Barack Obama has broken barriers with his history-making electoral victory and for that he deserves a congratulatory note.  But now that the seemingly endless campaign has wrapped, the adoration he was afforded by American media outlets hasn’t subsided.

Unfortunately, mainstream media outlets are too busy basking in the glories of Obama’s sweeping success to maintain even a base level of scrutiny. Of course, this inability to be objective did not suddenly emerge following Obama’s victory; the media have been enamored by Obama since early 2007, as they have created and sustained what appears to be a lasting love affair.

While I can easily delve into a long-winded diatribe about the media’s insane infatuation with Obama, I’m not sure that it would be necessary to do so.  After all, most polls show that the American people are more than aware of the media’s leftist inclinations.

From August until November, the mainstream media lambasted Gov. Sarah Palin.  From the failure to quickly correct the erroneous (not to mention hateful) stories about Trig Palin’s birth mother to the continued sexism that was prevalent in the majority of news stories, the media gleefully chiseled away at Palin’s image.  Meanwhile, Barack Obama escaped without a scratch, as media outlets actually went out of their way to baselessly portray him as a reformer who is sure to bring “hope” and “change” to Washington.

Following suit with their pre-election adoration, the media have literally ignored the ironic picks Obama has made for his incoming admin posts.  The man who promised us “change” has thus far called upon Washington insiders (i.e. former Clintonians) to fill cabinet posts.  While this may be looked upon as a smart move in terms of nominating individuals who have a record of what some on the left call success, it exemplifies the “more of the same” attitude Obama has railed against so enthusiastically in his rhetoric.

Aside from the media’s failure to critique this blatant fact, there is one pick, in particular, that has barely been vetted by the Fourth Estate.  On November 17^th, the Politico reported that Obama will select Gregory B. Craig for the White House counsel post.  For those readers who are not familiar with the role of the White House counsel, the Politico explains:

“The White House counsel, among the most powerful members of the West Wing inner circle, serves as the president’s lawyer, giving him legal advice and handling pardons and conflict-of-interest issues. “

While this might seem arbitrary to many Americans who are less than familiar with Craig, a cursory look at his past clientele is stunning.  According to the Williams and Connolly LLP web site (Craig is a partner at the firm),  “In 2000, Mr. Craig successfully represented Elian Gonzalez’s father, Mr. Juan Miguel Gonzalez, in administrative and court proceedings involving Mr. Gonzalez’s effort to regain custody of his son, Elian.“  Yes, this is the same Elian Gonzalez who was sent back to communist Cuba after his mother died trying to bring him to the United States.

Additionally, Craig represented Kofi Annan, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, “…to defend his interests in the Volcker Commission probe of the Oil-for-Food scandal, which put billions of dollars into Saddam Hussein’s pockets while providing cash for Annan’s son, his deputies, and some allege Annan himself.”

Despite the fact that Craig served on Obama’s campaign, he also represented Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial (he deflected from Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the primaries).

And it gets worse.  There are two clients who cause the others to shrink to mere obscurity.  The first — Pedro Miguel González  – is a fugitive who is under federal indictment for his alleged 1992 murder of Zak Hernández, a U.S. Army sergeant.  While The Dallas Morning News called upon Barack Obama to ask Craig to choose between the Obama campaign and representation of González, HotAir reports that there is no easy-to-find documentation on whether Craig did, indeed, drop the case.

The last client is indefinitely the most concerning.  Craig represented John Hickley, Jr., the man who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan.  Thanks to Craig, Hinckley was granted an insanity defense.

I must agree with HotAir’s Ed Morrissey: This pick is disgraceful.  Can you imagine what would have happened if McCain (pending he won the election) chose someone with a similar past?  Mainstream media outlets would rampantly run headlines like “McCain Plans to Nominate Wannabe Presidential Assassin,” “Many Call McCain Pick a Disgrace” or “McCain Pick Raises Eyebrows.”  But, in this case, the presses are relatively silent.  Surprise!

While Gregory Craig has surely had a successful career and his talents in the legal realm should not be downplayed, the moral fabrics associated with the clientele he has willingly chosen fall short of the “hope” and “change” Obama has pledged to bring to Washington.  This pick is indefensible at best and the media ought to report on it more fervently.

After months of speculation that the 2008 presidential election would bring out a record-breaking crowd (millions more voters), current analysis provides a very different picture.  Ed Morrissey (citing a piece from Politico) reported on the subject.  Here’s a chunk of text from Politico:

Between 60.7 percent and 61.7 percent of the 208.3 million eligible voters cast ballots this year, compared with 60.6 percent of those eligible in 2004, according to a voting analysis by American University political scientist Curtis Gans, an authority on voter turnout.

Back in April 2008, Los Angeles Times staff writer Peter Wallsten penned a piece entitled, “Allies of Palestinians See an Ally in Barack Obama.” While it appears as though the vast majority of the American electorate overlooked the article in the days following its release, its contents are creating a stir months later and just days before the 2008 presidential election.

The title of the Times piece alone should raise concern for anyone who believes in the importance of America’s continued devotion to the Israeli people. But it is the contents as they relate to Obama’s associations and the handling of related video footage that raise additional concerns about the future state of America’s national security under an Obama administration.

Let’s start with the basics. According to the Times, Barack Obama attended a going away party for a man named Rashid Khalidi back in 2003. Most Americans are probably unfamiliar with Khalidi. Wallsten described him as, “…an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights…”  Compared to some of the other descriptions I’ve read, the former is complementary. CampusWatch had this to say:

“… Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi…has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.”

Click here to finishing reading this piece…

Debbie Schlussel produced a piece you can’t miss on this ridiculously unjournalistic scandal.  According to Schlussel:

The Los Angeles Times has a copy of the tape, but won’t release it because they said the source–whom I believe is Arab American Action Network (AAAN) founder and anti-Israel Palestinian activist Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada–required it not be released as a condition of sharing it. That’s because it likely shows Obama applauding an anti-Semitic, anti-Israel poem that was read at the dinner.

Read the piece and sign the petition to make the LA Times release this tape to the public.

If you haven’t yet heard of Team Sarah, you’re missing out!  The group has successfully organized an amazing community of over 40,000 women (and men) who are committed to seeing John McCain and Sarah Palin win next Tuesday.  Members of Team Sarah aren’t letting the polls get them down. In fact, the highly organized group recently held (last Saturday) the “Team Sarah Tele-Townhall.”  Here is the info, direct from Team Sarah:

Today, Team Sarah, a coalition of diverse women dedicated to advancing Governor Sarah Palin’s Vice Presidential candidacy hosted an historic Million Woman Townhall. “We are thrilled to have been able to reach so many women to discuss the issues that really matter in this election,” said Jeri Thompson, Team Sarah Co-Founder. “The participation of First Lady Laura Bush was a special motivator for thousands of women taking part in the historic Million Woman Townhall,” said Jane Abraham, Team Sarah Co-Founder and Million Woman Townhall moderator. “These women can ensure victory for John McCain and Sarah Palin on Election Day, and Team Sarah is excited to energize and activate them.” Today’s event was the largest telephone townhall meeting ever conducted.

Be sure to support the petition I setup against the LA Times’ refusal to release the now infamous Obama-Khalidi video.  Send it to all of your friends!  Thanks for the support!

When asked tough questions, it’s best to become agitated, refuse to answer in a coherent manner, ask “Is this a joke?” and then impose an absurdly stifling restriction on the outlet responsible for the challenging interview (make that two outlets).  Because banning journalists who ask tough questions is exactly what our democracy needs, right?  Wrong.

But, I suppose we cannot blame Biden, alone, for his childish reaction.  Until now, the press has continuously stated and restated its love and adoration for the most liberal candidate in history to seek the American presidency.  So, after months of the media doting all over Barack Obama and company it’s no wonder Joe Biden was surprised when he was confronted with journalistic integrity.

So, for the sake of brevity I must give Barbara West of WFTV the William H. Hallowell III Journalist of the Year award for actually doing her job.  Journalists are supposed to challenge candidates, not ignore their inconsistencies and blunders.

Perhaps the most perplexing issue at hand is not Biden’s absurd reaction, rather it is the hypocrisy that stems from the Obama camp concerning transparency and access.  After weeks of criticism from Obama and Biden over the McCain campaign’s shielding of Gov. Sarah Palin, we’re seeing a side of Obama that is pretty opaque.  And it’s utterly ironic.

After all, isn’t this the man who promised to air our national laundry in the most public of all forums (don’t get me wrong; I’m all for transparency, but I am of the opinion that Obama is more about instilling pathos in his followers than he is about taking action)?

The rest of the transparency community might be duped, but I’m not.  Sure, the McCain camp shielded Palin from the media and that was a catastrophic mistake, but to literally prevent certain outlets from interviewing campaign officials – that, my friends, is communistic at best.  This isn’t China.  Someone better get Obama and Biden the memo.

With the release of the “Voter’s Survival Kit: The Smart Guide to What the Politicians Won’t Tell You,” Public Agenda is once again engaging constituents and providing a much needed non-partisan balance in the political sphere. The kit is comprised of non-partisan issue guides that focus on specific challenges: the economy, immigration, taxes, spending and the national debt, climate change, Iraq and health care.

Surely these are all major topics of concern, but with the recent fiscal meltdown and continued economic strain, I’d like to encourage you to check out “The Economy” issue guide (be sure to read them all, but this guide is an absolute essential if you want a concise overview of the current fiscal mess). While learning about the economy can be a daunting task (let’s face it, it’s not the most exciting topic in the world), Public Agenda has made understanding the issue at hand a simple and painless process. After all, how can the American electorate make an informed vote on the issues if we’re constantly relying on the imbalanced spin we hear in the debates and on the campaign trail?

“The Economy” issue guide gets down to the point, as it provides the basic facts about America’s economic debacle, potential directions the nation can take and much more. If you are a citizen, politician, political news junkie, blogger or professional who simply wants a reliable overview, this is a must-read guide.

The Fix We’re in Now

In the first section of the guide, you’ll be presented with the fact that 12% of Americans live below the poverty line (gasp). And if that doesn’t sound scary enough the actual number – 36 million Americans – is chilling (to some degree, this is actually a longitudinal improvement, as you’ll read). And then there’s savings and health care. As you may already know, Americans are borrowing more and saving less and a chunk of the American public – 16% – is uninsured.

And this is only a small piece of the puzzle. The economy is a multifaceted issue; politicians will need to free themselves from wasteful spending habits, while complicating their understanding of the national and world economies so that fiscal rejuvenation can improve the current mess.

How We Got Here

While understanding the mess is important, getting some background on how we let our country get to this point is essential. Public Agenda’s guide provides this important information. While we need politicians to set policies that will improve America’s fiscal footing, we also need to consider the fact that private companies, investors, consumers and workers all have a role in the process. The guide discusses the fact that while the U.S. economy actually grew for the first half of this year (yes, I said grew) and the productivity of the American worker continues to increase, prices are rising, we’re overstretched on credit and our government is more than $10 trillion in debt. The guide makes clear that America’s economy continues to show strength in many areas even as our economy’s vulnerabilities become harder to deny.

What’s the Plan?

Okay, so, economically speaking, things aren’t the best. While driving that point home isn’t too difficult in these strained times, talking about solutions is a bit more challenging. Public Agenda provides some choices that are championed as beacons of hope for repairing America’s economic system. While I won’t delve too deeply into these recommendations, I’ll present them here:

• Keep taxes low and government involvement at a minimum so the free market can work
• Focus on creating good jobs at home and securing a safety net for all Americans
• Get the U.S. back on track to compete in the global economy by investing in key areas and growing “21^st Century Industry” in America.

Public Agenda does not advocate for any one of these approaches. A non-partisan review of each is undertaken. Be sure to check out all of the relevant information on these potential “fixes.”

With economic strain comes the need for an informed electorate. Kudos to Public Agenda for formulating a guide that provides the information and perspective needed to equip voters to address the economy (and other relevant issues) during this election cycle.

We’ve seen a number of Dick Morris fans on the Presidential Debates Project web site these past few days, so we’re honored and excited to have his commentary lead the charge in VoterWatch’s coverage. Using the VoterWatch media player, Morris provides insightful commentary on a very important politcal debate. After watching, feel free to voice your opinions in the comments section!  Stay tuned for more commentary throughout the weekend and early next week!

Does anyone else find it painfully ironic that John Kerry — a man who the American people found, via the electoral system, unfit to lead — is engaging in pointless commentary, while waging baseless claims against Sen. John McCain?

Over the weekend, Kerry called McCain “unfit to lead.” Am I incorrect in my assertion that it was Kerry who approached McCain in 2004, asking him to join in the formation of a bi-partisan ticket? Here we are four years later and John “The Flapjack” Kerry is at it again, flipping and flopping faster than a speeding light (whatever that means). On CBS’ Face The Nation, Kerry said:

“John McCain has changed in profound and fundamental ways that I find personally really surprising, and frankly upsetting.”

Ironically, I am not surprised to find Kerry acting as childish and irreverent as ever. Kerry and Obama are totally fringe, but for some reason the Democrats continue to nominate their kind. They were and are two of the most liberal senators, as they stand firmly grounded on the left wing of the American political spectrum. Bipartisanship? Not from these guys. And during a time when we need nothing short of extreme collaboration and inter-party cohesiveness, the fact that the Democrats continue to nominate wing-nuts is extremely disconcerting.

In the interview, Kerry went on to bash McCain, citing the familiar “Bush’s third term” diatribe. I’m not sure if the Democrats realize this yet, but that statement is tired at best. Everyone knows that there are profound differences between McCain and Bush, so continuing to drive home an invalid point is useless. Kerry then proceeds to state the following:

“If you like what has happened to oil prices, John McCain is going to continue that policy. If you like what you see about health care, John McCain has no health care plan.”

Aside from the fact that McCain has an energy plan that greatly differs from George W. Bush’s (which is common knowledge), one wonders if Kerry has even glanced at Obama’s energy plan. Allow me to pull out a snippet for him:

“Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.”

Now, let’s explore ethanol in brief:

“… producing ethanol requires huge amounts of energy — most of which comes from coal. Second, the production process creates a number of hazardous byproducts, and some production facilities are reportedly dumping these in local water sources. Third, food-to-fuel mandates are helping drive up the price of agricultural staples, leading to significant changes in land use with major environmental harm.”

And I’m not even going to touch healthcare. McCain does have a plan, but Kerry’s probably too bitter over his 2004 loss to take the time and read it. And then there’s Iraq. Kerry has plenty to say about McCain’s judgment on the war:

“Kerry criticized McCain’s continued support of the occupation, given the effect of a continuing presence of U.S. troops on the situation in Iraq and the region at large. He pointed to remarks by leaders in the Middle East who told him during a recent visit, “You, America, have served up to Iran Iraq on a platter.”

And this is where Kerry loses me entirely. The surge has worked and that’s something that Obama is going to have to contend with come November. Continuing to lament the war, while demanding that the troops come home immediately is nonsensical. When success is so close, why would we exit the region? Doing so would mean a total disservice to the Iraqi people. Leaving Iraq would surely “serve up to Iran Iraq on a platter.” Is this not common sense?

I suppose that writing this piece has given Kerry credence he simply doesn’t deserve. In the end, he’s proven himself painfully irrelevant. Not much has changed since 2004.

“Hope.” “Change.” “A new kind of politics.” Barack Obama’s promise to implement these ideals has led him top of the Democratic pack, as millions of Americans have contributed to his highly successful campaign. And who can blame Americans for jumping on board? On the surface, a platform that promises the invoke hope and change is surely enticing — especially after eight years of political and social turbulence. But, what do “hope” and “change” actually mean? If actions count for anything, Obama’s promise to ignite a “new kind of politics” is laughable at best. So, why are the American people missing all of the cues?

From race relations to the federal tax system, Obama continues to prove that his policies and allegiances possess the characteristics of nothing more than typical, run-of-the-mill political fodder. He’s no different from a traditional politician, yet for some reason his charismatic nature has inebriated my generation, in particular, severely impairing rational exploration of his actions, inactions and incessant flip-flops. Judicial Watch reports the following:

“While Barack Obama campaigns as an anomaly not corrupted by Washington politics or special interests, he has repeatedly contradicted this illusion by accepting big bucks from convicted entrepreneurs as well as oil company executives, steering millions of federal earmark dollars to his wife’s employer and a top donor and hiring powerful corporate insiders to run his campaign.”

When we talk about proposed tax systems, Obama fares not much better than McCain. According to the Brooking Institution and the Urban Instutite, McCain’s plans would cut receipts by $3.72 trillion from over a 10 year period, while Obama’s plans would cut revenues by $2.73 trillion during the same time frame.

And what about a more general sense of fiscal discipline? The sad reality is that neither of the candidates’ proposals would balance the U.S. budget:

“The left-leaning Tax Policy Center concludes: “Obama’s generosity comes at a price. … He’d raise the national debt by a staggering $3.3 trillion over the next decade, and that includes more than $900 billion in promised revenue raisers that TPC could not verify.”

Obama’s spending plans for health care, infrastructure, education and energy aren’t even included in TPC’s estimate. With Social Security and Medicare in grave danger, allowing our officials to manage a health care system in the current political climate is frightening at best.

But his hypocrisy transcends these issues and extends into nearly every facet of his campaign. Last week, he went back on his word and announced that he would be forgoing more the $85 million in public financing — a move that has McCain and many others (even Obama supporters) frustrated and disheartened. So much for bi-partisan negotiations. According to OpenSecrets:

“Last March, before Obama became the candidate to beat in the money race, his campaign said he would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election” if he were to win his party’s nomination.”

And while I’m at it, allow me to mention his insane endorsement of ethanol as a viable fuel alternative. I can’t imagine that he has missed the media’s coverage of the destruction that has been caused by the utilization of ethanol. Damaging the world’s fuel supply and potentially worsening the alleged global warming phenomenon apparently doesn’t matter to Obama. Judicial Watch reports the following:

“It turns out that Obama’s national campaign co-chairman, former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle, serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and his top advisor on environmental issues, Jason Grumet, used to work for a bipartisan initiative (National Commission on Energy Policy) that strongly supports ethanol…Obama is also very tight with Illinois agriculture giant Archer Daniels Midland, the nation’s largest ethanol producer…”

I suppose forgetting to mention Rev. Wright would be irresponsible of me. See, Obama attended the same church for years. He listened to anti-American and anti-white statements and seemed completely content with his pastor’s rants — that is, until his church membership hurt his campaign. It was not until pressures mounted that Obama formerly removed his allegiances to Wright and company.

Are we supposed to believe that Obama was never happy at his church — that he always differed ideologically from Rev. Wright? Believing such an idea would be nonsensical. No one stays at a church if they disagree with the leading pastor. And if by some chance Obama did stay despite some difference in opinion he surely wouldn’t have allowed his pastor to marry he and his wife or baptize his children. And wasn’t Wright an inspiration for one of his books? Obama agrees with Rev. Wright entirely — he just can’t admit that to the American people.

Perhaps Judicial Watch said it best: “Somehow, the charismatic young lawmaker that the mainstream media loves to portray as a sort of rock star doesn’t seem any different than most Washington heavy hitters.”