Secretary of Mate

More silliness about Hillary:

Imagine someone so inexperienced as Secretary of State?

Doctrine Air

Thoughts on the Fairness Doctrine from Adam Reilly in the Boston Phoenix.

For most of the second half of the 20th century, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) asserted that the right to broadcast — on scarce, publicly owned frequencies — came with civic responsibility. Broadcasters, the FCC held, should devote some of their programming to controversial matters of public interest. They should also allow divergent points of view to be presented on their stations. That's the Fairness Doctrine in a nutshell. (In one famous case, the Supreme Court ruled that the author of a critical biography of Barry Goldwater had the right to respond to a torrent of criticism directed at him from a Christian broadcaster in Red Lion, Pennsylvania.)

The doctrine's intentions were commendable. But it was vague, and spottily applied, and co-existed uneasily with the First Amendment's right to free speech. And in 1987 — at the height of Reagan-era deregulation — it was voluntarily abolished by the FCC. The FCC's decision was upheld on appeal to the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1989, and subsequent congressional efforts to restore it have failed.

Many observers believe that's for the best. "The Fairness Doctrine had this perverse result," says Jane Kirtley, director of the University of Minnesota's Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law. "The way some broadcasters chose to provide equal time for opposing viewpoints to be heard was to say that they just weren't going to cover controversial issues. I have no reason to think that would change in 2008 or 2009." Factor in the rise of cable news and the Web, adds Kirtley, and the Fairness Doctrine's original rationale doesn't make sense anymore.

Media critic Rory O'Connor, who discusses the subject in Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio (AlterNet), agrees. "The Fairness Doctrine is a 20th-century response to 21st-century problems," he says. "It didn't work so well in the first place. It was misused and abused by political operatives in both parties." There is, O'Connor claims, "no way in Hell" that the Fairness Doctrine's going to be reinstated. Conservatives are only milking the subject to "excite the base, create outrage, and drive up ratings."

No question, the right's treatment of the subject is irresponsible. A restored Fairness Doctrine wouldn't "kill" the conservative-friendly medium of talk radio, or mandate "equal time" for the presentation of liberal and conservative perspectives. Instead, it would simply require conservative broadcast outlets to allow the occasional liberal voice, and vice versa.

To be fair, though, conservative fears aren't entirely unfounded. While Obama seems to favor regulating broadcasters to achieve specific aims, including increased minority ownership, he's indicated he doesn't want to restore the Fairness Doctrine. But other prominent Democrats disagree. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi recently told the conservative magazine Human Events that she supports the Fairness Doctrine. On Election Day, Democratic New York senator Chuck Schumer told Fox News you couldn't oppose the Fairness Doctrine while supporting government regulation of obscenity, as many conservatives do. And other Dems — including Massachusetts senator John Kerry, the subject of an attack documentary broadcast on Sinclair Broadcasting's 62 (conservative) stations during his 2004 presidential run — have made similar remarks.

Time for restraint
That some Democrats might relish the idea of punishing Limbaugh and his compadres is understandable. But there are strong arguments for restraint. The first is constitutional: the Fairness Doctrine would exist, yet again, in tension with the First Amendment. The second is strategic: the inchoate sense of grievance that currently animates the right has slim political potential — but that could change if Republicans can style themselves as free-speech defenders.

The most important reason for caution, though, is the nascent effort to link the Fairness Doctrine with Net Neutrality. Without Net Neutrality, the telecom industry will almost certainly create a two-tiered system that privileges some content, while consigning the rest — created, presumably, by those who lack big bucks — to a sort of virtual ghetto.

Thus far, Net Neutrality hasn't been a partisan issue. Obama supports it; so does NARAL Pro-Choice America; so does the Christian Coalition and the National Rifle Association.

But efforts to fragment the broad, pro–Net Neutrality alliance are already underway — and the Fairness Doctrine seems destined for a starring role. In an October 2007 paper titled "Net Neutrality: A Fairness Doctrine for the Internet," Adam Thierer of the Progress & Freedom Foundation — a think tank funded by, among others, AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable — suggested that Net Neutrality was actually a partisan ploy aimed at crippling the right. Groups such as the Christian Coalition, Thierer suggested, should reconsider their support.

Then, this past August, Republican FCC commissioner Robert McDowell made a similar argument at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Regarding Net Neutrality, McDowell asked, "Will Web sites — will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views, rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?"

This is a stupid question. The Fairness Doctrine involved government mandating, in certain cases, that specific content be added to a particular media entity. In contrast, Net Neutrality doesn't involve intrusion into content; it only dictates absolute freedom of (virtual) movement. It's the opposite of what McDowell seems to think.

But as Joe Campbell, author of the blog 2parse.com, recently noted in a post linking Thierer's paper and McDowell's remarks, this is about tactics, not logic. If conservative Net Neutrality supporters come to see it as the Fairness Doctrine 2.0 — something that's more easily done if the Fairness Doctrine is already on everyone's brain, as it is today — they might rethink their support. Given Democratic gains in Congress and Obama's support for Net Neutrality, Campbell argues, "This is the big corporations' only chance to squash Net Neutrality."

Now that's a scary prospect. The Web is the future of news media. (It's also a battleground where, at the moment, Democrats are totally dominating Republicans.) Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is a dubious proposition, period. But if doing so could jeopardize the success of Net Neutrality, it's downright reckless.

Instead of reliving an old-media battle that's run its course, Democrats should focus instead on making Net Neutrality a reality. And Obama should help them by stating that he'll veto any legislation aimed at restoring the Fairness Doctrine that crosses his desk. Let the right worry about something else.

To read the "Don't Quote Me" blog, go to thePhoenix.com/medialog. Adam Reilly can be reached at areilly@phx.com.

DOA

Can this be for real, or is it just the usual gameplaying - make women feel good about Barack by pretending to be respecting Hillary?

George Stephanopoulos reported Clinton's name being in the mix last week on Good Morning America, but the buzz grew louder today after Clinton was spotted boarding a flight to Chicago.

It might have been about a job in the Obama administration, or maybe she had a craving for deep dish.

Her spokesman Philippe Reines would not discuss Clinton's schedule, and of course the Obama Transition Team would not comment.

The thinking about a Secretary of State Clinton is simple, I'm told: she's smart, she's strong, she's experienced, she's a team player, she is usually pretty diplomatic, and she also brings some gender diversity to an Obama Team concerned about such matters.

Let's be serious - why would Obama want Hillary around, and why would Hillary want to put her career in the hands of Barack. Secretaries of State last about 2 years, don't they?

She brings instant stature to the job, one Democrat told me. Many world leaders have known her for almost two decades.

"Clinton is the gold standard around the world, " said Chris Lehane, a former spokesman for Vice President Al Gore.

Ya, sure. Consider this idea DOA.

Introducing Auto Vote

Now that liberals are in power, it's important to remind ourselves just how dangerous they can be. For example, the Boston Globe has a delightfully humorous editorial today on fixing the "election mess -" funny but for its utter maliciousness.

BARACK OBAMA'S superior get-out-the-vote operation spared the country from another squeaker presidential election, with the claims of voter fraud and intimidation that have become so familiar in the previous two cycles. But that doesn't mean the problems in the nation's electoral system have disappeared. They're just not as visible at high tide.

It's true that the voter system isn't up to snuff for the close elections we've been turning out lately, although it would be more accurate to credit the financial meltdown with Barack's victory margin - but I'm nitpicking. What's funny about the Globe position, and demonstrates the paper's maliciousness, is what they think the real problem is - lack of access to the polls.

After the 2000 election made the United States look like something out of a Marx Brothers movie, former presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter co-chaired a National Election Commission. Their report concluded that the country has one of the most burdensome voter registration systems - and one of the lowest participation rates - in the developed world. Even with the Obama wave, voter turnout this year was only about 61 percent of registered voters.

Huh? Burdensome voter registration? You have to fill out a form and attest to your residency - that's a world class burden?

One simple change would solve several problems that have bedeviled recent national elections: universal voter registration. Under this plan, promoted by the watchdog Brennan Center for Justice and others, the government would be responsible for automatically registering citizens when they turn 18.

I have a better idea. Why not automatically register all voters at age 18, and then automatically submit a vote on their behalf in favor of the Democratic candidate? That way, only Republicans would have to show up at the polls to alter their auto-vote. This would be the green solution, helping to curb global warming by keeping people off the roads. And it would lead to good government, as only Democrats would win elections.

Change is hard to accept for a Congress that, after all, got elected under the current registration system. But any technical or political obstacles pale in comparison with another election marred by fears of ballot-stuffing, voter suppression, and undermined confidence in democracy.

Not so hard to shift to a system that favors Democrats for a Congress controlled by Democrats.

Bitter Sweet

It must be with mixed emotions that Barack has announced his resignation from the U.S. Senate, effective Sunday.

President-elect Barack Obama is giving up his Illinois U.S. Senate seat effective Sunday, intensifying the jockeying to replace the only African-American in Congress' upper chamber as lawmakers return next week for a lame-duck session.

After all, it's been a wonderful 3 and 1/2 years - so many leadership opportunities dodged, so many missed votes.

Several Illinois politicians want the job, including at least three members of Congress. Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who's also a Democrat, will appoint the successor of his choice to fill out the remaining two years of Obama's six-year term.

What's unclear is when Barack will lose interest in the presidency, and what office he'll seek next.

Obama, who was in private meetings in Chicago preparing for the transition, said in a statement Thursday that his partial term as a senator had been "one of the highest honors and privileges of my life."

Ah, but that goes both ways, doesn't it.

Truth Be Told

Now that the election is over, the truth about Barack - always available, but protected by some - is flowing more freely.

About his friends, for example.

FALSANI: Do you have people in your life that you look to for guidance?

OBAMA:
Well, my pastor [Jeremiah Wright] is certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for.

I have a number of friends who are ministers. Reverend Meeks is a close friend and colleague of mine in the state Senate. Father Michael Pfleger is a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely.

FALSANI:
Those two will keep you on your toes.

OBAMA:
And theyr'e good friends. Because both of them are in the public eye, there are ways we can all reflect on what's happening to each of us in ways that are useful.

I think they can help me, they can appreciate certain specific challenges that I go through as a public figure.

And his church.

“One of the churches that I became involved in was Trinity United Church of Christ,” Obama said in the interview. “And the pastor there, Jeremiah Wright, became a good friend. So I joined that church and committed myself to Christ in that church.”

Obama began attending the church in 1988 and formally joined Trinity in 1992. Falsani asked, “Do you still attend Trinity?”

Obama answered, “Yep. Every week. 11 o’clock service. Ever been there? Good service.

Hmm. This sounds a bit different from Barack said during the campaign.

“As young marrieds, Barack and Michelle (who also didn't go to church regularly as a child) went to church fairly often—two or three times a month. But after their first child, Malia, was born, they found making the effort more difficult. ‘I don't know if you've had the experience of taking young, squirming children to church, but it's not easy,’ he says.

“‘Trinity was always packed, and so you had to get there early. And if you went to the morning service, you were looking at—it just was difficult. So that would cut back on our involvement.’

Tin Men

Who would be dumb enough to fall for this crap. Barack is going back to his sizable donor list looking for more money!

It seems that in addition to his 6/10ths of a billion dollars to move into the White House, the Democratic National Committee spent way more than the $100 million in cash it had raised.

In fact, it took out "substantial loans."

Substantial loans? The DNC has debt to retire? How come they could get credit?

Well, it turns out now, the DNC's debts are far worse than originally imagined. Today, Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe sent another urgent e-mail to supporters seeking at least another $30.

Most people would slam the door on anyone knocking with this sort of pitch.

"We'll get to work transforming this country. But first, we need to take care of the DNC."

Did we hear that right? Now that Obama's the president-elect, the top priority is the Democratic National Committee?

To drive home the point elsewhere in the same e-mail Plouffe adds: "Before we do anything else, we need to pay for this winning strategy."

Cheap lines, tin man style lines, if you ask me.

Don't worry, you still get the Victory T-shirt for this $30. But it sounds like pretty much everything else is on hold. This change stuff is looking to be an expensive process, even before it gets started.

Beast of Burden

What amazing trouble Barack has stepped into.

For all the fury over Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's $700 billion emergency economic relief fund, it seems downright puny when compared to the running total of the government's response to the credit crisis.

Has his remarkable good luck run out, or is this just the opportunity he wants.

According to CreditSights, a research firm in New York and London, the U.S. government has put itself on the hook for some $5 trillion, so far, in an attempt to arrest a collapse of the financial system.

You can't be a great president without bad times, and I think Barack's pretty eager to join the folks on Mount Rushmore.

The estimate includes many of the various solutions cooked up by Paulson and his counterparts Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve and Sheila Bair at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., as the credit crisis continues to plague banks and the broader markets.

If Barack can lead America through this crisis, and get himself re-elected, he'll be viewed as one of the greats.

The Fed has taken on much of that total, including lending a cumulative $1 trillion in overnight or short-term loans since March to primary dealers through its emergency discount window and making a cumulative $1.8 trillion available through its term auction facility, a series of short-term transactions it began making available twice a month in January. It should be noted that a portion of the funds lent in these programs has been repaid and that the totals represent what has been made available.

Barack's good luck streak will be severely tested.

End of the World

It's the end of the world as we know it.

"This is the end of the consumer-based economy," said Peter Schiff, who runs the investment firm Euro Pacific Capital Inc. in Darien, Conn. "Americans have been buying too much stuff, and now the epic shopping spree is over. It is a permanent change."

Wow. That's a dire prediction. Which explains, perhaps, the shift in the bailout plan that Paulson announced yesterday.

For years, consumers tapped into inflated home equity and use credit cards to finance their spending. Now those spigots are being shut off, and job losses are mounting.

What had been a Wall Street meltdown is now, a few weeks later, being seen in a different light - we are at risk of massive economic collapse.

The recent data has been startling: For the third quarter, consumer spending fell 3.1 percent, the worst performance in 28 years. Sales at established stores for October were the worst since at least 1969. The slump is continuing into November: Macy's says it expects a decline of at least 10 percent this month.

As we head into a recession which promises to be deeper than any we've experienced, wouldn't it be nice to have a seasoned old pro at the helm of the country - someone with the perspective of years, and someone who knows who to get on the phone to pull the right levers?

Even when home prices recover and credit becomes more available, Hoyt notes, Americans will have learned something: "They can't count on asset appreciation to meet their long-term goals."

As we head into a devastating downturn, wouldn't it be nice to not have Democrats in power - the party whose policies led us into this mess?

Say Anything

Like most politicians, Barack was willing to say anything to win the presidency. Dig any hole now, we can climb out of it later.

A suicide car bomber struck a U.S. military convoy passing through a crowded market in eastern Afghanistan on Thursday, killing at least five civilians and a coalition soldier and wounding an additional 57 civilians, officials said.

In order to be a peace candidate while not being perceived as weak on defense, Barack embraced the war in Afghanistan - that's the war we need to fight, that's the war we need to win, he said - Iraq was the wrong war.

The bomber rammed his vehicle into the convoy as it traveled through Bati Kot district of Nangarhar province, said Ahmad Zia Abdulzai, a spokesman for the provincial governor.

At least five civilians were killed in the blast, said Ghafoor Khan, the spokesman for the provincial police chief. Fifty-seven civilians were wounded, said Ajmal Pardes, a provincial health official.

Now, Barack has challenges other than looming economic disaster - how to responsibly (ie gradually) withdraw from Iraq after having built expectations that he'll draw down willy-nilly, and how to win the war in Afghanistan using troops who really need rest, not redeployment.

Lt. Cmdr. Walter Matthews, a U.S. military spokesman, said a member of the U.S-led coalition died of his injuries received in the attack. He would not disclose the nationality of the victim, but another U.S. spokesman earlier said that the wounded soldier was an American.

If confirmed, that death would bring the number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan this year to at least 148, the highest annual tally of troop deaths since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001. There were 111 U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan in all of 2007.

Barack took ownership of Afghanistan in order to change the long held perception that Democrats can't be trusted to defend the nation. It's his war now, and he's got to win it.

The bomber struck the convoy near a crowded market, where people were trading sheep, cows, goats and other animals, Mr. Khan said. An Associated Press photographer said that an American military vehicle, two civilian vehicles and two rickshaws were destroyed.

Taliban militants regularly use suicide attackers and car bombs in their assaults against U.S., Afghan and other foreign troops in the country. But a majority of the victims in such attacks have been civilians. On Wednesday, a truck bomb in southern Afghanistan killed six people and wounded 42.

Bailing Out the Unions

Why the fear of General Motors going under? The demand for cars would remain the same, so the lost manufacturing would have to be replaced, wouldn't it?

...while the cries of certain Armageddon would be ear splitting in the event of a GM failure, the U.S. auto sector would actually emerge much healthier thanks to a change in ownership that would be the certain result of GM going under.

How would auto manufacturing, and Detroit, possibly do well if GM, and others, were allowed to fold?

Far from vanishing, many of GM's assets would be quickly purchased by competent foreign automakers eager to expand their capacity in what is the world's largest auto market. Happily, the list of well-run car companies, from Toyota to Nissan to Porsche, is long.

So GM would fold, others would buy the factories, new managers with new employment contracts (and hopefully no unions) would be in charge, with state of the art cars rolling off the production lines in a sustainable business model.

With capable auto executives finally overseeing GM's poorly deployed assets, the value and utility of each would rise, thus perpetuating the existence of jobs in the sector, all the while ensuring that other businesses that exist due to GM will enjoy more stable commercial relationships with competent management.

Would Democrats ever do such a thing? Of course not. Barack has already signaled clearly he has every desire to offer the capital the broken companies need to keep overpaying their help. The bailout of the auto manufacturers is a bailout of unions, which means it will kick the can down the road, but not fix the underlying problem.

Nothing to Fear

Conservatives are scared to death by the potential that Barack's radical past will travel with him to the White House. I can't help thinking that that's exactly what Republicans need.

The American Civil Liberties Union launched a new campaign today calling on President-elect Barack Obama to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and end the military commissions on Day One of his presidency.

Obama, as a candidate, pledged to "close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions." In a full page ad in the New York Times today, the ACLU urges Obama, as president, to fulfill those promises and immediately restore America's moral leadership in the world.

As the GOP questions how its philosophy and mission should be refined looking toward mid-term elections, wouldn't the clearest vision develop with a practicing liberal in the White House?

Labor unions want President-elect Barack Obama to move quickly on universal health care and to make it easier for workers to organize. Latino advocacy groups want immigration reform. Even the National Trust for Historic Preservation is urging Obama to seek full federal funding "to protect our heritage."

Interest groups are furiously drawing up wish lists for the incoming Obama administration, many of them hoping to cash in on the investments they made - in volunteers, political support, and campaign contributions - in Obama's commanding win.

The odds are pretty good that Barack will seek to thrown bones to liberals - with enough meat so he can argue that he's followed through on his campaign commitments - keeping the lefties calmed, but not happy, as he leads from the center. This is what conservatives must fear - a powerful, centrist administration that picks its spots carefully to push a liberal agenda. Like by pushing to courts carefully left.

The webpage of MoveOn.org, the antiwar group that was one of Obama's earliest and most active backers, said it all after Tuesday's election: "Together we did it!" the group said, claiming to have channeled 933,808 volunteers and $888,572 to Obama's campaign.

Translation: We helped you win, and now we want to see you pursue a liberal agenda in the White House. For the membership of MoveOn.org, that begins with bringing a swift end to the war in Iraq.

For Barack, there's nothing to fear but liberalism itself. His goal should be to be a problem solver who happens to be an ideologue. If he does that, the reinvention of the GOP will be a slow process.

If he chases faultline policies like the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, something much feared by conservatives, we'll have clear and powerful around which to coalesce - making the job of rebuilding the party much easier.

Lobbyist Schnobbyist

Barack's campaign stand against lobbyists was meaningless as policy - a deceptive stance of no practical meaning. Now, for the sake of real life, he's watered it down to make it even less meaningful, and more symbolic.

President-elect Obama, who campaigned against lobbyists' influence, on Tuesday opened the door for them to work for him if they sign an ethics code that restricts their role in and out of government.

Lobbyists can work for Obama's transition if they stop their advocacy efforts and avoid working in any field that they lobbied on in the last year. They also must pledge not to lobby the Obama administration on the same matters they focused on during the transition for a year after leaving Obama's service.

As bad as things are in Washington, all this symbolism and watering down of the campaign commitment actually represents a noticeable improvement.

The ethics policy allows Obama to hire any of the some 22,000 federally registered lobbyists who could be valuable assets because of their government experience, even though Obama railed against their influence on the campaign trail.

Of course, it's yet another abandonment of a strong policy stance. He was just kidding about his lobbying stand.

Podesta called the lobbying ban "the strictest, the most far-reaching ethic rules of any transition team in history." Yet the transition rules are not as strict as those that Obama has proposed for his administration's staff.

In a speech last November in Spartanburg, S.C., Obama said: "I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race ... I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House."

They won't find a job in my White House. Now there's a White Lie.

At other times, he said lobbyists would not "run" his White House.

Under recommendations spelled out in Obama's campaign Web site, no Obama political appointees would be allowed to work on regulations or contracts "directly or substantially related to their prior employer for two years." And while people who work on the transition would be permitted to lobby the administration on their transition issues after one year, political appointees to administration jobs would be prohibited from lobbying the executive branch for the remainder of the administration, according to Obama's proposed rules.

Podesta said the specifics of the administration rules are still being worked out, but it would include the two-year ban that Obama pledged. He said it was shortened to one year for the transition because it's a short-term assignment before the Jan. 20 inauguration.

Government watchdogs applauded the ethics rules in an unusual statement issued through the campaign. Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution called the rules "tough and unequivocal" and said they come with a cost of keeping some honorable people from serving the transition, while Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute called them "far-reaching, bold and constructive" to restore trust in government.

Success Starts with W.

Can it be that the economic policies of the Bush administration have been this successful? Under Bush, those in poverty fell dramatically, while the number of families making over $100,000/year has skyrocketed to one in four!

In 1996, only 9 percent of the electorate said their family income was that high. Last week it had grown to 26 percent — more than one in four voters. And those making over $75,000 are up to 15 percent from 9 percent. Put another way, more than 40 percent of those voting earned over $75,000, making this the highest-income electorate in history.

It seems that W. should be known as the first poor president.

The poorest segment of the electorate, those making under $15,000, has shrunk from 11 percent to 6 percent over the past dozen years. And those making $15,000 to $30,000 annually — the working poor — also shrunk from 23 percent to 12 percent of the electorate.

At the same time, the voters have become more racially diverse (with white voters dropping 9 points from 1996 to 74 percent of the electorate and minorities) and better educated — voters who had attended some college are surging.

Tight Ship

As tight a ship as the Obama campaign was, we have to assume that any aides to Obama who were briefed on his meeting with the President are leaking details with campaign consent and knowledge.

Just hours after President Bush and President-elect Obama met in the Oval Office of the White House, details of their confidential conversation began leaking out to the press, igniting anger from the president, sources claim.

"Senator Obama would be wise to keep close counsel," a top Bush source warned.

"Senator Obama may not be familiar with a long-standing tradition of presidents holding their private conversations, private," a senior adviser explained to the DRUDGE REPORT.

If not, we should expect him to be firing the leakers any minute. After all, how many people would know?

"BUSH AND OBAMA AT ODDS OVER AID FOR AUTO INDUSTRY," splashed the NEW YORK TIMES in an exclusive Monday evening, quoting "people familiar with the discussion."

The two met at the White House in private, without staff.

"Bush indicated at the meeting that he might support some aid and a broader economic stimulus package if Obama and congressional Democrats dropped their opposition to a free-trade agreement with Colombia," claimed the TIMES.

Is this Barack's idea for how to reward President Bush for the gracious transition he's running?

The ASSOCIATED PRESS quickly followed with details of the conversation, citing "aides who described the discussion on grounds of anonymity, citing the private nature of the meeting."

Bush advisers view the leaks as an effort to undermine the president's remaining days in office.

Media Bias

Was the Washington Post's campaign coverage tilted in favor of Barack? The Post's ombudsman says so. Here are some of Deborah Howell's observations.

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.

My assistant, Jean Hwang, and I have been examining Post coverage since Nov. 11 of last year on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates' backgrounds and horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants. We also have looked at photos and Page 1 stories since Obama captured the nomination June 4.

The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories. The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts' views. There were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Reporters, photographers and editors found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.

Our survey results are comparable to figures for the national news media from a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. It found that from June 9, when Clinton dropped out of the race, until Nov. 2, 66 percent of the campaign stories were about Obama compared with 53 percent for McCain; some stories featured both. The project also calculated that in that time, 57 percent of the stories were about the horse race and 13 percent were about issues.

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin grew up in Alaska.

A Wonderful World

In an historic moment drowning in history, the historic president-elect made his historic visit to the White House, as a transition steeped in history moves historically forward.

President-elect Barack Obama visited the White House on Monday for his first post-election meeting with President George W. Bush, a strikingly symbolic moment in the historic transition of power in Washington.

The outgoing president and first lady Laura Bush greeted Obama and his wife Michelle with smiles and handshakes as they stepped from their limousine to begin a tour of what will be their new home after Obama is sworn in on Jan. 20.

Obama's aides say after taking office he will likely move quickly to roll back Bush's executive orders that limit stem cell research and expand oil and gas drilling in some areas.

There was no outward sign of tension, however, as the Obamas began their White House visit.

Presidents-in-waiting traditionally make a trip to the White House between Election Day and inauguration but usually wait longer than Obama did.

He came calling after only six days, underscoring a sense of urgency in the transition process. It will be the first wartime transfer of presidential power in four decades and also comes as economic turmoil is shaking world markets.

Making Work Pay

What a surprise. When things go bad for Americans who've been trained by liberalism to buy things they don't need with money they don't have, it is WORK that is to blame.

A middle-class tax cut will be one of President-elect Obama’s first proposals after he takes the oath of office, incoming White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said Sunday.

In the first interview by the first appointee to the new administration, Emanuel told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “This Week” that Obama’s economic plan “at this juncture is based on giving 95 percent of working Americans a tax cut....” During the campaign, Obama promised a $1,000 “Making Work Pay” tax credit.

As government gets more civilized (liberal), it gets more expensive. As education gets distracted by celebrations of diversity, it teaches less and it costs more. As health care has been more regulated, it's gotten more expensive.

“Over the years, the middle class has been squeezed consistently by rising costs on education, health care and energy, as well as a diminishing income,” Emanuel said. “You must have an economic program that focuses on them. … It was built on the fact that the middle had been hurt. And to have a strong recovery, and a sustained recovery over a period of time means that the middle class must the focus of the economic strategy.”

Emanuel’s chief message for the day: “We have a huge economic crisis here at home that is looming large. That is going to be the focus of his policies. … The business of what we have to do when we get sworn in is focusing on what the American people care about. Priority 1 is the economy.”

Despite his discomfort with direct answers, Emanuel got the point across - for work to pay, handouts are needed.

“Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase,” the campaign said. “For 95 percent of workers and their families—150 million workers overall—the ‘Making Work Pay’ credit will provide a refundable tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couple.”

Unintended Consequences

Gun sales have been brisk in recent months out of fear of an Obama presidency.

“He’s a gun-snatcher,” said Jim Pruett, owner of Jim Pruett’s Guns and Ammo in northwest Houston, which was packed with shoppers on Thursday.

“He wants to take our guns from us and create a socialist society policed by his own police force,” added Mr. Pruett, a former radio personality, of President-elect Barack Obama.

Mr. Pruett said that sales last Saturday, just before Election Day, ran about seven times higher than a typical good Saturday.

Why this reaction, considering that Barack's gone out of his way to appear moderate on the issue of gun control? For one, he's a Democrat. Second, here's the only reference to guns I could find on his website.

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

Pat's Tingle

Pat Robertson is as excited by Barack as Michael Moore is.

"He can be one of the great presidents of the United States if he doesn't get pulled to far from the center."

On Palin - "Just not ready for prime time."