Weeks ago, Rick Kaplan, executive producer of the "CBS Evening News," claimed that "Everybody, including Republicans, would have to say that (Obama's) first 100 days have been great."  This week, Kaplan perpetuated a myth concerning Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

The event was a Katie Couric Roast & Toast held Wednesday evening as part of the American News Women's Club 15th gala.  MediaBistro's blog FishbowlDC provides the pertinent details in "Ratings, Palin and Colonoscopies: Couric Roasted :"

Kaplan, Couric's executive producer at Evening News ("Beauty and the Beast," chided Donaldson) was first up. "Roasting your anchor... can be really dangerous," he opened. "We did have to edit out a couple of comments that Katie made during the interview, for instance, when Governor Palin said I can see Russia from my house, Katie actually said, well I can see Jersey from mine but that doesn't mean I know where Jimmy Hoffa is buried."

The contention that "Governor Palin said I can see Russia from my house" is incorrect.  Even Time Magazine corrected the error last October in "Palin vs. "Palin": When SNL Parody Becomes Campaign Reality."  Reporting that Tina Fey's impersonation of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live provided "a seamless blending of reality and parody," the article went on to note:

A Google search, for instance, turns up plenty of blog references to Palin's claim that she could see Russia "from [her] house" as her way of saying that being governor of Alaska is a foreign policy credential. The only problem: Real Sarah Palin never said it. Fey did, spoofing Palin's argument that one can see Russia from Alaskan territory. But who can remember those details? If Real You gets in an argument with Public You, Public You wins every time.

A post-election Zogby poll of Obama voters disclosed that 86.9 percent of respondents believed GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was the correct answer to the question: Which candidate said they could see Russia from their house?

One would think that the executive producer of the "CBS Evening News" would know better.  Then again, with the detachment from reality demonstrated by his assertion that everyone would have to say Obama's first 100 days were great, perhaps he genuinely doesn't know any better.  And it's not likely his mainstream media comrades would point out the error.

On today's CNN Newsroom segment at 1:00 PM (ET), anchor Kyra Phillips interviewed White House senior advisor David Axelrod.  Phillips asked about the Senate's rejection of an $80 million request from President Obama to close the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba:

PHILLIPS: All right. Let's push forward, then, and talk about Gitmo. You know, your party voted overwhelmingly not to give the president the money for Gitmo. I mean, 90-6. Is it the bad economy, or is there truly a huge divide in convictions on this?

AXELROD: No, I think that members of the Senate were asking for a plan. We'll give them a plan as to how we're going to move forward. I think the president offered a framework for that today, and we're going to work with the Congress on whatever path that we take here.

The bad economy, Kyra?  I'm unaware of any senator, Democratic or Republican, who used a bad economy as justification for stripping what in Washington passes as chump change from a more than $90 billion spending bill.  Along with Obama, Congress has been squandering money like the proverbial drunken sailor and all in the sacred name of "stimulus."  Only today, KMOV in St. Louis carried an Associated Press story reporting that Missouri is using $250 million, more than three times the Gitmo funding total, of federal economic stimulus money just to pay state income tax refunds.  

The principal reason senators, including a big majority of Democrats, shot down Obama's $80 million request was identified yesterday at Bloomberg.com in a piece by Brian Faler and James Rowley, "Senate Rejects Request for Money to Close Guantanamo:"

Some Democrats said they agreed with Republicans that the White House hasn’t adequately explained its plans for Guantanamo. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, a Hawaii Democrat, called the decision to drop the funding “rather easy” because “the administration has not yet forwarded a coherent plan for closing this prison.”

So, no, the bad economy, which we all know was inherited by The One and he's fixing just as fast as he can, isn't the reason most members of his own party gave Obama a hard slap yesterday.  It's because his inexperience is once again showing. 

Maybe Kyra is just too courteous to have suggested that as a possibility.   

As has been documented repeatedly, celebrities just don't find much material for humor with Barack Obama.  He's just so thoughtful, so articulate, so bright, so. . . Fill in the blank, as long as it's sufficiently worshipful.

With former President George W. Bush, it's just the opposite.  Show biz types can't get enough of poking fun at him.  This is true even at the  National Geographic Bee.  Yes, the National Geographic Bee.  The Associated Press's story "Trebek Makes Bush Joke as Texas Teen Wins Geography Bee" details the latest:

The nation's top geography whiz breezed through questions about mountain ranges, rivers and world capitals Wednesday, but he was stumped when National Geographic Bee host Alex Trebek asked him to name one of his weaknesses.

"Um ..." said Eric Yang, 13, pausing. The Texas teen had just revealed to the "Jeopardy!" host how he crafts his own chess strategies and plays the piano.

"That's OK," Trebek replied. "You remind me of a former president, but we won't get into that."

Some in the audience at National Geographic's headquarters in Washington gasped. Others laughed. But the joke was on Trebek by the end of the hour as Eric took home the top prize of a $25,000 college scholarship, beating out nine other boys in the finals without missing a single answer.

No doubt Trebek knows his "wit" will be appreciated by other celebrities.  And he knows one other thing with certainty: Making fun of the former president won't place his job in Jeopardy. 

Yesterday fundraiser Norman Hsu was convicted of of illegally funneling tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  The Wall Street Journal reported:

On Tuesday, a jury convicted Mr. Hsu of four counts of campaign-finance fraud after about 2½ hours of deliberations. Each count carries up to five years in prison.

The latest example of political corruption was met by much of the mainstream media with a collective yawn.  CNN mentioned it only twice.  The Situation Room featured CNN anchor T.J. Holmes briefly touching on the story:

Also, a name you might remember making some news again. He gave money to the presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And he was already found guilty for mail and wire fraud. Well, today, Norman Hsu was convicted of violating campaign finance laws. He was accused of getting donations from people, including from celebrities, who funneled money that exceeded campaign finance rules to Democratic campaigns. His sentencing is scheduled for August.

 On Lou Dobbs Tonight, the host noted:

A top fund-raiser for the Democrats, Norman Hsu, today, convicted of corruption. A New York jury found Hsu guilty of breaking laws that restrict the amount of money an individual or group can donate to a political party. Hsu raised more than $800,000 for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, money that she later returned.

The lack of comprehensive coverage was notable, especially when considering how CNN has treated other political scandals.  On January 3, 2006, for example, lobbyist Jack Abramoff  pleaded guilty to conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion.  CNN couldn't give its viewers enough information on Abramoff, whose activities primarily targeted Republican politicians.

So on Your World Today at 12:00 PM (ET), CNN congressional correspondent Ed Henry reported live from outside the federal district court building.   The following hour on Live From. . . , Henry spoke with anchor Kyra Phillips:

PHILLIPS: All right. Let's talk about how this scandal could affect congressional elections, leadership in the House. What do you think?

HENRY: That's the main event this year. As you know, the president's no longer on the ballot. It's the midterm elections this coming November. And the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi and others have been making this case they believe there's a culture of corruption in the Republican Congress, which has now been in power since 1995. Republicans, of course, reject that argument. But this is going to add more fuel to the Democratic fire that, in fact, this was a Republican super-lobbyist, mostly had contacts with high-profile Republican leaders like Tom DeLay.

But again, I want to underline there are Democrats who have been implicated here. So while Democrats are sort of feasting on this right now, they may have some of their own lawmakers pulled down by this as well, Kyra.

Henry again talked with Phillips about the Abramoff story during the 3:00 PM segment of Live From. . .   The next hour on The Situation Room, anchor Wolf Blitzer interviewed Ed Henry once again and then spoke with CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider, who identified two schools of thought on the matter:

SCHNEIDER: President Bush himself called Abramoff -- quote -- "an equal money dispenser to people in both political parties."

JACK ABRAMOFF, LOBBYIST: I have no choice but to assert my various constitutional privileges.

SCHNEIDER: The second school points out that most of Abramoff's money seems to have gone to his fellow Republicans, including one very high profile Republican. And even if voters turn against all incumbents, Republicans have more at stake. Most incumbents in Congress are Republicans.

When asked in October which party in Congress would do a better job dealing with corruption, Democrats held an 11-point advantage, not because people believed Democrats are less corrupt, but because people know Democrats are out of power and money follows power.

Still, Blitzer wasn't through talking about Abramoff.  CNN Internet reporter Abbi Tatton, correspondent Dana Bash, Democratic strategist Bill Press, and Human Events editor Terry Jeffrey all had their say.  The next hour of The Situation Room included mention of Jack Abramoff no fewer than 20 times.

At 6:00 PM, CNN host Jonathan Mann devoted a full hour to the "Jack Abramoff Scandal" on Headline News.  Lou Dobbs Tonight at the same time included more than two dozen references to Abramoff and featured senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and longtime Democratic operative Stanley Brand.

Wolf Blitzer got back in the saddle during the 7:00 PM Situation Room, allotting plenty of time to the Abramoff story and coaxing from Democratic attorney Richard Ben-Veniste that, "This is the biggest scandal to come down the pike in a long, long time."

Both the Abramoff and Hsu scandals involved politicians at the highest levels of government.  Both involved huge contributions to candidates.  Both involved the possibility of lengthy jail sentences.  The disparity in coverage by CNN can't be explained away with a claim that Abramoff's offenses were so much more serious than Hsu's that they warranted wall to wall coverage for most of the news day while the Hsu story merited merely two brief references.

One striking difference is that Hsu, unlike Abramoff, almost exclusively favored Democrats with his artificial largess.  Is it possible - just possible - that could make a difference in CNN's treatment of the stories?     

Today Reuters reported the story "Democrat fundraiser guilty of illegal donations."  Author Christine Kearney begins:

A former U.S. Democratic Party fundraiser whose 2007 arrest prompted Hillary Clinton to return $850,000 in campaign contributions was found guilty on Tuesday of breaking federal campaign laws.

Businessman Norman Hsu, 58, was convicted by a jury in federal court in New York of violating election laws by making donations to political campaigns in other people's names. Hsu also pleaded guilty on May 7 to charges of mail fraud and wire fraud in running a Ponzi scheme of up to $60 million.

Jurors convicted Hsu of violating four counts of federal election law between 2004 and 2007. During the trial, prosecutors said Hsu pressured some of the investors involved in his Ponzi scheme to make thousands of dollars in contributions to political candidates on his behalf.

The story runs nine paragraphs, but only one reference to Barack Obama is made:

Clinton lost her bid for her party's presidential nomination last year to Barack Obama. She now serves as a prominent member of her former rival's Cabinet.

Obama has considerably more of a connection to Hsu than Reuters relates.  In 2007, The Washington Post reported in the story "Hsu Steered Major Fundraiser to Obama:"

Before becoming a major bundler for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, disgraced Democratic donor Norman Hsu helped host a 2005 California event for Barack Obama's political action committee and introduced the senator from Illinois to one of the biggest fundraisers for his presidential bid.

Federal Election Commission records show that Hsu gave $5,000 to Obama's Hopefund PAC in connection with the fundraiser and that people publicly identified with Hsu and his companies gave an additional $19,500 to the PAC in 2005 and 2006.

Mark Gorenberg, who now sits on Obama's national finance committee and is one of his biggest fundraisers, said Hsu organized an early 2005 event for the Hopefund and invited him to help raise money.

"He introduced me to Barack Obama," Gorenberg said of Hsu. "He was working on an event for Barack's PAC, and he asked me to help, and I did. Barack came up to San Francisco, and [Hsu] introduced him to a bunch of people."

Obama's relationship with sleazy hustlers like Norman Hsu doesn't comport with the narrative of Mr. Hope and Change tailored by the mainstream media.  That's possibly why Hsu's conviction, which occurred this morning, still hadn't been reported on CNN as of 4:00 PM (ET) this afternoon.

Identifying Hillary's connection to Hsu is one thing.  But their hero Barry has a re-election to win in only three years, so why taint his radiant reputation? 

Cook County board president Todd Stroger has an almost $12,000 lien on his house for unpaid federal taxes. Illinois treasurer Alexi Giannoulias bought a $26,000 hybrid SUV with money from the state's college savings program. Former governor Milorad Blagojevich likely will be parking his hairbrush in a federal facility in the foreseeable future.

What do these exemplars of devoted public service have in common? Each was endorsed for his office by Barack Obama.

When Stroger ran, Obama and fellow Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin told voters Todd was "a good progressive Democrat" capable of "lead(ing) us into a new era of Cook County government."

That he promptly did by giving the county the highest sales tax rate in the country. Still not satisfied, Stroger kept seeking to bring only the best and brightest to his regime. Dining at a Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, he recruited a busboy there for a $48,000 administrative assistant job. It turned out the guy has a police record as long as your average Chicago precinct captain's rap sheet. Yes, Todd Stroger bears the Obama stamp of approval.

So does Alexi Giannoulias, who is now keeping a log of how that SUV is being used for official business. And all it took was for his purchase to make the newspaper.

Giannoulias was endorsed by Obama in his party's 2006 primary as well as in the general election. Alexi comes from a banking family, one that has loaned millions of dollars to a Chicago crime figure involved in bookmaking, prostitution and gambling casinos.

Alexi first claimed the loans were made before he became active in the family business. Then it came out that $12 million of the loans were serviced by Giannoulias himself. When that made the newspapers, Obama said, "I'm going to take a look at what's been going on and I'm going to ask Alexi directly what is happening." Whatever his story was must have satisfied Barry, whose support was critical to Giannoulias's subsequent victory.

Then we have Obama's support for Rod Blagojevich. Last July, Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker wrote about Obama in 2002:

"That year, he gained his first high-level experience in a statewide campaign when he advised the victorious gubernatorial candidate Rod Blagojevich, another politician with a funny name and a message of reform. Rahm Emanuel, a congressman from Chicago and a friend of Obama's, told me that he, Obama, David Wilhelm, who was Blagojevich's campaign co-chair, and another Blagojevich aide were the top strategists of Blagojevich's victory. He and Obama 'participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod was running for governor,' Emanuel said. 'We basically laid out the general election, Barack and I and these two.'"

In June of 2002, Obama said on a local-access cable program: " ...right now, my main focus is to make sure that we elect Rod Blagojevich as Governor. . ."

The talk of scandals and Federal investigations of Blagojevich didn't diminish Obama's enthusiasm for his re-election in 2006:

"We've got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois and for that reason I am proud to stand behind him," declared Obama.

Chicago alderman Dorothy Tillman also was endorsed by Obama in her last election two years ago. For 20 years, Tillman served on the city council. Known as an avid proponent of slavery reparations, she developed quite a reputation, one enhanced by a report that she waved a gun around during a public meeting. She led an assault at the Art Institute to remove an unflattering picture of Harold Washington. "Yassuh boss!" she'd shriek at white aldermen. At a banquet at the Palmer House Hilton, her staff demanded white servers be replaced with black ones. "It's not personal against anybody, I'm just pro-my people," she explained.

Barack Obama speaks against racial divisiveness, but he endorsed Dorothy Tillman. And he told voters to elect Todd Stroger, Alexi Giannoulias, and Milorad Blagojevich.

Obama's judgment is abysmal. And that's being charitable. Will the mainstream media ever notice? Nossuh boss!

This morning's remarks by Barack Obama on the latest unemployment figures included the usual self congratulations we've come to expect from The One.  CBS News quotes him as saying:

Such hard-working Americans are why I ran for President. They're the reason we've been working swiftly and aggressively across all fronts to turn this economy around; to jumpstart spending and hiring and create jobs where we can with steps like the Recovery Act. Because of this plan, cops are still on the beat and teachers are still in the classroom; shovels are breaking ground and cranes dot the sky; and new life has been breathed into private companies like Sharon Arnold's.

The woman to whom Obama referred appeared with him this morning and POLITICO describes her as "Sharon Arnold, a small biz owner from Illinois."

In a brief presentation viewable at C-SPAN's Web site, Arnold explained she owns a small landscaping business that has benefited from government contracts.  Last year, however, she "had to lay everyone off, including myself."  All of her employees went on unemployment.  But now, things are just so much better.  Under Obama, stimulus money is flowing back to Illinois and she's been able to hire back 90 percent of her employees.

One aspect of all this I predict we won't hear about from the mainstream media is Arnold's background. She is also enthusiastic about at least one other Federal program, the Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program.  In 1998, former Illinois Democratic Senator Carol Moseley Braun entered into the Congressional Record:

Listen to a letter from Sharon Arnold, who is president of SSACC, Inc., a certified women-owned disadvantaged business enterprise in Pontiac, IL:
I know that without the [DBE] program I would lose the opportunity to compete. That is all this program does for me; it gives me the opportunity to compete.

Business setbacks didn't appear to dampen Arnold's ability to give substantial amounts of money to various Democratic politicians over the years.  Federal Election Commission records show she's given money to Al Gore, Mary Landrieu, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell.  And even with times as tough as they've been, Arnold managed to scrape together $3,500 to give to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

A little research disclosed that Arnold is also a Feng Shui enthusiast.  She wrote in a testimonial:

We have found that working within the theory of the Feng Shui application, it gives the entire premises a feeling of true oneness with the environment and a sense of personal comfort within the perimeters of the office staff interactions, as well as those who come into our office.

 No doubt Arnold is feeling a true oneness with the environment in Washington these days.  As do much of the mainstream media, which is why Arnold's Democratic connection isn't deemed newsworthy.        

On Wednesday's CNN Newsroom, anchor Rick Sanchez focused on enhanced interrogation methods, a favorite topic of his.  He spoke with Jane Mayer, author of "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals."  The title itself suggests where Mayer stands, so it didn't take long for Detective Sanchez to uncover the true malefactor:

SANCHEZ: You know, I would bet you if you -- if you and I went around right now and we did some kind of random sample all over the country and just asked average Americans who do you think was the person who was really behind all of this, I know this doesn't get talked a lot about in the media, but I bet you most Americans would say Dick Cheney.

Would they be right?

MAYER: Well, you know, as you said, I have written a book about it. It's called "The Dark Side." And it's out in paperback now, and it tells the story of who really was behind this.

And I have to say, there are certain mysteries still. There are many more documents to come out. But it's incredible how many fingerprints lead off into the vice president's office.

Cheney is the person who keeps pushing forward. There -- there were many people in the Bush administration who fought back against this, not just liberals, not just civil libertarians. There were military people. The FBI, a number of lawyers who said, this is how our country does. This is what the enemy does. We don't -- this demeans us. We don't torture people, but Cheney kept pushing.

You have to wonder what Sanchez is reading and watching for him to claim that Cheney's role "doesn't get talked a lot about in the media."  CNN's own Web site carries recent stories titled "Cheney defends dark side interrogations" and "Senate report: Rice, Cheney OK'd CIA use of waterboarding."  It also has the commentary "Cheney says U.S. can torture but can't heal" by the always impartial Paul Begala.

This week Bloomberg.com published "Cheney’s Smirk Takes Us to ‘Dark Side’ Again."  In The New York Times, Al Hunt's Letter From Washington noted:

The bitterness is evident with a glance at blog sites. On the liberal side, there are pictures of obscene practices, shrill denunciations of Mr. Cheney, and headlines like, “Torture is foreplay for war.”

Last month NewsBuster Noel Sheppard reported "Saturday Night Live Introduces Dick Cheney's ‘Torboto: The Robot That Tortures People.’"  And it's been almost two years since The Washington Post told readers:

Cheney and his allies, according to more than two dozen current and former officials, pioneered a novel distinction between forbidden "torture" and permitted use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" methods of questioning. They did not originate every idea to rewrite or reinterpret the law, but fresh accounts from participants show that they translated muscular theories, from Yoo and others, into the operational language of government.

Sure, Rick, there are matters that the media devote more coverage to.  You know, important stuff like Obama's supposed eloquence and Michelle's well toned arms.  But your sidekicks in the mainstream media have carved out no small amount of time to blame Dick Cheney.  For anything they can.    

Today's Washington Post Web site carries the Associated Press story "Who's Watching News Scorecards on Obama?"  Written by David Bauder, the piece begins by reporting:

As President Barack Obama passed his 100th day in office last week, two studies judged that the news media has given him more coverage, and more positive coverage, than his two predecessors at the same point in their terms.

Paragraphs later comes one explanation of the fawning mainstream media coverage:

The newscasts reflect reality, said Rick Kaplan, executive producer of the "CBS Evening News." He said he believed that the president has done extraordinarily well. "Everybody, including Republicans, would have to say that his first 100 days have been great," he said.

No doubt Kaplan would be astounded to learn that not everyone agrees that Obama's first 100 days have been so terrific.  Today's Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll, for example, finds that 43 percent of voters disapprove of Obama's performance.  Moreover, 32 percent of the nation's voters strongly disapprove.

Kaplan went on in the article to explain:

"You cover what's out there," Kaplan said. "Everybody gets upset. If you cover somebody too hard, his supporters think you're being unfair. If you cover somebody too soft, his opponents think you're too soft. Across his four years, or eight years, whatever it is, there will be plenty for people on all sides to not like or love. It will balance itself out inevitably."

I find it interesting that Kaplan speaks of covering "somebody too hard" or "too soft."  Factually reporting news would seem to leave little room for such subjectivity.  Of course, factually reporting news doesn't appeal to much of the mainstream media.  They have a dog in this fight and don't care if their audiences know it.

The incredibly favorable coverage of Obama has again demonstrated the blatant bias that permeates much of the press.  Yet, somehow, magically, we're expected to accept that eventually "it will balance itself out."

Sure.  I believe that.

Melissa Harris Lacewell penned "Why blacks are more optimistic about race" for Friday's Philadelphia Inquirer.  As might be expected, the associate professor of politics and African American studies at Princeton University and author of the breathlessly anticipated "Sister Citizen: A Text for Colored Girls Who've Considered Politics When Being Strong Isn't Enough," is very, very happy with Barack Obama.  But readers may be at least mildly surprised at what she considers the highlight of his inauguration:

But the best part of Jan. 20 was that Barack and Michelle got out of the bulletproof black Cadillac and walked the streets - and no one shot at them. I know we are not allowed to say it, but one reason black people believe race relations have improved in America is because Obama lived through the primaries, the election, the inauguration, and now through 100 days.

She claims "we are not allowed to say it," yet then does exactly that.  She goes on to cite various Obama acts that she deems accomplishments.  Closing Guantanamo, signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, capping executive pay, and performing a "deft move of racial defiance by proxy" through attorney general Eric Holder's terming the U.S. a nation of cowards are some of the highlights.  Others came when he "dapped up" Hugo Chavez, "hung out" in Canada, "fired the head of General Motors, something most people didn't even know an American president could do," and "established serious street cred."  

But even all this wasn't enough:

Even though he was changing the world, he found time to play ball with his advisers, filled out an NCAA bracket, and had a beer at a Wizards game. This is what we call being on the grind but remembering to keep it real.

And if that weren't enough, Obama actually "kept his campaign promise to his daughters and got them a dog."

All in all, "it was a great 100 days. And did I mention nobody shot at him?"

Yes, you did, professor.  Not all of America shares your wonder at that.         

Appearing today on the Toledo Blade's Web site is the article "Candide: Toledo Opera production offers the liveliest aspects of opera, musical theater, and operetta."  Author Sally Vallongo writes:

In the 1950s, as then-Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R., Wis.) and his House Committee on Un-American Activities investigated liberal and progressive artists in search of Communist-oriented dissidents, Hellman and Bernstein collaborated on what would become one of several major works fomented by government activities: the play and film Cradle Will Rock, and Arthur Miller’s play and opera The Crucible are others.

Sometimes, readers must wonder if newspaper correspondents ever passed a class in basic civics.  If journalists had, they’d know that Congress consists of two bodies, the House and the Senate.  A member of one body doesn’t chair a committee from the other.  No Senator – not even Joe McCarthy – could run a House committee.  A clue might have been that his title was senator rather than congressman or representative, but perhaps that's expecting too much.    

Moreover, McCarthy didn't devote a great deal of time to investigating, as Vallongo asserts, "liberal and progressive artists."  Possibly she's confusing his inquiries with those of the House Un-American Activities Committee, which held hearings on Hollywood's comrades years before McCarthy launched his anti-Communist crusade. 

The mainstream media are justifiably criticized for their reporting of what's taking place now.  They don't do such a hot job of covering the past either.  

Politico today reveals what those in the fawning mainstream media have known all along: "For Obama, hipness is what it is."  It begins:

During his first 100 days as president of the United States, Barack Obama revealed how different he is from all the white men who preceded him in the Oval Office, and the differences run deeper — in substance and style — than the color of his skin.

Barack Hussein Obama is the nation’s first hip president.

This, of course, is subject to debate. But watch him walk. Listen to him talk. See the body language, the expressions, the clothes. He’s got attitude, rhythm, a sense of humor, contemporary tastes.

To buttress his assertion of Obama's hipness, the author quotes John Leland of The New York Times, longtime Democratic operative Roger Wilkins, and Deborah Tannen, professor of linguistics.  Wilkins and Tannen are themselves apparently hip, both having contributed money to Obama's campaign.  That hip fact didn't merit reporting.

The Politico piece has been picked up by Yahoo News as well as by the NBC affiliates in Los Angeles, Miami, and Dallas Fort Worth.  No doubt it will be reported as "news" by many other outlets.

It's gonna be a very long four years. 

Kansas City Star editorial page columnist Barb Shelly is miffed.  In today's "The (mis)labeling of Kathleen Sebelius," she explains why:

In other words, this image that's being projected of Sebelius as some radical defender of the abortion industry is very much overstated. She's a pragmatic executive and it's ludicrous that her confirmation process has become so politicized.

Sebelius is, of course, Barack Obama's health secretary nominee.  In that capacity, she'll wield considerable influence over governmental policies concerning abortion.  Shelly argues:

I'll say this again: Sebelius is a moderate governor in a state that happens to be home to one of the few doctors willing to perform late-term abortions. Just like many other Kansans, that doctor, George Tiller, has exercised his constitutional right to contribute to political campaigns. Some of his money went to Sebelius.

Shelly doesn't detail how much of Tiller's money went to Sebelius.  Earlier this month, the Associated Press reported that the nominee "got nearly three times as much political money" from the abortionist than she had reported to the Senate Finance Committee.

And how "moderate" is Sebelius on abortion?  Her own archbishop requested she not receive Holy Communion.  He explained why:

For more than 25 years, Gov. Sebelius has advocated and supported legalized abortion. She has opposed such modest protections as parental notification for minors, waiting periods, informed consent and improved regulation of abortion clinics.

Author George Weigel has written in the respected journal First Things that ". . .Kathleen Sebelius is an abortion radical by any reasonable definition of the term. . ."

Regardless of where one stands on abortion, there's no denying that Sebelius is among its most ardent defenders.  Abortionist Tiller understands this.  So does Barack Obama.  Yet columnist Shelly of the Kansas City Star doesn't.  Or perhaps she's just not willing to admit it.

Persuading Americans that Barack Obama is an effective president won't be easy.  So local news outlets are lending a hand when they can.  This was obvious last night on Chicago's NBC5 News at 10.  Anchor Bob Sirott reported:

And now to a sign the president's economic stimulus is working.  Bank of American today announced a $2.8 billion profit for the first quarter.  That report was much better than expected and followed positive results from other banks.  It also comes after a loss of more than $2 billion for the last three months of 2008.  Bank of America received $45 billion as part of the financial rescue package.

Sirott's positive assessment of Obama's plan isn't justified.  The big profits he touted are largely illusionary. Andrew Ross Sorkin explained why in "Bank Profits Appear Out of Thin Air," which appeared in yesterday's New York Times.  An excerpt:

This is starting to feel like amateur hour for aspiring magicians.

Another day, another attempt by a Wall Street bank to pull a bunny out of the hat, showing off an earnings report that it hopes will elicit oohs and aahs from the market. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and, on Monday, Bank of America all tried to wow their audiences with what appeared to be — presto! — better-than-expected numbers.

But in each case, investors spotted the attempts at sleight of hand, and didn’t buy it for a second . . .

Sydney Finkelstein, the Steven Roth professor of management at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College, also pointed out that Bank of America booked a $2.2 billion gain by increasing the value of Merrill Lynch’s assets it acquired last quarter to prices that were higher than Merrill kept them.

“Although perfectly legal, this move is also perfectly delusional, because some day soon these assets will be written down to their fair value, and it won’t be pretty,” he said.

Investors reacted by throwing tomatoes. Bank of America’s stock plunged 24 percent, as did other bank stocks. They’ve had enough.

The truth is there's scant evidence that Obama's taxpayer-funded efforts are having much of a positive impact.  Spending our way out of financial distress isn't really a solution to anything.  Still, hesto-presto, even local newscasts are finding slivers of hope.  Perhaps it's part of the magic of Obamamania.

****NBC5 anchor Bob Sirott has reacted to this post.  His email to me:

just read it.  you know what.....i remember reading that story, and rewriting it a bit, but i should have changed the first line, which i did not write, because that was more along the lines of editorializing, and although i do that on the 5pm nbc5 news (one more thing) that particular story was part of the first section of the ten o'clock newscast and should have been reported without comment.  it didn't need that first line.  some may think it was an example of the stimulus package working, others may not..but that's beside the point.  thanks for pointing it out.

It's not often that those in the media respond to criticism.  I appreciate Mr. Sirott's thoughtful appraisal.

Think Obamamania is limited to only His Messiahship and Michelle Obama's well toned arms and J. Crew wardrobe?  Think again.  Today's front page of the Washington Post features "Move Over, Miley. In Washington, The Obama Girls Are the Latest Craze" by staff writer Ellen McCarthy.  The tone of this thoughtful analysis is set early in the article:

The tween girls of the Washington area have transcended differences of race, class and wealth to reach a single, resounding conclusion: They really, really, really, really want to be friends with Malia and Sasha Obama.

They lap up every shred of information about the first daughters, dream about meeting them and strategize ways to make it happen. Minivan rides and dinner table conversations are dominated by questions about the girls: What's their favorite food? What kind of dog did they get? Where can I get a coat like Malia's?

"Sometimes I go up to my room and I just think, 'I want to meet them, I want to meet them, I want to meet them,' " says a desperate Sophie Metee, a fourth-grader at Wood Acres Elementary in Bethesda.

Later we learn that fascination with the young ladies "may also have a great deal to do with President Obama's popularity in the country and the region -- he won an overwhelming majority of Washington area votes and enjoys significant approval ratings."

Yes, the president does have significant approval ratings, something the mainstream media remind us of frequently.  What we don't hear often is he also has significant disapproval ratings.  Today's Rasmussen Reports daily presidential tracking poll notes:

Overall, 55% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. Forty-four percent (44%) disapprove.

Pretty evenly divided, yet the Washington Post and other news outlets rarely mention almost half the Nation has misgivings about Obama.

No doubt the Obama daughters are of interest to some people, particularly young ones.  Does this interest deserve front page coverage at a time so many critical events and issues merit attention?

The Washington Post obviously thinks so.  Folks there really, really, really, really want to be friends with the Family Obama.