In a May 2 post on his ABC News blog Political Punch, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper republished a May 1 post he had temporarily taken down, in which he asserted: "Bill Clinton's Trade Representative, a supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and an informal adviser to her campaign -- once seemed to have some not-so-nice things to say about the Hoosiers his chosen candidate is working so hard to pursue. As seen in The War Room, watching election returns come in, [Mickey] Kantor seems to say in hushed tones to James Carville, 'Look at Indiana, wait, wait -- look at Indiana. 42-40. It doesn't matter if we win. Those people are s---. Excuse me.' " After noting that both Kantor and War Room director D.A. Pennebaker have reportedly denied that Kantor called people from Indiana "shit," Tapper added: "Were I not currently eating a chicken sandwich at Liberty East Restaurant in Charlotte, NC, while working on a World News piece about the economy and the candidates, I would go to Blockbuster, rent a copy of The War Room and settle this matter as much as possible." Media Matters for America did obtain a digital copy of The War Room and downloaded the relevant section. It is provided here and clearly indicates that Kantor is not saying, "Those people are shit"; he is, in fact, saying, "Those people are shitting," presumably referring to the Bush campaign's reaction to the poll numbers he was reading. In the film, a 1993 documentary about former President Bill Clinton's campaign staff during his 1992 presidential campaign, Kantor is seen discussing poll numbers with Clinton advisers James Carville and George Stephanopoulos. Subtitles from the original movie erroneously state that Kantor says, "Those people are gonna shit," followed by "[Whispering]." According to a May 2 blog entry by Politico senior political writer Ben Smith, Pennebaker asserted that in The War Room, "He [Kantor] says they must be shi**ing in the White House": He said the initial expletive referred to the anticipated reaction in the Bush White House to the fact that Ross Perot's polling numbers were holding strong. "What he says is he's surprised Perot's numbers are holding," said Pennebaker in a brief phone interview. "He says they must be shi**ing in the White House." After Tapper published his May 1 post, the Drudge Report linked to it under the headline: "FLASHBACK: Clinton Informal Adviser on Hoosiers in 1992: 'S**t'..." The Drudge Report also linked to Pennebaker's assertion, from Smith's blog entry, that Kantor was being misquoted, under the headline: "Clip Said Doctored..." A version of the video from The War Room, which Tapper did not post, but that has circulated widely online, suggests that Kantor also called the people of Indiana "white n---rs." According to Smith's blog post, Pennebaker said that remark "appeared to have been entirely fabricated, with new audio dubbed onto the original movie." In the original, Kantor appears to be asking Stephanopoulos, "How would you like to be Charlie Black at this point?" Black was one of the primary spokesmen for the Bush-Quayle campaign. In a May 2 interview with The Huffington Post, Kantor said of the remarks in question: "And I was talking about the polling and not the people ... If you look at The War Room, this is not the way Carville or George interpreted my statement. This is frankly libelous." From The War Room: CARVILLE: It looks good. Now, let's just say: I like the text here. STEPHANOPOULOS: Can you beep Wendy, please? KANTOR: Oh, you got it. STEPHANOPOULOS: Looks pretty good. Looks pretty good. KANTOR: Look at -- look at Indiana. Wait, wait. Look at Indiana, 42-40. It doesn't matter if we win. Those people are shitting. Oh, excuse me. [inaudible] How would you like to be Charlie Black at this point? Look at Texas. Go down to Texas. CARVILLE: Even? KANTOR: Yeah, 39-39. CARVILLE: Perot's kind of holding, isn't he? KANTOR: Yeah, he held. His numbers held. CARVILLE: I'm sort of surprised, frankly. STEPHANOPOULOS: This could be a landslide. UPDATE: As Media Matters was finalizing this item, Tapper posted an update in which he acknowledged that "Kantor Never Impugned Hoosiers."

In her April 25 OpinionJournal.com column, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan claimed that "Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama's problem. America is Mr. Obama's problem," and asked if Obama has "ever gotten misty-eyed over ... the Wright Brothers and what kind of country allowed them to go off on their own and change everything? How about D-Day, or George Washington, or Henry Ford, or the losers and brigands who flocked to Sutter's Mill, who pushed their way west because there was gold in them thar hills?" Continuing with this line of inquiry, Noonan asked of Obama: "What does he think about all that history? Which is another way of saying: What does he think of America?" and "Who would have taught him to love it, and what did he learn was loveable, and what does he think about it all?" While Media Matters for America did not identify specific instances of Obama's getting "misty-eyed" over the Wright brothers, the 1944 Allied invasion of Europe, George Washington, the 1849 California Gold Rush -- or Henry Ford, for that matter -- the title of his latest book, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, suggests that Noonan should have looked there before suggesting that Obama has yet to address "[w]hat ... he think[s] of America." She needn't have read past the prologue to find this: I think America has more often been a force for good than for ill in the world; I carry few illusions about our enemies, and revere the courage and competence of our military. I reject a politics that is based solely on racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, or victimhood generally. I think much of what ails the inner city involves a breakdown in culture that will not be cured by money alone, and that our values and spiritual life matter at least as much as our GDP. Or she could have just skipped to Obama's final sentence: "My heart is filled with love for this country." From Noonan's April 25 column: Main thought. Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama's problem. America is Mr. Obama's problem. He has been tagged as a snooty lefty, as the glamorous, ambivalent candidate from Men's Vogue, the candidate who loves America because of the great progress it has made in terms of racial fairness. Fine, good. But has he ever gotten misty-eyed over ... the Wright Brothers and what kind of country allowed them to go off on their own and change everything? How about D-Day, or George Washington, or Henry Ford, or the losers and brigands who flocked to Sutter's Mill, who pushed their way west because there was gold in them thar hills? There's gold in that history. John McCain carries it in his bones. Mr. McCain learned it in school, in the Naval Academy, and, literally, at grandpa's knee. Mrs. Clinton learned at least its importance in her long slog through Arkansas, circa 1977-92. Mr. Obama? What does he think about all that history? Which is another way of saying: What does he think of America? That's why people talk about the flag pin absent from the lapel. They wonder if it means something. Not that the presence of the pin proves love of country - any cynic can wear a pin, and many cynics do. But what about Obama and America? Who would have taught him to love it, and what did he learn was loveable, and what does he think about it all? Another challenge. Snooty lefties get angry when you ask them to talk about these things. They get resentful. Who are you to question my patriotism? But no one is questioning his patriotism, they're questioning its content, its fullness. Gate 14 has a right to hear this. They'd lean forward to hear. This is an opportunity, for Mr. Obama needs an Act II. Act II is hard. Act II is where the promise of Act I is deepened, the plot thickens, and all is teed up for resolution and meaning. Mr. Obama's Act I was: I'm Obama. He enters the scene. Act III will be the convention and acceptance speech. After that a whole new drama begins. But for now he needs Act II. He should make his subject America.

In an April 17 article, the Associated Press compared a generic AP/Yahoo presidential poll from November 2007, showing an unnamed Democrat holding a sizable lead over an unnamed Republican, to a new AP/Yahoo survey showing that Sen. John McCain "has pulled even with the two Democrats still brawling for their party's nomination." In doing so, the AP baselessly suggested that the new poll indicates momentum for McCain. In fact, while AP/Yahoo did not poll head-to-head matchups in November, two other November surveys that polled both head-to-head and generic matchups found that an unnamed Democrat's lead in the generic ballot was significantly larger than the lead either Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton held over McCain in a head-to-head match-up at that time. Indeed, as with AP/Yahoo's April poll, numerous head-to-head polls conducted in November showed McCain "even" or close to "even" with Obama and Clinton. From the April 17 AP article: Republicans are no longer underdogs in the race for the White House. To pull that off, John McCain has attracted disgruntled GOP voters, independents and even some moderate Democrats who shunned his party last fall. Partly thanks to an increasingly likable image, the Republican presidential candidate has pulled even with the two Democrats still brawling for their party's nomination, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo! news poll released Thursday. Just five months ago -- before either party had winnowed its field -- the survey showed people preferred sending an unnamed Democrat over a Republican to the White House by 13 percentage points. According to an AP/Yahoo poll conducted November 2-12, 2007, and a corresponding November 20, 2007, AP article, 42 percent of respondents said that "[i]f the 2008 general election for President were being held today," they would vote for "the Democratic candidate," compared with 27 percent who would support "the Republican candidate" -- a difference of 15 percentage points. Beginning with the published results of a poll conducted December 14-20, 2007, AP/Yahoo reported the results of its November survey as 40 percent to 27 percent in favor of the Democratic candidate, the 13-point difference the April 17 AP article referenced. In AP/Yahoo's head-to-head survey conducted April 2-14, when choosing between McCain and Clinton, 37 percent of respondents supported McCain, while 36 percent backed Clinton. In the Obama-McCain matchup, 36 percent of respondents supported McCain, compared with 34 percent who backed Obama. According to the listed polls on Yahoo.com, AP/Yahoo did not poll head-to-head matchups from November through March, and in its full results for the April survey, AP/Yahoo did not include polling on a generic matchup. By contrast, in two polls that did test both head-to-head and generic matchups in November, the Democrat's lead in the generic ballot was significantly larger than in the head-to-head matchup: In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted November 1-5, 2007, Clinton led McCain 47 percent to 43 percent, a difference of 4 percentage points. The poll did not include data on an Obama-McCain matchup. In a generic matchup, 50 percent of respondents chose an unnamed Democrat, while 35 percent chose an unnamed Republican -- a difference of 15 percentage points. In a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll conducted November 13-14, 2007, Clinton led McCain 46 percent to 45 percent. The poll did not include data on an Obama-McCain matchup. In a generic matchup, 43 percent of respondents chose an unnamed Democrat, while 34 percent chose an unnamed Republican -- a difference of 9 percentage points. The most recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics and NBC/Journal polls do not include generic matchup polling. Several other head-to-head polls from November also showed McCain running much closer to Clinton and Obama than the lead an unnamed Democrat held over an unnamed Republican in the generic poll that the AP article cited. For example, a Gallup poll conducted November 11-14, 2007, found Clinton leading McCain 50 percent to 44 percent, while a Rasmussen poll conducted November 7-8, 2007, found McCain leading Clinton 47 percent to 45 percent. According to Real Clear Politics, three November polls surveyed an Obama-McCain matchup. A Rasmussen poll conducted November 28-29 found Obama and McCain tied at 44 percent. A Rasmussen poll conducted earlier in November found Obama leading McCain 46 percent to 43 percent. And a Gallup poll conducted November 11-14 found Obama leading McCain 47 percent to 44 percent. Neither Gallup nor Rasmussen included generic matchup polling. Additionally, a poll conducted March 25-27 by Democracy Corps/Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research found that "Democrats widened their lead in a generic presidential ballot to 12 points (53 to 41 percent)," but "both of the Democratic candidates for president, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, trail[ed] behind McCain." From the April 17 Associated Press article, by reporters Alan Fram and Trevor Tompson: Republicans are no longer underdogs in the race for the White House. To pull that off, John McCain has attracted disgruntled GOP voters, independents and even some moderate Democrats who shunned his party last fall. Partly thanks to an increasingly likable image, the Republican presidential candidate has pulled even with the two Democrats still brawling for their party's nomination, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo news poll released Thursday. Just five months ago -- before either party had winnowed its field -- the survey showed people preferred sending an unnamed Democrat over a Republican to the White House by 13 percentage points [sic]. Also helping the Arizona senator close the gap: Peoples' opinions of Hillary Rodham Clinton have soured slightly, while their views of Barack Obama have improved though less impressively than McCain's. The survey suggests that those switching to McCain are largely attuned to his personal qualities and McCain may be benefiting as the two Democrats snipe at each other during their prolonged nomination fight. [...] The findings of the survey, conducted by Knowledge Networks, provide a preview of one of this fall's battlegrounds. Though some unhappy Republicans will doubtless stay with McCain, both groups are teeming with centrist swing voters who will be targeted by both parties. The poll shows that McCain's appeal has grown since November by more than the Democrats' has dwindled. McCain gets about 10 percentage points more now than a generic Republican candidate got last fall; Obama and Clinton get about 5 points less than a nameless Democrat got then. [...] For now, more than one in 10 who weren't backing the unnamed Republican candidate in last November's survey are supporting McCain, a shift partly offset by a smaller number of former undecideds now embracing Obama or Clinton. Of those now backing McCain, about one-third did not support the generic GOP candidate last November.

On the March 21 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, guest host John King said of campaign donations from the securities and investment industry, "It appears [Sen.] Barack Obama and [Sen.] Hillary Clinton are getting the lion's share, but some wonder if that might make them too cozy with the financial services sector should either of them become president," and correspondent Brian Todd asserted that Obama and Clinton "may have some questions to answer about credibility and just how beholden they might be to those responsible for the home mortgage crisis." Todd then cited the Center for Responsive Politics' data on contributions from the "securities McCain Obama Clinton Contributions from the "securities & investment" industry $2,589,936 $6,026,529 $6,295,407 Total Contributions Through January 31, 2007 $49,210,685 $138,229,289 $120,980,180 Percentage 5.26% 4.36% 5.20% Todd also contrasted Obama's and Clinton's positions on "the home foreclosure crisis" with their campaign donations, asserting: "But while they were talking tough, new information shows Wall Street was underwriting them." CNN has previously baselessly suggested that Democrats are somehow being hypocritical or inconsistent if they take positions that are at odds with those advocated by their donors. As Media Matters for America noted, on the November 26, 2007, edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer suggested Democratic presidential candidates were "trying to have it both ways" by expressing support for the strike by the Writers Guild of America despite having accepted contributions from entertainment executives. During the report itself, general assignment correspondent Kareen Wynter stated: "They're speaking out for writers, but the Democratic front-runners have previously accepted donations from senior executives at some of the very companies the writers are striking against." After Todd's taped report, King asked Todd: "Brian, put this into context for us. Out of the overall contributions to both of these candidates, who have raised tens of millions of dollars, what is the significance of the Wall Street money?" Todd replied by stating "[i]t can be very misleading" before noting that the money "is a drop in the bucket," adding "It doesn't represent very much." Nevertheless, King asserted: "It's still worth watching." From the March 21 edition of CNN's The Situation Room: KING: Amid the presidential race, another race we're following concerns the bulls and bears of Wall Street. Which presidential candidates are they donating the most money to? It appears Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are getting the lion's share, but some wonder if that might make them too cozy with the financial services sector should either of them become president. CNN's Brian Todd joins me now. Brian, you've been looking into this. What are you finding? TODD: Well, John, it's interesting that among the Democrats, the consistent message is look to them for relief. But the two remaining Democratic candidates both may have some questions to answer about credibility and just how beholden they might be to those responsible for the home mortgage crisis. [begin video clip] TODD: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both say they'll take the lead in solving the home foreclosure crisis, and they have tough words for the financial giants who underwrote it. OBAMA: Some will say it's anathema to come to Wall Street and call for shared sacrifice. CLINTON: Wall Street helped create the foreclosure crisis, and Wall Street needs to help us solve it. TODD: But while they were talking tough, new information shows Wall Street was underwriting them. The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that tracks campaign donations, says during the year ending in late January, Senator Clinton got nearly $6.3 million from donors in the securities and investment industry, most of it from individuals who worked for the big firms. Senator Obama got just over $6 million. Both dwarf Senator John McCain's take of over $2.5 million. SHEILA KRUMHOLZ (Center for Responsive Politics executive director): The concern is that these candidates will be less willing to call for the necessary regulation of financial markets because of their reliance -- their heavy reliance on Wall Street for campaign cash. TODD: Both campaigns counter that vigorously. An Obama aide says his record of calling for Wall Street accountability in the foreclosure crisis is clear, and it won't change in the White House. A Clinton spokesman says it would look much worse if she had taken the money from Wall Street and not been as tough as she has with a far-reaching, aggressive plan for reform. The spokesman points out many of these contributions are natural byproducts of her representation of New York in the Senate. But analysts say this does signal that the days of the Republicans being the party of Wall Street are long since over. JIM VANDEHEI (Politico executive editor): Most of the establishment of the Democratic Party is now very cozy with Wall Street and very aware of their concerns here in Washington. [end video clip] TODD: Now, the Clinton campaign reflects this double-edged sword more than any other, possibly. A top economic adviser to Mrs. Clinton is Robert Rubin, a Wall Street titan who's still a top official at Citigroup. But a Clinton spokesman points out, it's Rubin, who as Treasury secretary oversaw one of the greatest economic expansions in U.S. history. If anybody can figure out how to deal with the Wall Street bailouts, it is Robert Rubin, John. KING: Robert Rubin back with us. Brian, put this into context for us. Out of the overall contributions to both of these candidates, who have raised tens of millions of dollars, what is the significance of the Wall Street money? TODD: It can be very misleading. By category, it's the third -- the financial sector represents kind of the -- according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the third-leading contributor to all the candidates. Fifty-five percent of that, they say, goes to the Democrats. But if you look at it among each individual candidate, and the money they have raised over the past year overall, this is a drop in the bucket by most accounts. It doesn't represent very much. KING: It's still worth watching. Brian Todd -- thank you very much, Brian.

While commenting on Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race in America, during the March 18 broadcast of his Fox News Radio show, Tom Sullivan asked, "Is that his second part of his message today is, 'Hey, vote for me, and we'll get past this racist thing'?" Sullivan continued: "Let me put it to you a different way. What if Barack Obama is not -- does not win the Democratic nomination, or he does win it, and loses in the presidential race against John McCain? Is black America going to throw their hands up and say, 'Man, you know, I thought we were getting somewhere in this country, but this is just a bunch of racial bigots in this country and they still hate blacks and, I mean, if Barack Obama can't get elected, then we're never gonna have anybody that's a black that's gonna be elected president.' And will there be riots in the streets? I think the answer to that is yes and yes." Later in the broadcast, while discussing his remarks with a caller, Sullivan stated that he was outside the courthouse on the day the O.J. Simpson verdict was announced, "And the police, LAPD, have probably, I'm not exaggerating, a hundred police on horseback, plus they had barricades up. And the police came over to us, on the other side of the street there must have been a couple of thousand African-Americans. And the police came over to us, and they said if this goes a certain way, we cannot protect you. They were ready to riot if O.J. was found guilty. That's why I go there's still a mistrust of the system and a certain of level of wanting to break things if it doesn't go their way." As Media Matters for America noted, during the February 11 broadcast of his show, Sullivan took a call from a listener who stated that when listening to Barack Obama speak, "it harkens back to when I was younger and I used to watch those deals with Hitler, how he would excite the crowd and they'd come to their feet and scream and yell." Sullivan replied: "Oh, yeah, yeah ... I presume you're not saying he's Hitler, but I understand your point." Sullivan later played a "side-by-side comparison" of a Hitler speech and an Obama speech. Sullivan mimicked the crowd during both speeches, yelling, "Yay! Yay!" When a later caller complained that Sullivan was "denigrating" Obama with the comparison, Sullivan said he wouldn't play it again, then begged: "Can I, please, one more time? Just one more time? Then I won't do it again. ... Until the next time." Discussing the February 11 comments on his February 14 show, Sullivan said: "I wasn't trying to make a comparison. There isn't any comparison. There was none yesterday, there was none Monday, there will not be any in the future. It's nonsense." From the March 18 edition of Fox News Radio's Tom Sullivan Show: SULLIVAN: Second point is that Pastor [Jeremiah] Wright's error is that he thinks that we haven't moved on since Jim Crow. But, will we, if we elect Barack Obama president? Is that his second part of his message today is, "Hey, vote for me, and we'll get past this racist thing"? Let me put it to you a different way. What if Barack Obama is not -- does not win the Democratic nomination, or he does win it, and loses in the presidential race against John McCain? Is black America going to throw their hands up and say, "Man, you know, I thought we were getting somewhere in this country, but this is just a bunch of racial bigots in this country and they still hate blacks and, I mean, if Barack Obama can't get elected, then we're never gonna have anybody that's a black that's gonna be elected president." And will there be riots in the streets? I think the answer to that is yes and yes. Regardless, people should vote, obviously, their conscience. I'm interested to see if this story keeps legs going for five more weeks until Pennsylvania. [...] CALLER: Well, and, can I just make a quick comment -- SULLIVAN: Sure. CALLER: -- on your last point, about the riots, of African-Americans -- SULLIVAN: Yeah! CALLER: Yeah, I don't think that that's the case. I think that that's, you know, sort of a bit much to say, "Oh, if he doesn't get it, we're going to throw up our hands and" - no, I don't think that's the case. I think we just want to, if he's going to lose, it'd be great if he just lost by the votes, as opposed to a smoke-filled room. But that being said, I do think that Barack still has to roll up his sleeves and get to hitting the ground and campaigning and get back on message. SULLIVAN: I say that because, and forgive me, it was 10, 12 years ago this happened, 13 years ago: I was outside the Los Angeles County courthouse on the day the verdict was coming for O.J., and myself, and the media, we were all shuffled together on the sidewalk outside the courthouse. I was standing right next to, in fact, shoved up against Maria Shriver. So we're standing out there, and the police, LAPD, have probably, I'm not exaggerating, a hundred police on horseback, plus they had barricades up. And the police came over to us, on the other side of the street there must have been a couple of thousand African-Americans. And the police came over to us, and they said if this goes a certain way, we cannot protect you. They were ready to riot if O.J. was found guilty. That's why I go there's still a mistrust of the system and a certain of level of wanting to break things if it doesn't go their way.

During the March 12 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Brit Hume and a panel that included The Beltway Boys co-host and Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes discussed the controversy over the awarding of a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract to Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EADS), the parent company of Airbus, over the American company Boeing. According to Reuters, the contract was described as a "surprise blow" to Boeing, which had previously been the "Pentagon's sole supplier of aerial tankers." In purporting to explain Sen. John McCain's role in the controversy, Barnes stated, "[H]ere's what he asked for: He asked for the Air Force to take into consideration, which he thought the Air Force regulations required, aircraft -- taking into consideration maximizing cargo and passenger capacity, which are important in a supertanker. Well, they did. And now Northrop Grumman and Airbus won the contract." But McCain reportedly asked for more than what Barnes said. His request was reportedly not merely for what the Air Force should take into consideration, but what he reportedly said it should not take into consideration. McCain reportedly urged the Defense Department to -- in the words of The New York Times -- "not proceed with a plan to consider" the potential effects of a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute between the United States and the European Union over whether Airbus and Boeing received illegal subsidies for commercial airliners from their respective governments, and those effects were dropped from consideration. According to numerous media reports, the omission of the subsidies dispute as a factor in evaluating the proposals benefited EADS and Northrop Grumman at the expense of Boeing. Boeing and EADS have been at the center of a WTO dispute after the U.S. filed a complaint -- still pending -- alleging that, according to a March 12 New York Times article, the European Union "provided illegal subsidies to design and develop aircraft, including preferential loans, debt relief and loans and research and development grants" for Airbus. In response, the "Europeans countersued, saying the United States had granted indirect subsidies to Boeing, including tax breaks." The Associated Press reported that in initial drafts of the Air Force's request for proposals for the tanker contract in 2006, "bidders would have been required to explain how financial penalties or other sanctions stemming from the subsidy dispute might affect their ability to execute the contract." The AP then wrote that the provision "was widely viewed as hurting the EADS-Northrop Grumman bid." Indeed, a March 7 Seattle Post-Intelligencer article reported that the "issue of European government subsidies for Airbus has been raised for years by Boeing supporters who claim that those financial breaks have allowed the Toulouse, France-based company to undercut Boeing's prices and thus gain market share in the global competition between the two aircraft manufacturers." Aerospace Daily Gates' confirmation hearing took place Dec. 5. One of McCain's concerns is whether the Air Force plans to make its decisions based on the hypothetical impacts of a pending trade dispute between Boeing and Airbus on pricing of their offerings for a refueling tanker. "I remain troubled that, without clarity on how answers to this provision will be evaluated, this element ... may risk eliminating competition before bids are submitted," McCain says. Each company accuses the other of unfair pricing based on government subsidies. Aerospace Daily he wanted to have read the letter. BARNES: Just -- wait a minute. Just think if the Air Force had only had one bidder and gave it to a company. KONDRACKE: I agree. BARNES: People would be raising Cain -- why don't you get another bidder? And here's what he asked for: He asked for the Air Force to take into consideration, which he thought the Air Force regulations required, aircraft -- taking into consideration maximizing cargo and passenger capacity, which are important in a supertanker. Well, they did. And now Northrop Grumman and Airbus won the contract. Look, why are they -- they're mad because they think jobs are being outsourced. Well, look, most of the jobs are gonna be here. They're gonna be in Alabama. And here's what makes a lot of them mad: They're gonna be non-union. MARA LIASSON (National Public Radio national correspondent): Look -- HUME: Quickly, Mara. LIASSON: There is nothing easier to demagogue when a foreign company gets a big contract, or even with an American partner in the United States. This happened with the Dubai ports deal; it's happening now. It turns out that they're gonna look at this, they're gonna see if this contract was awarded fairly, and they'll make a determination. HUME: What do you think will happen? LIASSON: I think it'll stand. From the January 30, 2007, Agence France-Presse article: The US Air Force Tuesday cleared the way for European aerospace company EADS to bid against Boeing Co. for a lucrative contract to supply a new generation of refueling tankers. The Pentagon said it was committed to an open bidding for the checkered "KC-X" project, which aims to replace the Air Force's aging mid-air tankers under a deal that could be worth up to 200 billion dollars. The contract is under intense scrutiny from the US Congress. A year ago, it was re-opened after a procurement scandal sank an initial Air Force deal to buy Boeing tankers without a competitive bidding process. "The Air Force remains committed to a full and open competition," said Sue Payton, the Air Force's senior acquisition executive. "The KC-X is the Air Force's number one acquisition priority and will continue to be conducted in a transparent and deliberate manner," she said. Payton stressed: "We don't really want to go to a hypothetical situation relative to only having one provider here, one proposal (from Boeing)." In its "request for proposals" (RFP), the Department of Defense dropped any link between the bidding and a legal tussle over aircraft subsidies being waged by the US and European Union at the World Trade Organization. The draft "WTO clause" was seen as penalizing EADS, whose commercial aircraft unit Airbus is the target of the US government case at the Geneva-based referee of the global trading system. The Air Force's invitation for bidding also appeared to take account of objections lodged by Northrop Grumman, the US partner of EADS for the massive mid-air refueling plane contract. Northrop had threatened to pull out unless the terms were altered to give priority to more than just cost in the Pentagon's decision-making, which would have favored a cheaper offering from Boeing. Northrop said it was "deferring comment" until its project team has completed a "thorough review" of the RFP. Any withdrawal by Northrop would leave EADS without a US partner and so unable to proceed with the bid, which the European company sees as pivotal to its ambitions to take on the world's biggest military market.

During the 10 p.m. ET hour of the March 2 edition of Fox News' America's Election HQ, Republican pollster Frank Luntz said to the studio audience regarding Sen. Barack Obama: "But let's face it. He doesn't have foreign policy experience. He hasn't run a government, he hasn't run a business. Doesn't that concern you?" Luntz then asked the audience, whom he had earlier described as "30 uncommitted people here, come from all different places, different backgrounds": "How many of you are concerned about that?" The cameras then panned the studio to show people with their hands up. In fact, Obama has served on the Foreign Relations Committee since his election to the Senate and has visited Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the Middle East, and Africa as a senator. Additionally, Obama has sponsored foreign policy legislation such as the Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act of 2007 to eliminate weapons stockpiles and reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction -- portions of which were enacted as part of the omnibus appropriations bill for FY 2008 -- and the Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act, which was enacted on December 22, 2006. At the beginning of the hour, anchor Bill Hemmer introduced Luntz only as the "pollster-in-chief, Frank Luntz of Luntz, Maslansky Strategic Research." As Media Matters for America has noted, Luntz has worked for the Republican Party and for Republican candidates, including Rudy Giuliani during his 1993 and 1997 mayoral campaigns, as well as his 2000 Senate race, from which Giuliani withdrew. From the 10 p.m. ET hour of the March 2 edition of Fox News' America's Election HQ: HEMMER: We have a wonderful and well-informed audience with us tonight, and you at home will watch live as we chart their second-by-second reaction to the speeches, to the ads, what works, what doesn't work. With me tonight is the pollster-in-chief, Frank Luntz of Luntz, Maslansky Strategic Research. Good evening, Frank. LUNTZ: Hey, it's great to be here. HEMMER: I'm going to start with the most important part of the entire evening. Who's in our audience? LUNTZ: We've got 30 uncommitted people here, come from all different places, different backgrounds, and they're all holding a device: an instant-response dial. The higher that they turn their dial, the more favorable the response; and if they turn it down, you're getting a negative reaction. They're going to be determining whether the latest ads, the latest sound bites are working for the candidates or turning people off. [...] HEMMER: That was retort number two, rated by our viewers so far in this campaign season. We've talked a lot about the strengths with these candidates' men and women tonight. Now we are going to talk about the weaknesses, and where they can improve. LUNTZ: It's interesting. In the break, we were talking about the balance, and it seems like there's an awful lot of good Obama stuff here. But that's because he's been such a good communicator. HEMMER: And out here, too. LUNTZ: But let's face it. He doesn't have foreign policy experience. He hasn't run a government, he hasn't run a business. Doesn't that concern you? It does. How many of you are concerned about that? OK, so most of you. And yet, Obama -- HEMMER: Every single one. Every hand went up. LUNTZ: And Obama's got more support.

On the February 22 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg said: "I think one of the things that is decidedly fascistic, or at least just a bad idea, is looking for silver bullets. You know, when [Sen.] Barack Obama campaigns, he's basically saying, 'I'm a silver bullet. I'm going to solve all your problems just by electing me.' FDR, Hitler, all these guys, they basically said, 'All your problems can be solved.' " Moments later, Goldberg added: "The logic of conservatism says that there are no final -- you know, there are no perfect solutions to anything." Goldberg is the author of the recently published book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (Doubleday, January 2008). During his interview with Goldberg, host Glenn Beck said, "I've been saying -- I mean, a couple of weeks ago, Jonah, I said, 'Please, stop buying my book. Buy this book and give it to your liberal friend.' " As Media Matters for America documented, on the January 10 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Goldberg claimed "you can draw a line" from Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini to Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton, "but it's not a straight one. ... I'm not saying that today's liberalism is the son of Nazism or the son of Italian fascism. I'm saying it's sort of like the great-grandniece once removed." Goldberg also declared on the January 17 edition of Morning Joe that "Hillary Clinton is essentially like the agricultural minister from the Soviet Politburo in 1976." Beck called Clinton a "liberal fascist" on the January 24 edition of his CNN Headline News program. The whole February 22 edition of Glenn Beck was an interview with Goldberg. Part of the interview also aired on the February 18 edition of the program. From the February 22 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck: BECK: So how do you -- how do you stop it? How do you wake people up? I've been saying -- I mean, a couple of weeks ago, Jonah, I said, "Please, stop buying my book. Buy this book and give it to your liberal friend. One that is open-minded enough that says, 'OK, I may agree on these policies, yadda, yadda, yadda, but it's important that I learn the history -- GOLDBERG: Right. BECK: -- of liberal fascism so I can then judge for myself. I know, "Oh, this is what I'm doing." ' " GOLDBERG: Right. BECK: If you know what you're doing, well, then you're making an intelligent choice. How do you stop this? GOLDBERG: Well, I'm -- I think one of the things that is decidedly fascistic, or at least just a bad idea, is looking for silver bullets. You know, when Barack Obama campaigns, he's basically saying, "I'm a silver bullet. I'm going to solve all your problems just by electing me." FDR, Hitler, all these guys, they basically said, "All your problems can be solved." And all that kind of thing. I don't think conservatives should buy into that logic. The logic of conservatism says that there are no final -- you know, there are no perfect solutions to anything. It's just going to take a long argument. I mean, this argument has been going on in America for a century now. You know, during the Cold War, this was an intense argument. You had liberals constantly looking to places like the Soviet Union as a model, you know, saying that it was a better place. You have still have these incredibly sand-poundingly stupid people talking about how Castro has a better model. You know? And -- BECK: I wonder who that is.

During the February 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly attacked Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker as an "antireligionist" and a "far-left zealot" over her February 17 column headlined "VP Huckabee is a sincerely scary prospect." O'Reilly stated: "In The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, far-left zealot Cynthia Tucker, the editorial director there, says Mike Huckabee is unfit to be even vice president because of his faith in God." Later in the broadcast, while interviewing Nancy Pfotenhauer, senior advisor for Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, O'Reilly claimed: "Cynthia Tucker, our old pal in Atlanta, who is an antireligionist and a far-left zealot, says that Huckabee, who interestingly enough governed Arkansas for two terms in a secular manner, is unfit to hold any national office because of his belief in God." In fact, at no point did Tucker claim that Huckabee is unfit for the vice presidential office "because of his faith in God," as O'Reilly falsely asserted. Rather, Tucker specifically noted Huckabee's support for constitutional amendments banning abortion and same-sex marriage, criticizing Huckabee's stated desire, in Huckabee's words, "to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards, rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family." She stated that Huckabee "shouldn't be on any ticket" and later wrote, "The last thing we need is another president or vice president who believes he can intrepret [sic] God's standards." She concluded: "As for Huckabee, he'd make a fine addition to the roster of high-profile theocrats currently on the political scene -- James Dobson, Gary Bauer and Pat Robertson, to name a few." Additionally, during the February 18 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, O'Reilly called Tucker a "far-left loon" and asserted: "Now, we have tracked Ms. Tucker for years, and she is as irresponsible and as dedicated a leftist -- and I would say I'd put her in the socialist category. She is off the chart." After reading from Tucker's column, O'Reilly stated: "So Tucker, consistently anti-religion, thinks religion is a bad thing, and this is who's in charge of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the largest paper in the southern part of the United States." O'Reilly has repeatedly attacked Tucker and the Journal-Constitution, including in his book, Culture Warrior (Broadway Books, 2006). In a December 2, 2007, column (accessed via the Nexis database), Tucker referenced O'Reilly's controversial comments about his trip to Sylvia's, a Harlem restaurant: "A recent poll has found that 61 percent of black Americans believe that the values of poor blacks have become 'more different' from the values of middle-class blacks in recent years. With the possible exception of Bill O'Reilly -- who professed astonishment at the good manners of black patrons at a Harlem restaurant --- no one should be surprised at those findings." O'Reilly responded on the December 3, 2007, edition of The O'Reilly Factor by calling Tucker "flat-out dishonest": O'REILLY: Last week alone, Cynthia Tucker, head of editorials for The Atlanta Journal Constitution, Maureen Dowd, a columnist for The New York Times, and Lauren Rikleen, a columnist in "The Boston Globe", all completely distorted my position on racism using almost identical language. What a coincidence. Now, these women couldn't care less about the truth. They're flat-out dishonest; in business solely to advance an agenda. And business is good. There are few journalistic standards left these days, as we have proven on this broadcast again and again. "Talking Points" wishes the dangerous media dishonesty on display would get half the attention Mr. [Don] Imus is getting. O'Reilly has also included Tucker in a list of liberal columnists who he said label people with whom they disagree "bigots." From the February 18 Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor: O'REILLY: "Impact" segment tonight, as predicted, it didn't take long for the press to begin attacking John McCain. The Associated Press, which bills itself as an objective news wire service, has filed an article on McCain's terrible temper, pretty much implying the man's out of control. In The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, far-left zealot Cynthia Tucker, the editorial director there, says Mike Huckabee is unfit to be even vice president because of his faith in God. [...] O'REILLY: Let's take the second one. Cynthia Tucker, our old pal in Atlanta, who is an antireligionist and a far-left zealot, says that Huckabee, who interestingly enough governed Arkansas for two terms in a secular manner, is unfit to hold any national office because of his belief in God. And you say? PFOTENHAUER: I say that's a bizarre conclusion. Of all the things that would make someone unfit to hold office, faith and having faith isn't anywhere near the top. It's not even in the top 1,000. In fact, I would be comforted by the idea that someone, of all the things that could influence them when they go into their job, that faith would be one of them. And that would be -- O'REILLY: But Tucker says he's a theocrat. That means he wants to impose his belief on you and I and everybody else -- you and me and everybody else. PFOTENHAUER: Well, you know, I believe that it -- that the story itself was legitimate to write because it -- because Mike Huckabee didn't just talk about his faith; he linked his faith to specific actions that he would take while, you know, while governing. And so I think a discussion of that is OK. I just -- I just believe her conclusions were bizarre and out of step with the American people. O'REILLY: All right. Well, I believe that's true. She's pretty out of step. From the February 18 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly: O'REILLY: All right, now, when you get into the local papers, it doesn't come any worse than The Atlanta Journal-Constitution for those of you down in Atlanta. Cynthia Tucker, who runs their editorial page, is a far-left loon -- the woman is off-the-chart left. And she writes a hit piece on Huckabee saying that, "VP Huckabee is a sincerely scary prospect. He's even scarier than Dick Cheney." This is Cynthia Tucker. Now, we have tracked Ms. Tucker for years, and she is as irresponsible and as dedicated a leftist -- and I would say I'd put her in the socialist category. She is off the chart. And she says, quote, "But Huckabee has no business being a heartbeat away from the presidency, especially if McCain is the president. If the Arizona [sic: senator] were to win the White House on November 4, he would be the oldest person to be inaugurated for a first term." There you go. We want to get that in, OK. "I'm sure Huckabee would make a fine addition to a high-profile theocratic roster -- James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson, to name a few." So he's a theocrat. So Tucker, consistently anti-religion, thinks religion is a bad thing, and this is who's in charge of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the largest paper in the southern part of the United States. From the December 3, 2007, edition of The O'Reilly Factor: O'REILLY: Last week alone, Cynthia Tucker, head of editorials for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution; Maureen Dowd, a columnist for The New York Times; and Lauren Rikleen, a columnist in The Boston Globe, all completely distorted my position on racism, using almost identical language. What a coincidence. Now, these women couldn't care less about the truth. They're flat-out dishonest; in business solely to advance an agenda. And business is good. There are few journalistic standards left these days, as we have proven on this broadcast again and again. "Talking Points" wishes the dangerous media dishonesty on display would get half the attention Mr. [Don] Imus is getting. I fully realize that most Americans could not care less about what the media says and does. And the public is not fazed by what is printed on evil.com or "The Daily Deceiver." But it should be. We in the media are very powerful. We can ruin lives and damage the country in ways that affect every American. We, the people, need to wise up. In the big picture, Imus is just an entertainer, a guy talking on the radio. But the corrupt press is far, far different story. It wants to drastically alter this country and will destroy or try to destroy anyone who stands in its way. The upcoming presidential race will clearly demonstrate what I am telling you right now. Pay attention. And that's the Memo.

MSNBC still doesn't "get it": hosts Obama-bashing hatemonger Ann Coulter ... again A month ago, after Chris Matthews made a forced (and ridiculously inadequate) apology for one of his many sexist comments about Hillary Clinton, MSNBC colleagues Joe Scarborough, David Shuster, and Mika Brzezinski leaped to Matthews' defense. Brzezinski and Scarborough suggested that Matthews had been taken out of context; in doing so, they falsely portrayed the controversy as being about a single Matthews comment, rather than a years-long pattern of behavior that has been exhaustively detailed by Media Matters, Bob Somerby, and others. Shuster complained: "[T]o see him have to go through this is absolutely infuriating, to see the way these groups used him for pure political gain is absolutely infuriating." Scarborough added, "This ain't about Hillary Clinton's campaign." This morning, Matthews lashed out at the Clinton campaign, saying that Clinton should "get rid of the kneecappers that work for her," referring to her communications staff who go "after the press." Matthews added, "The kneecapping hasn't worked. Her press relations are lousy. ... If all you do is intimidate and punish and claim you'll get even relentlessly, people of all kinds of politicians -- and in all fairness, the press -- human reaction to intimidation is screw you." For the record, Matthews' overt hostility toward Hillary Clinton cannot honestly be described as a reaction to how her presidential campaign has treated the press: More than six years ago, Matthews said of Clinton, "I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for." More to the point, Matthews' apparent blaming of the Clinton campaign for his own sexism is the clearest indication yet that he doesn't "get it" and that MSNBC doesn't care that he doesn't get it. MSNBC apparently still doesn't understand that this controversy "ain't about Hillary Clinton's campaign." And it isn't about just one comment, or just one MSNBC reporter. It's about a steady stream of inappropriate comments by Chris Matthews ... and by Joe Scarborough and by Tucker Carlson and by David Shuster. Not just about Hillary Clinton, but about (and to) many women, including some conservative women. And the problem at MSNBC isn't limited to the cable channel's treatment of women: Remember, this is the network that hired Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, and Don Imus. All three were fired after making (predictably) disgraceful comments. Only Imus' firing had anything to do with sexism, and his controversial comments were both sexist and racist. The controversy, in short, ain't about Hillary Clinton's campaign and never has been. It is about NBC News allowing MSNBC (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, NBC itself) to be a safe haven for hate speech and a sanctuary for sexism. How else to explain MSNBC's decision to make Ann Coulter a frequent guest? As MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan (a well-known bigot in his own right) explained after a Coulter appearance on the cable channel last year: "I don't think she's peddling hate. ... MSNBC certainly doesn't ... because if they did, they would never put her on the air for an hour." Ann Coulter peddles nothing but hate. Well, that isn't quite fair -- she typically throws in a few lies as well. But the hate is her bread and butter. MSNBC knows this; they fired her for it long ago. Yet they continue to host her. Media Matters noted in October: As Media Matters for America documented, in the weeks following the release of her last book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006), Coulter made numerous appearances on MSNBC, CNBC, and their parent network, NBC, where she unleashed a stream of attacks on the widows of victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. As Media Matters also documented, while NBC continued to provide Coulter an open platform with which to spew her inflammatory and offensive rhetoric, several NBC hosts and anchors -- including Tonight Show host Jay Leno, Today co-host Matt Lauer, and Nightly News anchor Brian Williams -- expressed disapproval of Coulter's "harsh" and "nasty" statements. On June 26, 2007 -- the date Godless was released in paperback -- Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's Hardball, claimed that Coulter forces him to "go to confession." Matthews, however, has a history of inviting her on his show. Following an appearance on Today in June 2006 -- during which Coulter criticized the 9-11 widows for "speak[ing] out using the fact that they're widows" and "using their grief" and "the fact that [they] lost a husband" to make "a political point while preventing anyone from responding" -- Williams devoted a segment of the Nightly News to the subject of "civility in American life," highlighting Coulter's comments. And yet NBC and its cable affiliates have continued to invite her on the air. The upcoming release of Coulter's new book gives rise once again to the question of whether NBC programs will keep hosting her. According to a Media Matters review*, Coulter has been interviewed at least 194 times on at least 13 individual programs on MSNBC, CNBC, and NBC since April 28, 1997. Just yesterday, Coulter was a guest on MSNBC Live. A day earlier, she had referred to Barack Obama as "B. Hussein Obama" five times in a span of two minutes and once described him as "President Hussein." During her appearance on MSNBC, the cable channel touted her recent statement that Obama "wouldn't be running for president if he weren't half-black," which she has described as his "big accomplishment." On NBC programs alone, Coulter has called former Vice President Al Gore a "total fag" and has attacked former President Bill Clinton as a "latent homosexual." She has defended her claim that 9-11 widows were "enjoying their husbands' deaths." She has wished aloud that "the American military were targeting journalists." She has claimed that "John Kerry does not believe in God." And she has spoken of "perfecting Jews." After Elizabeth Edwards responded to Coulter's description of her husband, John, as a "faggot," MSNBC Live host Chris Jansing asked Edwards, "There are people who support your opinion, I'm sure you know, who say, 'Why even dignify it with a response? Why give Ann Coulter more publicity?'" Why give Ann Coulter more publicity? That's a question that should be directed to Steve Capus, not Elizabeth Edwards. As the president of NBC News, Capus may be more responsible than anyone else on earth for giving Ann Coulter publicity. In August 2006, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann said of Coulter: "[W]hy she has not been banned from this network, I do not know." That's a good question, and one Capus should answer -- but it is also too narrow a question. MSNBC is the channel that hired Coulter in the 1990s, only to fire her after her controversial comments to a disabled Vietnam veteran; that hired Michael Savage in 2003, then had to fire him for telling a caller to "get AIDS and die"; that hired Don Imus, then had to fire him for making sexist and racist comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team. This is a cable channel that has, for years, been a welcome home to highly questionable comments about race, gender, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation. Chris Matthews has said Republicans "have a right to fear" seeing a "majority Latino population"; when his guest defended America's "tradition" of welcoming immigrants, Matthews retorted, "Do you live in a Mexican neighborhood?" Tucker Carlson used his MSNBC show to call the NAACP a "sad joke that should be shut down" and has attacked Barack Obama's religion, saying of Obama's church, "[I]t's hard to call that Christianity." Joe Scarborough says that pollster John Zogby, an Arab-American, "may be biased" on the issue of the Iraq war and "the Middle East situation." Before Don Imus was fired, his executive producer told MSNBC viewers that Obama has a "Jew-hating name"; Imus himself referred to the "Jewish management" of CBS Radio as "money-grubbing bastards." MSNBC apparently didn't have any problem with those comments; it would be months before Imus was fired. The cable channel, however, did issue public apologies for ethnic slurs on Imus' show in 2004 and for comments made on the program about the movie Brokeback Mountain in 2006 -- though the later apology whitewashed Chris Matthews' role in the matter. MSNBC frequently hosts Bill Donohue, an unrepentant bigot who has said that "[p]eople don't trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty," referred to the "gay death style," demanded that the gay community "apologize to straight people for all the damage that they have done," asserted that Hollywood "is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular," and claimed that Hollywood "likes anal sex" and "abortions." Not to mention his repeated use of the slur "gook." And he has said all of that on MSNBC. This is a cable channel that, in the middle of a monthlong controversy over its pattern of broadcasting sexist comments, chose to host Ann Coulter, a pundit whose defining characteristic is her tendency to make utterly inappropriate comments about women and minorities. (A more tone-deaf response to such a controversy is hard to imagine, though Arkansas Democrat-Gazette political editor Bill Simmons' decision to respond to accusations that the paper's newsroom is a "good ole' boys club" filled with racist and sexist commentary by referring to "boys being boys" was indescribably bad.) This is what MSNBC is. It is the cable channel of Ann Coulter and Michael Savage and Don Imus. It is the home to Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson and their deeply disturbed attitudes toward women. The longer MSNBC responds to legitimate concerns about the conduct of its hosts and guests by lashing out at critics and booking Ann Coulter again, the more clear it becomes that the problems at MSNBC go much higher than Chris Matthews.