In an "analysis" on how President Obama is dealing with the race issue, AP writer Charles Babington seems to have based his take on what happened to Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. on the assumption that Gates was arrested for being black in his home, not that he was arrested for disorderly conduct and for his outrageous disrespect for a police officer -- something to which other police officers involved attest, officers that are themselves minorities.

Babington so soft-pedals Obama's gaffe against the police officers, leaving out so many details that, after reading the story, one finds it difficult to understand why Obama's words were so controversial. And it's all in a seeming effort to cover for the president and try to help him reclaim the high ground on race in America. The whole Babington piece appears to be far more of an effort to smooth the waters for Obama instead of provide any actual analysis of the incident.

Calling Obama's reaction to the Gates arrest "understated" and "perhaps obvious," Babington goes on to say that Gates was arrested in his home -- without giving any context at all -- and assumes that even with Obama in the White House race is still a major problem in America.

Harold Ford, Jr. is the epitome of the equivocating politician who tries to play things both ways.  But that strategy came a cropper for the MSNBC contributor on Morning Joe today. 

Ford claimed that though Letterman was wrong to make sexual jokes about Sarah Palin's teenage daughter, somehow the Palins are "unique," and thus presumably an understandable target. Mika Brzezinski came down on him.  A clearly uncomfortable Ford was soon seeking cover.

If naiveté were a crime, Jesse Jackson Jr. could be looking at a life sentence.  Either that, or Senate candidate 5 wasn't being completely candid in his press conference this afternoon.

Jackson professed shock that Rod Blagojevich—a man who long before this week's arrest had a Katrina-sized cloud over his head—might have been conducting his Senate-seat search in accordance with anything but the most Mother Teresa-worthy standards.

Excerpts from Jackson's statement:

Few Republicans have made it onto MSNBC air during the network's Dem convention coverage, but even that is apparently too much for Keith Olbermann.  As Chris Matthews was interviewing GOP consultant Mike Murphy in the interlude between Bill Clinton and Joe Biden tonight, Olbermann could be heard off-camera angrily demanding "let's wrap him up, alright?"

It was Murphy's surmise that, in the privacy of the polling booth, Bill and Hilary would pull the lever for McCain that seemed to set Olbermann off, prompting him to call for the hook.

MIKE MURPHY: I think Hillary and Bill Clinton are the happiest people in town because they came, they both crushed in good speeches, and they left.  And now they can go do what I would bet money they'll do which is quietly vote for John S. McCain. I believe that. I believe it.  I believe it.

When Rush Limbaugh opened today's show by mentioning that the New York Times had relegated to page A19 the story of the ridding of Al Qaeda-in-Iraq from all of Baghdad, I actually thought he might be joking. Surely not even the Times could be so brazenly biased as to bury such a huge story reflecting the success of the surge.

But, sure enough, Rush was right. Page A19 is precisely the remote location to which the Times banished the story. And to further diminish the number of people who would learn the good news, the paper stuck this bland headline on it:

How many times have we seen it where the MSM refuses to mention the Party affiliation of an accused public figure, convicted felon or otherwise notorious personage if that person in the news happens to be a Democrat? It seems to happen nearly other day in the MSM, doesn't it? Conversely, should that newsworthy person be a Republican, well the MSM seems to fall all over themselves to mention that he is a Republican -- and usually in the first few sentences. Well, it looks like the MSM is now branching out to mentioning party status even of relatives of a notorious person in the news should there be a Republican in the family! It's as if just having a Republican family member alone explains the bad conduct as far as the Media are concerned.

Here we have the case of one William Smith, Jr., who is currently waiting to find out if the U.S. government is going to acquiesce to a request by the government of Peru for his extradition to face murder charges. Smith is accused of murdering his Peruvian wife while living in that country. It's a sad story of internet dating gone bad, and tawdry all the way around. Certainly, we hope justice is done.

But HOW does Smith's Father being a local Republican have anything to do with this story?

Projection: The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others.

Could Maureen Dowd's idée fixe -- that Republicans seek father figures -- be the projection of the columnist's deep-seated desire for a strong man of her own? Dowd's columns are as much pop psychology as political commentary. The NY Times columnist understands virtually everything in terms of the underlying impulses of the id, ego and super-ego.

When it comes to presidential preferences, Dowd's theory is that Republicans seek strong men who will dole out discipline and authority. Take today's [p.p.v.] opus, Old School Inanity, in which Dowd twice trots out her father-figure formula [emphasis added]: