USA Today Supreme Court Reporter Joan Biskupic penned an article today titled "O'Connor's legacy fading on reshaped court." For this particular title, "reshaped" is code for "conservative." Biskupic's article laments several recent conservative decisions of the court, and she frames these decisions as a blow to the legacy of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Biskupic literally builds up O'Connor as a national hero.

When retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor visited Capitol Hill recently to speak publicly about her husband's Alzheimer's, she was greeted as a national hero. Senators lauded her historic place as the first woman on the Supreme Court and the justice whose opinions often set the nation's law.

O'Connor, who was frequently the tie-breaking vote in close cases, is further praised for her "middle-ground" practical approach in her decision making. But things have changed since O'Connor's retirement from the high court.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer pressed McCain campaign adviser Carly Fiorina about oil companies "awash in record profits" on Tuesday’s "The Situation Room." The CNN host used ExxonMobil as an example five different times in his questioning. "...ExxonMobil has got these billions and billions of dollars in record profits. They can afford to not necessarily get additional tax cuts."

After Fiorina outlined McCain’s proposal to lower the federal business tax rate at the beginning of the segment, which began 14 minutes into the 5 pm Eastern hour of the CNN program, Blitzer took a persistent stance in asking if the reduction in taxes included "big oil." First, the CNN host asked, "Would that reduction of the tax rate also include, as Obama says, ExxonMobil and the other big oil companies, who are awash in record profits?"

The three broadcast network evening newscasts on Tuesday framed coverage, of a Democratic Senate plan to somehow lower gas prices by imposing a “windfall profits” tax on oil companies which they would just pass on to consumers, around how Republicans “blocked” the effort. No one cast any doubt on the presumption the oil companies are earning “windfall” and/or “excessive” profits.

Fill-in NBC anchor Ann Curry's very short update: “Now to the high price of oil and gas. Senate Republicans today blocked a Democratic plan to impose a windfall profit tax on oil companies.” CBS's Katie Couric, who unlike Curry at least noted how “Republicans said it would have done nothing to lower the price of gas,” asserted: “Senate Republicans today blocked Democrats from slapping a tax on the windfall profits of oil companies.”

ABC twice displayed on screen text favorable to the liberal position: “Senate Republicans block Democratic plan to tax oil companies' windfall profits.” And: “Special tax for excessive oil profits.”

Feminism has been a very disgraced brand for decades. The final nail was placed in the coffin when feminists tried so athletically to see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil with Bill Clinton’s record of serial adultery, sexual harassment, and even a credible accusation of rape. But now that Hillary Clinton has finally conceded to Barack Obama, the media elites have suddenly discovered the glorious and militant cause of women.

Hillary Clinton’s failure wasn’t her fault. It was sexism that ruined her chances.

Feminists have blamed everyone for this crushing burden of sexism. It’s most fun watching them savage the press, the amazing thing being that the media just play along, as if they deserve it, with self-loathing males like CBS’s Harry Smith sitting in their studio chairs cheering them on. "Talk from your gut," Smith urged to ex-Congresswoman Patsy Schroeder, to which she responded as if afflicted by rhetorical rabies, as well as historical hysteria: "It was like they made a witch out of her, some people! You know, we thought the Salem witch trials were over!"

So there I was last Saturday in front of the television, watching the DNC rules committee on cable news. Why exactly I’m not sure. Anyhow I had it on MSNBC and it was pretty mundane stuff. Nothing out of the ordinary really, Howard Dean was droning on about how horrible the Supreme Court majority is in this country, and then, so that he would not be misunderstood - took a personal jab at their collective intelligence - which was roundly and loudly applauded by all in attendance. And to bring together the deeply divided factions that had gathered, he made remarks about “blatantly sexist comments” and conversely “blatantly racist remarks”. With unity briefly restored through mutual put-down, the committee began

Up first were three HRC supporters, each defending Hillary’s honor - some with more success than others - in front of the panel of 27 DNC superstars.

James Roosevelt was head moderator and Robert Wexler was the first Obama supporter to testify on his behalf.

Roosevelt: Up next Senator Robert Wexler
Wexler: thank you Jim,
Roosevelt: Senator Wexler, quick question
Wexler: What’s that?
Roosevelt: Are you aware that I’m FDR’s grandson
Wexler: Yes I am Jim

Chris Matthews was not happy and seemed overly sensitive when John McCain compared Barack Obama to his old boss Jimmy Carter. On Tuesday night's "Hardball," after Matthews played a clip of McCain saying Obama was running for "Carter's second" term, he declared "I don't like it," and tried to write the attack off by saying not enough voters "even remembered voting for the guy."

The following exchanges occurred throughout the June 10 edition of "Hardball":

JOHN HARWOOD, CNBC: Look John McCain has a more complicated task because he's got to try to discredit Obama but also say he's not gonna be like George Bush either. And I think the difficulty of this task is highlighted by, you look at the examples, Barack Obama is saying John McCain would be George Bush's third term and McCain comes back with Jimmy Carter. Well you know there are a lot of voters out there saying, "And who was Jimmy Carter exactly?" They don't remember that.

MATTHEWS: I know.

Presumptive GOP nominee John McCain granted an interview to Newsweek’s Jon Meacham and Holly Bailey, and in the first sign of a long, uphill campaign with the media, McCain was asked how he could defeat such a "hugely gifted politician" in a "brutal year on a clinical level for any Republican to be running." Newsweek’s duo (or most plausibly, Newsweek editor Meacham) lectured McCain not to use a line about change we can’t believe in: "Watching, it struck me that fighting on somebody else's rhetorical field and offering a negative as opposed to a positive is not the most vigorous way forward." When asked about his critiques of the media, McCain buckled under pressure and pledged not to say anything critical about his press coverage.

NEWSWEEK: Sir, Senator Obama is a hugely gifted politician. This is a brutal year on a clinical level for any Republican to be running.

McCain: Um-hmm.

So what's the strategy? How do you overcome those two things?

Chris Matthews put the choice before voters in 2008 in the starkest terms possible on Tuesday's "Hardball" as he claimed a vote for McCain was akin to staying on a sinking Titanic and a vote for Obama was a chance at "deliverance."

Matthews started the day citing the line on "Morning Joe," as first pointed out by Mark Finkelstein, and continued that line of attack later on the June 10 edition of "Hardball":

CHRIS MATTHEWS OPENING SHOW: You're on this big comfortable ocean liner and it's starting to sink. Do you board the little life boat or stay on the big ship with the light still shining, the band still playing? You're the American voter, the year is 2008 and you've got till November to decide. Let's play Hardball!

...

Blame do-nothing Republicans for high gas prices. That was the impression visitors to ABCNews.com got this afternoon.

Among the "top headlines" lineup Web site editors included a story on "Fueling Anger" with the teaser headline: "Rejected! Big Oil Tax Gets Shelved." [see related post about CBSNews.com's bias here]

The accompanying caption to the ABC photo illustration read, "With prices soaring, GOP halts Democrats' wide-ranging energy plan."

The article itself, by writer Z. Byron Wolf, was front-loaded with bias, slamming Republicans for their filibuster of a new windfall profits tax measure while dismissing the GOP's energy plan as ineffective in the short term (emphases mine):

"Good Morning America" highlighted how financial matters have Americans so stressed out, their health is literally deteriorating.

The segment, titled "Recession Depression," blamed personal issues on the "troubled" economy. ABC made yet another comparison between today's economy and the economy during the Great Depression. Only this time, the reference was used to predict a rise in suicides.

"The link between financial troubles and psychological problems is well documented," said ABC reporter Chris Cuomo.

Alessandra Stanley, the New York Times's reporter on the TV beat, framed the 2008 presidential campaign in her own inimitable way in the lead story of the special Emmy section of Sunday's paper, terming the Barack-Hillary contest the hit of the season in "No Debate: It's Great TV."

But Stanley really stretched things when, in a slanted attempt to get John McCain into the mix, she cited hypothetical people who prefer the original, rather campy Battlestar Galactica series, starring Lorne Greene, to the award-winning re-launch on the Sci Fi Channel.

Answer: Just two videos (see screencap at right).

Inspired by featured CNN.com video of a McCain gaffe -- wherein the Arizona senator says he'd veto every beer -- I decided to search the CNN.com Web site for video of Obama gaffes.

I got a grand total of two.

Now, to be fair, searching "McCain gaffe" yielded no videos of McCain gaffes, but one from November 2006 entitled "Kerry's gift of gaffe," referring to the liberal Massachusetts senator and 2004 Democratic nominee and his suggestion that American troops were stupid.

All the same, given Sen. Obama's numerous gaffes, it is notable that only two videos surface when one does a search for them:

The supposedly surprising rejection of the Lieberman-Warner climate bill last week had an element that Old Media in the US hasn't covered, but is very relevant.

While the press is ever eager to jump on politicians who fly in the face of supposed "world opinion" when it goes against US positions and traditions, it has been virtually silent over how "the rest of the world" has been rejecting the true linchpin of government climate policies: supposedly climate change-related higher taxes and fees. Surely some of the green-leaning Senators who were supposedly on board but voted against cloture were not blind to this.

Consider the following:

"Republicans Block Taxes on Big Oil Profits" blares the teaser headline on the front page of CBSNews.com. Under a graphic of the Capitol dome and a fuel gauge nearing empty, the caption reads "Senate GOP Stops Dems' Effort To Rein In Profits Of Largest Oil Companies As Gas Prices Soar."

That's a lot of bias packed into 24 words, and that's before the reader gets to the actual article. Notice the lack of cynicism as to the motive of the Democrats, who are painted on the side of consumers against industry, although the primary beneficiary of a windfall tax would be, well, the Democratic Congress.

There are limits to what you can properly communicate in a headline, but a more neutral treatment might have been: "Republicans Block Advance of Oil Profit Tax: Democrats say tax will encourage alternative fuel research, Republicans argue it will worsen energy problems."

In the AP/CBS article itself, oil industry claims that a windfall tax is counterproductive were summarily dismissed with a populist soundbite by a Democratic politician:

Mark this date, June 10, 2008, on your calendars as the day someone in the Obama-loving media finally asked the Democrat presidential nominee a tough question.

Potentially even more surprising, the question and answer were posted at ABC News's website.

Is this a rare moment of clarity for a press member, or is this a sign the kid gloves are coming off now that Obama has won the nomination?

While you ponder, take a gander at what ABC's Jake Tapper posted at his blog Tuesday (emphasis added):

Typically one does not associate the word inquisition with our neighbors up north in Canada, and yet that is pretty much what is going on there to conservative author and columnist Mark Steyn. Minus the violence, Steyn is being subjected to a twisted court system that always finds defendants guilty and conducts itself in an utterly capricious way.

Steyn's crime? Daring to criticize radical Islam, an offense that many in this country would would no doubt love to criminalize. For his temerity, Steyn and the Canadian magazine Maclean's (which printed Steyn's essay, an excerpt from his book) are being put on trial by the "human rights commission" of British Columbia, one of several such bodies both Steyn and Maclean's have been forced to deal with by the Canadian Islamic Congress. Incredibly, the group claims that its human rights were violated because Maclean's did not allow one of its members a chance to respond in the publication.

What to do about this outrage? The editors at National Review have a few suggestions: