So you think Barack Obama has done nothing yet but coddle terrorists, kill unborn babies, and shove through Congress a spending bill of gargantuan proportions?  Well, think again, Buster.  The Associated Press reported in passing yesterday that The One also "has done wonders to bring the office of the presidency to life for young people."

Now precisely what those wonders are isn't detailed.  We have to take the AP's word for it.  Still, the piece titled "New e-book captures kids' hopes, dreams for Obama" is brimming with the hope and change we've come to expect in mainstream media accounts of Obama.  The article begins:

NEW YORK (AP) — End war, forever. Make the planet greener. Please help my dad find work. Make it rain candy!

Thousands of kids detailed their hopes and expectations for President Barack Obama in letters and drawings as part of a worldwide project, with 150 chosen for a free e-book being released on Presidents Day.

Most had tall orders for the new guy in the White House.

Anthony Pape, 10, of DuBois, Pa., offered: "I hope that we will have no war ever again. I mean why are we fighting why can't we all be friends."

Fellow 10-year-old Sasha Townsend of Soquel, Calif., had a similar request, and then some.

"I would appreciate it if you would try to make this a greener planet and try to bring home the troops and end the war," the fifth-grader wrote. "I am very luckey because I am not part of a military family, but it saddens me to hear about all the people who die in Iraque and know that somewhere In the world people are greiving over a lost family member."

Seven-year-old Aaron Van Blerkom's letter was simpler — but no less problematic.

"Dear Mr. Obama," the Pasadena, Calif., first-grader began, "Please Make it rain candy!"

The "Dear Mr. President" project was a joint effort between the National Education Association and kidthing.com, which is putting out the book for use with its downloadable media player. A special hardcopy edition of the book will be sent to the White House for Obama, who has done wonders to bring the office of the presidency to life for young people.

The letters were written in January amid Obama-mania at inauguration time as schools scrambled to bus kids to special viewing events and come up with computer screens and TVs for them to watch in classrooms and auditoriums.

And then the ending paragraphs:

"Make fires and earthquakes not exist. Make no tornadoes or any of those things that break things."

An 11-year-old boy from Ohio drew himself in tears at the side of a relative. His dream, he wrote, is that a "cure for cancer will be found" with Obama in the White House, "Because it took my aunt to a better place on father's day."

Another child drew Obama as the "new sunrise of America." One made Earth and labeled it "Obamaland," and still another created the president's face as half dark and half light skin tones with the words: "United We Are One."

Sasha's drawing is an all-green globe. Her enthusiasm for Obama and his ability to get the job done speaks volumes: "I just think he's really, really awesome."

Could such unrealistic expectations have anything to do with the fact that at inauguration time "schools scrambled to bus kids to special viewing events and come up with computer screens and TVs for them to watch in classrooms and auditoriums?"  More accurately, the story would have noted that members of the ultra liberal union calling itself the National Education Association scrambled to make certain their students could be indoctrinated in the wonderfulness of The One.

Where in the world would kids possibly get the notion that an Obama administration could mean a cure for cancer, stopping fires and earthquakes, a permanent end to war, a holiday for children around the world, and a "new sunrise of America?"

Maybe they got those ideas from the same place the Associated Press did when it reports as fact that Obama "has done wonders to bring the office of the presidency to life for young people."

Let's not let facts get in the way, especially when reporting on someone who is, as Sasha in the story maintains, "really, really awesome."  The mainstream media agree.  

So you think Barack Obama has done nothing yet but coddle terrorists, kill unborn babies, and shove through Congress a spending bill of gargantuan proportions?  Well, think again, Buster.  The Associated Press reported in passing yesterday that The One also "has done wonders to bring the office of the presidency to life for young people."

Now precisely what those wonders are isn't detailed.  We have to take the AP's word for it.  Still, the piece titled "New e-book captures kids' hopes, dreams for Obama" is brimming with the hope and change we've come to expect in mainstream media accounts of Obama.  The article begins:

NEW YORK (AP) — End war, forever. Make the planet greener. Please help my dad find work. Make it rain candy!

Thousands of kids detailed their hopes and expectations for President Barack Obama in letters and drawings as part of a worldwide project, with 150 chosen for a free e-book being released on Presidents Day.

Most had tall orders for the new guy in the White House.

Anthony Pape, 10, of DuBois, Pa., offered: "I hope that we will have no war ever again. I mean why are we fighting why can't we all be friends."

Fellow 10-year-old Sasha Townsend of Soquel, Calif., had a similar request, and then some.

"I would appreciate it if you would try to make this a greener planet and try to bring home the troops and end the war," the fifth-grader wrote. "I am very luckey because I am not part of a military family, but it saddens me to hear about all the people who die in Iraque and know that somewhere In the world people are greiving over a lost family member."

Seven-year-old Aaron Van Blerkom's letter was simpler — but no less problematic.

"Dear Mr. Obama," the Pasadena, Calif., first-grader began, "Please Make it rain candy!"

The "Dear Mr. President" project was a joint effort between the National Education Association and kidthing.com, which is putting out the book for use with its downloadable media player. A special hardcopy edition of the book will be sent to the White House for Obama, who has done wonders to bring the office of the presidency to life for young people.

The letters were written in January amid Obama-mania at inauguration time as schools scrambled to bus kids to special viewing events and come up with computer screens and TVs for them to watch in classrooms and auditoriums.

And then the ending paragraphs:

"Make fires and earthquakes not exist. Make no tornadoes or any of those things that break things."

An 11-year-old boy from Ohio drew himself in tears at the side of a relative. His dream, he wrote, is that a "cure for cancer will be found" with Obama in the White House, "Because it took my aunt to a better place on father's day."

Another child drew Obama as the "new sunrise of America." One made Earth and labeled it "Obamaland," and still another created the president's face as half dark and half light skin tones with the words: "United We Are One."

Sasha's drawing is an all-green globe. Her enthusiasm for Obama and his ability to get the job done speaks volumes: "I just think he's really, really awesome."

Could such unrealistic expectations have anything to do with the fact that at inauguration time "schools scrambled to bus kids to special viewing events and come up with computer screens and TVs for them to watch in classrooms and auditoriums?"  More accurately, the story would have noted that members of the ultra liberal union calling itself the National Education Association scrambled to make certain their students could be indoctrinated in the wonderfulness of The One.

Where in the world would kids possibly get the notion that an Obama administration could mean a cure for cancer, stopping fires and earthquakes, a permanent end to war, a holiday for children around the world, and a "new sunrise of America?"

Maybe they got those ideas from the same place the Associated Press did when it reports as fact that Obama "has done wonders to bring the office of the presidency to life for young people."

Let's not let facts get in the way, especially when reporting on someone who is, as Sasha in the story maintains, "really, really awesome."  The mainstream media agree.  

CNN Newsroom anchor Rick Sanchez may want to give stand-up comedy a try if his career in journalism falters.  On Friday's program, Sanchez said - with a straight face:

To be clear, we don't fit into any template here, Democratic or Republican or otherwise. I play it down the middle.

Anyone who's seen Sanchez at work knows how funny that is.  Throughout his program posts from the microblogging service Twitter crawl across the screen.  Known as tweets, the messages Sanchez selects to air come overwhelmingly from liberals.

Friday's program was instructive.  Newshound Rick on Monday had interviewed porn star Stormy Daniels, who claims she's being urged to run against Louisiana Republican U.S. Senator David Vitter, himself involved in an earlier sex scandal.  Interviewing Stormy is the sort of hard news on which Rick thrives, so he ran Monday's interview again on Friday.  Then he moved on to discuss Rush Limbaugh:

SANCHEZ: So, by the way, among those participating these days, Rush Limbaugh. He was watching us again this week, when we broke the news about a breakthrough on the president's stimulus package.

And now, as you listen to Rush, see if you can decide who he's more mad at, me for reporting the news of an apparent legislative victory for President Obama, or the three Republicans who broke ranks with Rush Limbaugh and sided with the president?

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP, "THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW")

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Exactly right. Rick, let me help you out. I know it's going to be in vain. If you show too much intelligence, CNN will move you over to Headline News and nobody will ever see you.

But this was a clear victory for the Republican Party. Snowe, Collins, Specter? Rick, if you would listen to this program, I predicted back in November-December the Democrats didn't need 60 votes, because they have got at least two of these three on every piece of legislation. So they don't have to worry about what happens in Minnesota. They're going to have 60 votes, because you're going to have a number of RINO Republicans.

I said earlier today it's great to flush them out, get them out of there. Let it be known that they are not Republicans. The Republicans lost seats in the House precisely because we're cleaning up. We're getting rid of the Republicans in name only.

This is a clear victory for Republicans, in the sense that they are establishing an identity, an identity based on opposition. When this bombs out, Rick, when it doesn't work, there aren't any Republicans that can be forced to take the blame for this.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Aye-aye, sir. And I do listen, by the way. He seems to be telling all Republicans to oppose the president at all costs and in every way. Imagine that.

To be clear, we don't fit into any template here, Democratic or Republican or otherwise. I play it down the middle.

So what does Rick consider the middle?  Of the tweets he aired Friday, here are the ones that had an obvious political view.  Keep in mind that they are repeatedly displayed through the entire show:

Rush limbaugh again?  Doesn't this guy have a job. . .or have bigger fish to fry?  Say, like our falling economy & wars?  Geesh

Can somebody PLEASE tell me Y it is the GOP has such issues w/trying to help Americans here at home?

phelps, moh - rush needs to just go away - run stormy run!

Who cares what Rush "limbo" says.  He's a wasted up drug addict

Limbaugh is just jealous b'cause ur twitterers can read & write independent thoughts.  His followers can only follow.  Baaa!

Why don't Republicans work with the Democrats on a bill that they could support?  Don't complain, offer solutions!

I wish CNN would stop giving limbaugh's the attention he wants.  Those of us that have a life don't want to hear about him!

it's obvious that Bush was attacked because he was stupid.  Obama being attacked because he's intelligent.  Much more vitriolic

Rick. . . Where can we contribute money to Stormy's run against that Republican prostitute monger?

Rick, it's time to vote the obstructionist Republicans out of office!

I'm telling you man. . .invite Rush over for pinata party and fill it up with hornets; invite Beohner too

why even have a adult actress on a national show anyway?  Isn't that a form of endorsement?  P.S. is Rush on dope again?

Rick, don't back down on Rush.  He's hoping to get free advertising for his show from you

Rush Slimbaugh needs to get mad at something worth getting mad at.  Good Grief

Yes, indeed, right down the middle.  Nearing the end of the show, Rick moved to what he calls the Twitter board:

All right. We got another one. It says: "Let Rush fulminate. If he's not for you, that means you must be a thinking human being."

And then finally: "Joaquin Pheonix, ELRUSHbo on Oxycontin. Phelps on a bong. Only your show reports the real news."

Real news, like Stormy Daniels's political aspirations.  And for background, crawling messages with a definite liberal spin.  Are we to believe that yesterday he didn't get any Twitter messages from conservatives?  

Maybe Sanchez is already doing stand-up.  He's just doing it sitting down.

Many folks realize that the Obama stimulus plan is little more than a list of long-held liberal dreams tossed together in hopes a scared American public will demand its immediate approval.  Over at CNN, they've bought into the politics of fear and are openly cheering for the bill making its way through Congress.  On yesterday's CNN Newsroom anchor Tony Harris spoke with CNN senior congressional correspondent Dana Bash about it:

HARRIS: Let's make a deal. Negotiators say they could agree on a final version of the massive stimulus bill as early as today.

Senior Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash is on phone from Capitol Hill.

Dana, really, by today? Is that possible?

DANA BASH, CNN NEWS SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPODNENT: Their cautiously optimistic. I think we should stress the word cautious. I'm sitting in the hall of the capitol down the hall from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office. And there is a huge meeting going on, it's even going on for 24 hours. The White House has said the budget director said many some of the key centrist Senators who really hold a lot of power between the House and Senate on the president's stimulus package.

I can tell you, talking some of the Senators going into this meeting, Tony, it looks like they are now working on an overall spending bill that's lowered a little bit, about $789 billion. But I'm cautioned that this number could change as these talks continue.

One other interesting note is, you know, we've been talking about the issue of education, and that House Democrats were not happy that the Senate sliced some of their education funding, particularly nearly $20 billion in school construction. Well, they're trying to figure out a way to keep that money, keep it - change it a little bit in terms of how it will be spent on schools. So that gives you a sense of some of the things (INAUDIBLE) going on in these intense, intense negotiations. I got to tell you, they've been going on all night through last night and into this morning.

HARRIS: Boy, that's kind of encouraging that the deal could be struck. There is a possibility that it could be struck today, and that it could come in with a lower price tag.

All right, our Congressional correspondent, Dana Bash, for us. Dana, appreciate it. Great news, thank you.

Certainly that's not great news for the more than 200 economists who've voiced their opposition, saying in a public statement:

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.

Nor is it great news for people who don't see how millions for digital converter boxes, organizations like ACORN, and tax rebates for illegal aliens will put millions of Americans to work.

Such concerns have done little to dampen the enthusiasm for the stimulus package at CNN.  They are true believers.        

On Friday's CNN Newsroom, anchor Rick Sanchez dazzled viewers with his profound grasp of economics.  His guest was CNN chief business correspondent Ali Velshi, whose most recent achievement was being called "incompetent" by Rush Limbaugh:

SANCHEZ: You know, it's funny, but, as I hear him (President Barack Obama).talk, I'm just thinking, tax cuts are spending, right? I mean, they really are, because you have got to get it from somewhere.

VELSHI: Right. If you think about it, is -- your own budget, right? If you have less money coming in, you have to have less money going out.

The issue is that -- the argument is that, tax cuts, while it brings less money into the government, which means it lowers the amount of money the government has, which makes it the equivalent of spending, it stimulates the economy, because it lets -- people will use that money in another way.

The way tax cuts could be considered spending, a contention with which Velshi agreed, is if one believes that all income belongs not to the individual earning it, but rather to the government.  It's then government's option to determine how much people are permitted to keep and if they're using it "appropriately."

Sanchez's reasoning reminds me of President Bill Clinton, who said of the budget surplus: "We could give it back to you and hope you spend it right." But "if you don't spend it right," bad things would happen to Social Security and other programs.

It doesn't, of course, conflict with the liberal prattle routinely enaged in by Sanchez.  He's the guy who read his viewers' minds and knew they couldn't understand Sarah Palin.   He's the man who called out Joe the Plumber.   Almost every day he has Patricia Murphy as a guest to explain current events.  Introducing her as the editor of CitizenJanePolitics.com, he doesn't mention that her work history includes employment with three U.S. senators, all of them Democrats.   This would explain where she's coming from politically, but perhaps Sanchez doesn't think her background is relevant.   

Rick Sanchez was in the vanguard of blending CNN with social network sites like Twitter, Facebook and MySpace.  Urging his viewers to voice their opinions, he reads some reactions while others stream across the bottom of the screen.  There are invariably a highly disproportionate number of liberal opinions aired.

With only 53 percent of voters opting for Obama in the election, it's not reasonable to presume that Sanchez hears from almost no conservatives.  I have sent him numerous Twitter messages and, in fairness, note that he's aired perhaps half a dozen of them.  Certainly he's receiving communications from many other conservatives, yet broadcasts almost none of them.

Rick Sanchez is using new social networking technology to advance an old reality: mainstream media's liberal bias.

In the early 1980s, Don Henley hit the charts with the song "Dirty Laundry," a sarcastic view of television news.  It begins:

I make my living off the Evening News
Just give me something-something I can use
People love it when you lose,
They love dirty laundry

Well, I coulda been an actor, but I wound up here
I just have to look good, I don't have to be clear
Come and whisper in my ear
Give us dirty laundry

On February 4, Chicago Tribune media columnist Phil Rosenthal provided an insider's view of dirty laundry within the mainstream media.  His column "TV anchor in the news with racial bias claims" starts:

The biggest story in local broadcast news Monday night had well-known names, controversy, plenty of TV reporters on the scene—and it didn't air on a single station that night.

WMAQ-Ch. 5 lead anchor Warner Saunders accused former Chicago Sun-Times TV/radio columnist Robert Feder of bias at the local American Federation of Television and Radio Artists chapter's annual meeting, where Feder was a guest.

Saunders, 74, brought a prepared speech to confront Feder before 100 or so at the Allerton Hotel.

Saunders said Feder diminished "the accomplishments of black talent while placing the spotlight on our deficiencies." Noting it was Black History Month, the Channel 5 anchor said inviting Feder was "like choosing David Duke to serve as mohel at a circumcision."

The comparison was loaded: Duke is a former Ku Klux Klan leader. Mohels perform Jewish circumcisions. Feder is Jewish.

"From the very beginning, [it] became a personal attack," Feder, who did not want to speak to the Chicago Tribune, said Tuesday to WLS-AM 890's Erich "Mancow" Muller and Pat Cassidy.

WBBM-AM 780's Craig Dellimore, AFTRA's local president and an African-American, was unavailable. But Eileen Willenborg, AFTRA Chicago executive director, said, "It was a forum for free speech to happen, and free speech sure happened."

WMAQ declined comment.

That's ironic.  WMAQ, like many television outlets, routinely sticks its microphones in the faces of people - even grieving parents who've just lost a child - in search of footage they can show viewers.  Yet when one of their major personalities attacks a newspaper writer for racism, the station doesn't have a word to say.

Apparently, neither do most of the mainstream media.  A Google search today for news items on Warner Saunders turns up only the Rosenthal column and references to it.  The Tribune in this instance deserves credit for reporting the news.

The media love dirty laundry.  But some stuff is apparently just too soiled to air on television.

The Reporter, a suburban Chicago newspaper, included on its commentary page last week this editorial announcement:

"The Reporter newspaper regrets to inform our loyal readers that columnist Michael Bates has chosen to discontinue his services after nearly 20 years writing for our commentary page.

"Mr. Bates is a polarizing commentator beloved by some readers and detested by others. . . We know some readers won't be upset by his departure, but we also understand those members of the unofficial Michael Bates fan club will be extremely disappointed. One or two readers have actually told us over the years that Mr. Bates' column is the reason they read The Reporter." The notice went on to say something complimentary about my writing and to wish my family and me well.

The statement was wrong about how long I've taken up space in The Reporter. It's been well over 20 years. Then again, since the editor was in elementary school when I began cranking — the emphasis here is on crank — out a weekly column, his error is understandable.

I do think the editor owed readers the explanation for why I quit writing for The Reporter. Since he didn't provide it, I will. The details likely won't be seen by a majority of "the unofficial Michael Bates fan club," newspaper subscribers who've loyally read my columns and been most generous in their approval. Still, I want the reason to be a matter of cyberspace record. You just never know what might someday be Googled.

Back to the grounds for discontinuing my services. I titled the last column I wrote for The Reporter "Include Me Out," penned the day before the inauguration. The principal point was that Obama's presidency will be a fiasco. (In his first hours, he kicked things off by coddling terrorists and killing unborn babies, so I'm still most confident of that forecast.)

The Reporter's editor changed the column title to "Success for Obama would be disaster." He's changed titles before and, although I didn't like some of his modifications, I never made a big deal about them. He is the editor, after all, and that's part of his job. Besides, neither he nor any of the previous editors tampered with column content and that was what primarily mattered.

This time, however, he also added a sub-headline: "Bitter conservative can't wish U.S. well." It took about 30 seconds from the time I saw that to call to complain. "What part of it didn't you like," he asked, "the bitter conservative?"

No, that element wasn't a problem. I am indeed a bitter conservative, bitter that leftist loon Obama is now destroying the nation.

No, the objectionable portion was his claiming I can't wish my own country well. It implies I'm unpatriotic. That isn't accurate. Well, he went on, if Obama doesn't succeed, then America will fail. How can you not wish Obama well if you love your country?

I replied that Obama is most emphatically not the United States, even though his admirers habitually think so. His "success" in imposing his radical agenda means America loses. National victory requires a vigorous rejection of most of Obama's schemes.

The Reporter has been drifting leftward for a while. If memory serves correctly, the newspaper never endorsed a presidential candidate before, certainly not a Democrat. Yet this year it urged readers to vote for Obama. Last week its front page announced:

"Tears flowed, cheers erupted — and in some dark, lonely and bitter places teeth undoubtedly gnashed — when Barack Obama was sworn in Tuesday. . . " How's that for balanced, objective reporting? So perhaps it wasn't a surprise that he slapped the sub-headline "Bitter conservative can't wish U.S. well" over the column.

One reader contacted me and asked if I had written that. Since my picture and name appeared right under the statement, it's easy to see why she'd be confused.

The editor is entitled to do his job. Obviously, he's free to voice his opinion and slant the news about those dark, lonely and bitter places as long as the publisher lets him.

But he doesn't have a right to question my devotion to America or assail my patriotism simply because I hold Obama's policies in contempt. I don't want to work with someone who'd do that.

And that's why I quit The Reporter. I'll still do some commentaries and perhaps a few discerning Web sites will occasionally use them. My Townhall.com blog (http://bates.blogtownhall.com/default.aspx) will continue to be updated, as well as my Web site (michaelmbates.com).

But the unofficial Michael Bates fan club previously headquartered through The Reporter is hereby disbanded. It's been quite a run and I thank you.

On its Web site this evening, ABC7 News Chicago reports on the new Illinois Democratic governor in "Who Is Pat Quinn?"  General assignment reporter John Garcia tells readers about the man who replaced former Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich :

Quinn comes in with a squeaky clean reputation at a time when the past two governors have faced serious federal charges.

An Illinois Democrat with a squeaky clean reputation?  Now that is news.  It also conflicts with assertions made by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin in 1996, when he faced Quinn in the party's primary.  The (Springfield, IL) State Journal-Register covered a February debate:

CHICAGO -- U.S. Rep. Dick Durbin, D-Springfield, accused rival Pat Quinn of being a "ghost payroller" during a spirited radio confrontation Thursday.

The two leading contenders for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate tried to keep each other on the defensive during the 30-minute forum, which was taped at WMAQ-AM radio and set for broadcast at 9 a.m. Sunday.

Quinn slammed Durbin for being a political insider while describing himself as a political outsider.

Durbin, who participated in the debate by telephone from Washington, D.C., questioned Quinn's right to use the labels.

"Outsider Pat Quinn has been involved in government for over 22 years now," said Durbin, who has served in Congress since 1983. Durbin added that Quinn "started off as a ghost payroller in the Walker administration" before moving on to other posts, including member of the Cook County Board of Tax Appeals, revenue director for Chicago Mayor Harold Washington and state treasurer.

Durbin said Quinn was "carried on the payroll of an agency where he didn't work" while in the employ of Gov. Dan Walker from 1973 to 1975. "I guess he was working in another office," Durbin said.  "It could have been the governor's office.  I'm not sure."

Quinn denied the charges, accusing Durbin of "smears and name-calling."  He said he worked for taxpayers "365 days a year."

That wasn't the first time the charge had been made.  When Quinn ran in the 1990 Democratic primary for state treasurer, the (Bloomington, IL) Pantograph provided background on the ghost payroller allegation in a March article:

The charges of Quinn being a "ghost payroller" originally surfaced in 1976. At that time, Melvin Rosenbloom, former head of the Illinois Industrial Commission, told a House committee that Quinn was employed by the commission but didn't work full time.

Quinn denied the allegation and said he was never interviewed about the alleged improprieties. Rosenbloom's testimony was tinged by a personal grudge, he said.

There were additional details in an April, 2002 Chicago Tribune article on the state's "political culture:"

The practice of ghost-payrolling--the hiring of employees who perform little or no governmental work but do political tasks--has been pervasive in Illinois. A decade ago, federal authorities mounted a probe called "Operation Haunted Hall" to exorcise ghost payrollers from city government.

In the 1970s, then Democratic Gov. Dan Walker placed several political operatives in ghost jobs at state commissions. One of them allegedly was self-styled reformer Pat Quinn, now the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor. Quinn has long disputed the allegation.

Pat Quinn may or may not have been a ghost payroller.  Regardless, it can't reasonably be claimed that his reputation is squeaky clean.  Just ask Dick Durbin and other Illinois Democrats.

Today on the New York Daily News's Web site appear a picture and story of President Obama having trouble getting back into the White House.  The article begins:

It looks like President Obama hasn't gotten acquainted to his White House surroundings. On the way back to the Oval Office Tuesday, the President approached a paned window, instead of the actual door -- located a few feet to his right.

Doors didn't open automatically for Obama’s predecessor either. While making a hasty exit from a 2005 press conference in Beijing, former President George W. Bush tugged on the handles of a door, only to find it locked.

Bush laughed off the blunder, but the pictures still live on as part of Bush's lame duck legacy. However, there was little note taken of Obama's rookie mistake.

The Bush incident in Beijing received widespread media coverage. David Letterman used it to develop a Top Ten list.  Good Morning America's Charles Gibson intoned over the video of Bush struggling with the door:

"No way out. President Bush tries the wrong door on his trip to Asia and has fun for the cameras. But the big question now: Does he have an exit strategy for Iraq?" 

Such symbolism was noted in columns written by the Washington Post's Peter Baker and Eugene Robinson.  The New York Times printed a November 21, 2005 letter from author Bernard Goldberg that said in part:

On Nov. 21, The Times published a four-panel picture on Page 1 that extended over two columns and ran some 12 inches from the masthead more than halfway down the page showing President Bush trying to exit a meeting with reporters in Beijing -- through a locked door.

Get it? The guy can't even figure out how to get out of a room. What a dunce!

So will we see similar prominent coverage, editorial comment and jests aimed at the current president's embarrassment?  That would indeed be change from the Obama obsession of the mainstream media, but I don't see much hope for that happening.

For some in the mainstream media, fawning over Barack Obama - as pleasurable as it is - isn't quite enough.  Kicking George W. Bush around enhances the gratification.

Julia Keller, cultural critic, for the Chicago Tribune today contributes: "Of books and Obama: What does 'literary president' mean, exactly?"  At the end of the piece she happily concludes, "It's great to have a literary president of the United States."  Getting there, however, includes the obligatory Bush bashing:

But I'm being coy here. We all know what people mean when they say Obama is a "literary" president—and, sadly, it has less to do with our widely beloved new leader than it does with the apparently unloved man he replaced: George W. Bush. Bush became the poster president for the non-literary set, for people who not only don't read, but also seem to be rather proud of not reading. Reading, to certain people, is classified as a sort of prissy, fussy, sissified activity, equivalent to daydreaming or lollygagging. It's a sign of elitism. Of having too much leisure time and too little drive.

Yet shortly before Bush left office, his closest adviser—Karl Rove, now a columnist for the Wall Street Journal—made a shocking revelation: Bush, it turns out, reads. He reads a lot. Two books a week, in fact. That, anyway, is the claim.

That George W. Bush reads would be a "shocking revelation" only to someone whose bias is so pervasive that he - or in this instance, she - spent little time researching the question.

In December, 1999 Rena Pederson of the Dallas Morning News reported:

Bill Minutaglio, who has put together the most insightful profile of Gov. Bush in his book First Son, said last week that the governor had recently read biographies of Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt when he interviewed him.

Indeed, many times during his five years as governor, Mr. Bush has asked me what I was reading that was interesting. Once, I remember telling him I had just finished a fascinating book about Mexico called La Capital, written by a former Wall Street Journal correspondent named Jonathan Kandell, it is billed as a biography of Mexico City, but in the process tells the history of the country.

I didn't think the governor would have time to read it the paperback version is 640 pages. But about a month later, he made a point of coming over to tell me at a meeting that he had stayed up late reading the book and that his wife Laura was now hooked on it.

A January, 2000 profile by Washington Post staff writer Kevin Merida noted:

Much has been made of Bush's reading habits as a gauge of his light bulb wattage. According to both friends and foes, who cite books he has recommended, Bush reads more than he is given credit for.  Though his tastes tilt toward history and biographies, his wife, Laura, a librarian, says she has turned him into a fan of Robert Parker mysteries.

According to a January, 2001 (Madison, WI) Capital Times piece:

So it came as something of a surprise that, when reporters for the New York Times arrived at Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch last week for the obligatory pre-inaugural interview, the president-elect volunteered that he was spending his mornings reading one of the finest pieces of nonfiction penned in recent years.

The book on Bush's bedside table - Paul C. Nagel's "John Quincy Adams: A Public Life, A Private Life" - is a presidential biography of rare accomplishment.

Even Julia Keller's Chicago Tribune has taken note of Bush's reading habits.  From a February, 2005 article by Robin Abcarian:

As (historian Douglas) Brinkley hinted, there may be a gulf between Bush's consumption of culture and what is widely believed to be his consumption of culture. For instance, the president is often derided as a man whose reading runs to box scores and the Bible and whose knowledge of the world comes to him via highly condensed memos, or "memorandi" as he called them on C-SPAN. He does read the Bible every day, he said, but he is also a fan of biographies. He's recently read two books about Founding Fathers -- Joseph Ellis on George Washington and Ron Chernow on Alexander Hamilton (which he told C-SPAN is "a fascinating history of how hard it was to get democracy started in some ways").

Robert Draper, author of "Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush." told Time magazine in September, 2007:

I remember when I asked him who he admired most as leaders he said Reagan. And when I asked him who he admired as jurists he said Thomas and Scalia. These are rather obvious choices and they indicated to me that the guy just simply wasn't deep into the history books. He is now. He's a voracious reader of them and can speak at length about the Khmer Rouge, the Algerian Revolution and certainly about people like Churchill and Truman about whom I think he knew very little back in 1998.

Earlier this month, syndicated columnist Linda Chavez wrote:

Much of the intelligentsia no doubt will be shocked to learn George W. Bush is an avid reader of serious books, but it simply confirms something I already suspected. During the first real discussion I ever had with then-Gov. Bush in 1998, he brought up a book written by a former colleague of mine at the Manhattan Institute.

She goes on to mention that the author "is not a polemicist, but a serious scholar and elegant writer. Bush's reference to the book spoke worlds to me."

Keller's article is accompanied by a huge picture of Obama carrying "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria.  Perhaps if President Bush read books like that rather than ones about great American patriots and other historical figures, the mainstream media would have credited him as "a literary president."

On second thought, probably not.      

On yesterday's CNN Newsroom, anchor Kyra Phillips made no effort to curb her enthusiasm for Barack Obama.  She spoke with feminist author and Democratic activist Naomi Wolf about a recent cover of Ms. Magazine featuring Obama in a Superman pose.  Some feminists took exception to the cover; others, like Wolf, did not.  As the segment ended, Kyra Phillips summed up as follows:

PHILLIPS: Well, if anything, I think this just exemplifies how Barack Obama is going to be out of the box on everything, whether it's who he decides to have speak at the inauguration or what covers he decides to go on the front of or who he puts into his administration. It is all going to be about going out of the box and making people talk and bringing everybody together, whether it's gender, race, whatever it is.

Thinking out of the box, that's Obama alright.  Mr. Originality's stacked his administration with loads of Clinton administration retreads.  In terms of magazine covers, it's doubtful that he decides which periodicals feature him.  Did he pose as Superman for Ms.?  Not likely.  That would have been a step down for his messiahship.

Then there is Phillips's belief that Obama is "bringing everybody together, whether it's gender, race, whatever it is."  That's patently unrealistic.  The notion that any politician can bring everyone - regardless of life experiences, political views, values, opinions, and traditions - together is a liberal pipe dream.  And a selective pipe dream at that.  After years of bashing President Bush and other Republicans, it's expected that magically all Americans will suddenly, joyously unify as one big happy family under Obama.

Earlier this week, Phillips mentioned in an exchange with Tony Harris, another CNN Newsroom anchor, that she's attending the inauguration on her own time:

HARRIS: Good stuff. OK. We are one week, one day out from Inauguration Day. Look at that scene.

Kyra, can you imagine Washington, D.C.?

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: I'll tell you what. I mean, even though I'm not working that day.

HARRIS: Right. I know you're going to be there, right?

PHILLIPS: I am going to be there. I do not want to miss this moment in history. That's what it is. I mean, when's the last time we remember this kind of buzz over a president?

I'm sure that Kyra Phillips, with her starry-eyed prediction of Obama "bringing everybody together," is more than happy to keep amplifying the buzz.

We've seen the mainstream media afflicted with Palin Derangement Syndrome.  We've experienced the media in the throes of Bush Derangement Syndrome.  Over at CNN, which modestly styles itself as the most trusted name in news, there's now an outbreak of Joe the Plumber Derangement Syndrome.

Last week CNN Newsroom anchor Kyra Phillips went after Joe.  Today, it was CNN Newsroom anchor Rick Sanchez's turn at bat.  Mustering as much blow-dried earnestness as possible, he relieved himself of an editorial on what's nominally a news program:

Meanwhile, something else to take note of today. I want to share with you the thoughts of Samuel Wurzelbacher -- you know, "Joe the Plumber" -- now Joe the war correspondent. Yes, he's been in Israel filing reports.

And here's his analysis, as reported by the Associated Press. You're going to love this: "I don't think journalists should be anywhere around war. I mean you guys report where our troops are at. You report what's happening day to day. You make a big deal out of it. I think it's asinine. I think media should be abolished from, you know, reporting, war is hell."

There you have it.

Samuel, let me talk to you directly.

First, I was born in a communist country, so I'm familiar with people like you -- and Fidel Castro, by the way -- not to name drop -- who also think "that media should be abolished."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Number two, I've covered wars. And while I can't speak for war correspondents who put their lives on the line every day, I can tell you, what they do is requisite -- essential to our democracy.

Whether you've insulted them is up to them to tell you.

But I will tell you who you have insulted. Forty-one journalists were killed last year -- two already killed this year -- while trying to practice their craft. They can't speak for themselves, because they're no longer with us, Samuel.

And their children, their wives and husbands, their fathers and mothers -- they don't have a TV show.

So on behalf of them, Sam, let's see, you're not really a licensed plumber. You're not really a war correspondent. And your name isn't even really Joe. I think we all do know, though, who you are.

You know that guy who lives down the street -- the guy who shows up at the backyard barbecue when there's free food?

You know that guy?

He knows everything about everything, but really knows nothing, hates everything and everybody. He can't understand why anybody would find any fault with him. You know, the obnoxious guy -- there's always one at every party or every gathering on every block. You know that guy. We all know that guy.

Well, that guy wasn't made famous by John McCain and Sarah Palin. You were, Sam. So we're stuck with you. But it doesn't mean that we can't call you out.

In fact, I just did.

Contrary to what Sanchez contends, Joe didn't say "that media should be abolished."  What he did express was his view that the media shouldn't report on war, with one reason being it can be detrimental to the troops' welfare.  Whether or not one agrees with that idea, holding it doesn't make Joe comparable to Castro.  In addition to the Cuban dictator, Sanchez used the opportunity to take a swipe at John McCain and Sarah Palin, who "made" Joe famous.

Sanchez's fixation with Joe the Plumber isn't new.  For someone who blames others for making Joe famous, he does his best to keep the object of his disdain in the public eye.  Yesterday his producer sent out a Twitter message that included: "Also 'Joe The War Correspondent'? Rick rips him."  For whatever reason, Rick didn't rip him yesterday.  He did, however, run numerous anti-Joe tweets across the screen for much of the program.  It's difficult to believe that not a single viewer conveyed a different opinion, but none was aired.  Not that Rick's journalistic integrity and commitment to fairness could ever be questioned.  He is, after all, a "professional."

Then last night Sanchez sent out a couple of his own tweets on the topic.  "spent life in news.covered wars,been shot at, almost died in hosp, nothing compared to real war corespondnts, joe plumber insulting," said one.  And the other: "he reminds me of the guy down the block who shows up at the bar b que for free food and knows more than everybody. obnoxious?"

There's no question that war correspondents place themselves in jeopardy and that some have died on the job.  Still, reporting isn't, as Sanchez apparently believes, brain surgery.  For some at CNN, it consists primarily of reading stories written by others.  So it's little wonder that when they try "editorializing" they can't even quote people accurately.

No doubt Rick's malady requires him to stay on Joe the Plumber's case.  Obsessively, incessantly, monotonously.  He's sorta like the guy who lives down the street, shows up at the backyard barbecue when there's free food, knows everything about everything, but really knows nothing, and can't understand why anybody would find any fault with him.       

So we're stuck with you, Rick. But it doesn't mean that we can't call you out.

On today's CNN Newsroom, anchor Kyra Phillips let viewers know exactly what she thinks of Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber.  On the 2:00 PM (ET) segment she teased the story:

PHILLIPS: Oh, Lord, Joe The Plumber's got a new gig. It's got nothing to do with the pipes, it's got everything to do with Gaza.

And later again:

PHILLIPS: You've seen the last of this guy? Not. Now Joe The Plumber wants to flush out the truth as a war correspondent. I know, there are just no words. Stay here for details on his Middle East trip.

Minutes later she reported:

Hey, Joe, what do you know? No, seriously, what do you know? Since that whole plumbing thing didn't work out, I mean. Now, Joe Wurzelbacher is decamping to the Middle East. That's right, the plumber slash author slash singer.

His latest career gambit? War correspondent. He's going spend ten days in Israel reporting for the conservative Web site pjtv.com. And he says he hopes to air Israelis' views on the Gaza offensive. Lord, help us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE WURZELBACHER, WAR CORRESPONDENT FOR PJTV.COM: And it's tragic. I mean, it really is. I don't say that in any little way. It's very tragic.

But at the same time, what are the Israel people supposed to do? I get to go over their and let their average Joes show their story, what they think, how they feel. Especially with, you know, world opinion. Maybe get a real story out there.

(END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIPS: Get a real story out there. Just want to remind you that Joe the Plumber has no journalism experience. No war zone experience either. But he thinks he's, quote, "pretty well protected by God."

So, what's Joe been smoking, drinking?

Kyra just had to remind viewers that Joe has no journalism experience.  Unlike the Washington Post's Janet Cooke, the Chicago Tribune's Bob Greene, the Boston Globe's Mike Barnicle, the New York Times's Jayson Blair and the many others who've shown how crucial that experience is.

I wouldn't think Phillips, who gained considerable notoriety in a restroom, would think "flush" jokes are all that humorous.  Apparently, Kyra didn't exhaust her invective on her "control freak" sister-in-law.  She's saved some for a guy imprudent enough to have challenged The One, a man so non-professional as to say something good about Sarah Palin. 

Lord, there are just no words, Kyra.    

Stop the presses.  After an exhaustive investigation, the Washington Post has exclusively learned that "some" conservatives believe that "some" advisers to Barack Obama are too liberal.  The newspaper's Web site yesterday included the article, "Obama's Team Rankles the Right: To Some Conservatives, Advisers Are Alarmingly Liberal."  The piece begins:

To some staunch conservatives watching President Bush relinquish the reins of power to President-elect Barack Obama, a few too many ardent liberals are now crashing the gates.

Some well-known Democratic activists are advising Obama on how to steer federal agencies, including a few whom conservative Republicans fought hard to keep out of power in the Clinton administration. They include Roberta Achtenberg, a gay activist whose confirmation as an assistant housing secretary was famously held up by then-Sen.  Jesse Helms (N.C.), and Bill Lann Lee, who was hotly opposed by foes of affirmative action and temporarily blocked from the government's top civil rights job.

So who are these conservatives disturbed by the liberalism of Obama's aides?  The Washington Post quotes one, Roger Clegg:

"The transition team as described to me was made up of nothing but people on the far left. Though Obama is more moderate, that makes you wonder what kind of advice the president is given, and what range of choices he'll be given when it comes time to make appointments."

And who else does the Post use to buttress its contention of conservative displeasure with Team Obama?  No one:

Besides Achtenberg and Lee, other transition advisers' past positions are sending off flares in the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican Party. None of them responded to requests for comment.

It shouldn't be surprising that conservatives would be displeased with the people around Obama.  What is surprising is that the newspaper's staff could only find one conservative willing to voice his concerns.  How hard were they looking?    

There's just so much hope and change already taking place in America that it's hard to keep up.  The mainstream media is doing an exemplary job of keeping us up to date with news that really matters, such as articles like the Associated Press's "Web site lets women register their inaugural dress" and "Hairdressers Want Chance to Style First Lady."  Then there are the penetrating analyses like "Americans rush plans for Obama inauguration," which quoted a 97-year-old woman who had never voted or witnessed a presidential inauguration, despite living just three miles from Washington, because "I knew white people had the right of way here, you know."

In the sheer exhilaration of the impending Age of Obama, it's understandable that some stories are overlooked.  One that might not be considered newsworthy is the fact that last year homicides in Barack Obama's hometown of Chicago substantially exceeded the number of deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.  As the AP itself reported:

According to a tally by The Associated Press, at least 314 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq in 2008, down from 904 in the previous year.

And the Chicago Tribune reported today:

Chicago closed out the year with 509 homicides, an increase of about 15 percent over 2007. . .

Obama, of course, has characterized U.S. involvement in Iraq as a "complete failure" and advocates the withdrawal of our military.  If Iraq's a total failure, how does Obama view what's taking place in his own hometown?  Should America stop sending millions, possibly billions, of dollars in assistance to what is obviously a losing effort?  It'd be a good question for the mainstream media to pose.  If, of course, they could get over those pictures of Barry with his shirt off.