On Wednesday afternoon, Hillary Clinton sat down with Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric, and Brian Williams — in that order — for one-on-one interviews to air on the respective networks Wednesday evening. That same afternoon, buzz was building over a major endorsement for Barack Obama to come that evening (later revealed to be John Edwards).

But on Wednesday night in the flagship live broadcast at 6:30 pm ET, only two of the three networks aired the Clinton interviews on-air — NBC and CBS. On ABC, the network instead aired the endorsement of Barack Obama by John Edwards, which was happening live at that time.

An ABC representative explained that ABC decided to carry the Edwards endorsement live rather than air the Clinton interview:

There are five feeds of "World News" that air across the country at different times. The first feed, which you would have seen if you were watching in New York, did not include an excerpt from Charlie's interview with Clinton, but the other four feeds did. So those watching in Atlanta, Denver, Los Angeles, and many other cities across the country did see it. [Wednesday] was a very busy news day as you know, coupled with the fact that a major breaking story -- Edwards' endorsement of Obama -- happened right as we were going to air. Unlike NBC and CBS, we decided to air part of that event live for our audience that sees the 6:30 program live. We then shifted our lineup accordingly for the subsequent feeds.

A surprising omission — or was it? Perhaps the person who would have been least surprised might have been Hillary Clinton, who may have had an inkling over the course of the day that her fortunes were shifting. In the clip below, from MSNBC Thursday, Brian Williams explains that he watched Hillary Clinton's tone shift from interview to interview, presumably because she learned new information between each one. Watch Williams' assertion below, and decide for yourself whether Clinton's tone shifted between interviews. The videos from each interview are embedded below — the ABC video comes from KABC in Los Angeles, and is presumably but a snippet of a much longer interview Gibson conducted earlier in the day (although on ABC's impossible-to-navigate website, they've only posted 1:45 of the interview).

Brian Williams discusses watching Hillary Clinton's tone shift between interviews with ABC, CBS, and NBC:

ABC interview (from KABC, Los Angeles affiliate):

CBS interview:

NBC interview:

Racism in the United States is real. Social scientists know it, the Republicans know it, the Clintons know it ... and African Americans absolutely know it. Racist appeals are being used against Obama, and a new "postpartisan" generation of white Christian preachers is in a unique position to respond.

Americans need to understand that there are two ways to react to racism in American life: One is to exploit it, as politicians from Nixon to Clinton have in my lifetime. The other is to change it and help eliminate it. Will Rick Warren and others heed the call?

My recent post on West Virginia's primary, where I spoke (perhaps a little too bluntly) about the racist subgroup of voters there, ignited a firestorm of angry reactions. Most of them were on the "no, YOU'RE the racist" plane of discourse. (Some of the extremist pro-Hillary websites also chimed in - the kind that claim Kos of DailyKos is a secret CIA agent. They're out there, but I won't encourage them by linking to them.)

These responders want desperately to believe that racism is a thing of the past, and that it had no impact on this week's primary. So, first, let's talk statistics: Those who said I was calling all Southern whites racist aren't very careful readers. In my first paragraph I said there is "an avidly racist percentage" of this group. Second - and this is important - I didn't call them racist: they called themselves that. Roughly 1 in 5 white West Virginia voters said race played a strong role in their vote, and they went overwhelmingly against Obama (80% for Clinton). And if 1 in 5 said that, a lot more than that feel that way.

Let's look at the numbers: Clinton beat Obama by forty percentage points. 1 in 5 white voters equals 20% of 95% of West Virginia voters. That means nearly half of Clinton's victory margin comes from voters who say race played a major part in their choice. And that's a very understated number, since most racists are reluctant to admit their prejudice to a complete stranger. If you double that 1 in 5 to account for the shame factor, her entire victory is theoretically attributable to this bias.

Now comes the next wave of anti-Obama race-baiting: This is the part where the Christian leaders come in. White Christian religionists are circulating a series of anti-Obama emails. A friend sent me one last night from Celeste and Loren Davis, American missionaries who are actively converting Africans to Christ with U.S. contributions. The Davises generated an email which is getting widely circulated on the Internet, saying things like this: We are living and working in Kenya for almost twelve years now and know his family (tribe) well. They are the ones who were behind the recent Presidential election chaos here ... Obama, under "friends of Obama" gave almost a million dollars to the opposition campaign who just happened to be his cousin, Raila Odinga, who is a socialist trained in east germany. He has been trying to bring Kenya down for years and the last president threw him in prison for trying to subvert this country! ...

Obama and Raila speak daily. As we watch Obama rise in the US we are sure that whatever happens, he will use the same tactic, crying rigged election if he doesn't win, and possibly cause a race war in America.

What we would like you to know is what the American press has been keeping a dirty little secret. Obama IS a muslim and he IS a racist and this is a fullfilllment of the 9-11 threat that was just the beginning. Jihad is the only true muslim way. We have been working with them for 20 years this July!

He is not an American as we know it. Please encourage your friends and associates not to be taken in by those that are promoting him. It is world wide jihad ...

By the way, his true name is Barak Hussein Muhammed Obama. Won't that sound sweet to our enemies as they swear him in on the Koran!? ... Jesus Christ is our peace, but the new world order of Globalism has infiltrated the church and confused believers into thinking that they can compromise and survive. It won't be so.

American missionary work is big business in Africa, and business is good for the Davises. (Never mind that after twenty years they can't spell "Barack," and don't know the difference between a "tribe" of millions and a "family.") The Davises are part of the Christian Dominionist movement that has been trying (with a good deal of success) to hijack American government for many years. But time is working against them. As minister and social researcher George Barna1 has documented, younger generations of Christians are rejecting the rigidity, prejudices, and political extremism of the Falwell/Robertson axis.

A new generation of ministers has risen up in response. Most prominent among them are Rick Warren (who's already been attacked by the Davises as "un-Scriptural") and Joel Osteen, both of whom have rejected a political role for themselves in favor of neutrality in the public sphere. There's a new generation behind them, too, and it's coming up fast. These young Christian leaders are represented by preachers like Jay Bakker, Jim and Tammy Faye's son, who recently brought a group of gays and lesbians to worship at Osteen's megachurch in Texas.

With Obama the inevitable Democratic nominee, it's time for these Christian leaders to speak up - not for Obama, but against spreading bigotry in Christ's name. (And if you think this is an argument for choosing Hillary over Barack, forget it: The Davises have attacked her as part of a worldwide Socialist conspiracy. Her nomination would mean another six months of Vince Foster lies - not to mention sexual innuendos from traditionalists who think a strong woman must be gay, and that "gay = bad.".)

This campaign is a history opportunity to attack racism at its roots. Here's what Reverends Warren, Osteen, Bakker et al. can and must say to the Christian community:

1. Lying violates one of the Ten Commandments.
2. Inflaming racial and religious hatred violates Jesus' message.
3. Americans should choose their leaders based on policy and character, not faith-based lies.
4. Racism in all forms is contrary to the word of God.
5. Christians should stop giving contributions to people like Loren Davis.

It's not only in our country's interest to have these faith leaders say this. It's in their interests, too. The generational tides are shifting away from Christianist politics and bigotry, even in white Christian strongholds. These leaders can both accelerate that shift and remain part of it.

I'm agnostic about what happens after death, and I don't believe in Heaven in the Biblical sense. I'm one of those "Jesus is a spiritual teacher" types, which according to the Davises makes me a "New Age" servant of "Satan as an angel of light." Still, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it. But if I'm wrong, I hope I'm allowed the mercy of standing behind the Davises in line for the Pearly Gates. It would be some comfort to hear Jesus say to them, "Depart from me, you that work iniquity."

(That's Matthew 7:23, Rev. Davis, in case you want to look it up. A little review of Matthew might do you some good ...)

A Night Light

The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog

1George Barna's research organization publishes some very useful research on faith in the United States.

WATERTOWN, S.D. — Barack Obama rebuked Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for "dishonest, divisive" attacks in hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists, staunchly defending his national security credentials for the general election campaign.

Obama responded Friday to Bush's speech Thursday to the Israeli Knesset. The president referred to the leader of Iran, who has called for the destruction of the U.S. ally, and then said some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals _ comments Obama and Democrats said were directed at them. McCain subsequently said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with rogue leaders.

"I'm a strong believer in civility and I'm a strong believer in a bipartisan foreign policy, but that cause is not served with dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we've seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple days, " Obama told about 2,000 voters at a town hall-style meeting in a livestock barn.

Obama said McCain had a "naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up its nuclear program and support for terrorism."

During his swing through South Dakota, the Democratic front-runner said he had intended to focus on rural issues, but felt compelled to respond to the criticism from Bush and McCain.

"They aren't telling you the truth. They are trying to fool you and scare you because they can't win a foreign policy debate on the merits," said Obama. "But it's not going to work. Not this time, not this year."

Bush did not mention Obama by name in his speech, but Obama and other Democrats said the implication was clear.

"That's exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world," Obama said. He vowed to turn the foreign policy debate back against both Bush and McCain, rejecting the notion that Democrats critical of the war in Iraq are vulnerable to charges of being soft on terrorism.

"If they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that's a debate I'm ready to win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for," Obama said. He blamed Bush's policies for enhancing the strength of terrorist groups such as Hamas and "the fact that al-Qaida's leadership is stronger than ever because we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan," among other failings.

The Illinois senator also said that he has state "over and over again that I will not negotiate with terrorists like Hamas."

Other Democrats accused McCain of hypocrisy Friday, saying the certain GOP presidential nominee had previously been willing to negotiate with the militant Palestian group Hamas.

In Charleston, W.Va., speaking before Obama's speech, McCain told reporters: "I made it very clear, at that time, before and after, that we will not negotiate with terrorist organizations, that Hamas would have to abandon their terrorism, their advocacy to the extermination of the state of Israel, and be willing to negotiate in a way that recognizes the right of the state of Israel and abandons their terrorist position and advocacy."

McCain contended that Obama wants to "sit down and negotiate with a government exporting most lethal devices used against soldiers. He wants to sit down face-to-face with a government that is very clear about developing nuclear weapons. ... They are sponsors of terrorist organizations. That's a huge difference in my opinion. And I'll let the American people decide whether that's a significant difference or not. I believe it is."

In an op-ed published Friday in The Washington Post, former Clinton State Department official James Rubin said that McCain, responding to a question in a television interview two years ago about whether U.S. diplomats should be working with the Hamas government in Gaza, said:

"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy toward Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so ... But it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

Rubin, who interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News, said McCain is "guilty of hypocrisy" and accused him of "smearing" Obama.

___

Associated Press Writer Glen Johnson in Charleston, W.Va., contributed to this report.

Here we are at the beginning of the end of Season 4. "There's No Place Like Home Part 1" was a great start to a season finale and once we have all three parts, I think this episode will be even better. This may be just first act, but boy, what a first act it was! We had the arrival of the Oceanic 6 in the flash-forward, and holy crap -- their return was rather intense. If the great flash-forward wasn't enough, the island story was jammed packed as well. We had a mountain of C4 on the freighter, a journey to the fabled Orchid Station, "saving" the survivors by raft six at a time, Jack bleeding out of his gut, Keamy ready to kill them all, and Locke actually physically moving the Island?

Yeah, Part 1 definitely showcased the new breath of life the fourth season gave to the show. I was thinking to myself last night that not once have I sat and watched the show this season and said, "I'm bored." I couldn't say that about season 3 and definitely not about Season 2. The writers' and creators' demand for an end date to the show have saved Lost from mediocrity. THANK YOU the powers-that-be! I have the same wonderment and zeal that I had when I watched the first season of Lost, and that is no easy task.

They're Branding You "The Oceanic 6"

Wow, they pulled out the big guns for the flash-forward: what happened when the Oceanic 6 first got back home. I must say I got a little misty-eyed when our survivors got to meet their families again. It was also nice to see Jack's mom, who we haven't seen since his first flashback in Season 1. And how great was Sun's takeover of Paik Industries? How heavy was Jack finally learning that Claire was actually his half-sister? How creepy was the "Numbers" in Hurley's Camaro dashboard? And of course, how great was Sayid and Nadia's reunion (even though we know it will be short lived)?

Geeze! That's A Lot of C4

Well, I guess we found out what that device on Keamy's arm last week is for. If Keamy goes down, the freighter must blow up. This leads to a lot of questions; we know Sun and Aaron will survive safely, but what about Michael, Desmond, and Jin? Their fates seem to be in peril, and with Jin's possible impending death, it doesn't look too good. Also, would Michael get his death wish so soon? They better not even think of killing Desmond. I want one happy ending in this story, dammit!

"I Always Have a Plan"

So Ben has a plan. What is it? He seemed very courageous walking straight into Keamy's arms. We know that he will live past this moment from his flash-forward, but from what happens between now and his arrival in Tunisia? Ben is currently at the Orchid Station; in his flash-forward, he was wearing a jacket from the Orchid Station. In his FF, his arm was injured and he had his beating stick that he handed to John before he walked into Keamy's control. What is he going to do and whose side is he on? Is Ben going to screw over John in the end for his own benefit? Or is Ben actually going to be a team player?

Thoughts and Side Notes

• What does Faraday not have in his notebook of wonders? Seriously, I wonder if Widmore or Ben would like to get their hands on that notebook.
• I believe the Oceanic 6 cover up will be the big picture of next season. I don't think they can really cover it in the last 2 hours of this season, but with the seeds that were laid in this episode, there is a lot of story to cover on why The Oceanic 6 lied about the crash.
• What is going to become of Jack's bleeding? Will his collapse from his bleeding wound result in his being part of the Oceanic 6?

Overall I really liked this episode, but I can't give it the full stamp of approval until I see all of the intended parts of the season finale. That said, Season 4 might go down as my favorite season of Lost so far, but that will all depend on how they close it up two weeks from now with the last 2 parts to "There's No Place Like Home."

What did you think? What are you thoughts, questions, comments, and/or theories? Let's open up the discussion in the comment section below.

Be sure to also check out my podcast "The Lost Podcast with Jay and Jack" or on iTunes by searching "Jay and Jack" or "Lost Podcast."

"Does age bring awakening?" I ask myself as I stand in the drugstore checkout line, clutching a box of Depends. My sister, Terry, and I are about to move our 93-year-old mom out of the condo where she's lived for decades to a home for people with memory impairment.

Mom has always been a dynamo: strong-willed, opinionated and exacting. She told us that she wanted to stay in her home until the end, and we respected that. The problem was: her home is in L.A. I live in Colorado and Terry lives in Hawaii, so we've had to manage her care from afar. We hired two loving women from El Salvador to stay with her, but they'd call us in alarm. "Your mother isn't eating. She says she's too tired to go to the park. What should we do?"

We flew to L.A. to assess the situation, and I was shocked that mom, who's always been tireless, was nodding out all day. While eating lunch, getting her nails done or in the middle of a conversation, she'd drop her head to her knees and go to sleep. She was becoming incontinent. When we took her out to eat and brought her home, she asked, "Whose house is this?" So... maybe she wouldn't notice if we moved her?

The startling thing was, mom wasn't troubled by her inability to remember anything outside the moment. If you sat with her, she could go over her tax return, line by line, but a minute later she wouldn't remember seeing it. Terry heard about a new drug being tested with Alzheimer's patients that was reputed to restore their memories. We asked mom if she wanted to participate in the study, but she declined. Why? I asked. "If you could take a pill that would let you remember everything, would you want to do that?"

She shook her head no. "I'm fine the way I am. What do you want me to remember?"

Well, your grand-daughter just got married, you were in the wedding, you walked down the aisle and danced. Wouldn't you like to remember those happy occasions? She thought a moment. "There are a lot of unpleasant things too." She knocked on wood - the table. "I'm fine the way I am."

Terry started looking for a place in Hawaii where mom could have more intensive care, with activities to stimulate her and a doctor on call. She found a newly built center, Hi'olani, and the pictures she emailed me were so lush and lovely, I wanted to move there myself. She was told there was a 2-year waiting list, but a few days later, they called and said a room had opened up if we would take it right away. We did.

Then Terry was wracked with buyer's remorse. Had she made the right decision? I felt remorse of a different sort: I'd held a lifelong grudge against mom for always judging me and finding me wanting. Now I focused on what she'd given me: a love of story telling, curiosity, and courage. At a moment when she was alert, I thanked her and apologized for not appreciating those gifts. There was another feeling that both Terry and I had. Dread. This could be us, couldn't it, in the blink of an eye? It seemed an awful finale.

A week before moving mom, Terry and I went to a 5-day silent meditation retreat with Adyashanti. Adya, born Steven Gray, says on his website that he "dares all seekers of peace and freedom" to take seriously the possibility of awakening in this life. His theme at the retreat was letting go of control. Like Eckhart Tolle and other spiritual teachers, Adya urges people to be fully present in the moment, to accept what is, and wake up to one's true nature -- the aliveness inside. This aliveness or presence, consciousness, spirit - it goes by many names - never changes, which is why we don't feel old inside.

At the end of the retreat, steeped in awareness, we felt ready for what mom's transition might bring. On the morning of the flight, I helped her put on Depends for the first time, and she did not resist. Mercifully, the new and improved version looks like white ruffled panties with elastic legs. OK, the thing is paper, but it does not look like a diaper.

When the plane landed, Terry's husband and daughter drove them straight to Hi'olani, and walked mom into her room. It was yellow, her favorite color, and had been decorated in advance with familiar items and pictures from her condo. When I called two days later and asked mom, How do you like Hawaii? She said, "I'm not in Hawaii."

Wow. We'd been bracing for her to protest and shame us for moving her, but she's happy where she is. She never asked, When am I going home? She's cheerful and more alert now, although the staff members dress her abominably. Today, my sister reports, mom's wearing all pink clothes except for her socks, which are turquoise.

She's attained what we just spent 5 days in silence cultivating: acceptance, letting go, just being here now. Maybe losing your memory is not as bad as it looks? Maybe there IS a way to go gentle?

I welcome your comments. Please reply to website-feedback@saradavidson.com

Taking care of our parents is a transition I address in Leap! -- now out in paperback. I would so appreciate your HELP in spreading the word. Tell friends it's ten bucks now and if you buy it, you get the free Leap! workbook. For more information, please visit www.SaraDavidson.com

CANNES, France — Indiana Jones doesn't give up his secrets lightly, and neither does the man pulling his strings.

Director Steven Spielberg has tried to keep chapter four of the archaeologist's big-screen adventures, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," under wraps as tight as an ancient mummy's.

The stealth approach has whipped up a frenzy of expectation _ and doubts about the movie's quality _ as he prepares to unveil it in front of the world's toughest audience, critics at the Cannes Film Festival. The film premieres here Sunday, just four days before it opens in theaters worldwide.

In an era of Internet spoilers, fan blogging and online video diaries where filmmakers show off their tricks, Indy returns with the old-fashioned covertness Spielberg always has favored.

"He is the only one in the world who keeps his cards face down on the table until the 11th hour, 59th minute, 59th second, and nothing deters him from doing that," said Jeffrey Katzenberg, Spielberg's partner at DreamWorks.

Revealing their cards at Cannes, with its notoriously snooty press corps, is a critical risk for Spielberg, executive producer George Lucas and star Harrison Ford.

Hollywood trade paper Variety quipped that Indiana Jones was entering the "Kingdom of the Critical Knives," and reporters have joked that Cannes might prove a new Temple of Doom for Indy.

Two years ago, the first press screening of "The Da Vinci Code" drew open laughter from Cannes critics, whose harsh reviews spoiled the film's premiere a day later and set the stage for a worldwide critical drubbing.

Of course, "The Da Vinci Code" went on to gross $758 million globally. As the first movie in 19 years for one of cinema's biggest adventure series, "Crystal Skull" is virtually assured of blockbuster results, too.

Possibly to shield "Crystal Skull" from a similar critical backlash, Spielberg, Lucas and distributor Paramount weren't letting critics see the movie until hours before its Cannes premiere.

In an unusual move, the few cast and crew interviews at Cannes were scheduled Saturday, before reporters had even seen the film. The movie's profile is so high, the filmmakers figure it doesn't need the usual publicity.

Spielberg has been hush-hush from the start. Co-star Karen Allen, reprising her "Raiders of the Lost Ark" role as Indy's old flame Marion Ravenwood, said Spielberg initially wanted to keep it a secret that she was even in "Crystal Skull."

"Even after the film was announced, people would call me. `Oh, it's too bad you're not going to be in the film,'" Allen said. "I had to go along with it and say, `Yeah, it's a shame.' When it was finally announced I was in it, it was a huge relief. I was having to make up stories for why I wasn't in it, and I was finding it excruciating to have to do that."

In its earliest incarnation, Lucas proposed an all-out alien flick called "Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men From Mars." Spielberg and Ford didn't like that idea, and it took more than a decade of wrangling to come up with a story all three could live with.

A trailer showing a crate marked "Roswell, New Mexico, 1947" _ a mecca for UFO buffs _ hints that the movie retains traces of its extraterrestrial origins. Remarks by Lucas that the new film took its cue from 1950s sci-fi tales backs up that notion.

"The B-movies of the '50s were crazy science-fiction films, `It Came From Outer Space' and `Them!' and I said, `Well, gee, I could use that as the basis of the genre that I was using as my reference,'" Lucas said.

From the trailers and studio press materials, the basic story line is out there _ Indy and Soviet agents led by Cate Blanchett pursue a crystal skull that can bestow fantastic power on those returning it to a city of solid gold in the Amazon from where it was stolen.

Secrets remain, such as how Indy and Marion are reunited and whether co-star Shia LaBeouf is playing the love child of their "Raiders" romance.

Spielberg was incensed last year when an extra leaked plot details, and the filmmakers have scrambled to maintain the mystery.

"It's been insane," said Frank Marshall, producer on the "Indiana Jones" movies. "I've spent a great deal of time on this movie just trying to keep things off the Internet. That's totally new for us. There seems to be some kind of sport out there now to see who can put up a spoiler, which is not fair to the audience. We really tried to keep the lid on the story just for the audience's sake."

Accustomed to fan gripes from his "Star Wars" prequels, Lucas has downplayed expectations for "Crystal Skull," saying audiences will be disappointed if they're anticipating a cinematic Second Coming.

Such remarks could just be part of Lucas and Spielberg's strategy to keep fans guessing.

"There's a little P.T. Barnum in both of them. They know how to get you interested," said "Crystal Skull" screenwriter David Koepp. "There's nothing more interesting than saying, `You can't see what's under here. I'd love to show you what's behind there, but I just can't.'"

Even a short behind-the-scenes segment on the official "Indiana Jones" Web site doesn't show much from behind the scenes. It focuses mainly on Spielberg in generic filmmaking mode, revealing virtually nothing about the action, ending with a close-up of Spielberg finishing a shot.

"And cut," Spielberg says. "Very nice."

The tough crowd at Cannes will have something to say about that Sunday.

___

On the Net:

http://www.indianajones.com

In a stunning development, country music radio stations have started to refuse to air anything said by President George W. Bush, following his unprecedented attack on an American citizen and presidential candidate while overseas.

It called to mind when country music stations similarly stopped playing the Dixie Chicks music after its lead singer made critical comments about Mr. Bush while in concert in London.

"We never objected to the Chicks criticizing George Bush," said Charlie Benson, program director of WUSU 106.1-FM in Jackson. "That's America, that's Freedom of Speech. Two-thirds of the country is criticizing George Bush today. But there's an unwritten rule about criticizing American foreign policy when you leave our shores, and the Dixie Chicks broke that. Now, President Bush has, as well."

Mr. Bush was giving a speech in Israel's parliament, the Knesset. He likened Americans who wanted to negotiate with terrorists the same as former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeasing Adolf Hitler before World War II.

A spokesman for the White House said that Mr. Bush wasn't referring to Barack Obama, but country radio programmers weren't buying it.

"Who else was he talking about?," asked an incredulous Larry Mittlehorn, VP of Programming for the Mighty Airspace Group, a syndicator to 38 country music stations, which has now instituted its Bush ban. "Please. The President of the United States doesn't go to the Israeli parliament and complain about some unknown guys in a bar [moaning] about foreign policy. Our listeners are smarter than that. They understand who he was trying to blast. That dog won't even think about hunting."

Echoing those thoughts was Belinda Ransel, who heads up Station Relations for Mighty Airspace. 'What we're hearing in our conversations with stations is that some think this is much worse than what the Dixie Chicks did. That was just an opinion during a concert, part of an entertainment. But the President was speaking in the general assembly of a foreign government before politicians discussing actual policy. It just rankles our stations. It just feels wrong, feels really bad to them. 'Scary' and "Big Brother" are the words we're hearing. It's not the America they and their listeners love and salute. That's not our flag."

Currently, 147 country music stations have instituted the ban, a number which has been growing by the hour. Clear Channel, a major syndicator to all radio formats across America, is considering the ban, which would increase the numbers significantly and be a major blow to the White House. Several Clear Channel stations have independently instituted their own ban.

The problem might be even worse for the Bush Administration, however, as a second issue has surprisingly cropped up in the controversy, which is reaching epidemic proportions. Country stations are not only concerned with the precedent of the U.S. leader criticizing the presidential candidate of an opposing party while overseas in a foreign parliament - but the accuracy of the criticism, as well.

Jerry Calderon is editor of Country Radio Today, one of the leading industry magazines. He's been in close contact with program directors across the nation ever since President Bush's speech made the news, and has noticed a trend.

"Even those who don't support Barack Obama are upset because they understand this is a complete distortion of what Barack Obama has ever said." Calderon noted that quite a few PD's [program directors] have been very angry at the distortion which they see as deliberate. "These are people who talk for a living. They understand that simply talking to other countries - even if enemies - is how nations avoid war. That's totally different from negotiating with terrorists. And it has nothing to do with appeasement, which is when Neville Chamberlain literally signed away the country of Czechoslovakia to Hitler."

One program director was even more blunt.

"I voted for George Bush twice. In fact, I voted for George Bushes four times," said J.J. Nelson of WAM 98 in Columbus. "But this is offensive. This insults me. And my listeners. It implies that we don't know history and don't understand what 'appeasement' actually is and what Neville Chamberlain actually did. Our listeners support America and support the troops. But they, but we don't support being disrespected this way. We're better than this. Shame on George Bush."

Nelson added, "And I can say that because I'm a proud American. And I'm proudly in America - not overseas, in the Israeli Knesset."

In response to the ban, White House spokesman Dana Perino said that the President may have been referring to a different appeasement, and said she believed that Neville Chamberlain's "Munich Agreement" was related to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Update: The White House Communications Department corrected Ms. Perino's comments and released the following statement. "The Munich Agreement and Cuban Missile Crisis have nothing in common and occurred 30 years apart on different continents about completely different issues."

Update II: Upon further research, it turns out that nothing in the above article is true. Though it should be. The author apologizes for any confusion.

NEW YORK — Taylor Hicks is going from "Idol" to "Angel."

The "American Idol" alum will join the Broadway cast of "Grease" on June 6, playing Teen Angel in the revival of the popular musical.

The gray-haired singer _ whose "Idol" fan base was called "The Soul Patrol" _ said he plans to add "soulful flavor" to his performance of "Beauty School Dropout." The flashy role, he said, is "a classic fit for a classic performer."

"It's a big number, and, you know, I've made some pretty grand entrances before," Hicks told The Associated Press on Thursday. "And this one is probably the grandest entrance I've had in my career."

Well, besides "Idol." Hicks, 31, took home the title in the fifth season of the top-rated Fox show _ the biggest stage on television.

He later lost his record deal with J Records, a label within Sony-BMG, which signs the show's singers, and had been looking for the perfect part to make his debut on The Great White Way.

"If you're gonna be a great entertainer and you're gonna be a great performer, than these are the things that you have to do to season yourself in that manner," said Hicks, who views this "opportunity of a lifetime" as a way to improve his "Idol"-tested skills.

The Alabama-born crooner's run ends Sept. 7. He'll be the latest "Idol" to hit Broadway, following runs by season-three winner Fantasia Barrino ("The Color Purple") and a host of also-rans including Clay Aiken ("Spamalot"), Diana DeGarmo ("Hairspray") and Constantine Maroulis ("The Wedding Singer").

Hicks' self-titled, post-"Idol" album, released in December 2006, has sold a respectable 702,000 copies, according to Nielsen Soundscan data. But it didn't reach the 1 million mark or register a hit song, unlike previous "Idol" winners.

This summer, Hicks intends to finish up a follow-up album _ on his own terms.

"I've had the creative freedom and the time to write some of the best music that I've ever written in my whole life. ... The options are unlimited and there has been some great interest now that I'm a free agent, so to speak," he said.

I knew as soon as the California Supreme Court marriage ruling was posted, that I would read the whole thing. I started reading it at my desk, after it was posted, but stopped once got to the "bottom line" of the ruling — and, truly, because as I realized what I was reading, and what the California Supreme Court had said, the emotion was too much.

I wasn't born when the Brown v. Board of Education ruling was handed down, so I don't know what it was like for those Black Americans who heard it or read it and realized what the court had done. But I think I have an idea, based on what I felt yesterday after reading the decision.

I know it was a state supreme court decision, and one that doesn't apply to me all the way over here on the other side of the country. But yesterday, reading the decision, I felt a little bit more like an American. And maybe even just a little proud of my country.

This is something I meant to write at the time, but that occurred to me yesterday, as I was walking home. Reading the CA Supremes ruling yesterday, and thinking about my own feelings, I thought about Michelle Obama's comments about finally being proud of America. I understood what she meant even then, but more-so after yesterday's ruling.

Yesterday, I finally felt just a little proud to be an American. Finally.

To understand where someone like Michelle Obama is coming from — or yours truly, for that matter — you have to look a America through the prism of someone without the privileges upon which it was founded from the beginning; from the perspective of people for whom the promises of being an American in America have been historically held out of reach.

From that perspective, pride in America is based more on its strides towards what it could become — were it to live up to all it promises to be on paper, for all its citizens — what it is or where it is at the present moment. America is something different for, say, Cindy McCain than is is for Michelle Obama, or than it is for me.

In some ways, we're proud of an America that has yet to be, and that we hope will be someday. Langston Huges probably said it best.

Let America be America again. Let it be the dream it used to be. Let it be the pioneer on the plain Seeking a home where he himself is free.

(America never was America to me.)

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed-- Let it be that great strong land of love Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme That any man be crushed by one above.

(It never was America to me.)

O, let my land be a land where Liberty Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath, But opportunity is real, and life is free, Equality is in the air we breathe.

(There's never been equality for me, Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.")

Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark? And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?

…O, let America be America again-- The land that never has been yet-- And yet must be--the land where every man is free. The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME-- Who made America, Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain, Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain, Must bring back our mighty dream again.

Sure, call me any ugly name you choose-- The steel of freedom does not stain. From those who live like leeches on the people's lives, We must take back our land again, America!

O, yes, I say it plain, America never was America to me, And yet I swear this oath-- America will be!

People who point to Michelle Obama's privileged lifestyle forget that whether her current lifestyle was always her lifestyle, she grew up a black child and became a black woman in the America that was and is, not the America that will be. (Perhaps it's safer to say the America that can be.) She has almost surely seen much to make one less than proud. And, as I remember the pictures of her reunion with her South Carolina relatives — having grown up in the south myself — I know she must have relatives who have witnessed much that wouldn't inspire pride, and she's listened to their stories.

From her perspective, how much hope must be inspired by the reality that her husband is the first black (or brown) man to have a real shot at becoming president? How much hope that wasn't there before? How much hope that was nursed, unfulfilled for generations, until this moment? How much hope, nursed on an abiding faith that American can be — will be — all it has promised to be, someday?

I was a high school student when the Bowers v. Hardwick decision came down. As a gay person, I felt divorced from the constitution and my country. It wasn't until Lawrence v. Texas that anything changed for me, and by then I'd seen and heard much that didn't inspire pride. But something shifted a little yesterday, and now I have a "wait-and-see" attitude.

Peggy Noonan recently asked "Who would have taught Barrack Obama to love his country?" My experience is that plenty of people will tell you that you should love your country, and will speak at length about why. But depending on who you are, you may learn to love your country, but experience will have taught you to sometimes love it — and hold it — at arms' length.

If I feel pride, it's not the same as might be expected, but closer to what Booman said.

Where did I learn to love my country? Who taught me to love it? What did I find loveable? I'm not even sure of the answer, although my parents and my teachers and the programs I watched on television and the books I chose to read all played a part. I learned to love the Constitution of the United States. I learned to respect and admire the Founding Fathers of this country, despite all their flaws. I came to understand that our Republic was something new and fragile, and that it needed protection from both within and without. And I, of course, learned to love the area that I grew up in, and all the wonderful national parks around the country that I visited during summer vacations as a child. And I loved baseball and football, and mint chocolate chip ice cream. In other words, I learned to love my country the same way that Barack Obama learned to love it...by growing up here and learning a little history.

…I'll tell you another thing. I don't normally get my pride and my love off of the accomplishments of others. I do have pride and love for our Constitution and our system of governance, but my love of country has nothing to do with the gold miners that forced the Native Americans off their land in violation of treaties, nor with the Nazi-sympathizer Henry Ford, nor even with the enterprising Wright Brothers. I'm all for clean-running trains, planes, and automobiles, but I don't love my country because of them. I wouldn't die for my country to preserve the internal combustion engine. I'd die to preserve the Constitution. And by Constitution, I do not mean the Estate Tax, Peggy. Or whatever other supply-side economic policy you think made it possible for Americans to figure out air travel.

Yesterday, I heard a whisper of an America that never was to me, and that I hope will be. Inspired now, I will work harder to make it so.

We all knew the facade of civility would eventually come down, but oh how lovely it was for a time, wasn't it?

We knew the Repugs would all have partial birth abortions themselves if only to hurl the gooey bits at the presumptive Democrat (I'm embracing the framing---and it feels damn good!) nominee. That's basic Repuglican politikkin'. Yee and may I say ha.

But were we really prepared for Hillary's West Virginia appeals to the gun toting, Skoal-spitting Caucasoids, essentially making it okay for Bush at the Knesset to use the original N-word---Nazi---and grotesquely imply that Obama is a an "appeaser", triggering all the knee jerk responses he and every enemy to truth could muster? It sets the tone for the course ahead and indicates clearly that the stakes, having been high in the past, have never been this high.

Obama's opponents can't impugn his smarts or his ability to lead so they must---must---play to the basest card: race fear. It is all they have, luring the primal white terror of the black man from its dank hole, giving it a quick wash and a seventy dollar suit and sending it out to play havoc. It is a tactic that transcends Atwaterian shrewdness. It is the the true nuclear option making all the lurid attempts to ascribe illicit sexual behavior, bastard children or unhinged spiritual advisors so lame and ineffective that it is used as the last resort, obliterating all things in its toxic, molten mushroom cloud. And those who use it to define the contest are in effect defining themselves as scared and white, no more, no less.

Hillary: just a scared white woman? If it wins her the presidency, she is. Bush we already know is scared. If he were a woman he would have at least something going for him.

At a handful of sites across the country, after a four-decade hiatus, psychedelic research is undergoing a quiet renaissance, thanks to scientists like Charles Grob who are revisiting the powerful mind-altering drugs of the 1960s in hopes of making them part of our therapeutic arsenal. Hallucinogens such as psilocybin, MDMA (better known as Ecstasy), and the most controversial of them all, LSD, are being tested as treatments for maladies that modern medicine has done little to assuage, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, drug dependency, obsessive-compulsive disorder, cluster headaches, and the emotional suffering of people with a terminal illness.

While Grob's study is not complete--he has tested 11 out of a projected 12 volunteers--patients seemed to have positive experiences. "No one had a bad trip, and most derived some benefit," he says. "It lowered their anxiety, improved their mood and disposition, and imbued them with a greater acceptance of their situation and capacity to live in the moment and appreciate each day."

We all know by now that Barack Obama is not a patriot. After all, he doesn't always wear a flag pin, and he objects to the idea the he should be required to in order to run for office. But who knew that House Minority Leader John Boehner disrespects the flag too?

Obama has been attacked repeatedly for not wearing a flag pin, with Republicans claiming that his patriotism is in question. It's all a bit silly. After all, John McCain hasn't worn a flag since he became the de facto Republican nominee.

But let's grant the inanity for a moment. For a party that is suddenly obsessed with proper deference to the flag, their leaders are pretty clueless. Check out this picture from a press conference with Republican House leaders yesterday.

Notice anything off? If you're a bit of a flag-o-phile, you might recognize that the flag is hanging the wrong way. According to the document "Our Flag," (pdf) printed under approval of Senate Concurrent Resolution 108, Chapter 6.i:

When displayed either horizontally or vertically against a wall, the union should be uppermost and to the flag's own right, that is, to the observer's left. When displayed in a window, the flag should be displayed in the same way, with the union or blue field to the left of the observer in the street.

The correct position is displayed below, as well as a shot of the Democratic leadership showing due deference to the American flag.

So Boehner -- aka the GOP's newest commie pinko -- allowed the American flag to fly incorrectly throughout his press conference. At least Obama's flag pin is a replica; the Republicans disgraced the actual flag.

Silly? Unbelievably. As is the whole issue.

President Bush said with a straight face this week that he gave up golf in honor of the fallen soldiers in Iraq, claiming that he quit after the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad in August 2003:

"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf," he said. "I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."

Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization's high commissioner for human rights.

"I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life," he said. "I was playing golf -- I think I was in central Texas -- and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, 'It's just not worth it anymore to do.'"

In fact, Bush went golfing two months after the bombing the UN headquarters, and Keith Olbermann found the video:

In past years, JackMyers Media Business Report has issued specific projections for Upfront spending. Both my forecasts and my post-Upfront analyses have provided insights on market conditions and network-by-network revenue, cost-per-thousand and sell-out performance. My own performance has generally been on-the-money, although last year I believed the market would be considerably softer than it, in fact, turned out to be. (At least this was according to published reports, although annual corporate revenue reports were more in line with my original expectations.).

This year, I am not offering predictions nor will I report after-the-fact on network Upfront revenues. The Upfront is no longer a representative indicator of network performance and the information released by the networks is, at best, questionable. If a network ever actually reports poor performance in the Upfront, then we can be assured it was a disaster.

Most industry leaders appear convinced the Upfront will closely follow last-year's pattern without the delays caused by the conversion to C-3 (live plus 3-day delayed commercial viewing) ratings. This suggests a reasonably quick process that should be completed ahead of the July 4 holiday. The earlier Memorial Day weekend will also contribute to a speedier Upfront process. While agency executives are less than eager to accept another round of CPM increases, the fact is demand should be strong and networks are increasing value through multiple marketing and cross-platform initiatives. While broadcast networks' CPM increases will not fully compensate them for erosion suffered during and after the writers' strike, they should have healthy gains as well as incremental revenues from alternative distribution models.

Because the higher-demand networks can re-allocate their inventory, reducing the share of lower paying categories and increasing the share of revenues from higher paying advertisers, overall per-network CPMs can increase while individual advertisers and agencies can hold the line with minimal real CPM increases. Automotive and pharmaceutical, which are negatively impacted by current market conditions, are traditionally lower-CPM advertisers, and declines in overall category spending will be replaced by higher paying categories. "Advertisers who are constantly looking for efficiencies are the ones who fall out of the medium for cost reasons," explained a senior industry executive. "Through attrition, networks are losing the lower cost advertisers and increasing sales to higher value advertisers. The base of TV advertisers is still growing, so the medium is healthy."

It appears that once again the stronger networks will get stronger and the weaker networks will also do just fine. But media companies that are slow to invest in value-based media and marketing extensions will find themselves forced into a media commodity pool designed to drive costs toward free.

Inevitably, the next generation of Upfront buying and selling relationships will incorporate network review of advertisers' creative strategies and an analysis of which advertising messages are most complementary to each network's program content, and which are most effective in holding audiences through commercial breaks.

For additional Upfront Week coverage: Upfront 2008: Insights and Updates

This post originally appeared at JackMyers.com.

For the past two years, John Hagee, the televangelist and head of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), has been laying out the lesson plan for Bush's speech in the Knesset this week, in which he accused Barack Obama of appeasing terrorists like Neville Chamberlain appeased the Nazis. Since Hagee founded CUFI in early 2006, he has been beating the drums for war with Iran, and rejecting diplomacy as Chamberlain-esque appeasement.

Hagee, who endorsed Bush in 2000 with a book, God's Candidate for America, said in 2003 said that "God raised up George Bush for this time in history to crush Saddam Hussein." After he met with McCain in early 2007, Hagee declared McCain's views on Israel "on target." In other words, McCain's no weak-kneed appeaser of terrorists. If God raised up Bush, and, as Hagee has maintained, the threat from Iraq was nothing compared to the threat from Iran, then his endorsement of McCain suggests that he views the Republican nominee, once again, as God's puppet for his deranged obsession with a bloody, war-ending war.

Since the 2006 publication of his incendiary, conspiracy and fear-mongering book, Jerusalem Countdown, Hagee has been comparing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to Hitler and accusing those favoring diplomacy of appeasing him. Ahmadinejad is not just like Hitler, though, he's like Haman, and he's like Pharaoh, too, and all those biblical stories prove, in Hagee's mind, that confronting him is essential for the survival of the Jews -- nothing short of a military strike will do. His reference to "God raising up" Bush for "this time in history" is a direct reference to Queen Esther's confrontation of Haman. And when Joe Lieberman compared Hagee to Moses last year, he no doubt was validating the Pharaoh comparison. But was he imagining Hagee leading the Jews to the promised land of a boiling lake of brimstone?

Hagee claims in Jerusalem Countdown that an Israeli government insider came to him in April 2005 with "warning to the world" that the President of Iran "will prove to be the new Hitler of the Middle East." This information compelled him, he says, to write the book and launch CUFI. His standard talking point since CUFI's launch has been "It's 1938, and Iran is Germany, and Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler of the Middle East."

In the summer of 2006, when war raged between Israel and Hezbollah, and McCain took to the airwaves to suggest we had entered into World War III, one of Hagee's friends in the Knesset, Benny Elon, said McCain got that idea straight from Hagee.

In his speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in March 2007, and again to CUFI in July that year, Hagee said:

As you know, Iran poses a threat to the State of Israel that promises nothing less than a nuclear holocaust. I have been saying on national television, in churches and auditoriums across America it is 1938; Iran is Germany and Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler... In the Bible when Pharaoh threatened the Jewish people of Egypt he became fish food in the Red Sea. When Haman threatened the Jews in Persia in modern-day Iran he and his sons hung from the gallows that he built for the Jews.

But the appeasers, Hagee goes on, don't just want to appease Iran:

Beyond that threat from Iran there's another more subtle threat that concerns me. I am concerned that in the coming months yet another attempt will be made to parcel out parts of Israel in a futile effort to appease Israel's enemies in the Middle East. I believe that misguided souls in Europe, I believe that the misguided souls in the political brothel that is now the United Nations and sadly -- and sadly even our own State Department will try once again to turn Israel into crocodile food. Winston Churchill said and I quote an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile in the futile hope that it will eat him last -- end of quote. In 1938 Czechoslovakia -- Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland land was turned into crocodile food for Nazi Germany. The Nazi beast smelled the weakness in the appeasers, ate the food and marched and devoured most of Europe and systematically slaughtered 6,000,000 Jewish people. We are again hearing calls to appease the enemies of Israel.

McCain compared himself to Churchill -- although without, as Bush did, explicitly comparing his opponents to Chamberlain -- in a creepy March 2008 ad. For Hagee, he's right on target, and there's no secret about who's in his crosshairs.

President George W. Bush may attempt to sound visionary, talk tough, and criticize opponents as naïve, but the Middle East which he is visiting this week is in shambles, due in no small part to policies he has pursued or failed to pursue during his two terms in office.

The President is ostensibly traveling to the Middle East to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Israel's founding, the 75th anniversary of the U.S.-Saudi relationship, and to deliver a keynote address at the World Economic Forum in Sharm el-Sheikh. This all may sound like a trip planner's dream project, except for the fact that while in the region the President, despite his rhetoric, will have a hard time diverting attention from the fires burning all around.

The broader Middle East, in this the last year of George W. Bush's presidency, is more troubled, less secure, and less hopeful than it was at the beginning of his term in office. Our polling shows that favorable Arab attitudes toward the United States are lower today than they were at the start of the millennium. Likewise, Arabs are less trusting of U.S. intentions, less confident in the U.S.'s ability to work for peace, and less optimistic about their own futures. One might reasonably ask, why should they feel any differently, given this administration's record in the region?

Iraq, despite hollow rhetoric about the success of the "surge," seems to be moving inexorably toward partition. The more than 4 million refugees and internally displaced persons stand witness to that, as do the barriers that now divide neighborhoods in Baghdad and the deepening divides which characterize Iraq's polity.

After initial success in Afghanistan, the administration lost focus and drained resources needed to complete the job it had started. Today, the situation of women has deteriorated, President Karzai effectively rules only Kabul and only by day, warlords are back, drug production is up, and the Taliban and al-Qaeda have reemerged, threatening not only Afghanistan but Pakistan as well.

The situation in Lebanon also demonstrates the failure of a policy that preferred a victor/vanquished scenario, when reconciliation and reform were what was needed. Instead of being defeated by their own adventurous miscues, Hizbullah survived due to equally disastrous Israeli and U.S. policies. Hizbullah, capitalizing on the vacuum left by these failures, turned first to paralyzing the government and now to consolidating its position as the country's preeminent military force - all of which poses great danger to the future of Lebanon.

In Palestine and Israel, a tragic scenario played out. There, President Bush's vision of two states was suborned and subverted by his administration's own ideology and policies, which have now made his stated and preferred solution all but impossible to realize.

I've noted before the hallmarks of this administration's policies: neglect when they could have acted to make a difference; ignoring reality and favoring ideology when they do act; and when they inevitably fail, dumbing down the definition of success for PR purposes.

In Iraq, it was the purple fingers. In Afghanistan, it was the photo of girls sans burkas going to school and the election, of sorts, of Karzai as President.
In Lebanon it was the March 14th rally. And in Palestine, a "fair and free election." Yet none of these were, in fact, victories - anymore than hanging the "Mission Accomplished" banner in 2003 made it so.

The classic case Bush Administration failure is, of course, Palestine, where the President began his term by neglecting to implement the wise counsel of the Mitchell Report, allowing the Sharon government to subvert its recommendations. Bush then undercut the missions of his own envoys (Zinni and Powell), and in a letter that has come to haunt the peace process, pledged to accept Israel's positions on critical final status issues while ignoring Israel's unilateral push to impose its own solutions on Gaza and the West Bank

After all this, in 2007, with Palestine hopelessly divided, the Israeli government weakened by internal strife, the West Bank literally mauled by concrete barriers and ever-expanding roads and settlements, and Gaza strangling, the President resurrected his two-state vision by calling for a conference in Annapolis.

As initially framed, Annapolis was to cap an agreed-upon Israeli-Palestinian formula for peace, which they would then implement during the final year of Bush's presidency. Despite the historic presence of 16 Arab states, and a host of European and other nations, the parties arrived at Annapolis with no such agreement, owing to the failure of the Administration to engage in pre-summit planning. They left with only an agreement to negotiate.

Six months later, settlements continue to expand, quality of life in the Palestinian territories continues to deteriorate, Israeli confidence-building measures have yet to be implemented, and the Israelis have only now begrudgingly allowed an admittedly ill-equipped Palestinian police force to function in a few limited areas in the West Bank. Recognizing failure, but refusing to admit it, the Administration has again dumbed down the definition of victory by suggesting that success in 2008 would be Israelis and Palestinians signing an agreement to "define" a vision of two states. (It should be noted that, since the Israelis even refuse to allow critical final status issues to be a part of this effort, the definition will be, at best, ill-defined.)

And so it is no wonder that the world into which George Bush comes will be wary of his presence and mistrustful of his words. Moderates have been weakened, extremists emboldened, Iran is threatening, and allies are feeling less secure. This, sadly, is the world George Bush has helped to create, and which he now visits.

Like a lot of small-scale entrepreneurs, Cathy Osborne worries that she'll go out of business if fuel prices rise above $4 a gallon. Not because she won't be able to buy gas at that price, but because she won't be able to sell it.

The old mechanical gas pumps with scrolling dials at her country store in Fauquier County lack the gears to go beyond $3.99 a gallon. State inspectors shut down her diesel pump several months ago when the fuel topped the $4 mark, so now all that's left are two pumps dispensing 87-octane gasoline, set at $3.75 -- and climbing.

"I don't know what I'm going to do. I don't have $30,000 to invest in new pumps, and I'm barely skipping by," said Osborne, who owns the Orlean Market and Restaurant, a store dating from 1892 with horse-country views of the Blue Ridge Mountains and miles of rolling Virginia Piedmont.

After the invasion of Iraq there was much talk among conservatives about invading Syria. Then Secretary of State Colin Powell was heavily criticized for taking a trip to Syria to talk to its leadership. Newt Gingrich said, "The concept of the American secretary of state going to Damascus to meet with a terrorist-supporting, secret-police-wielding dictator is ludicrous."

What did John McCain have to say about the trip? Despite the fact that John McCain believed that Syria was a "state sponsor of terror," was "harboring terrorists," and were sending "Syrians in to fight Americans," he thought it was worth talking to them, saying that Powell's trip was "appropriate."  (See below)

McCain is directly contradicting himself by attacking Senator Obama on his plan to confront Iran at the negotiating table. A pattern is emerging. While McCain claims to be a deep foreign policy thinker with positions carefully developed from his quarter century in Washington, the reality seems to be that his positions - when not outright crazy - are often knee-jerk and contradictory - often dictated by what his temperament is at that moment or influenced by how the political winds are moving.

Here are the transcripts:

McCain on Chris Matthews said on April 23, 2003"We know the Syrians allowed, or sent Syrians in to fight Americans." But McCain said that: 

"I think it's appropriate that Colin Powell is going there...

 

MATTHEWS: So you don't agree with Newt Gingrich dumping all over him? You don't agree with Newt Gingrich dumping on the Powell trip?

MCCAIN: You know, Dick -- Richard Armitage is Powell's deputy. And he's a wonderful guy. He served in Vietnam. And he's a really tough guy. And he was quoted someplace today that Newt Gingrich is out of therapy.

McCain added:

Colin Powell is going to look Bashar aside in the eye and say, look, you know. You better clean up your act here. It's a new day in the Middle East. And I think it's entirely appropriate to do that.

Five days earlier on the Today Show on April 18th, McCain said the same thing. When asked how he would proceed with Syria - a country that he believed to be a state-sponsor of terrorism - McCain said he would talk first.

LAUER: Let me ask you about Syria.

Mr. McCAIN: Sure.

LAUER: They have denied possessing weapons of mass destruction, they've also denied harboring any senior members of the Iraqi leader. The US administration says they have evidence to the contrary. How would you proceed with that situation?

Mr. McCAIN: I think it's very appropriate that Colin Powell is going to Syria. I think we should put diplomatic and other pressures on them. It's also a time for Mr. Asad Bashar to realize that he should be more like his father was. I think he's too heavily influenced by a lot of the radical Islamic elements and--and militant groups.

LAUER: Do you think Syria meets the criteria set forth by the president in his post-9/11 address to Congress that they pose an imminent threat to the US in that they are either sponsoring or harboring terrorists?

Mr. McCAIN: I think they're--they're sponsoring and harboring terrorists. I think they have been occupying Lebanon, which should be free and independent for a long time, but I don't think that that means that we will now resort to the military action. We--we can apply a lot of pressure other than military--than the military action. So what I'm saying, we're a long way away from it.

LAUER: Under what circumstances--under what circumstances would you back military action?

Mr. McCAIN: When we've exhausted all other options. And we have a lot of options to--to exercise.  And I'm glad Colin Powell's going there, but the Syrians have got to understand there's a new day in the Middle East.

%meta(topic:01016000;ap_topic:general entertainment;subtopic:tv;%)

LOS ANGELES (AP) _ Ellen DeGeneres is putting the California Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage into action _ she and Portia de Rossi plan to wed, DeGeneres announced during a taping of her talk show.

Watch or scroll to keep readin:

DeGeneres was taping the episode of "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" on Thursday, the day the state's high court struck down California laws against gay marriage, and it was to air Friday, a person close to the production said.

The person, who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity.

Citing the court's ruling, DeGeneres said she and girlfriend de Rossi ("Ally McBeal," "Nip/Tuck") would be getting married.

De Rossi, 35, who was in the studio, and DeGeneres, 50, were applauded by audience members, the person close to the production said.

Calls and e-mails late Thursday to DeGeneres' publicist were not immediately returned.

The court ruling means same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. However, religious and social conservatives are seeking to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.

DeGeneres has boldly used TV before to make a stand for gay rights.

In 1997, she brought her character on the ABC sitcom "Ellen" out of the closet, making the show the first on prime-time network TV to have an openly gay lead. The move drew cheers from gay civil rights organizations but was condemned by some religious groups.

A month before, DeGeneres had proclaimed from the cover of Time magazine that she was a lesbian.

DeGeneres and the glamorous de Rossi have been a familiar couple at Hollywood events, including the Academy Awards. Previously, DeGeneres had a high-profile relationship with actress Anne Heche.

In a 2005 interview with Allure magazine, the comedian said she hoped she and de Rossi are "together the rest of our lives."

"I never would have thought my life would have turned out this way," DeGeneres told the magazine. "To have money. Or to have a gorgeous girlfriend. I just feel so lucky with everything in my life right now."

John McCain just can't get a handle on his lobbyist connections. Ben Smith at Politico reports:

John McCain's campaign asked a prominent Republican consultant, Craig Shirley, to leave his official campaign role and released a new conflict of interest policy Thursday after a Politico inquiry about Shirley's dual role consulting for the campaign and for an independent "527" group opposing the Democratic presidential candidates.

Shirley, a conservative public relations veteran, doubled as a consultant to McCain and to the group Stop Her Now, a 527 group barred from coordinating its activities with presidential campaigns. He is not currently on the McCain campaign's payroll, but would also step down from his role on McCain's Virginia Leadership Team, a McCain spokesman, Brian Rogers, said.

"If you're working for a 527 involved in the presidential race, you won't have a named role in our campaign," said Rogers.

Under the new policy, a copy of which was provided to Politico, "no person with a McCain Campaign title or position may participate in a 527 or other independent entity that makes public communications that support or oppose any presidential candidate."

Marc Ambinder confirms the new effort by the McCain camp to scrutinize its lobbyist advisers:
This morning, according to two Republicans with direct knowledge, Rick Davis, the campaign manager, e-mailed to McCain's entire staff a memo entitled "McCain Campaign Conflicts Policy" -- Effective Today" that includes a questionnaire asking about previous professional activities.

One of the questions asks: "Have you ever been a registered lobbyist at either the Federal or State level?" Another asks: "Have you ever been a registered foreign agent? A third asks staff members to list all of their previous lobbying or foreign government clients.

All staff members are required to submit the form to McCain's campaign counsel, Trevor Potter and his staff, for their review.

Employees who lie about their affiliations will be fired. The new conflicts policy prohibits campaign staffers from being "registered lobbyist or foreign agent, or receive compensation for any such activity."

Despite his reputation as a government reformer, conflicts of interest are nothing new to the McCain camp. Today USA Today is reporting on yet another land swap deal that McCain secured for a major donor which netted his supporter a profit far exceeding market value.

Sen. John McCain secured millions in federal funds for a land acquisition program that provided a windfall for an Arizona developer whose executives were major campaign donors, public records show.

McCain, who has made fighting special-interest projects a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, inserted $14.3 million in a 2003 defense bill to buy land around Luke Air Force Base in a provision sought by SunCor Development, the largest of about 50 landowners near the base. SunCor representatives, upset with a state law that restricted development around Luke, met with McCain's staff to lobby for funding, according to John Ogden, SunCor's president at the time.

The Air Force later paid SunCor $3 million for 122 acres near the base. It was the highest single land transaction of the private lots purchased by the government -- three times the county's assessed value and twice the military's estimated value. SunCor also donated another 122 acres. Alan Bunnell, a spokesman for SunCor's parent company, Pinnacle West Capital, said the donation was meant to minimize the company's tax bill and enhance the value of adjacent property it owns.

The new policy has already claimed one lobbyist who advised McCain, energy policy adviser Eric Burgeson:

McCain's former energy advisor joined the firm of Barbour Griffith & Rogers in Washington in 2006 after serving as the chief of staff at the Department of Energy. Burgeson's energy clients include Southern Company, which operates electric utilities and nuclear-power plants in the Southeast.

''Eric leads the firm's energy practice utilizing his domestic and international energy policy expertise and network of policy decision makers,'' the firm's website states.

But despite renewed scrutiny, the new policy is unlikely to to cut short the career of McCain's chief political adviser Charlie Black, who is a notorious lobbyist with connections to several unsavory dictatorships. Campaign Money Watch has penned an open letter urging the removal of three lobbyists/adivsers, including Black, who have or currently represent regimes know for committing human rights abuses. Meanwhile, MoveOn.org has published a short video of his most nefarious clients, and is seeking Black's ouster from the McCain camp.

John McCain says we're fighting in Iraq to plant "the seeds of democracy," but the firm of his "chief political adviser" Charlie Black made millions lobbying for the world's worst tyrants...

...Ferdinand Marcos, who executed thousands of his own citizens in the Philippines...

...Zaire's Mobuto, who publicly hanged his opponents and looted his country's vast mineral wealth...

...and rebel leader Jonas Savimbi, a mass murderer, who covered Angola with landmines.

Charlie Black said he didn't do anything wrong. John McCain should tell Black he did. Call John McCain and tell him to fire Charlie Black.

[WATCH]