Press coverage of Barack Obama's Social Security proposal in Columbus, Ohio last week made many of the usual mistakes any time there's a story about the government's "third rail" program. But in this case it missed what would be a historic de-linkage of payments made into the system from benefits paid out.

First, here are the key paragraphs from the Cincinnati Enquirer's coverage of Obama's speech (bolds are mine):

Sen. Barack Obama promised senior citizens Friday that as president, he would protect Social Security benefits and provide universal health care.

To extend the life of Social Security, Obama proposed applying a payroll tax to annual incomes above $250,000, affecting the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans. The Democrat also proposed eliminating income tax for any retiree making less than $50,000.

..... Obama said it is unfair for middle-class earners to pay the Social Security tax "on every dime they make," while millionaires and billionaires pay it on only "a very small percentage of their income."

This is not a bias-busting item. On this Father's Day, Washington Post Magazine columnist Jeanne Marie Laskas has a nice piece on how good, involved fathers make strong, confident daughters. It's encouraging to read. Laskas figures out that her husband's a good dad because he loves his girls, not just to be satisfied with himself:

I always knew he was a good dad. Somehow, I never really considered the motivation. Somehow, I had it in my mind that being a good dad was a matter of pride. Something a man does for himself. Like waxing a car; he does it to stand back and feel proud of the shine.

My friend put a new light on it. Fatherhood: a vital job a man does or doesn't do -- impacting so much future, blazing a path toward lasting love.

A profile of MSNBC host Keith Olbermann by Peter J. Boyer in the current edition of the New Yorker gives us a good clue as to why the man known for his laughable impressions of Edward R. Murrow is so antagonistic towards CBS Evening News Anchor Katie Couric. She beat him out of a job as anchor at CBS. Yes, you read that right. In fact I had to read it twice in amazement when the article, "One Angry Man," stated that the CBS execs actually considered Olbermann for the anchor position (emphasis mine):

.... for its item on John McCain's age, it picked this one from the Associated Press:

Alan Silverleib's article also contradicted itself within the space of just a few sentences:

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Happy Father's Day!

The New York Times published a story about a fundraiser that John McCain cancelled. They published the following pushback from the campaign:

“These were obviously incredibly offensive remarks that the campaign was unaware of at the time it was scheduled,” said Brian Rogers, a spokesman for the McCain campaign. “It’s positive that he did apologize at the time, but the comments are nonetheless offensive.”

However, when The Hill and the Washington Post published the story, they published pushback from the RNC that included information about one of Barack Obama's fundraisers, Jodie Evans:

“While Obama and Democrats launch attacks on Republicans, their silence concerning fundraisers like [Code Pink co-founder] Jodie Evans and Jim Johnson is deafening,” said RNC spokesman Alex Conant. “Obama’s hypocritical attacks undermine everything his campaign is supposed to be about.”

Note that Evans advocated working with Saddam Hussein as human shields in 2002 and 2003, thereby deliberately undermining US foreign policy. Williams Clayton has apologized, while Evans never has.

Why did the NYT feel that this was an appropriate story to (1) publish in the paper, but (2) not use the same response as other papers that pointed out that Obama had even more questionable links?

Yes, we had some issues back there.

Somehow our domain was not renewed this year thanks to some bureaucratic errors. It's now fixed. We apologize for the interruption.

For those of you who miss seeing a good conservative political cartoon, Michael Ramirez is the cream of the crop. I have posted a link to his cartoon page below for those who would like to take a break and have a laugh. The link will always take you to his latest cartoon. Tell your friends. :0)

RAMIREZ CARTOON >>

The front page of Sunday’s Washington Post featured an article headlined "At Obama’s Former Church, Hurt Lingers: Black Congregations Feel Marginalized by Uproar." The story that followed by Post reporters Eli Saslow and Hamil Harris took a sympathetic tack toward the poor, poor Jeremiah Wright and his followers without making any attempt to address the bizarre statements that caused such controversy. America deserved 9/11 for its own terrorism? The federal government created AIDS for black genocide? At their most specific, it was defined simply as "a landslide of negative video" and "right-wing political attacks" that left Obama’s fellow believers "marginalized and vilified."

Are the Post’s editors and reporters trying to suggest that bizarre lies like the government created AIDS to kill black people should not be marginalized? They shouldn’t be criticized? What sort of role does The Washington Post take as a newspaper, to suggest that vicious falsehoods should apparently not be condemned when they emanate from "marginalized" communities?

Here’s the meat of the Saslow and Harris story, lamenting the tragedy at Trinity United Church of Christ:

Irish voters struck a blow for national sovereignty a few days ago, and the world's media elites didn't like it one bit.

Here's how the UK Guardian opened its "Darn those voters" coverage Friday morning:

Ireland today decisively rejected the Lisbon treaty on European Union reform, plunging the project into chaos.

Humiliated at the polls, the Irish prime minister, Brian Cowen, admitted the country's no vote had been a potential setback for Europe.

..... Less than 1% of the EU's 490 million citizens appear to have scuppered the deal mapped out in Lisbon that was meant to shape Europe in the 21st century.

Social liberalism is on the march at The Washington Post. On Friday, the Post took a bold new step in celebrating homosexuality and the oncoming push against the "hateful" influence of traditional religion by putting the Capital Pride Festival on the front page of its Friday "Weekend" section, which I've never seen happen before. It carried the promotional headline "PRIDE...brings 200,000 people to the District’s gay and lesbian festival. Hear their voices, Page 25." The illustration is two different colored hands holding with a rainbow of different fingernail colors. Inside, Post writer Ellen McCarthy highlighted the liberal politics:

In an election year, though, and at a time when gay marriage and lawsuits contesting it are front-page news, Capital Pride isn't concerned only with celebration.

"Despite our gains, it is a political statement -- to be right there on Pennsylvania Avenue with the Capitol in the background," Mallory says.