Neil Cavuto brought on a guest today (August 20, 2008) who was such a nut case that it was good to be reminded that people like him are still out there and that certain "news" outlets actually think they deserve airtime.

The guest's name was Roy Den Hollander and Cavuto introduced him as an "anti-feminist and attorney." Hollander, an alumni of Columbia University, is suing Columbia claiming that their women's studies courses are "spreading prejudice and bigotry toward men."

Here is some of what he said:

Columbia should, "Cut out the feminazi, feminine women's studies programs and bring back varsity sports and you're going to do a lot better for the university."

"Columbia is presenting a women's studies program but not a men's studies. Women's studies teaches feminism... The teaching of feminism argues that feminism is a religion. Now, religion doesn't require a God."

"If a guy takes a women's studies course, what's going to happen to him? The girls [he used the word "girls" throughout] in the class are going to basically walk all over him in their stiletto heels — which may not be too bad."

Girls are a "suspect class. Every time they open their mouths I begin to suspect something."

"Girls are making more than guys. Girls control nearly 60% of the wealth of this country. And if you want to look at the real oppressors, you look at who lives longer, who, on whom most of the health dollars are spent, and who eats more."

Comment: Ooooookay. Sounds like this guy has issues as does Fox if it thought he was worth putting on.

The Fox News Special Report “Grapevine” is very predictable. It’s a forum for the candidacy of John McCain, conservative republican talking points, mocking of climate change, news for right wing evangelical Christians and a denigration of the Fox enemy du jour especially Muslims. It’s also a “mainstream” media outlet for whatever is hot, hot, hot in the right wing blogosphere. Last night’s (August 19th) “Grapevine” scored a triple header in reporting some shocking news about conservative reaction to the Islamic agenda that is making the rounds of places like Free Republic. And that is the shocking, I say shocking, news that “the Turkish division of Coca-Cola has just completed a design agreement for a new line of Coke cans that will mark the Muslim holiday of Ramadan.” Oh nooooo……!!!!!!!

It seems that the cans, featuring the Islamic moon and star, will be displayed on special editions of Coca Cola cans to be distributed in the Islamic world; and that is why God fearing Christians, in places unidentified by “Grapevine,” are outraged - as evidenced by the accompaning chyron “can of worms.” Once again, those who are fighting that ongoing war against victimized Christianity are reacting: “News of the Islamic-friendly Coke cans has prompted some critics to ask whether Coca-Cola would change its designs for Christmas from polar bears and penguins to include the Christian cross. Or to include the Star of David for those who celebrate Hanukkah.” (Comment: The cross is a symbol of Christmas? Another question – who are “some critics?”)

Comment: Here’s my question. The cans are being distributed to those in the Islamic world (Middle East, North Africa and as far east as Indonesia.) so what business is it of any American let alone Fox News!!!!!!! And silly me, I thought that conservatives disapprove of those playing the “victim card.” But Fox News certainly validates and affirms that victim status while, once again, playing the anti Islamic card. And once again, another shout out to the Christian right. It’s getting so predictable!!!!!

That's right. The bodies of the 153 people killed today (August 20, 2008) in the Spanair crash outside Madrid aren't even cold yet but that didn't deter Neil Cavuto from turning the tragedy into an opportunity to push right wing politics, namely anti-labor, anti-union sentiment.

News of the crash was the top story on Your World and after a brief description of what happened, Cavuto turned to freelance journalist Michael Moffett in Madrid. Cavuto's first question to Moffett was, "What can you tell us?"

His second question was, "Michael, I'm familiar with this carrier because they've been having a lot of labor issues lately. Pilots were complaining about ah, safety budgets being cut; that the airline was poised to lay off a lot of workers; cut its overall flying routes. In other words, before the crash there were a lot of concerns about the stability of the airline. Do you know anything about that?"

Moffett did know about the potential staff cuts and removing some planes from routes — the one that crashed was scheduled to be taken out of service — but he also mentioned that the plane was 15 years old and later in the show there was a lot of talk about MD-80's, their age and wiring problems specific to that model.

Comment: Again, this was Cavuto's freakin second question of the whole damn show! I can see the labor issue being brought up at some point but to imply it right off the bat, before exploring other, more likely causes for the crash, is nothing more than playing politics with a tragedy. Gotta hate those labor unions even though we'd all be working eight days a week, 365 days a year with no minimum wage or sick leave (among other things) without them! Way to go Neil, you cold hearted b*&^%$d.

Megyn Kelly greeted Tanya Reiman with almost giddy excitement today on America's Newsroom, 8/20. According to Kelly the body language expert contacted her with an important observation about Barack Obama at the Saddleback Forum. Anxious to make the most of any opportunity to discredit Obama, Kelly asked Reiman to analyze Obama in a few other situations. Although Kelly worked hard to give the impression that Reiman was about to expose some damaging tidbit about Obama, Reiman did not meet her expectations. with video

The first clip showed Obama responding to McCain's accusation that Obama puts personal ambition before his country. Reiman reported that his raised chin showed confidence, his furrowed brow signaled concern and his tongue placement noted disdain. Kelly struck out on this one but she still had hope.

The next clip showed Obama blinking frequently. Kelly seemed disappointed when Reiman didn't come out with the conventional wisdom about blinking and dishonesty. After Reiman's claims that the blinking was an emotional response, Kelly was compelled to bring up the lying theory in hopes of planting a seed in viewer's minds.

Things really looked bleak for Kelly when Reiman claimed the next clip revealed that Obama really cares about veterans. However, all hope was dashed when the Saddleback revelation turned out to be a plus for Obama too.

Apparently, Tonya Reiman had nothing to say about John McCain's body language. How totally unsurprising.

In our monitoring of FOX we never heard much at all about the Republican rubber-stamp Congress until 2006, when it came under Democratic control . Suddenly their every move was open to scrutiny and criticism. This morning on FOX and Friends the record of the 110th Congress was disparaged, although nothing was said about the record-breaking obstructionism of the Republican members that was responsible for most of the stagnation (and voter dissatisfaction).
With video.

Before he resigned last year, Trent Lott (R-MS) said "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail...and so far it's working for us. Democrats are taking the blame for not getting anything done." (Roll Call, April 18, 2007 - subscriber only)

Oliver Willis ("like Kryptonite to stupid," lol) has chronicled specific blockages by Republicans through last summer, when the first accusations of a "do nothing Congress" were reported in the "liberal" media. The issue seems to have dropped from the political radar as of late; maybe FOX and Friends did Democrats a favor by putting it back in the spotlight, however inadvertently.

Even Politico.com had to mention it: "Indeed, this Senate may break the record number of filibusters for a two-year session in just 12 months. Democrats have filed 58 cloture petitions in the Senate this year, which is a procedural move that forces an end to a filibuster.

Republicans are currently blocking an energy bill and an expansion of children’s health care and won’t sign off on funding bills for most of the federal government.

Democrats, of course, argue that Republican obstruction this year is different than Democratic obstruction of previous years.

Democrats mostly blocked conservative judges, while the GOP is filibustering everything, they say.

To illustrate their case, Reid on Wednesday asked for consent to bring up an uncontroversial bill dealing with research for Lou Gehrig’s disease, and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) objected and tried to add Iraq funding to the bill, to which Reid objected."

But on FOX and Friends it's ridicule for a few of the more, well, ridiculous resolutions Congress has passed, without any discussion of the harm being done to US as Republicans play politics with the nation's business. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were singled out for derision, and viewers have been sufficiently indoctrinated to know that the gridlock has all come while under Democratic control, so Democrats are to blame. (Should they rub two brain cells together, they might realize that Democrats were willing to work with (cave to) Republicans during the first six years of Bush's reign and only when it was up to Republicans to cross the aisle did the nation's work come to a screeching halt. I realize that's probably asking too much, this hint of independent thought.)

For a visual aid comparing this Congress to previous ones, see here; A similar Senate breakdown (and I do mean breakdown!) is here.

Reading headlines this morning 8/20/08, FOX Friend Gretchen Carlson called Russian president Medvedev "former Soviet bloc Russian President Dmitri Medvedev," perfectly accurate yet invoking the ghost of Cold War past. This is the second time this week I've noticed that turn of phrase. This is obviously scripted by producers, because last week she couldn't even pronounce his name.

As Melanie wrote last week, the FOX water carriers are eagerly ramping up the rhetoric, reinforcing John McCain's hawkish stance on the situation and promoting the hard-line neo-con agenda. The Iraq-invasion architects are steering McCain's campaign, as it is urgent they retain their power seat to continue to enact their vision for our country.

Taunting Russia into another stand-off with the United States could be very harmful to our economy and national security, writes Mikhail Gorbachev in an article titled "Russia Never Wanted a War" in today's New York Times:

"What is needed is a legally binding agreement not to use force. (Georgian president) Mr. Saakashvili has repeatedly refused to sign such an agreement, for reasons that have now become abundantly clear.

The West would be wise to help achieve such an agreement now. If, instead, it chooses to blame Russia and re-arm Georgia, as American officials are suggesting, a new crisis will be inevitable. In that case, expect the worst.

In recent days, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President Bush have been promising to isolate Russia. Some American politicians have threatened to expel it from the Group of 8 industrialized nations, to abolish the NATO-Russia Council and to keep Russia out of the World Trade Organization.

[snip]

There is much talk now in the United States about rethinking relations with Russia. One thing that should definitely be rethought: the habit of talking to Russia in a condescending way, without regard for its positions and interests.

Our two countries could develop a serious agenda for genuine, rather than token, cooperation. Many Americans, as well as Russians, understand the need for this. But is the same true of the political leaders?

A bipartisan commission led by Senator Chuck Hagel and former Senator Gary Hart has recently been established at Harvard to report on American-Russian relations to Congress and the next president. It includes serious people, and, judging by the commission’s early statements, its members understand the importance of Russia and the importance of constructive bilateral relations.

But the members of this commission should be careful. Their mandate is to present “policy recommendations for a new administration to advance America’s national interests in relations with Russia.” If that alone is the goal, then I doubt that much good will come out of it. If, however, the commission is ready to also consider the interests of the other side and of common security, it may actually help rebuild trust between Russia and the United States and allow them to start doing useful work together."

Every little drip on FOX helps support the storyline that will get McCain elected to Bush's third term.

Bill O'Reilly and Friends like to snidely comment on the New York Times and other competitors' publicly-traded stock prices falling, disregarding the fact that the newspaper industry as a whole is suffering drops in circulation and ad revenue. Will he comment on report in the LATimes?

"Media company News Corp., whose stock fell 29% in fiscal 2008, reported compensation of $27.5 million for Chairman Rupert Murdoch during the period."

According to the FOX talking points, the Times and other "liberal" media lose readers because people tire of the "liberal bias." Of course this childish, simplistic meme is not true, but to be fairandbalanced, they must note that News Corp. is hemorrhaging viewers and readers because of their constant conservative cheerleading.

For the second night in a row on last night's (8/19/08) Hannity & Colmes, FOX News used a discussion about Barack Obama’s vote against an Illinois law that would have protected infants after a botched abortion procedure as a vehicle to attack Obama and suggest that he supports infanticide. As Alan Colmes and Bob Beckel noted, Obama’s opposition to the Illinois bill was due to the fact that he felt it threatened women’s right to choose while criminal statutes already in force protected infants. But rather than playing defense on the issue, as we are all too accustomed to Democrats doing, Beckel and Colmes went on offense and challenged the conservative agenda at work. With video.

Obama’s record on abortion is hardly radical. During the primaries, he was criticized for not being a strong enough advocate for abortion rights. Currently, the Democratic platform is being revised to bolster the section on reducing the need for abortion. Furthermore, a lot has been made of the fact that pro-life Senator Bob Casey will be speaking at the Democratic Convention next week. The fact that FOX News keeps harping on this one vote of Obama’s (and Hannity promises there will be more on his Hannity’s America show) rather than conduct a fair and balanced review Obama’s complete record on abortion proves (again), at least to me, that the producers have an anti-Obama bias.

Meanwhile, McCain’s waffling on the issue never seems to come up.

Beckel was rightly furious as he told a taken-aback Sean Hannity, “I don’t know how low you people are going to go. To suggest that Barack Obama would be in favor of killing babies is absolutely the most obscene, disgraceful – stick with your other right-wing stuff but that – come on! He’s got two little kids of his own!”

When it was Colmes’ turn, he was just as forceful. “This is outrageous,” he said to Republican guest Andrea Tantaros. “I’m talking about the suggestion that somehow Barack Obama supports infanticide. Do you believe that? Isn’t that the implication here?”

Tantaros, a former aide to the very pro-choice Rudy Giulian, disingenuously answered that it wasn’t.

Beckel burst in. “To suggest – I mean, say – you call him a Muslim. Call him all the other stuff you guys are trying to hang on this guy.”

Hannity jumped in, even though it wasn’t his turn. “Wait a minute, Bob. Nobody’s called him that on this program.”

It wasn’t clear to me whether Hannity was denying that anyone had called Obama a Muslim or denying that anyone said Obama supported infanticide. But both have been recently suggested on the show. On August 5, 2008, FOX News banners on the lower third of the screen repeatedly suggested that Obama is at least partly a Muslim, even while an authoritative guest said otherwise. And just on Monday night, Ann Coulter said Obama "wants the doctors, you know, chasing (an infant born after a botched abortion) through the delivery room to make sure it gets killed.” Hannity never objected to Coulter's remarks and he never retracted the biased banners about Obama's religion.

Robert Greenwald Invites You to Watch Michael Moore on Meet the Bloggers (Friday 10 am ET/1 pm PT). From Brave New Foundation:

We at Meet the Bloggers are very pleased to tell you that Michael Moore, the Academy Award-winning activist filmmaker of SiCKO and Fahrenheit 9/11, will be our special guest this Friday, August 22 and again on August 29. We'll also be joined by bloggers Liliana Segura (AlterNet) and Cheryl Contee (Jack & Jill Politics), as well as nationally syndicated author and blogger David Sirota. Watch Mike talk with host Cenk Uygur about issues he covers in his new book, Mike's Election Guide 2008. "With John McCain admitting that he has no idea how to use a computer," Mike said, "we'll be providing Sen. McCain a step-by-step tutorial on how to turn one on, log onto the internet, and send an e-mail."

As if having Michael Moore on two shows wasn't exciting enough, we're also featuring a special one-on-one segment of the show on August 22 in which I will talk to Mike about the progressive impact of his films and books. And to top it all off, you can suggest text question below or video questions for Mike and enter our contest. The best questions for Mike will win a special prize of one of Mike's trademark hats (signed by Mike himself!), or an autographed copy of his new book Mike's Election Guide 2008, a funny and informative tool for progressives.

Yours,
Robert Greenwald

You too can be on Meet the Bloggers by submitting a video question for our guest.

Here's a very accurate one minute video synopsis, from 23/6, of the FOX News special examining Barack Obama's "character and conduct". It sure reinforces the News Hounds impressions of this smear special posted yesterday. (video below)

McCain’s palm strewed exit from the Saddleback forum continued on Monday (August 18th) night’s Fox Special Report. Loyal disciple Bret Baier reported that several Democrats were critical of Obama’s presentation. Naturally, any credit given to Obama was omitted. And naturally, the segment about the beginning of life was played in order to allay any fears in the “heartland” that McCain wasn’t sufficiently championing the basic conservative litmus test. (Comment: there were other issues discussed at the Forum; but for religious conservatives there are no other issues. That Obama discussed services needed for women to keep their babies was obviously unimportant) The rest of the treatment of the Saddleback Forum was an undisguised and shameless endorsement of John McCain with absolutely no pretense towards journalistic objectivity.

The top “Grapevine” segment dealt with the letter of outrage, sent from the McCain campaign, to NBC management – all because Andrea Mitchell (a real journalist) had the audacity to report what she had heard from the Obama campaign about the real possibility that McCain wasn’t in a “cone of silence.” (Comment: Is Fox News for real? They gave the Swiftboaters a public forum and are continuing this tradition by giving the discredited Jerome Corsi the same thing)

But the McCain worship service kicked into high gear during the panel discussion in the second half of the program. The composition of the panel was hardly “fair and balanced” with conservatives Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and Jeffrey Birnbaum who seems to usually be in agreement with the right side of the aisle. Prior to the discussion on Saddleback, Baier played a clip from Fox News radio, in which Rick Warren said all the claims about cheating were “bogus.” (Comment: so that settles it!) Baier introduced the discussion by asking about the veracity of the cheating claims. As if on cue, Bill Kristol replied that the accusations showed that the Obama campaign knew that “their man lost the evening” and showed the Obama campaign’s “disdain for McCain. McCain won the evening.” Birnbaum said regarding McCain: “his answers were sharp. He was playing to the audience of evangelicals. They agreed on a lot of things. And Obama was very discursive in a way that really didn't suit this format very well.” While Krauthammer did admit that McCain’s definition of rich comment was a gaffe, he added that it was an attempt to be funny. He, too, was laudatory about Fox’s candidate: “McCain won that night because he has a depth of character that showed. This is all about spirit, history, values, and he's a man with an amazing history” (Comment: Hey Charles, what does McCain’s treatment of his first wife show about his character?) He then went on to say: “Obama has an interesting history, but it's not a heroic one. It isn't even a dramatic one. And when you match one history against another, you got a contrast which is very striking.” (Comment: Hey Charles, so being an interracial child, being raised by grandparents, in a white society, is no big whoop – as opposed to being the son of an elite military family? Hey Charles, so being the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review is also chump change – as opposed to finishing 894 out of 899 at Annapolis?)

Comment: This was possibly the most shameless display of partisanship that I have seen on a very partisan network. At no time did anyone define why McCain had “won.” As this was a “faith” forum there was no winning or losing as matters of faith are subjective – unless, of course, one defines the “true faith” as being that of the religious right. The statement about when life begins has extraordinary implications for access to abortion, contraception, in vitro fertilization, etc. On this issue McCain is no “maverick.” Unfortunately there was no woman on the panel to discuss that. But one thing is for sure, Fox has anointed McCain who sits at the right hand of Roger Ailes!!!

FOX News trotted out the ethically-challenged Ann “Boombox” Coulter to speak on behalf of Christian values on last night’s (8/18/08) Hannity & Colmes. In critiquing Barack Obama’s comments in Rick Warren’s Saddleback forum over the weekend, Coulter falsely and outrageously claimed that Obama wants to make sure babies born after a botched abortion will be killed. Then, after a coquettish remark to the married Alan Colmes, Coulter boasted about “madly flashing” Sean Hannity during the forum. With video.

Hannity, who quite happily supported pro-choice Rudy Giuliani, has been on a roll attacking Obama over his vote against an Illinois law that would have protected infants after a botched abortion procedure. As Media Matters has noted and Colmes later did, too, Obama’s opposition to the Illinois bill was due to the fact that he felt it threatened women’s right to choose while criminal statutes already in force protected infants.

Yet Hannity not only continued distorting Obama’s record, his bias was reinforced by FOX News producers who put together an unbalanced panel accompanied by a series of anti-Obama banners on the screen. Besides Coulter, there was conservative Dennis Prager whose anti-Muslim bigotry so offended his fellow Holocaust Memorial Council members that they took the highly unusual step of censuring him. The supposed Democrat was Pat Caddell. Caddell’s punditry is notable for the extent to which he echoes Republican talking points, rather than advocates for Democrats. I believe the last time I saw him on Hannity & Colmes, he was predicting serious trouble for Barack Obama in the primaries.

Coulter falsely said about Obama that he “wants the doctors, you know, chasing (an infant born after a botched abortion) through the delivery room to make sure it gets killed.” Can you imagine if a Democrat said a similar thing about, say, McCain's warmongering? But it's a safe bet Coulter will be welcomed back warmly on "we like America" FOX News.

In addition to her ethical challenges, Coulter has repeatedly called for murder, unlike Obama. She has “joked” about poisoning Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and assassinating President Clinton and Senator Lincoln Chafee. But last night Coulter got on her high horse about the sanctity of human life. Referring to Obama’s “above my pay grade” comments at the Saddleback forum, Coulter said, “What kind of moral principle says ‘I don’t know when life begins so kill it.’ No, if you don’t know when life begins, you err on the side of life, at least if you’re a decent human being.”

Meanwhile, the banners on the lower part of the screen read: NY Sun: Obama Facing Attacks From All sides over abortion record; Obama tries to maneuver around politics of abortion; More questions raised about Obama’s past position on abortion.

When Colmes began, “Christian values” Coulter, who rarely passes up an opportunity to flirt with the married Colmes, said coquettishly, “Poor Alan.”

“The fact of the matter is that Barack Obama was very clear,” Colmes said to Caddell. “He felt, and other Democrats felt, that the language in the (Illinois) state bill was different than the one in the federal bill, and secondly, there already was protection in Illinois for this kind of thing. The suggestion that Barack Obama wants to go and chase babies once they’re out of the womb and kill them is absurd.”

Caddell agreed but he immediately moved on to say that this may “charge up” evangelicals to vote for John McCain. “I don’t think this will go away,” Caddell gloomily predicted. In Part 2 of the discussion (not included in the video below), Caddell said he thought Obama “did very well” in the forum. But Caddell quickly added, “I thought John McCain was actually very strong, much stronger. But the point is, on this Illinois thing, I’m not sure it will go away.”

Hannity said he had never seen McCain better than in that forum and wanted to know if Coulter agreed.

She cackled and said, “I was flashing you madly during that debate. I was shocked.”

Colmes groaned.

Fox's "business news" guy, Neil Cavuto, hosted another ticked off Hillary Clinton delegate today (August 19, 2008) — David Serrano Sewell — for the umpteenth time since they became a fave of his in late may. (The only ticked off Republican who has been on the show since May was Douglas Kmiec of Republicans for Obama who appeared on August 12.)

The topic of the segment was a CBS/New York Times poll showing that 28% of Democratic delegates think Barack Obama should pick Hillary Clinton as his VP. Cavuto hyped the potential for a fight, asking Sewell if "these angry people" are going to "bolt?" Sewell said "I don't think they bolt, but there will be some questions that the delegates will ask," and then he listed why Clinton would be a great VP.

Today's segment dovetailed nicely (if you're trying to stoke ratings for next week), with one that Cavuto hosted yesterday, featuring "presidential historian" (why a "presidential historian" would stoop this low is beyond me) Alan Lichtman, during which Lichtman and Cavuto had this exchange:

Cavuto: "This is the week for Barack Obama to start picking a running mate, some say, and a lot of those people are saying that the short list folks are already shutting up. They're already beefing up. Some have beards sprouting up. So what's up? Can stuff like this help tell who is in and who is out? Reaction now from presidential historian Alan Lichtman. He is also author of White Protestant Nation. Alan, any telltale signs for you?"

Lichtman: "Hillary Cinton's star is rising. Look, with Russia rampaging, America may need an iron lady, Margaret Thatcher-type of its own. And I've also heard she's getting her face touched up a bit which may mean she still has a hope of getting the nomination at the convention or she's getting ready to be vice president."

Cavuto: "Now, (a) we don't know if that's right, and (b) we don't know if she were getting worked on it's just for her big speech. It's a big moment."

Lichtman: "We have no idea..."

Cavuto: "No we don't.

Lichtman: "...Whether any of this is true. That's right. It's all speculation"

Cavuto: "....That's right...."

Some screen shots from the segment:

Comment: It's ALL speculation — today's segment with Sewell and yesterday's segment with "presidential historian" Lichtman. Fox is clearly hoping there will be a big fight in Denver next week. (Of course, "fair and balanced" Cavuto isn't talking about problems at the RNC, like McCain hiring a Hollywood agent (Yikes! Hollywood? Those liberal hedonists!) to make his convention more "glamorous," or about how Republicans are staying away in droves so as not to be associated with the party.)

No matter how much we learn about Barack Obama, FOX News will still claim he's a mystery to voters. Last night FNC aired the first part of an investigative report Presidential Character & Conduct about Barack Obama who has already been scrutinized relentlessly and often unfairly by the network. Unfortunately, the hour long special hosted by Bill Hemmer was a carefully crafted attempt to create more doubt and confusion about Obama as well as reinforce the smears and accusations FOX News has tirelessly promoted.

The FOX website released a collection of information about Obama to go along with their examination of his "character and conduct'. The choice of material pretty much illustrates the message they crafted in last night's piece.

While exploring his Chicago history, there was a major emphasis on Tony Rezko. After building up strong suggestions of Obama's guilt, Bill Hemmer concluded that he had done nothing illegal. Once again, Tony Rezko is prominent in FOX's extra info list providing a copy of his indictment, an investigative report from the Chicago Sun Times, and even a map of Rezko's projects

Although time was spent exploring Obama's community work in Chicago there was very little emphasis on his teaching career at the University of Chicago. Although viewers were informed that after interviewing 400 Columbia University graduates none of them knew Barack Obama when he attended, they didn't bother to interview even one of his students about their experiences in Obama's class. Wouldn't that have provided insight into the candidates character?

The friendship with Sohale Siddiqi who he meant when he left home for the first time at 18 to attend Occidental College was made into a big deal during the documentary. They made a point to note that Obama visited Pakistan at age 20 to visit Siddiqi's family. Then gravely explored Obama rooming with him in New York when he first got there alone, broke and homeless to go to Columbia. Obama had written about being forced to sleep on the streets for a few nights and waking up in an alley with a chicken pecking at him. FOX News managed to use it to connect Obama to the drug world with a claim from a New York City detective that the alley was located in a rough neighborhood run by Dominican drug lords.It's doubtful that they were trying to stress that Obama's poverty had put him in danger. The article about Obama and Saddiqi on the website is far more positive and objective than last night's coverage.

The smears about being Muslim as a child were debunked and the confusion about his early childhood made a little clearer. However, his time in Indonesia was given a strange spin making his early childhood seem somehow threatening to an unspoken notion of American normalcy. After reporting that his mother sent him away, alone, to live with his grandparents there was no recognition of the obvious emotional pain he experienced. Instead there was an emphasis on the posh private school he attended and the idea that he felt uncomfortable in an all white school.

Although Bill Hemmer offered ample reasons, other than Jeremiah Wright, to explain Obama's connection to his church in Chicago, the FOX addendum provided four sermons from Wright to make up for it. Tonight's look at John McCain should provide an interesting comparison.

comment: If FOX viewers are able to resist reacting to FOX's efforts to paint Barack Obama as shadowy, foreign, and somehow risky, Obama's amazing strength, courage and determination was evident. For the FOX viewers who already made up their minds about Obama, last night's "examination" easily confirmed their opinions.

As promised, I’m back with another installment of the “Campaign Carl” tells sweet little lies about John McCain traveling road show. (And btw, Think Progress has a piece about Carl’s problems with the truth in which they link to moi!) As I noted in my earlier thread, “campaign” Carl just couldn’t get enough of a good piece of propaganda and during the 6PM Special Report, he even revved it up a notch (hard to believe it could get worse; but it did!)

Instead of merely reporting that John McCain addressed a VFW group, he said that John McCain “received a warm reception when he slammed Barack Obama.” (Comment: language (“slamming” being very subjective) is a very important component of propaganda.) Cameron said McCain Obama’s lack of military service is the reason why Obama has “taken liberties with our GI Bill.” (Comment: you mean the bill you tried to destroy?) Cameron’s nose grew longer with the statement that “Obama and other Democrats routinely accuse McCain of opposing veterans’ benefits when in fact, the opposite is true.” (Comment: see my earlier post for debunking of that whopper.) Cameron talked about how McCain’s background stands in “stark contrast” to Obama when he (McCain) talks about himself.” Cameron then played some of McCain’s comments about “victory” in Iraq and concluded with yet another right wing lying point: “Just like McCain, the Iraqis say any timetable has to be backed up by conditions on the ground.” (Comment: If Fox is trying to do funny, fake news then they are quite successful. But hey, if you don’t like the real news, then make something up!! It’s not surprising that Fox viewers have far less knowledge of current events than viewers of Stewart and Colbert!) But about Cameron’s last comment – no, Carl, Iraq’s Prime Minister, Mr. Al-Maliki, did NOT say anything about “conditions on the ground.” According to an article in the Times Online (owned by your parent company) it was the Pentagon, in a “rebuff to Al Maliki,” which said that any timetable would be articifical and withdrawal would depend on conditions on the ground. (Comment: fact checking would be nice; but who needs facts when you’re doing propaganda!)

Comment: “Campaign” Carl’s cheerleading routine (yay McCain) had some deft spins. Note to Carl Cameron: “Liar, liar, pants on fire. Your nose is long than a telephone wire…”

Due to technical difficulties, a Democrat actually got an unopposed segment with FOX Friends Steve Doocy and Dave Briggs to reveal some facts about Democrats' energy plans and Republican posturing. The hosts did their best to derail but MD Congressman Chris Van Hollen prevailed - what a breath of fresh air!
With video.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is agreeing to a vote on offshore drilling as long as there are environmental safeguards included, and it is a small part of a comprehensive energy plan that focuses on developing alternative, renewable energy sources for America and efficiency.

Right off the bat Van Hollen called the Republicans for engaging in a "great political stunt," trying to persuade Americans that by giving the oil companies more land now they'll see immediate relief at the pump. He cited the Energy Dept. as saying the drop in prices, if at all, will be in the future and immaterial.

Challenged by Briggs about why she wouldn't allow a vote before Congress broke for vacation, Van Hollen replied that what they voted on before the break were bills that would have "an immediate impact at the pump" - "in your opinion," interjected Briggs. Van Hollen said you asked, let me answer - swapping heavy for light crude in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and regulating oil market speculators would both have an immediate impact and Republicans said "no" to both. In a comprehensive plan, Dems hope to use some of the revenue generated from drilling to invest in developing long-term solutions.

Eric Cantor of VA was invited in, but the connection was so bad they had to drop him. Doocy brought up the rumored Chinese drilling 16 miles off our shores in the Gulf, and asked why should the Chinese take "our oil"? When Van Hollen replied that there's a lot of specualtion about what the Chinese are doing, Doocy said let's then take the hypothetical that they will be and demanded CVH to defend the hypothetical. Van Hollen pointed out that the oil 16 miles off our shores is not "our oil," and told viewers that there was a vote before recess on asking oil companies to explore on the leases they already own before the government gives them any more - the "use it or lose it" bill. He reiterated that Americans need to understand that even if we succumbed to "drill here, drill now" the price at the pump would not change noticeably, now or in the future when the oil came into consumption. We have only about 3% of the world's oil reserves, but we consume 20%, so we need to look elsewhere.

They thanked him and promised Eric Cantor tomorrow; Briggs speculated (?) that "he may argue against that SPR; 'some say' that won't have any effect either," and the two hosts were in agreement that "if they take all the oil out of that" we could be in a real jam, once again distorting and oversimplifying the proposal, the easier to dismiss it. Funny how FOX and Friends have been so eager, so supportive of Newt Gingrich's drive to force a vote on offshore drilling and not only didn't question the short-term effect at the pump, but willfully echoed his false claims that even just lifting the ban would immediately lower prices, all evidence to the contrary.

There was virtually no political news during the hour of FOX and Friends I saw this morning 8/19/08 save for a few questions directed to FL Gov. Charlie Crist, on to talk about tropical storm Fay. The rest of the program was a collage of clips on just a few stories - Michael Phelps, a guy kite-surfing in Fay who landed in the ICU, Caylee/Casey Anthony ad nauseum, and the Big Foot find exposed as a (gasp!) hoax, and some odds and ends.

During the Charlie Crist interview, Steve Doocy tried to segue into the imminent vice-presidential selections ("...Barack Obama is finally going to reveal who his number two is," were his exact words, although McCain has yet to announce his veep and he's had the nomination locked up since March). Crist shrugged it off and said his focus was the storm and preparations, but Gretchen Carlson persisted and asked instead would he mind commenting on the Saddleback events? Crist obliged, and we were once again blanketed with supportive words about McCain: he was pleased with the straight talk, forthright, he speaks from the heart what he believes in his soul, it's hard not to admire, respect, and care deeply, sincerity, genuineness, and McCain understands (and he referenced the Declaration of INdependence) that drilling offshore will "insure that we have sufficient domestic supply of oil" and stop the tranfer of wealth to "people who don't like us." Gag.

Now I know Crist supports McCain but this gushing of hyperbole was apropos of nothing newsworthy, not balanced by an Obama supporter, and clearly inserted at the hosts' urging for nothing other than propaganda reasons.

Last night (August 18th) Fox’s “Campaign” Carl Cameron was on a roll as he did two McCain booster reports on two different programs. On the 5PM “America’s Election HQ, hosted by E.D. Hill (whose idea of fair and balanced is to have just one person from the right wing Family Research Council discuss the Saddleback faith forum) Cameron’s partisanship wasn’t even thinly disguised. He followed this endorsement by another report during the 6PM “Special Report” which later included, in the panel discussion, a comment from Cameron in praise of John McCain. For free campaign ads, McCain can’t do any better than Fox News which is hardly “fair and balanced” in its ebullient praise of John McCain (Comment: and the right wing thinks that Obama is the “messiah.” Fox News is in the process of putting McCain on the path to sainthood. Stay tuned for miracles.) As the material is too extensive for just one thread, I will do a second.

During E.D.’s (does the “E” stand for Eva?) show, Cameron reported on McCain’s speech to a VFW group during which McCain touted his support for the recently passed G.I. bill, a bill developed and sponsored by Democratic Senator Jim Webb. Cameron claimed that McCain was originally opposed to the bill because it “didn’t proportionally give GI benefits to service men and women depending on how long they were on active duty. He thought it should be more proportionally based. He fought for it and it was inserted into the legislation and McCain supported it.” Cameron went on to say that “on every veterans’ issues, McCain has always voted for benefits notwithstanding his opposition to Democratic alternatives along the way.”

Comment: Whoa, stop right there. Think Progress has an excellent history (here and here) of McCain’s attempt to take credit for the Webb bill which he opposed. McCain’s alternative bill had less generous educational benefits because McCain felt that the Webb bill would lead to a drop in military retention – a claim rebutted by the Congressional Budget Office. What Cameron didn’t say was that McCain was trying to take credit for a bill that he tried to destroy. Cameron didn’t note that the Webb bill was supported by the VFW or that the VFW will be awarding Webb with a citation of merit. During his speech to the VFW, McCain also touted his veterans’ health care proposals which many veterans groups object to; but, naturally, Cameron didn’t mention this in his homage to his candidate. Cameron was wrong when he said that McCain’s benefit plan was “inserted” into the bill because the benefits in the final bill were at the higher level endorsed by Senators Webb, Hagel, and Warner. And the claim that McCain has always voted for benefits is rebutted by this veterans group. (Obviously, “phony soldiers”) Other summaries of McCain’s not so perfect record when it comes to veterans are found here and here. But when Fox News does a campaign commercial, endorsing their candidate, truth becomes the first casualty.

Rick Warren was on Hannity & Colmes last night (8/18/08) putting on a neutral face about his Saddleback forum over the weekend. But buried just below the surface was a fair amount of pro-McCain, anti-Obama sentiment. Furthermore, though Warren claimed that only Obama knew of questions in advance, a spokesman told the Washington Post that both candidates got an advance look. With video.

It seemed to me that the questions during the forum were tilted to favor McCain, too. During his Hannity & Colmes interview last night, Warren lamented that he had not had a chance to ask about global warming, AIDS and world poverty. These are the kinds of issues that Obama-leaning evangelicals care about. Is it just a coincidence that Warren used up his time asking about the issues on which McCain and evangelicals agree? I don’t think so.

On Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity began the interview by asking Warren about the controversy over the possibility that John McCain may have heard the questions before he went on. Warren called it “a totally bogus issue." Warren said, "There’s no way he could have heard the questions." But nobody discussed the possibility that someone may have texted them to McCain, or texted them to someone who told McCain.

Warren made it seem as though the only one with an unfair advantage was Barack Obama. Warren said he told Barack Obama about one of the questions that Warren never had the chance to tell McCain because he had arrived late. “So actually, it was Barack who got a question answered (sic) in advance.”

Which is odd because in today’s Washington Post, a spokesman for Warren is quoted as saying both candidates had an advance look at a few questions.

Warren made an effort not to show favoritism but it was hard not to see it in Warren's summation of the two candidates. “(Obama) likes to nuance things... He’s a Constitutional attorney,” Warren said. “And a lot of people, that appeals to them.”

Then Warren said, “On the other hand, John McCain is the happy, straightforward warrior, the commander.”

In Part 2, Hannity asked Warren about Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Warren said that because Wright led Obama to Christ, that excuses “a multitude of sins.” Warren also noted that “God uses imperfect people... to lead people to Christ.”

“On the other hand,” Warren continued, “I couldn’t sit in a church where America was downgraded the way it was in the clips that I heard.”

Fair enough, but then Warren continued gratuitously, “Black liberation theology is an even more extreme version of liberation theology which started in Latin America and has been totally discredited. It was basically Marxism in Christian format and it’s pretty much dead.”

Warren refused to say who he plans to vote for but in other words he has already told us.

For the last several weeks, Neil Cavuto has aired two, three and sometimes four Obama-bashing segments per show on Your World (Fox's "business news" show), with nary a word to speak of about John McCain. Today (August 18, 2008), the week started to repeat itself, with the first 20 minutes alone containing two anti-Obama segments: "Did McCain's Clear Answer on Abortion [Saturday night at Saddleback] Beat Obama's Cautious One?" and, "Obama Supporters Ticked Off as Clinton's Get 'Star Treatment' at the Convention." Halfway in, I said that's it; I'm going to start a post and add to it every day and chronicle the totally overweight negative time spent on Obama.

But then, lo and behold, up pops Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate, and he's doing a segment captioned: "Barr to McCain: Cut Out the 'Blustering' on Russia." I thought what?! Is Fox going to do a segment bashing McCain? Maybe Fox is turning on the "fair and balanced" and they're going to change the ratio from 748/0 to 748/1. But NO! I forgot to factor in Neil Cavuto, the "fair and balanced journalist." He was there to do McCain's bidding and to protect McCain from any bad press. As a matter of fact, he was there to make McCain look like a visionary, a great protector because he sees things we don't see. He sees — senses, has the wisdom, the experience — to read the Russia/Georgia conflict as being akin to pre-World War II and Hitler! Silly me for thinking that a bad word about a Republican would sneak by Fox's microphones what with "journalists" like Cavuto guarding the gate.

Here's what happened.

Barr called McCain's comments on the Georgia/Russia conflict "silly" and "irresponsible." His essential point was that we shouldn't necessarily "become involved" in conflicts such as this. Instead, we should, "be aware of them, be concerned, try and mediate." There "certainly are pressures that can be brought — it's not like we ought to back away and say we have no interest whatsoever here," but he thinks it's "fool hearty" and "very simplistic to be jumping into these sorts of disputes."

Advocating on behalf of war man McCain, Cavuto blew the matter totally out of proportion, asking: "Is your position that, even though you see signs of militaristic activity, as we would have seen with Hitler in the '30's, you'd just ignore it until you can't ignore it anymore or do you act preemptively as essentially McCain seems to be advocating; that you don't ignore this. It's to your own peril if you do?"

Barr said, "I don't see that this is another Munich and that's part of I think what..."

Cavuto, interrupting: "How do you know?"

Barr: "Because. Because..."

Cavuto, interrupting again: "I mean, they just set up missiles. If that's a guest's way of leaving Congressman."

Comment: Last week Cavuto announced that the Cold War was back and he kicked W. out of the White House and put McCain in, so this comes as no real surprise. Elevating the Georgia/Russia conflict beyond the Cold War, to that of World War II (in the neocons dreams!), comes as no surprise either nor does the fact that Cavuto, who calls himself a "journalist," would advocate on behalf of one candidate or another. So there aren't any surprises here, just deep sadness that this is what passes as "fair and balanced news" around here.