Mark Shields: Obama Created More Jobs In 2010 Than Bush Did In Eight Years

Mark Shields on Friday demonstrated just how far a liberal media member is willing to go to support President Obama and the Democrat Party.

Appearing on PBS's "Inside Washington," Shields actually made the case that despite a 9.6 percent unemployment rate, and growing fears of a double dip recession, Americans should be uplifted by the fact that more private sector jobs have been created this year than during the entire Bush administration.

Showing just how adept he is at repeating Democrat talking points, Shields even said this with a straight face (video follows with transcript and commentary): 

MARK SHIELDS: I think the President's task right now is compared to the situation the nation is comparable to a subway train that has stopped suddenly between two scheduled stops and the lights go out. And what the American people are looking for just as the passengers on that train are looking for is a voice that comes on and says, "This is what happened, this is what's being done about it, and this when we are going to get out." And, I mean, just the simple fact that more jobs in the private sector have been created in this year, 2010, this terrible year, then were created in the eight years of George W. Bush's administration is something to think about and to mention.

To paraphrase Hillary Clinton, any American buying this nonsense would have to have a willing suspension of disbelief.

After all, when Obama took over the White House, the unemployment rate was 7.7 percent. There are now almost three million more Americans out of work than when the 44th President was sworn in.

As for the private sector, it has shed over 3 million workers since January 2009.

Does Shields really believe the 763,000 employees added to such payrolls in the past eight months is something to brag about given that with population and labor force growth, the economy has to produce at least 150,000 jobs a month just to keep the unemployment rate from rising?

Or is it necessary for the most highly-skilled liberal shills to ignore such facts when they're inconvenient?