I pay tribute—can I pay tribute to you, sir?"

I'll not attempt to minimize Mr. Skvara's plight. When I heard his question, though, I thought back to a 1992 presidential debate when a man questioned the candidates: "And I ask the three of you, how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you, to meet our needs . . .”

Who'll take care of me? Is that what we've come to expect of a president? So far, no one in the mainstream media has asked Mr. Skvara, who is an executive board member of the Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees, what protection he was provided by the union to which he paid dues for so many years. Isn't protecting members' interests what unions are supposed to do? Or is their principal function to price their members out of the market with increasingly extravagant wage and benefit demands?

Mr. Skvara is disabled as the result of a 1997 car accident. He and his family were returning from a vacation in Disney World. In a December 24, 2004 (Northwest Indiana) Post-Tribune article, Mr. Skvara "said his medical bills and his son's medical bills totaled more than $250,000. He paid only a few hundred dollars."

"'We didn't pay anything because our health insurance was so good,' he said."

Because of good insurance, "we didn't pay anything." That's fine, but I wonder why then he allowed a benefit to be held on his behalf. The June 21, 1997 Post-Tribune carried a story that began:

When it comes to caring, the Skvara family here has never delivered a short stack, says family friend Lenore Samanas.

For that reason, Samanas and a group called Union Cares will be stacking pancakes high from 8 a.m. until 1 p.m. today at Union Fire Station, 551W Indiana 130 in Wheeler. The breakfast benefit is to help support Stephen and Sandra Skvara and their four children as medical bills mount, said Samanas.

Tickets are $4 for adults and $3 for children 12 and under.

Too bad he didn't set aside that benefit money, since he didn't really need it for medical bills, to pay for his spouse's health insurance. Or maybe it's better to demand the Federal government, specifically the president, take care of you. The Democratic candidates seem to think so.

Today's Chicago Sun-Times includes,"Romney targets Obama - with a twist," by columnist Lynn Sweet.
She writes:

"GOP White House hopeful Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, in a bid to highlight his support of abstinence education and appeal to his base vote, is going after Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

"Romney is twisting benign comments Obama made about sex education to a Planned Parenthood Action Fund conference to bolster his credentials among, apparently, the GOP voters who see themselves as sole proprietors of 'faith and values.'"

Ms Sweet notes that Obama emphasized that sex education needs to be "age appropriate." Left unstated is what exactly that means.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton told MSNBC's First Read that his boss is talking about protecting children from predators. "In addition, he issued a document showing that the Oregon Department of Education has guidelines for sex education for children in grades K-3 (which includes understanding the difference between a good touch and a bad touch). . . "

Yes, it does. But if Oregon is the model on which Senator Obama is basing his recommendation, other questions develop.

Oregon's guidelines include:

Understanding body parts, proper anatomical names, stages in basic growth process

Communicable/non-communicable diseases, the concept

Recognize risk behaviors (sharing body fluids) and methods of prevention

That doesn't sound like merely helping children understand the difference between good touching and bad touching.

Do parents want government schools providing proper anatomical names to their 5-year-olds? Does discussion of communicable diseases include talking about HIV if one of the students brings it up? And suppose children want a detailed explanation of precisely what body fluids are? What about parents who don't want schools teaching these concepts? How easy would it be for them to opt out and would their children be stigmatized if they did?

Ms Sweet is wrong about how benign all this is. And Governor Romney is right on target in challenging the Obama proposal.

Ms Pickler's article begins:
"The campaign of presidential hopeful John Edwards has a ready answer for all the criticism about his expensive haircuts and expansive home: A man can be wealthy and care about the poor, too.
Just look at a Democratic hero Robert F. Kennedy." [sic]

The child abuse "problem" was detailed in the May 7, 2004 Seattle Times:

"Former Oregon Gov. Neil Goldschmidt admitted yesterday he had a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl when he was 35 and mayor of Portland, and said he is resigning all his public and private positions to 'rebuild my life.'"

The Times article noted Goldschmidt "became the nation's youngest big-city mayor, going on to become transportation secretary for the Carter administration and Oregon governor from 1986 to 1990."

Is there some statute of limitation on reporting child abusers are former members of Democratic administrations?

"an interesting phenomenon that has arisen over the last few months: a trend of moderate Republicans who want to vote for Barack Obama. It may seem counterintuitive, conservatives supporting a candidate who wants to tax the wealthy and embrace the conventions in the Kyoto Accord, but there is something in Obama's message about ridding politics of partisanship that is appealing to these Republicans."

Miss Hunter identifies three supposed Republicans now backing Barack Obama. The operative word here is supposed. One of the three voted for John Kerry in the last presidential election. Yet another says she didn't vote for President Bush in 2004. There's no indication as to how the other "Republican" voted in 2004.

Yes, it's apparent those conservative Republicans are eagerly jumping on the Obama bandwagon. Just ask the mainstream media. They're really on top of those interesting phenomena.

A photograph of Bill Clinton and Officer Alan Davis on Page 3B in Monday's local section did not intend to imply that the former president had involvement in a sexual solicitation case against the officer. Davis and Clinton were photographed together when the officer did bomb checks during a visit by Clinton. Davis was arrested Sunday and charged with solicitation and transportation with the purpose of prostitution.

What a sad commentary it is that we have a former president whose reputation is so shabby that a newspaper believes clarification is required.  Still, I can see where it would be necessary whenever Bill Clinton is involved.

What a legacy.