The blogosphere is all a-twitter about Dan Rather saying that Obama couldn’t sell watermelons if you gave him state troopers to flag down the traffic. And yes, at first glance, his statements do appear to be “racist rhetoric”:

DAN RATHER: Part of the undertow in the coming election is going to be President Obama’s leadership. And the Republicans will make a case and a lot of independents will buy this argument. “Listen he just hasn’t been, look at the health care bill. It was his number one priority. It took him forever to get it through and he had to compromise it to death.” And a version of, “Listen he’s a nice person, he’s very articulate” this is what’s been used against him, “but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.“

I’m certainly no lover of extreme-left talking heads, but I don’t believe Rather was being racist. I think he was stereotyping conservatives as racists. That is, he wasn’t saying that Obama couldn’t sell watermelons, he was saying that Republicans will say that Obama couldn’t sell watermelons.

So while Rather wasn’t being racist, he was being a typical left-wing moonbat. And yes, I see the irony of me saying that.

Technorati Tags: Dan Rather and Other Barking Moonbats

The Centers for Disease Control says that Swine Flu is, pardon the expression, dying down in the US:

U.S. cases have been declining since October. An official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says swine flu cases are still occurring and are likely to continue a while longer at some level.

But another expert said a future large wave of cases now seems very unlikely. The expert, Vanderbilt University’s Dr. William Schaffner, said the epidemic has “one foot in the grave.”

Meanwhile, the Whole Health Organization says that “pandemic activity is declining across most of the world” as deaths have topped — wait for it — 15,000 out of the 6.8 billion people on the planet. That translates to 0.00022 percent of the world population.

Makes the word “pandemic” a whole lot less scary, doesn’t it?

HT to both links to Drudge.

Technorati Tags: Pandemics and Other Scary Words, H1N1, Swine Flu, CDC, WHO

Now that’s funny, I don’t care who y’are.

So PBS anchor Gwen Ifill will "moderate" tonight’s debate between the vice presidential candidates.

Michelle Malkin notes that Ifill’s book, Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, will be hitting the bookshelves on the day that she believes B. Hussein Obama will be sworn in as president of the United States:

My dictionary defines “moderator” as “the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting.” On Thursday, PBS anchor Gwen Ifill will serve as moderator for the first and only vice presidential debate. The stakes are high. The Commission on Presidential Debates, with the assent of the two campaigns, decided not to impose any guidelines on her duties or questions.

But there is nothing “moderate” about where Ifill stands on Barack Obama. She’s so far in the tank for the Democrat presidential candidate, her oxygen delivery line is running out.

Indeed, the liberal media strike again.

PBS, that bastion of journalism that repays taxpayers by putting a liberal spin on every story, is asking its listeners to answer a question:

Now what would be interesting is the answer to a side-by-side question, "Do you think Barack Obama is qualified to serve as the President of the United States?"

Not that I expect a reasonable answer from anyone that can stomach watching PBS "journalism". That’s up to the rest of us. Go and cast your vote.

The myth that anti-Christian fanatics seem to take the most glee in is that she attempted to ban books from the town library while serving as mayor. This has been repeated often, even making a story in Time Magazine and Salon (2), and an email with a list of 90 books that Palin supposedly attempted to ban is shooting around leftist inboxes as we speak. (The list is fake, ripped off from this page.)

All this, according to the Wall Street Journal:

As it turns out, not only was the list a fake, but when the Anchorage Daily News investigated the story, it found no evidence that Palin had ever sought to remove books from the library. [City librarian] Baker (who was then named Emmons) did tell the local paper back in 1996 that Palin asked her, in the Daily News’s words, "about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose." Emmons "flatly refused to consider any kind of censorship."

Kilkenny makes an appearance in the Daily News story, quoting Palin as asking Baker at a City Council meeting, " ‘What would be your response if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?’ " Baker’s response was firm and negative, according to Kilkenny, who acknowledges that Palin did not cite any specific books for removal.

The chairman of the Alaska Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom Committee tells the Daily News that there is no evidence in her files of any censorship at the Wasilla library. As for Baker’s resignation, it appears to be unrelated to the putative censorship.

So not only is the book banning story patently false, but another piece of the "retribution queen" story takes a hit.

The center of useful idiots thinks that John McCain should "provide detailed, timely disclosure about his health."

So far, he has failed to meet this obligation to voters, even though he is now the presumed Republican nominee.

The Times claims McCain should reveal this information for two reasons. First, in this era of modern medical science and extended life spans, McCain could be the oldest man ever to become president. Second, he once had skin cancer — even though he beat cancer and today is cancer free, as evidenced by his lack of stops at hospitals for radiation treatments during the rigorous months on the campaign trail.

The Red Rag goes further, declaring:

No presidential candidate should get to the point that he has locked up his party’s nomination without public vetting of his health.

And where was the NY Times when half the voting population was demanding Kerry’s medical records from the Vietnam war? Ah, perhaps the Times thinks that sick people can’t lead while character is unimportant.

What am I thinking? Of course they don’t believe character is important. Did they even read Obama’s book? I’m talking about his first one, in which he reveals his true self.

Today’s quote of the day:

One day, their epitaph may read: Journalists lied, the media died.

More here.

Jed Babbin from Online Human Events agrees with my earlier assessment of the Politico hit piece:

The rumor that Fred Thompson will quit the Republican presidential race if he finishes poorly in Iowa is not only false: it rises to the level of a political dirty trick aimed at reducing Thompson-backers’ turnout in tonight’s Iowa caucuses. . . .

Sources told me that Thompson’s campaign was already moving elements to South Carolina where they expect to do very well.  If Thompson finished at the bottom of the pack in Iowa — which seems very unlikely — he would have to reassess his overall chances.  But that seems unlikely.  And Iowa is not a determinative race for the Republicans. It is very likely to be of lesser importance than a host of others, as John McCain, Rudy Giuliani — and Thompson — are betting.  A candidate could easily go from a defeat there to win the nomination. . . .

In every political season, there are dirty tricks like this. Some originate from opposing camps and some from the media themselves. The Politico story is of the sort that even the television networks have managed to avoid.  Saying that Thompson is going to quit after Iowa on the morning of the caucuses there is like announcing the election night results in New York and the Carolinas before the polls close on the West Coast.  If even CBS News wouldn’t pull a stunt like that, why would The Politico?

The influential web site Politico has tried discounting Thompson in the past (see Thompson is running low on options), but stooped to a new low with a hit piece titled Thompson may drop out, back McCain on the day that  Iowan voters go to caucus.

Fred Thompson is experiencing a "late-breaking surge" in Iowa (according to Zogby) on the heels of his bold message to Iowa caucus goers in which he appealed to Republicans and conservative Democrats. The effectiveness of Thompson’s message scares liberals, which is why he has been largely ignored by the MSM in favor of the myth that voters have only the Rudy-Mitt choice to make.

Politico claims that "officials close to Fred Thompson’s presidential campaign" revealed that Fred would drop out if he does poorly in Iowa. Only a fool would believe that anyone on or even "close" to the campaign would utter such a statement at this critical juncture. And to cite multiple sources is beyond understanding.

Thompson’s actual campaign is denying the story, of course. Byron York posts on NRO that he had personally talked to Rich Galen, a top advisor to Thompson. Not only did Galen deny the story, but:

Galen also said that no one inside the campaign was a source for the story. "I can’t put enough adjectives in front of the ‘deny’ to accurately describe how vehemently I’m denying the story," he said.

Galen said that "just to make sure," he checked with Thompson himself, who told him the story was not true. "We have the schedule for Saturday and Sunday in New Hampshire, and then we’re going down to South Carolina," Galen told me.

Now, if the Politico’s hit piece fails to stop the Fredmentum in Iowa, the question becomes: will it actually throw attention his way in New Hampshire and South Carolina?

As for me, I favor a class action suit on the part of all Thompson backers against the Politico for printing an obviously false story with the intent to kill our candidate’s chances. Anyone want to take the case?