P.J. Gladnick's blog

Keith Olbermann seems to be suffering from a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease during the Democrat convention coverage. As noted earlier by NewsBusters' Mark Finkelstein, Olbermann, after commenting ecstatically about Michelle Obama's speech declared that he was "beginning to sound borderline sycophantic."

Also last night, an open mic caught Olbermann dissing fellow MSNBC team member, Joe Scarborough using profanity to describe his apparent disgust with Scarborough's analysis that Barack Obama has been falling behind in the polls.

"Jesus, Joe, why don't you get a shovel?" Olbermann snorted. Watch the video to the right or read the partial transcript below:

In yet another example of why more and more people are turning to the Web for their news, the DBKP blog has just uncovered information that the John Edwards campaign has been refunding campaign contributions even before billionaire Warren Buffett suggested that Edwards could be hit with a class action lawsuit. And can you guess which of the two of Edwards' Americas got the majority of the refunds? DBKP explains:

The Edwards ‘08 Campaign for President has quietly refunded almost $4 million to individual contributors, a number of them, bundlers and big backers. This should be news to Warren Buffet who recently mused that Edwards’ supporters should get together and file a class action suit. It seems another “class” has already had their contributions refunded–and it’s not the “grassroots” little guys.

It's hard to dislike political consultant Bob Shrum. Because of the Shrum Curse, he is exactly 0 for 8 in getting the presidential candidates he worked for elected starting with George McGovern in 1972 and most recently John Kerry in 2004. And because all of the candidates he worked for have been Democrats, that is why he is so well liked by Republicans because of his reputation as the Eddie Mush of presidential campaigns.

In case you are unfamiliar with Eddie Mush, he was the character in the movie "A Bronx Tale" who was a total jinx. He had a perfect track record of losing every bet he ever placed as well as jinxing everyone around him. That pretty much describes Bob Shrum so it must have been painful for Shrum to answer this reader's question in the UK Independent: "Would you give up your other victories to have gotten one Democratic president elected?" You can tell that Shrum was a bit irked in his reply:

Now that Barack Obama has chosen Joe Biden to be his running mate, it will be interesting to see how some journalists will distance themselves from their own scathing opinions of Biden in the past. One such case is that of Jonathan Chait, The New Republic editor, who was very downbeat on Biden in a Los Angeles Times article published on February 4, 2007. Of course, back then it was "safe" to be honest about Joe Biden since it looked like his presidential bid was going nowhere. The very title of Chait's article, "Joe Biden’s just a barrel of gaffes," explains the problems the Obama campaign is going to have with the new vice-presidential pick. Back then Chait was very blunt about Biden's problems as a candidate:

...Biden’s charming cluelessness was on display in a recent ABC news interview. The famously verbose senator was asked to state in 25 words or less why Democrats should nominate him. His response was 45 words. I suppose that, by Biden’s standards, coming in at just under twice his allotted length counts as a victory of sorts.

The liberals have already come up with their excuse for why Barack Obama might lose the election in November. It wouldn't be because of his inexperience, poor judgement, or far left political views. No, the real reason according to Slate's Jacob Weisberg is racism.

The proposition is put in the title of his article, "If Obama Loses," with his answer given in the subtitle, "Racism is the Only Reason McCain Might Beat Him."

And, of course, Obama's recent poll plunge can only be attributed to you-know-what:

Imagine if a prominent Mitt Romney supporter who was a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania as well as former Republican Party chair in Montgomery County in that state had filed a lawsuit against John McCain questioning his eligibility to become president. How many milliseconds after the filing of that lawsuit do you think it would take for that news to be prominently featured on the New York Times website as well as the many other MSM websites?

When I first read Seth Grahame-Smith's July 1 blog in the Huffington Post I had a nice chuckle starting with the title, "All of McCain's Base Belongs to Us; Why It Won't Even Be Close." Grahame-Smith's over the top confidence in the certainty of Barack Obama's election victory was so gloatingly bold as to be quite hilarious in its assertions (emphasis mine):

It's over.

It's mathematically impossible for John McCain to win.

Were the great Tim Russert still with us, he would call the election for Obama at 7pm Eastern time. No, I'm not talking about November 4th -- I mean tonight.

Yup! It was all over as of July 1. However, Grahame-Smith was only getting warmed up:

Can anybody out there figure out whom "undecided" Miami Herald columnist Myriam Marquez will ultimately vote for in the November election? Gee. It is really tough to figure it out but perhaps we can investigate a few elusive clues starting with the title of her column, "McCain must move past old Bush mantra." Hmm... Not enough information there. Perhaps we can discover Marquez's preference by analyzing her column which discusses the appearences of both candidates at the VFW convention in Orlando. First the money quote from Ms Marquez:

Still on the fence, like so many other undecided Americans, I'm hoping to see McCain move beyond the old Bush mantra of ''you're either with us or against us'' and patch this blue-state and red-state quilt into one proud nation again.

Ooh! She's on the fence and undecided. Right now, after viewing that Bush slam and the title, I still have absolutely no idea whom Marquez will vote for. Let us first investigate what she had to say about John McCain:

I've always liked McCain's independent style, but the statesman seems to have morphed into an intransigent mini-Bush.

As NewsBusters editor Matthew Sheffield recently wrote, the John Edwards scandal demonstrates why the public is moving to the Web for news. A big reason for the public relying more and more on the Web for news is that the blogosphere is willing to do the investigative footwork that the mainstream media often neglects. A perfect illustration of this are the revelations made today by the DBKP blog about the suspicious aircraft leasing arrangements made by John Edwards' moneyman, Fred Baron:

John Edwards and Fred Baron have had a close relationship over the last ten years. Both Edwards and Baron are successful trial attorneys and both shared the dream of seeing John Edwards elected President.

Both may, at some point, want to share some information on campaign travel billings.

Who says that Mother Nature doesn't have a sense of humor? First we have an August 14 report from the Lithgow Mercury in Australia announcing a Climate Torch relay to draw attention to the importance of global warming:

The Olympic torch relay might not have made it to our part of the world but tomorrow Lithgow will share in another torch relay of global importance.

And you are invited to take part.

An organisation called GetUp! has arranged a Climate Torch relay from Hassans Walls lookout to Queen Elizabeth Park as part of a nation-wide campaign to focus even more attention on the impact and urgency of global warming.

A spokesman said that through GetUp! the community has an opportunity to show the nation’s leaders how important the issue is to the man and woman in the street.

“By taking part in this Australia wide campaign the people of Lithgow can show the rest of the country that we are prepared to stand up — and walk —for what we believe in,” she said.

Anyone who can’t make it to Hassans Walls for the start is welcome to join in anywhere along the route to the park.

The Climate Torch was designed by the same people who designed the Olympic Torch.

First we had NBC's Andrea Mitchell floating the idea that perhaps John McCain did so well at last night's faith-based forum at the Saddleback Church because he "cheated." Not to be outdone in providing cover for Barack Obama's poor performance, we now have Ryan Corsaro, an assignment editor for the National Desk at CBS News in New York, accusing McCain of not following instructions. Corsaro's liberal bias oozed out in the very title of his CBS News blog entry: "Despite Request, McCain Resorted to Stock Answers at Faith Forum." And in whose opinion did McCain resort to "stock answers?" Why in the very liberal opinion of one Ryan Corsaro who did little to hide his disdain for McCain while providing cover for Obama's evasive answers:

So just how bad was Barack Obama's performance at the Saddleback Church faith-based forum last night? To read the cautious mainstream media reports, such as CNN, on the event you would think that Obama was merely "thoughtful" as reported by Michael M. Bates here on NewsBusters today. However, in a few media outlets a much blunter appraisal of Obama's performance can be found such as in the U.K. Telegraph. The very title of their article, "Barack Obama fails to shine alongside John McCain," gives a good idea of writer Alex Spillius' opinion of the event (emphasis mine):

As a regular church-goer comfortable talking about his faith, Mr Obama is ostensibly better placed than most recent Democratic candidates to win over evangelicals.

Although the mainstream media has finally started to report on the John Edwards scandal now that he has admitted to an affair on ABC's Nightline following several reports by the National Enquirer, they continue to fall way behind in investigative reporting compared to the blogosphere. This is yet another reason why the public is relying more and more on the web for news rather than the MSM as NewsBusters editor, Matthew Sheffield, reported yesterday both here in NewsBusters and at the Washington Times. So what is the MSM excuse for being so far behind the ball in reporting on the Edwards scandal?

Did you know that Idaho Senator Larry Craig is going to speak at the Republican convention? Okay, I'm just kidding but can you imagine the reaction from the media if that were the case? We would hear never ending stories about the "culture of corruption" inherent in the Republican party. Well, guess what? Former Alabama governor Don Siegelman who was convicted on bribery and mail fraud charges, is going to be a speaker at the Democratic convention in Denver according to this report from WHNT TV in Huntsville, Alabama. And if you want to know what the media reaction will be to this, we already have a sneak preview of biased reporting in the WHNT story by Greg Privett announcing Siegelman's convention appearance (emphasis mine):

Don Siegelman will speak at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Siegelman tells NewsChannel 19 he has accepted an invitation extended by the Colorado delegation.

Are you a concerned liberal living in fear that you are destroying the planet via global warming? Good news! There is now a solution from Australia. Eat kangaroos. I kid you not. This is the latest in the ever growing list of "scientific" solutions to counter supposed global warming as reported by Keith Johnson in his Wall Street Journal blog, Environmental Capital:

The math goes like this. Australia is trying to figure out how to cut its emissions of greenhouse gases without crippling the economy. Cattle and sheep, by grace of their bodily functions, emit a lot of greenhouse gases—about 11% of Australia’s total emissions, and about two-thirds as much as all the cars and trucks in Australia. Kangaroos don’t, because they have a different digestive system. So if kangaroos replaced part of the cattle herds as a food source, Australia could cut its emissions by 16 million tons, or 3%, ranchers could earn hundreds of millions of dollars—and there’d still be plenty of juicy steaks.

Despite the many mea culpas by the mainstream media about their failure to report on the John Edwards scandal in the wake of Edwards' admission of an affair with his mistress last Friday, they continue to make the same errors as before. Following an initial flurry of reporting about what Edwards said on ABC's Nightline and some analysis of the scandal, the MSM still continues to leave the bulk of the investigative reporting to both the National Enquirer and the blogosphere.

One area they have yet to do any basic footwork is in determining just how many meetings Edwards had with Rielle Hunter at the Beverly Hilton and when they occurred. In this case it is Lee Stranahan who was banned from the Daily Kos for daring to bring up the subject of the Edwards scandal who is once again leading the way in his Huffington Post blog:

The shellfish are coming! The shellfish are coming!

In our previous episode of Global Warming Alarmist Theater, All Creatures Slithering and Slimy, we saw alarmist forecasts about how giant snakes would take over America. In the current episode, All Creatures Creepy and Crawly, written by San Francisco Chronicle "science" writer David Perlman, he relays a prediction of a Pacific Ocean shellfish invasion of the North Atlantic:

Pacific Ocean shellfish - the mussels and snails, the clams and cockles - are heading for a mass invasion into the North Atlantic that could alter the entire ecology of both oceans as sea ice vanishes from the warming high Arctic, two California scientists predict.

The Miami Herald has reacted to charges that one of its opinion page contributors was a Cuban espionage agent with an article that is both low in substance and high in anger. The background to this story, about how the media is using "expert" analysis from professors identified by the U.S. government as Cuban spies, was reported last Tuesday in NewsBusters by Lynn Davidson. This is Davidson's description of that Herald opinion page contributor:

The John Edwards admission yesterday that he did have an affair with his mistress opened up not only the floodgates of coverage which was previously in short supply on this issue in the mainstream media but also of a new candor by that same group. One such example of the latter was the startling praise given to the National Enquirer by Elizabeth Snead of the Los Angeles Times Dish Rag blog:

The National Enquirer tabloid is looking pretty darn legit right about now.

The story of the John Edwards and Rielle Hunter affair has pretty much been theirs and theirs alone since the tab first reported it last October. Recently, they reported that the former senator had been in the Beverly HIlton Hotel with Hunter and that he hid in the men's room of the hotel from their reporters.

Mark August 7, 2008 on your calendars. That was the day that the John Edwards scandal finally "pierced" the Los Angeles Times blogs following an earlier e-mail from Times editor Tony Pierce muzzling his staff (emphasis mine):

Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.

The Democratic convention, now looming ever closer on the horizon, is facing a crises that threatens to distract attention from Barack Obama. It is John Edwards and the scandal surrounding him. Apparently, Edwards was slated to have a prominent role as a speaker at the convention but now Democrats are worried about letting him appear on stage as reported by Mark Johnson of the McClatchy Washington Bureau (emphasis mine):

RALEIGH, N.C. — Former Sen. John Edwards has a deadline to save his spot on the national stage.

With two weeks to go before their national convention, a number of Democrats are saying that Edwards needs to publicly address National Enquirer stories that have alleged he had an affair with a campaign worker and fathered her baby.

If Edwards fails to clear up the story in short order, he risks party officials deciding not to have him speak or, if they do, creating a distraction from a week focused on Barack Obama accepting the nomination.

Scandal? What scandal?

The efforts by the mainstream media to pretend that there is no scandal hanging over John Edwards can cause some rather comical reporting. One such case was a report by Stephanie Davis of McClatchy Interactive which appeared in the San Luis Obispo Tribune. Ms Davis was analyzing the backgrounds of various political figures considered to be possible running mates with Barack Obama including John Edwards:

Perhaps it takes a foreigner looking from the outside in to give us a clear look at the overall meaning of the mainstream media silence on the alleged John Edwards scandal. In this case it is Guy Adams writing in his US Media Diary in the UK Independent about "The 'scoop' the US papers ignored." (emphasis mine):

That old cliché about everything being bigger in America seems especially pertinent when attempting to describe the sheer scale of the crisis currently afflicting the US newspaper industry, which makes all Fleet Street's woes look like a summer picnic.

Last week, The Los Angeles Times decided to flog its historic downtown offices, on top of sacking 150 of its 870 journalists. So did The Chicago Tribune. Almost every title in the land is now shedding staff; a hundred New York Times hacks have been offered voluntary redundancy; Newsweek recently announced cuts. It's a bloodbath out there, as US media companies attempt to claw a pound of flesh from haemorrhaging readerships.

So just how upset do you think the leftwing blogosphere is over Barack Obama's latest policy switch on offshore oil drilling? You can get a good idea of the passion generated by this flip flop by noting that the Huffington Post currently has over 4700 comments on this topic. In addition, there is a tidal wave of outrage at both the Democratic Underground and the Daily Kos on Obama's apparent reversal on his prior stand of opposition to more offshore oil drilling. The story that the HUffington Post commenters reacted to so overwhelmingly was titled, "Obama Shifts, Says He May Back Offshore Drilling":

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

The Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel yesterday bid farewell to their managing editor, Sharon Rosenhause, along with the very position of managing editor itself. One can only hope that the Sun-Sentinel will also abolish the unofficial post of "diversity queen" by which Rosenhause was also known. Many newspapers have a "diversity queen" which almost always means diversity of ethnicity or gender but not diverse opinions. Although Gregory Lewis in his Sun-Sentinel blog enthusiastically gushed that the departing Rosenhause was "the Queen of Newspaper Diversity," the comments on Bob Norman's Broward-Palm Beach New Times Daily Pulp reveal a rather bleak opinion about her and "diversity." An example is this comment from John de Groot:

Pity she wasn't a "champion" for talented journalists capable of knowing the difference between what is interesting and what is not.

And this from "Amy" who apparently had a sad run-in with the diversity queen:

A television writer for the Kansas City Star, Aaron Barnhart, who stayed at the Beverly Hilton at the same time the National Enquirer reporters and John Edwards were engaged in a Yakety Sax Benny Hill chase in that hotel, is claiming that the Edwards scandal story has finally "trickled out" into the mainstream media. Barnhart makes some interesting observations but comes to  erroneous conclusions:

Who knew that the biggest story to break at the television critics' tour would happen while we were all in our rooms getting some shut-eye?

In the wee hours of Tuesday, July 22, John Edwards — the former senator from North Carolina, former presidential candidate and running mate in 2004 — was confronted by reporters for the National Enquirer at a men's room of the Beverly Hilton, the very hotel where TCA summer press tour had concluded a few hours earlier. They believed he was there to pay a visit to the child he had fathered out of wedlock and the baby's mother, an ex-campaign staffer named Rielle Hunter.

Yesterday, small cracks began emerging in the mainstream media wall of silence on the alleged John  Edwards scandal. However, early this AM one of those cracks widened to the extent that there is now a major flow of information on this topic in the form of a report  titled, "Facing questions, Edwards evades reporters,"  in Edwards own hometown newspaper, the Raleigh News & Observer (emphasis mine):

It was only three weeks ago that John Edwards was fielding media questions on his chances of filling the Democratic Party's vice presidential slot on Barack Obama's ticket or a potential Cabinet position in an Obama administration.

On Wednesday, however, the former U.S. senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee was eager to duck the press when the questions took a tabloid turn.

It's a strange dichotomy. While NBC News  continues to maintain a wall of silence regarding the alleged John Edwards scandal, the comedians on that network are having a field day joking about it. On Monday night Jay Leno told the following John Edwards joke:

John Edwards asks Kobe Bryant, 'What's a good jewelry store?'

Conan O'Brien went even further on Tuesday night with an extended  joke that incorporated video shots of his band leader, Max Weinberg, as well as trombonist Richie "LaBamba" Rosenberg:

The controversy over Wikipedia's censorship of any update regarding the alleged John Edwards scandal as chronicled by your humble correspondent yesterday has taken an interesting new turn. Wikipedia, in response to this controversy, has now made an announcement at the top of their John Edwards entry:

This page is currently protected from editing until July 30, 2008 or until disputes have been resolved. This protection is not an endorsement of the current version. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may use the {{editprotected}} template to ask an administrator to make the edit if it is supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected.

Wikipedia, which allowed verb tenses for their Tim Russert entry to be changed from present to past tense about a half hour before the official announcement of his death, is suddenly going ultra legal in its refusal to allow their John Edwards entry to be updated with mention of the alleged scandal which was reported in the National Enquirer with many of the details confirmed by Fox News. Suddenly Wikipedia has become a stickler for confirmation detail before the Edwards entry can be updated. To get an idea of how much Wikipedia is twisting itself into a pretzel to justify their refusal to update their John Edwards entry, one needs only to look at their pained, but comedically entertaining, discussions of this matter in their "Tabloid scandal accusations" section:

As many are aware, Edwards has been accused of scandalous actions by a supermarket tabloid. As per Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living persons, including information about the tabloids claims is inappropriate at this time because the tabloid does not qualify as a reliable source and current reports in more reputable news sources do not confirm the claims, only reporting the fact the tabloid has published claims about Edward's actions. The same policy that prevents inclusion of the accusations within the article also prevent details from being included on this talk page.