"It's like déjà vu all over again," noted philosopher Yogi Berra is credited with saying. And so it is.

A liberal Democratic president has his heart set on pushing through a proposal strongly unpopular with most Americans. Enjoying substantial Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate, he intends to win.

So it was in September, 1977 when Jimmy Carter signed the Panama Canal treaties to relinquish United States control. An Associated Press opinion poll conducted that month found that only 29 percent of Americans favored the pact. A solid 50 percent opposed it and 21 percent expressed no opinion.

Just as Barack Obama is determined to shove a government health care program down the throats of his protesting countrymen, Carter did what was necessary to get the Senate to ratify the Panama Canal treaties. He cajoled, he promised, he threatened. It worked.

Carter was understandably jubilant when in early 1978 he received one vote more than the 67 necessary to approve the first of the two treaties. He hailed it as "a victory for the American people." That may sound vaguely familiar. It's how Barack Obama described his own 2008 election.

In a 1991 interview, Jimmy Carter talked about his triumph:

"I never go through a week of my life now that I don't get letters from people condemning the Panama Canal Treaties. Still, and this is I don't know how many years later. 1978? Thirteen years later. But it was a good thing to do."

He went on to describe the aftermath:

"It is the most courageous thing that the U.S. Senate ever did in its existence. They knew that it was politically unpopular, but they knew that it was right and needed. Of the 20 senators who voted for the Canal Treaties in 1978, who were up for re-election the next year, only seven of them came back. Thirteen of them didn't come back. And the attrition rate in 1980 was almost as bad."

The Boston Globe reported in February, 1981 that "the new Senate that took office this year sees the absence, by retirement or defeat, of 28 senators who supported the treaties." In only three years, 28 of the 68 senators who did what Carter deemed "right and needed" and what the public opposed were gone.

As was Carter. He was such a dismal failure in so many ways, it's impossible to attribute his defeat to any one action or event. Jimmy had pummeled President Jerry Ford over the "misery index," a combination of the inflation and unemployment rates. Four years of Carter resulted in the index shooting up from 13% to more than 20%. By itself, inflation stood at 13.58% in Carter's last year in office.

Yet another factor had to have been Carter's successful effort to turn the Panama Canal over to a leftist dictator carrying the title of "Maximum Leader of the Panamanian Revolution." Americans didn't want that to happen, but a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress didn't care.

Which brings us to now. Another Democratic president and another Democratic Congress don't care that Americans oppose a government health care system disguised as reform.

With their elitist mentality, they genuinely believe they know better than we do what's best for us. If it takes hiding from constituents, fine. If it takes lying about what their plans entail, OK. If it takes cajoling, promising, threatening, it's just part of doing what they've decided is right and needed.

If the president succeeds in imposing ObamaCare, it will be a Pyrrhic victory. All those Americans held in such contempt by the liberal establishment will be at the polls next year and in 2012. They'll remember how they were disrespected and ignored. And Obama & Co. will have no one to blame but themselves for ignoring a lesson of the Carter years.

On Saturday's CNN Newsroom, anchor Don Lemon played a clip of his interview with Allen Hardage, identified as the director of America's Town Hall:

LEMON: Where was the outrage five years ago, ten years ago, 15 years ago? Why all of a sudden this outrage now? At least the president is trying to reform health care, so where did the outrage suddenly come from?

ALLEN HARDAGE, DIRECTOR, AMERICA'S TOWN HALL: Don, this is the second town hall he's done in the last week that I actually saw real Americans get up and ask questions. It wasn't a pre-selected group or a --

LEMON: But hang on, before you do that. Real Americans, that's another term that really sets people off.

HARDAGE: Well, let me tell you what I mean by that.

LEMON: We're all real Americans. Everybody.

HARDAGE: Where anybody can get in and anybody can ask a question. And you have seen a completely different tenor in -- in the town hall he held on Tuesday and today, than town halls we have been seeing so far in this debate. That's what I mean by real Americans.

LEMON: OK. Or maybe you know what, the whole real American thing -- can we lose that real Americans?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sure.

LEMON: Because everybody in this country, who is a citizen...

(CROSSTALK)

HARDAGE: Absolutely.

LEMON: ...we're all real Americans.

HARDAGE: Absolutely.

LEMON: And that is part of the issue that really sets people off and divides people. So let's get rid of that real Americans. We're all -- I'm real American. You're real American.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sure.

LEMON: Conservatives, liberals, independents, we're all poor or rich real Americans.

HARDAGE: Absolutely.

LEMON: Continue your point.

HARDAGE: But here's my point. If we're going to open this debate up and have everybody come in and put their ideas forth. Virginia is absolutely right. He said it himself, this is a hard issue. So we need to -- we need to bring everybody to the table. Let's hear everybody's ideas and concerns, and come up with a consensus.

Lemon's defense of Barack Obama (at least the president is trying to reform health care) came as he asked why there's a "sudden" outrage.  The outrage has been building for months, as Obama set records for unprecedented spending and deficits, expanded federal meddling in banks and auto companies, fired executives and guaranteed the government would back up auto warranties.  The disastrous cap and tax legislation he's pushing through Congress will have a devastating impact on energy prices, destroy jobs, and give government even greater power. 

Now the man with zero credible executive experience wants to expand his authority over an additional one-sixth of the economy.

This wasn't the only time Lemon set aside any pretense of objectivity to laud Obama.  On November 1, 2006, he interviewed Michelle Obama at a birthday celebration for Jesse Jackson.  Santita Jackson, Jesse's daughter, became part of the segment:

LEMON: Are you ready to be first lady?

OBAMA: No comment.

LEMON: Where's hubby tonight?

OBAMA: He's coming. He is flying in. His flight doesn't come in until late. My date is Santita Jackson.

LEMON: Santita, get over here.

OBAMA: Get over here.

LEMON: Santita Jackson and Michelle Obama. Let me get you guys right here. Daughter of the great one who's turning 65. Wife of the great one now.

The great one now. Obviously, that journalistic detachment doesn't extend to people who use inflammatory language such as "real Americans," disparaged by the anchor Saturday as "another term that really sets people off."  Well, at least some people in the mainstream media.  It appeared as though Hardage was merely suggesting town hall participants are average citizens, rather than, as he said, "a pre-selected group." That wasn't good enough for Lemon, who bullied the guest into an admission that every citizen is a real American.

Several mainstream media types have gone to work for the administration.  Perhaps as Lemon reminds viewers that at least Obama is trying to reform health care, a White House opening for another dependable news reader will develop.

In today's article titled "White House appears ready to drop 'public option,'" the Associated Press reports the Obama administration is signaling it's prepared to drop the option of government-run insurance as a component of ObamaCare.  The piece states in part:

Obama had sought the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured, but he never made it a deal breaker in a broad set of ideas that has Republicans unified in opposition.

Not a deal breaker?  It certainly seemed to be one as recently as last month.  On July 20, The Washington Post's Web site included Ezra Klein's report, "Obama Says Health-Care Reform 'Must' Include Public Option."  Cited is Obama's radio address of that week, in which the president declared:

(A)ny plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family.

Any plan must include a public option.  The language is unambiguous.  Except in ObamaWorld apparently.  Now we're told it was never really a deal breaker.

Conservatives have been frustrated by mainstream media efforts to at times rewrite history to Barack Obama's benefit.  Here they go again.   

On The Situation Room today, CNN congressional correspondent Brianna Keilar reported on "almost a love-fest" for Arkansas Democratic Congressman Mike Ross:

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, compared to some of the other town hall meetings that we've seen, some very contentious town hall meetings, this one was almost a love-fest.

It started with a standing ovation as soon as Congressman Mike Ross was introduced. He, of course, is a prominent Blue Dog Democrat, a fiscally conservative Democrat. He and some other Blue Dogs forced House Democratic leaders to postpone a vote on their health care reform proposal until after Congress comes back in September.

That said, he also support many of the things in this health care reform push. But talking with some of the constituents, those who are for this health care reform push, those who are against it, they say that they think Congressman Mike Ross is really doing right by them.

There's about 700 people at this event. We were able to speak with about a dozen of them going into the meeting.

Keilar's description of Ross as "a fiscally conservative Democrat" is revealing.  Project Vote Smart compiles ratings of congressional members issued by many different groups and Ross's record reflects that The National Taxpayers Union gave him a grade of F in 2008 and 2007. He supported the interests of the National Tax Limitation Committee 5 percent in 2007-2008.  For 2007, Americans for Tax Reform gave Ross a grade of 5. The American Conservative Union gave Ross a rating of 12 percent for 2008.

And over at The Club for Growth, Ross received a zero on its 2009 House RePORK Card, which measures support for anti-pork legislation.

Ross's record shouldn't be a surprise.  On the very first day of this Congress, he voted for Nancy Pelosi to be speaker.

My guess is that Brianna Keilar would describe that vote as the action of "a fiscally conservative Democrat."  It's all in a day's work at the most trusted name in news.       

Barack Obama's many failings are increasingly apparent.  Consequently, even the mainstream media are finding it difficult to keep up the facade.  So difficult, in fact, that USA Today now deems newsworthy the findings of a 12-person focus group conducted by a longtime Democratic operative.

USA Today's Susan Page reports the happy news in the piece "Obama gets thumbs up from focus group."  It begins:

TOWSON, Md. — President Obama has seen his approval ratings slide, but a dozen independent voters who gathered here for a roundtable discussion about politics were still inclined to give him a break.

The area residents expressed deep worry about the country's direction and a sobering view of the problems ahead. There was also a reservoir of good feeling for a president several referred to familiarly as "Barack."

Asked what he would like to say to Obama, Scott Wood, 35, who has been looking for a job since February, advised: "Don't give up yet; we haven't."

"We've found out he's not Superman," said Nora Seeley, 54, when asked what she had learned about the president during his first six months on the job. Still, she said, "things are starting to turn around."

The focus group, held Wednesday night, was sponsored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

It isn't until the eighth paragraph that readers learn the session was moderated by "Democratic pollster Peter Hart."  The fifteenth paragraph also discloses a relevant fact:

Seven of the participants voted for Obama last year; four for his Republican rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain; and one for third-party candidate Ralph Nader.

And what would an Obama happy-talk article be without a little Rush Limbaugh bashing? 

"Asked whom among a dozen prominent people they would least like to be seated next to on a plane, six picked radio host Rush Limbaugh and four House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif."

Much of the mainstream media invested heavily in Obama.  They will continue promoting him and his leftist agenda, portraying him a success when the truth is very different.

A dozen people in one of the country's most reliably Democratic states realize Obama's not Superman but still hold out hope for their Barack, and it makes headlines.  Perhaps next week will bring the breaking news that Michelle Obama thinks her husband's doing a darn fine job. 

On CNN Newsroom today, anchor Kyra Phillips interviewed Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele on the topic of President Obama's healthcare push.  Part of the interview:

PHILLIPS: But whether government-run or private, I mean, no one's going to demand that you go one way or another. You're still going to have a choice.

STEELE: We don't -- maybe we do. I don't know. We haven't had that debate. I mean, you're talking about -- you're talking about the possibility of reorienting one-sixth of our economy with legislators who haven't even read the legislation. I mean, are they going to do to health care what they did with cap and trade? Are we going to get amendments at 4 a.m. in the morning and no one reads them? And then only after the Health and Human Services Department has to begin to implement this craziness, we're going to find out exactly what's in the bill?

Steele was exactly correct, of course.  No one knows what Obama's healthcare program will ultimately mandate.  That's because, like the economic stimulus, Obama left it in the hands of his Democratic comrades in Congress to put something together.  There are currently three versions in the House and another two in the Senate.  None has been voted on by either the full House or the full Senate.

That didn't prevent Phillips from speaking with certainty on the matter again during the conclusion of the interview:

PHILLIPS: Want to point out, though, we're still talking about the fact that people will have a choice. They won't be told to go one way or the other.

Really, Kyra?  How could you possibly know that?  Looks like on the subject of ObamaCare, you've bought the Obamaganda.  Big time.

Just as the media – with the exception of Larry King – were finally getting over the passing of Michael Jackson came the news that former CBS newsman Walter Cronkite died.  Cronkite was an iconic figure amongst his brethren and media encomia were suitably lavish.

Cronkite was recognized, we’ve been told over and over again, as the most trusted man in America.  According to USA Today:

“How did he become ‘the most trusted man in America?’ It was a Roper survey for U.S. News & World Report, Cronkite once said, and he won ‘because they didn’t poll my wife.’”

Ever the skeptic, I tried to find that poll.  The Roper Center’s Web site includes a link to data gathered for a 1974 “Virginia Slims American Women’s Opinion Poll.” Cronkite did indeed do better than any other male in that sampling.  But note how the question was worded:

“And now here is a list of prominent men.  (HAND RESPONDENT CARD) For each man on the list, tell me if you respect him a great deal, somewhat, or not at all.”

Cronkite’s name was on the list.  So were those of 16 other men, including Marlon Brando, Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson, Joe Namath and Frank Sinatra.  Yet another contender was Richard Nixon, who that year became the only president to resign.

Respondents were limited to the names provided.  The question didn’t center on trust, but on respect.  A year earlier, a Sindlinger and Company survey asked a couple of thousand people to rate network newsmen for “trust and accuracy.” NBC’s John Chancellor narrowly edged out Cronkite in that poll.  What I find interesting is winner Chancellor scored only 55.8 percent for trust and accuracy, suggesting that even back then a good number of people questioned what they were being told by the media.

And with good reason.  USA Today’s article noted:

“Cronkite’s influence was such that after he ended a 1968 broadcast following a trip to South Vietnam during the Tet Offensive telling viewers that the war could not be won, President Lyndon Johnson reportedly told his aides, ‘If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.’”

Mona Charen set the record straight in her book “Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First:”

“Johnson misread the situation.  Cronkite did not speak for middle America, but instead for the liberal intelligentsia and for a growing segment of the Democratic Party.”

Charen also quotes Cronkite on what he saw as an overreaction to Soviet threats: “Fear of the Soviet Union taking over the world just seemed as likely to me as invaders from Mars.” That’s a remarkable statement from a newsman who had personally witnessed another form of totalitarianism attempt world domination.

The media Cronkite love fest is understandable to a degree.  They are honoring their own and, in so doing, honoring themselves.  But is it warranted?

In his 1984 “The Liberal Crack Up,” R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr. reflected on “the weird reverence” accorded Uncle Walter, as he’s now called on CNN:

“Here was a man who in all his public years never passed on more than a hint of intellectual substance.  He just sat there in front of that infernal microphone! Yet he was esteemed as an authority on world politics and a moral paragon.  He left no substantial books, no essays, no memorable epigrams. . . He dwelt in the land of bromides and wholesome attitudes.  He was amiable, but he was unexceptional too.”

Walter Cronkite’s death is sad in the same way most deaths are.  But let’s keep a little perspective here.  He simply read the news, usually as written by other people.  He came across as warm and friendly and didn’t blatantly parade his liberalism until after his retirement.

But was he “most trusted man in America”?  Not likely.

Monday's Chicago Tribune featured the article "Powell 'still a Republican': Rebutting critics, he criticizes party's far right voices."  The article starts:

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Sunday that ideological conservatives, particularly radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, have gained a hold over the Republican Party that risks driving the GOP into an extended exile from power.

Powell cast his warnings in unusually personal terms as he answered recent charges from two champions of the Republican right -- Limbaugh and former Vice President Dick Cheney -- that he was no longer a Republican.

"Rush will not get his wish, and Mr. Cheney was misinformed," said Powell, whose resume includes work as military adviser to President Ronald Reagan, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush's Cabinet. "I am still a Republican."

Obviously, the "far right voices" referenced in the piece's headline are those of Limbaugh and Cheney.

If Rush Limbaugh is on the far right, surely MSNBC's Rachel Maddow qualifies to be characterized as far left.  Yet only last month, the Tribune carried an article from the Los Angeles Times (another Tribune newspaper) that asked this burning question about Maddow:

Politics, not to mention television, thrives on conflict, but how much of that will there be with a left-leaning host in a time of a left-leaning president?

So Maddow and Obama are merely left-leaning.  That was also used in a June, 2007 Chicago Tribune article titled "Carefully crafting the Barack Obama 'brand.'"  Describing how Obama went about writing "The Audacity of Hope," it notes:

In keeping with the original game plan, staff members spent nights and weekends scouring the chapters as they rolled in, looking for potential political pitfalls -- a vetting committee Obama didn't have when he published his earlier, more provocative memoir.

For instance, when Obama was seeking to name someone as the epitome of left-leaning politics, an aide urged him to use a House member instead of a Senate colleague. So the book names now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), though Obama's voting record is similar to hers.

Clearly, "left leaning" is the description of choice when it comes to liberal extremists.  In a short blurb that appeared last September 12, the Tribune reported:

MSNBC dumped high-maintenance and allegedly left-leaning yakkers Keith Olbermann  and Chris Matthews  from election anchor duties. Some of their critics cheer as they tune back to "Fair and Balanced" Fox News.

Allegedly left-leaning yakkers?  Who does it take, you may ask, to drop the allegedly, Fidel Castro?  As it turns out, not necessarily.  On November 2, the paper's television critic wrote:

In another skit, (actor Ben) Affleck played a scarily intense version of the left-leaning Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann."       

And all this time I've considered the real Olbermann to be the scarily intense version.

So now we've been instructed that Obama, Pelosi, Olbermann, Matthews and Maddow aren't liberal extremists as many of us have thought.  They aren't far left voices.  They're just left leaning.  Sort of like the Chicago Tribune.

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.