Posted at Show Me Progress.

A sitting governor intervenes in the parole process, setting up the release of an individual who then goes on to commit another horrible crime. Sound familiar? Well, our political media will only cover a story like that if that governor is running for president, right? Think again.

The Kansas City Star's resident political stenographer writes this gem in today's paper [tiny URL]:

....Stick this one in your bonnet: Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee will win either the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary.

Whaaaat? You've never heard of Huck?

Get him on your radar screen. Huckabee has supplanted John McCain as the hot GOP contender on the circuit these days....

Of course, our political chattering classes can't be bothered to do a little bit of research:

....Suttlar noted that just prior to Huckabee's appearance before the board the board had voted 4-1 against Dumond's parole. After Huckabee's board appearance, her colleagues largely reversed themselves, voting 4-1 for Dumond's release.

"Why did all the votes change?" Suttlar asked. The board members knew the governor's position. And Huckabee knows what influence a governor has over a board. Who's going to turn down a governor?"

A board member, who only agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, said, "We are not talking rocket science here. The board jobs are known to some degree [to be] political patronage...

There's more...

Posted at Show Me Progress.

Early tomorrow morning a small group of us from Warrensburg will pile into two vehicles for the 4 1/2 hour drive to that muddy (probably) balloon field near Indianola, Iowa for the 30th Harkin Steak Fry. This to hear Democratic presidential candidates  Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson speak.

I wrote about some of my experiences at the event four years ago here.

There's more...

Cross posted at DailyKos.

When reading the op-ed pages in your local daily newspaper, have you noticed column after column written by conservatives? A new report released today by Media Matters for America confirms what many have suspected -- that for the majority of daily newspapers across the country, conservatives dominate the op-ed page.

Our new report, "Black and White and Re(a)d All Over: The Conservative Advantage in Syndicated Op-Ed Columns," is a comprehensive and unprecedented analysis of nationally syndicated columnists from nearly 1,400 newspapers -- or 96 percent of English-language daily U.S. newspapers.

There's more...

Yes, yes, I know, it's still early. But this is precisely my point.

Surely I am not the only one who finds it passing strange that, between them, MSNBC
and Newsweek -- same company -- have produced, within the last couple of days, at least
three stories whose essential message seems to be "Barack Obama: Not To Be Trusted."

Look at the titles:

A Secret Fax -- And an Ethics Slip
STORY at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18366824/sit e/newsweek
DIARY at http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/30/1726 27/234

Can Obama's Substance Match His Style?
STORY at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18367799/sit e/newsweek

A generally balanced piece that nonetheless teases readers with a title
that plants a seed of doubt by playing to a self-serving caricature.

Does Barack Obama Have A View on Defense?
STORY at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18387695

This "commentary" -- by "military analyst" Jack Jacobs -- starts with the post-debate assertion:

Most observers found the event predictable and unenlightening, except for Obama's
pusillanimous response to Brian Williams's question about security.

Webster's on pusillanimous:

"lacking courage and resolution"
"marked by contemptible timidity"
"cowardly"

"Most observers" thought this? Really? And where do they live, these
"most observers"? Same town as "some people"? Proof, please.

Jacobs continues:

When asked how he would respond to a terrorist attack on American cities, Obama...did not say
specifically that he would retaliate against the terrorists. The other major candidates ganged up
and were more forceful, and Obama sought later to play catch-up, but the damage was done:
he gave the impression that he doesn't have a particularly good handle on defense.

So having "a particularly good handle on defense" means having a trigger-happy finger
on bombs? And that has gotten us exactly where over the last six years?

Oh, and remind me, again, how it was that John Edwards "ganged up" on Obama? Was that
the part where he said that "we have more tools available to us than bombs, and America
needs to use the tools that are available"?

Jacobs concludes that

while Clinton has at least a modicum of experience, one gets the impression that Obama doesn't
have much to say about the national security of the Republic, at least partially because he hasn't
thought very much about it....Obama most likely decided to enter the race primarily because he
was encouraged to do so by others, people who found him refreshingly forthright and able to
capture the imagination of voters, not because he has attractive solutions to our nation's problems.

Obama "doesn't have much to say about the national security of the Republic," because his first response is not bombs?

Obama "hasn't thought very much about it," because his first response is not bombs?

Obama doesn't have "attractive solutions to our nation's problems," because his first response is not bombs?

And Clinton's "experience" is...?

We may not be there yet, but it is not too soon to ask how many more of these pieces we need to see before
concluding that, indeed, MSNBC/Newsweek has been coopted by Hillary Clinton and therefore stories about
any other candidates are to be disregarded as propaganda.