the body politek

Responding to reporting, followed by confirmation, that President-elect Barack Obama intends to nominate Sen. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, many in the media, including contributors to Politico and people appearing on CNN and MSNBC, have raised the specter of personal and political "drama" -- which they claim accompanies Hillary and Bill Clinton wherever they go -- negatively affecting the Obama administration. The Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page acknowledged that the media are hoping for "drama" resulting from a Clinton appointment; Page responded to the question of how Obama is "going to keep the drama at bay" by saying: "Well, do we want that? We're journalists."

John Isaacs, the executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, summarized the "torrent of media coverage" focused on Obama and Clinton's relationship in a December 1 piece comparing the two Democrats' foreign policy positions:

President-elect Barack Obama announced today that he will nominate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) to be Secretary of State. Selecting a former rival for the most prestigious of cabinet positions has unleashed a torrent of media coverage, most of which has focused on grossly exaggerated disagreements during the presidential campaign and behind-the-scenes political maneuvering.

This reporting misses the point. As Lt. General Robert Gard, chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, wrote recently, "It's not Hillary, it's the policy stupid!" Reporters tend to exaggerate conflict because it makes for more interesting copy. The fact is, however, that when it comes to foreign policy, Obama and Clinton agree far more than they disagree. [bold in original]

Media Matters for America previously noted that several media figures speculated that Clinton would pursue her own agenda and not Obama's as secretary of state, with at least one pundit speculating that she would attempt to set up a "parallel government" while others speculated that Obama was considering the nomination because if Clinton remains in the Senate, she poses a threat of challenging him for the presidential nomination in 2012 and can "mak[e] trouble" for him in the Senate.

Politico references to purported Clinton "drama"

• In a December 2 Politico column, chief political columnist Roger Simon described Obama's nomination of Clinton as one that "took some struggle and considerable drama" and asserted: "Drama and Hillary seem to go hand in hand, though this is not always her fault. Her husband seems the source of much of it."
• In a December 1 article, chief political writer Mike Allen and executive editor Jim VandeHei stated that Obama's nominations for his national security team "offer some important evidence on the best-kept secret of the past two years: how will a President Obama actually govern in these troubled times?" Allen and VandeHei later asserted that Clinton at the State Department could "be a disaster if the Clinton family's penchant for personal and political dramas distract the Obama presidency."
• In a November 18 article, senior political writer Ben Smith claimed that unnamed members of the Obama campaign view "Clinton as a relic of a drama-filled Democratic past." Smith wrote: "So the transition from viewing Hillary Clinton as a relic of a drama-filled Democratic past to the top choice to run the foreign policy of an Obama administration has been difficult for some campaign veterans, to say the least."

CNN references to purported Clinton "drama"

• On the December 1 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull, host Campbell Brown aired a segment by CNN senior correspondent Joe Johns on Clinton's nomination in which Johns referred to the Clintons as "America's reigning king and queen of political drama." Johns' segment aired again later that night during Anderson Cooper 360. Host Anderson Cooper introduced the segment by saying, "Food fight or partnership? Animal House or Casablanca? Either way, plenty of drama ahead, on top of plenty of drama just to get here. We wanted to know what deals were actually made to get the Clintons on board."
• During the November 23 edition of Reliable Sources, host Howard Kurtz said to New Republic senior editor Michelle Cottle, "[T]he mood swings here are almost comical. The New York Times on Friday quoting an unnamed Hillary friend as saying, 'She decided, well, she's not going to do it.' Then she decided maybe. So, is the Clinton style, or are reporters ginning this up by talking to everybody they can?" Cottle responded: "Well, you know, every time the Clintons are involved there must be high drama. This is kind of the defining characteristic of the Clintons. So, I'm sure on some level it's, you know, fun for Bill and Hillary to be out there, and they're the ones who are kind of like, well, playing hard to get or, you know, along these lines."
• On the November 21 edition of Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull, a panel discussed Peggy Noonan's November 21 Wall Street Journal column, in which Noonan wrote that the "downside" to Obama's selection of Clinton is that "[t]o invite in the Clintons -- and it's always the Clintons, never a Clinton -- is to invite in, to summon, drama that will never end. Ever." Stephen Hayes, senior writer for the conservative Weekly Standard, called Clinton's nomination "a logistical disaster for the Obama administration." CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin later said in response: "I think it's a journalistic obsession more than a public obsession. I really don't think there are a lot of people out there who care what day she accepts this nomination. She's either gonna be a good secretary of state or not."

New York Daily News columnist Errol Louis then stated: "[I]t is curious. I mean, even something simple like opening an office in New York for Bill Clinton -- remember that? There was, the back and the forth, and it couldn't be this place and it couldn't be that place. And then he goes to Harlem. You know, I mean, 'drama' is the right word. I think, though, that you're right, that the drama may not mean that much. But you're always gonna get the drama." Toobin replied, "You are -- we love drama."

• While discussing Noonan's column during the November 21 edition of The Situation Room, The Washington Post's Dana Milbank asserted, "[O]f course there's going to be drama. They could book out the Kennedy Center and sell tickets." Later, Hayes claimed, "Peggy Noonan is exactly right," adding: "And this is, I think, why it's going to be a problem going forward."
• During the November 20 edition of Larry King Live, CNN contributor Amy Holmes said, "I think Republicans would love the get their hands on her [Clinton] in a nomination hearing and start asking all those tough, sticky questions about her husband's financing." She continued: "You know, Barack Obama, he campaigned and he said, 'No drama.' Well, this last week, the Clinton drama has been back. And I think he might have some second thoughts about whether or not he wants that in his Cabinet."
• On the November 17 edition of Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull, Brown said that "it appears Bill Clinton isn't exactly helping her [Hillary Clinton's] case." Brown later asked if Bill Clinton is "a hindrance" to Hillary Clinton. In response, Louis said:

Well, he's been a -- look, they're a package deal, and I think we always -- we've always known that. And -- but I'll tell you, as far as the vetting, I don't think that this rules Hillary Clinton out by any means. Just as they say "no drama Obama," the Clintons, you get really pretty much the opposite. They're deliberate. They're early boomers. They're the center of attention. They agonize in public.

MSNBC references to purported Clinton "drama"

• During the December 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Page asserted: "The only thing about having Hillary Clinton there is we know her and her husband to be drama people, and we've got 'no drama Obama' as the chief executive." Host Chris Matthews responded: "Well, how is he going to keep the drama at bay?" Page answered: "Well, do we want that? We're journalists."
• On the November 20 edition of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, MSNBC political analyst Michelle Bernard asserted that "there is a difference between actually working for former President Clinton and -- and the former first lady and actually having Mrs. Clinton in a Cabinet position, particularly as the secretary of state, because her husband brings so much baggage." Bernard continued: "It is -- it's the Clinton era of drama all over again. And really, you know, we should be sort of basking in the election results of November 4th, and already we're back in the middle of Clinton drama." Host David Gregory responded: "Right."
• Appearing on the November 19 edition of Hardball, Bernard claimed "[t]here is always drama" surrounding the Clintons. Earlier, Bernard stated that Obama is "now the president-elect, and once again, all of the headlines in the news are about Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton." Bernard added: "And again, I have to say to myself, 'Who is the president-elect?' Is it Senator Obama -- former Senator Obama -- or is it Hillary Clinton? When does it end?" She continued:

She is a leader. She is not a follower. If she's going to be a good diplomat for the United States government, she has to be able to follow Obama's lead. And let's face it. Senator Clinton probably still is looking to 2012 and 2016. You can't do that and be an effective diplomat and also be an effective follower of the president-elect of the United States.

• On the November 17 edition of Hardball, Matthews asserted, "The Clintons are drama." Matthews stated:

When I first heard that the president-elect could pick Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state, my impulse was, "trouble." The Clintons are drama. They have ambition, and they also have a story to tell, and to be just by themselves. Why, I asked, does Obama, who has the nickname "No drama Obama," want to marry himself to drama?

• On the November 14 edition of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Gregory asked NBC News political director Chuck Todd: "[B]ut if you were Obama, and you were concerned about the drama factor with Hillary Clinton being on your team when you were considering her or not considering her for vice president, what happens if you bring her into the fold in such a big way and it doesn't work out now?"

From the December 1 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:

COOPER: Food fight or partnership? Animal House or Casablanca? Either way, plenty of drama ahead, on top of plenty of drama just to get here.

We wanted to know what deals were actually made to get the Clintons on board. [CNN senior correspondent] Joe Johns has the inside story and the "Raw Politics."

[...]

JOHNS [video clip]: And so what did Barack Obama have to give up to get Hillary Clinton as secretary of state? Well, he had to agree to share the domestic and international spotlight with America's reigning queen and king of political drama.

From the December 1 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull:

BROWN: Joe Johns is here with more on the give and take that put Obama's former rival into the top spot at the State Department. What happened?

JOHNS: Well, Campbell, if you're a political junkie like I am, and you love to hear about old-fashioned wheeling and dealing, this story has it all -- the story of how former rivals and a former president brokered an agreement to put Hillary Clinton on the world stage.

[...]

JOHNS [video clip]: And so what did Barack Obama have to give up to get Hillary Clinton as secretary of state? Well, he had to agree to share the domestic and international spotlight with America's reigning queen and king of political drama.

From the November 23 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:

KURTZ: Your -- your phone keeps ringing.

Michelle Cottle, the mood swings here are almost comical. The New York Times on Friday quoting an unnamed Hillary friend as saying, "She decided, well, she's not going to do it." Then she decided maybe. So, is this the Clinton style, or are reporters ginning this up by talking to everybody they can?

COTTLE: Well, you know, every time the Clintons are involved there must be high drama. This is kind of the defining characteristic of the Clintons. So, I'm sure on some level it's, you know, fun for Bill and Hillary to be out there, and they're the ones who are kind of like, well, playing hard to get or, you know, along these lines.

From the November 21 edition of Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull:

BROWN: Well, Steve, the big hurry may be to -- to try to tamp down some of this drama, which we know that the Obama camp hates. I mean, Peggy Noonan writes in The Wall Street Journal today "to invite the Clintons is to invite in, to summon drama that will never end. Ever."

I mean, are we seeing that play out right now? And if she does go to work for Obama, is he gonna be able to keep her on message? Will he be the boss?

HAYES: No, seriously, I mean, this is hilarious. We are now on, like, day nine of this drama. This is a simple transaction, in theory. Will you accept the job? Yes, I will accept the job. No, I won't accept the job. I mean, it should be as simple as that. Or maybe I need to take a day or two to think about it, I'll get back to you. Instead, really, just what we've seen, Campbell, you point out, in the last 24 hours, you've seen, yes, she's going take it. Well, no, she's not, that's premature. It's on track. Maybe it's not on track.

This is exactly, I think, the problem with picking Hillary Clinton. As much as I am sort of relieved as a conservative that she's a good choice for people who believe what I believe in terms of foreign policy -- she's better than a lot of other options -- this is, I think, a logistical disaster for the Obama administration.

BROWN: So -- so, Jeff, what -- what are these quote, unquote "discussions" about? What do you think they're still negotiating? What are the sticking points?

TOOBIN: Well, they are discussing, certainly, Bill's finances. But to call this a disaster is such a total overstatement. It matters not at all whether she accepts this job on Jan -- on November 21st or December 1st. That is of zero significance. Barack Obama isn't even going to be president for two months yet. This is a total fake noncontroversy of no consequence to anyone.

HAYES: No, I'm sorry. It is not -- it is not a fake noncontroversy. It's -- it's not as much what it's -- what's happening today -- yeah, fine, she could've accepted it a week ago, it doesn't change it. It's what it says about what's likely to come. And I think to deny that is frankly just naive. If you think that this is not a preview for what we're likely to see of a Hillary Clinton secretary of state in the Obama administration, I think it's just naive.

TOOBIN: There are a bunch of conservative journalists who hate the Clintons with such a passion that everything that they do they find offense at some level.

BROWN: But -- but, Jeff --

TOOBIN: And taking a few days to decide is not a big deal.

HAYES: Come on.

BROWN: It's not just -- in fairness, it's not just conservative journalists. I mean, look at the way the media in general -- I mean, we're all guilty of this -- covers the Clintons. I mean, every little up and down is a story, like it or not. And that comes with choosing her, inevitably. So -- so, don't you think that --

TOOBIN: But -- but I -- I think it is -- it is much more --

BROWN: -- it's a story just by virtue she's -- of the fact she's there.

TOOBIN: I think it's a journalistic obsession more than a public obsession. I really don't think there are a lot of people out there who care what day she accepts this nomination. She's either gonna be a good secretary of state or not.

LOUIS: Jeffrey, it is -- it is curious. I mean, even something simple like opening an office in New York for Bill Clinton -- remember that? There was, the back and the forth, and it couldn't be this place and it couldn't be that place. And then he goes to Harlem. You know, I mean, "drama" is the right word. I think, though, that you're right, that the drama may not mean that much. But you're always gonna get the drama.

TOOBIN: You are -- we love drama.

BROWN: OK, right.

From the November 21 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

WOLF BLITZER (host): Yeah. Listen to what Peggy Noonan wrote in The Wall Street Journal. She's a former speechwriter for President Reagan. "To invite in the Clintons -- and it's always the Clintons, never a Clinton -- is to invite in and to summon drama that will never end. Ever. This would seem to be at odds with the atmospherics of Obamaland."

What do you think about that?

GLORIA BORGER (CNN senior political analyst): Well, I think it tells you a lot about Obama, because you think he doesn't know that? Of course he knows that. He'd have to be living under a rock not to know that.

But I think he's self-confident enough. I think he really wants Hillary Clinton in that job because of the face she's going to present to the rest of the world. And I think he -- he can tell her, if things aren't working out well, things -- things have gotta change. So, I think it shows a very self-confident president-elect.

BLITZER: A lot of people are saying that, Dana. Don't you agree?

MILBANK: Yeah, I think Gloria is absolutely right. I mean, of course there's gonna be drama. They could book out the Kennedy Center and sell tickets. We know that. And it's -- it's going to be very --

BORGER: You'd be in the front row.

MILBANK: It's going to be very exciting for us. But it is a sign of confidence. And he said her assets, which are this huge personality who carries a lot of weight around the world, outweighs whatever little drama we're gonna have over at the Kennedy Center.

BLITZER: Yeah, and I think it's clear -- at least this is the impression I'm getting -- that this relationship that is emerging between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is -- they're getting closer and closer on a daily basis. But, you know, I'm not on the inside.

HAYES: Well --

BLITZER: That's just the impression I'm getting.

HAYES: I -- I would say I get a different impression. I mean, you look at just what's happened over the past 48 hours. She was going to take it. No, she wasn't. She's thinking seriously about it. Maybe not. Was it offered, was it not?

I mean, we have honestly had six different turns in this story in 48 hours. This -- this is unprecedented drama.

MILBANK: That was just the first act.

HAYES: And -- and it's a preview -- it's a preview of what is to come.

BLITZER: Yeah, but, you know, a lot of those leaks are coming from aides -- whether Obama aides or Clinton aides -- who may or may not be reflecting their own personal feelings, as opposed to the principals' feelings.

HAYES: There's no doubt. You're right about that. But those aides are going to go with her to the State Department, in all likelihood.

BORGER: Maybe.

HAYES: I mean this is -- this is exactly the kind of drama that he was known for avoiding. Peggy Noonan is exactly right. And this is, I think, why it's going to be a problem going forward.

From the November 20 edition of CNN's Larry King Live:

LARRY KING (host): And, of course, Senator Hillary Clinton. What do you think -- how would Republicans feel about her as secretary of state?

HOLMES: That's an interesting question. I think Republicans would love the get their hands on her in a nomination hearing and start asking all those tough, sticky questions about her husband's financing. You know, Barack Obama, he campaigned and he said, "No drama." Well, this last week, the Clinton drama has been back. And I think he might have some second thoughts about whether or not he wants that in his Cabinet.

From the November 17 edition of Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull:

BROWN: I mean, once again, it appears Bill Clinton isn't exactly helping her case. And at the time that the VP debate was happening, we heard, frankly, that that was a reason among the Obama team that she wasn't really considered. I mean, is he a hindrance here, truly?

LOUIS: Well, he's been a -- look, they're a package deal, and I think we always -- we've always known that. And -- but I'll tell you, as far as the vetting, I don't think that this rules Hillary Clinton out by any means. Just as they say "no drama Obama," the Clintons, you get really pretty much the opposite. They're deliberate. They're early boomers. They're the center of attention. They agonize in public.

From the December 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Now, let me start with this one -- Clarence, you first. He makes Hillary Clinton, his chief rival, who won 18 million votes, the secretary of state. But then he takes Susan Rice, who he really trusts on foreign policy, makes her ambassador to the U.N., and says she doesn't have to report to Hillary Clinton. She's going to report to me directly. Two Cabinet secretaries sitting next to each other at the Cabinet desk. Explain. It seems to me that that is how you deal with rivals -- you keep them separated.

PAGE: Well, this is a case, to torture what is becoming a cliché, keeping your friend, Susan Rice, close, and your former enemy, Hillary Clinton, closer. As secretary of state, she gets the higher position --

MATTHEWS: And not close to each other.

PAGE: -- not close to each other, but reporting directly to him, which is not that unusual. In the past, you know, national security adviser has always been kind of a rival to the secretary of state, as well. So it is going to be interesting. The only thing about having Hillary Clinton there is we know her and her husband to be drama people, and we've got "no drama Obama" as the chief executive.

MATTHEWS: Well, how is he going to keep the drama at bay?

PAGE: Well, do we want that? We're journalists.

[crosstalk]

MATTHEWS: OK. Do we want a good story? Chris Cillizza [washingtonpost.com writer], your thoughts. I want to take these one at a time.

From the November 20 edition of MSNBC's 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:

GREGORY: Well, Michelle, this is the line that they've been threading all week -- and last week, too -- as they have named these Clinton veterans to positions of prominence. And, of course, if Hillary Clinton becomes secretary of state, it doesn't get anymore prominent than that. The Clinton era is back.

BERNARD: Absolutely. This is, I believe, could be a potentially very significant problem for the brand new Obama administration. I mean, think about it, we just had the election on November 4th. Most of us are talking not so much about the president-elect, but about former President Bill Clinton and about Hillary Clinton.

[...]

BERNARD: But there is a difference between actually working for former President Clinton and -- and the former first lady and actually having Mrs. Clinton in a Cabinet position, particularly as the secretary of state, because her husband brings so much baggage. It is -- it's the Clinton era of drama all over again. And really, you know, we should be sort of basking in the election results of November 4th, and already we're back in the middle of Clinton drama.

GREGORY: Right.

From the November 19 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

BERNARD: When do you ever see in the history of the United States government, people who are up for Cabinet positions negotiating before the American public? I do ask: How does this end up in The Washington Post? We call him "No drama Obama." You know, he ran such a disciplined campaign. He's now the president-elect, and once again, all of the headlines in the news are about Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton.

And again, I have to say to myself, "Who is the president-elect?" Is it Senator Obama -- former Senator Obama -- or is it Hillary Clinton? When does it end? She is a leader. She is not a follower. If she's going to be a good diplomat for the United States government, she has to be able --

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

JOAN WALSH (Salon.com senior editor-in-chief): Well --

BERNARD: -- to follow Obama's lead. And let's face it. Senator Clinton probably still is looking to 2012 and 2016. You can't do that and be an effective diplomat and also be an effective follower of the president-elect of the United States.

WALSH: Then he won't pick her. You know what, Michelle? Then he won't pick her.

But this is what I have to say. I think this is fascinating. While the world was swept by Obamamania last year -- I confess, I was a late swooner, OK? I had some questions about him, but he won me over. And now I'm sitting here on the sidelines, admittedly, saying, "I trust Obama to make the right decision." If he picks her, it will be because he believes she will carry out his foreign policy. And if he doesn't pick her, there might be many reasons for that, but it'll be the right choice.

So, you know, I think this whole idea -- first of all, the Clintons are being blamed for leaking when it's not clear to me who's leaking what and who's talking about the negotiations. That might be Obama people who want to scuttle this thing. But, as always, the default in any situation is to blame the Clintons. They're the ones at fault.

[...]

BERNARD: See, I don't think this is a question of whether or not people trust Barack Obama's judgment to pick her --

WALSH: Well, I do.

BERNARD: -- or not pick her as secretary of state. But there are a lot of questions about the Clintons. There is always drama.

From the November 17 edition of Hardball:

MATTHEWS: Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews. Welcome to Hardball, tonight from Los Angeles. Leading off tonight: When I first heard that the president-elect could pick Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state, my impulse was, "trouble." The Clintons are drama. They have ambition, and they also have a story to tell, and to be just by themselves. Why, I asked, does Obama, who has the nickname "No drama Obama," want to marry himself to drama?

[...]

MATTHEWS: Well, isn't that something. Barack -- you're from out in the Midwest, you know Barack's reputation: "No drama Obama." He doesn't like anybody on his staff being interesting. He doesn't want even any interesting personalities on his staff like George Stephanopoulos. He doesn't want anybody interesting. He doesn't like any sideshows, period. The Clintons are always an interesting show, if you will, positively or negatively. Why would he want them aboard?

[...]

MATTHEWS: Peter, let's talk drama here. "No bama odrama" [sic] -- that's his nickname, because he doesn't like sideshows. He doesn't even like interesting staff people or colorful staff peoples like James Carville and -- and people like Stephanopoulos. They never would make it on his team. He likes quiet, gray-suited people, like [David] Axelrod and [David] Plouffe. You don't even know what Plouffe looks like. He doesn't like personality around him. Why would he bring the two biggest personalities in our lifetime into his Cabinet, into his world --

PETER BEINART (The New Republic editor-at-large and Time contributor): I -- I, Chris --

MATTHEWS: -- where anything Bill Clinton does, it's interesting to him? Why does he want Bill Clinton to explain --

BEINART: I just disagree. Rahm -- Rahm Emanuel is quite a character, and that was his first choice. He's not a quiet, retiring guy. I think Obama likes talent. I think he likes really smart people who are ambitious --

MATTHEWS: Why does he want drama?

From the November 14 edition of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:

TODD: You know, there are a lot of -- there are a lot of moving parts here before a deal is done.

GREGORY: But here -- but if you were Obama, and you were concerned about the drama factor with Hillary Clinton --

TODD: Right.

GREGORY: -- being on your team when you were considering her or not considering her for vice president, what happens if you bring her into the fold in such a big way and it doesn't work out now?

TODD: Well, I'll tell you, though, State is one of the places it's very hard to play political games.

In their coverage of World AIDS Day, several media outlets, including CNN, The Washington Post, The Indianapolis Star, and The Wall Street Journal, praised or uncritically reported praise of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). However, none of those outlets noted criticism of PEPFAR's requirement that starting in fiscal year 2006, 33 percent of funds set aside for prevention under the act that created PEPFAR be spent on abstinence-until-marriage education -- a provision the Bush administration reportedly lobbied Congress to add. According to many of the government officials responsible for managing PEPFAR abroad, as well as the Institute of Medicine (IOM), this requirement hindered PEPFAR's effectiveness in preventing the spread of AIDS. Congress removed the requirement when it reauthorized PEPFAR in 2008.

The following media outlets praised or uncritically reported praise of Bush's AIDS relief efforts:

• On the December 1 edition of CNN Newsroom, CNN correspondent Kathleen Koch stated that Bush's AIDS policy is "something that the president is quite proud of" and that "[t]he strides that the U.S. has helped make globally in the fight against HIV/AIDS" are "a really important part of his legacy."
• A December 2 Washington Post article reported that "Bush called his program to combat HIV/AIDS 'one of the most important initiatives of my administration' and praised it as a resounding success." The Post added: "The administration's HIV/AIDS initiative is a particular point of pride for Bush, who has received praise at home and abroad for his leadership on the issue."
• In a December 2 article, The Indianapolis Star uncritically reported that U.S. global AIDS coordinator Randall Tobias said that under Bush, the "U.S. has led the global fight against AIDS with the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief."
• A December 1 post on The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire blog reported that "[t]he White House is expected to roll out a series of retrospectives on President George W. Bush's achievements throughout the month of December" in order to "burnish" his "record." The post went on to report that "in remarks at the White House, Bush started with a recap of his substantial accomplishments on AIDS relief" and also uncritically reported Rev. Rick Warren's assertion that "[n]o man in history, no world leader has ever done more for global health than President George W. Bush, and I think we need to recognize that and I thank you for that."

None of these reports mentioned criticism of PEPFAR's abstinence-until-marriage requirement. According to a 2007 IOM report, "the abstinence-until-marriage budget allocation ... hampers ... PEPFAR's ability to meet the [prevention] target":

PEPFAR's approach to achieving the prevention target involves planning and implementing prevention programs and activities that are evidence-based, harmonized with country plans and priorities, and appropriate to each country's unique epidemiologic and cultural context. However, the abstinence-until-marriage budget allocation in the Leadership Act hampers these efforts and thus PEPFAR's ability to meet the target. Despite the efforts of the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator to administer the allocation judiciously, it has greatly limited the ability of Country Teams to develop and implement comprehensive prevention programs that are well integrated with each other and with counseling and testing, care, and treatment programs and that target those populations at greatest risk.

IOM further found that "the Committee has been unable to find evidence for the position that abstinence can stand alone or that 33 percent is the appropriate allocation for such activities even within integrated programs."

Moreover, in a 2006 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted the assessments of the "focus country teams" made up of the "U.S. agency officials responsible for managing PEPFAR in the focus countries." According to the GAO, "about half of the focus country teams told us that meeting the [abstinence] spending requirement can undermine the integration of prevention programs":

Satisfying the Leadership Act's abstinence-until-marriage spending requirement presents challenges to most country teams. Several focus country teams indicated that they value the ABC model [Abstain, Be faithful, or use Condoms] as an HIV/AIDS prevention tool and noted the importance of AB [abstinence/faithfulness] messages, particularly for certain populations. However, about half of the focus country teams told us that meeting the spending requirement can undermine the integration of prevention programs by forcing them to isolate funding for AB activities. Further, 17 of the 20 PEPFAR teams required to meet the spending requirement unless they obtain exemptions from it reported that the spending requirement presents challenges to their ability to respond to local epidemiology and cultural and social norms.

Additionally, in a November 2006 report titled "Bush's AIDS Initiative: Too Little Choice, Too Much Ideology," the Center for Public Integrity stated that Bush's AIDS relief policy "has enabled his administration to funnel tens of millions of dollars to Christian faith-based organizations that support his ideology and form his political base." The report quoted Dr. Paul Zeitz, executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance, asserting that PEPFAR "is failing to stop the global spread of AIDS and failing to help lead the world to stop this deadly disease. ... We have a flawed framework with flawed policies that have kept us from being where we should be by now."

According to a May 2, 2003, New York Times article, the abstinence-spending provision, added to the United States Leadership Against Global HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 as an amendment in the House, "was endorsed by the White House. Lawmakers said Vice President Dick Cheney called House members today to lobby for it."

A February 21 New York Times article reported that amid Democratic efforts to remove the abstinence spending requirement from PEPFAR, Bush "defended the requirement":

[F]or the first time on the trip, Mr. Bush faced tough questioning from an African reporter about his administration's requirement that one-third of the AIDS initiative's prevention funds be spent on programs promoting abstinence.

The independent Institute of Medicine has said the abstinence requirement is hindering prevention efforts. Democrats in Congress, debating reauthorization of the initiative, want it dropped.

Mr. Bush's questioner on Wednesday told the president that the requirement was not realistic, because "multiple sexual relationships or partner relationships is the reality" in African societies, "though it's not spoken of in public."

As he has in the past, Mr. Bush defended the requirement, but he then went a step further.

"I monitor the results," he said. "And if it looks like it's not working, then we'll change. But thus far I can report, at least to our citizens, that the program has been unbelievably effective. And we're going to stay at it."

Additionally, a February 18 article on the San Francisco Chronicle's website reported:

"It is a balanced program. It is an ABC program: abstinence, be faithful and condoms. It's a program that's been proven effective," he [Bush] said, speaking at a news conference with Tanzanian President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete, an enthusiastic supporter of the effort.

"I understand there's voices on both ends of the political spectrum trying to alter the program," Bush said. "I would ask Congress to listen to leaders on the continent of Africa ... analyze what works, stop the squabbling and get the program reauthorized."

Congress subsequently passed the reauthorization bill, and Bush signed it on July 30. According to a 2008 GAO report, the bill "removes the abstinence-until-marriage spending requirement and calls for the Global AIDS Coordinator to ensure that abstinence and fidelity programs are evidence-based and country-based."

From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the December 1 edition of CNN Newsroom:

HARRIS: Today, World AIDS Day. Take a look at this. That means four people will be infected while I'm on your television screen. Today is the 20th World AIDS Day. Globally, 33 million people are believed to be infected with HIV. CNN's Kathleen Koch is at the White House, where a gigantic red ribbon decorates the North Portico. Kathleen, good morning to you. Quite a sight.

KOCH: Yes indeed, Tony. This very same ribbon actually graced the North Portico, if you'll remember, last year on World AIDS Day. And it's important to point out that this is a really -- something that the president is quite proud of, the strides that the U.S. has helped make globally in the fight against HIV/AIDS, a really important part of his legacy. And he and the first lady came out on the North Lawn about an hour and a half ago underneath this great, huge ribbon that's gracing the North Portico.

And the president talked about how his President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, known in the shorthand version as PEPFAR most of the time -- how it finally has reached the goal that it set back in 2003, when it started, of increasing the number of people who are receiving anti-retroviral treatment for HIV/AIDS from 50,000 -- that was the number in 2003 -- to 2 million within just five years.

BUSH [video clip]: When PEPFAR began, only 50,000 people living with HIV in all of sub-Sahara Africa were receiving anti-retroviral treatment. Around the world, we've also supported care for more than 10 million people affected by HIV, including more than 4 million orphans and vulnerable children. More than 237,000 babies had been born HIV-free thanks to the support of the American people for programs to prevent mothers from passing the virus on to their children.

KOCH: Now, for the last hour or so, the president has been participating across town in a civil forum in global health here in Washington. And the president receiving a touching video tribute, not only from U.N. -- the head of the U.N., Ban Ki-moon, but from Bono, from Bill Gates. The president also reflected on how he got involved in fighting this global pandemic of AIDS, and he talked about, if he'd done nothing about it, how he would have, quote, "disgraced the office of the presidency." And he also discussed how he was surrounded by people who felt this was just such an important cause for the United States to take up, people including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Now, looking at the program, the president did just in July sign legislation that will authorize another $48 billion, Tony, to expand the program.

HARRIS: All right, Kathleen Koch. Wow, that's quite a figure right there.

KOCH: Quite a lot.

HARRIS: Yeah. At the White House for us, Kathleen, thank you.

Several media figures have recently promoted the notion of division among supporters of President-elect Barack Obama, claiming that "the left" has been or should be disappointed with his Cabinet selections. But the media figures fostering this notion of significant disappointment with Obama's actions rarely offer actual support for their position, which is undermined by recent polling data. A USA Today/Gallup poll released December 2 found that 94 percent of Democrats "approve of the way Obama is handling his presidential transition." The poll also found that 89 percent of Democrats approve of Sen. Hillary Clinton's nomination to be secretary of state and that 79 percent of Democrats approve of Obama's decision to reappoint Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

In a December 2 USA Today column headlined "Left behind: Obama's centrist Cabinet picks must have Democratic ideologues wondering what happened to the change they can believe in," conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg wrote that Obama's Cabinet picks have yielded "dismayed followers" among "the left." Goldberg wrote:

You almost have to feel sorry for the left.

President-elect Barack Obama was supposed to be their guy. That woman, Hillary Clinton, was the centrist, reach-across-the-aisle type. They picked Obama because he was going to be the "transformative" leader who didn't need to compromise with the right or even with reality. Heck, Obama the Wise would magically change reality itself, right around the same moment he'd force those pesky oceans to recede.

[...]

Obama promised to turn the page on, first and foremost, the Bush years, but also the political approach that marked the Clinton years. Nonetheless, he has not only embraced Hillary, he also has hired Bill Clinton's Treasury secretary, Larry Summers, to head his National Economic Council, tapped former Clintonite fixer Rahm Emanuel to be his chief of staff, and former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta to run his transition.

[...]

Even Bush holdovers, nominal and actual, outnumber and outrank serious progressives in the Obama Cabinet. Leading the pack is Robert Gates, President Bush's secretary of Defense -- the man who oversaw the very troop surge in Iraq that Obama opposed. Timothy Geithner, head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, will run the Obama Treasury Department. But Geithner has been a de facto right-hand man of current Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Indeed, of all Obama's confirmed or reported picks, only Eric Holder, Obama's nominee for attorney general, will cause any furor from the right. Even so, the former Clinton deputy AG is no darling of the left.

To his dismayed followers, Obama says fear not, I am the change. "Understand where the vision for change comes from, first and foremost," he told supporters. "It comes from me. That's my job, to provide a vision in terms of where we are going, and to make sure, then, that my team is implementing."

Similarly, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes wrote in a column posted on the Weekly Standard's website as of December 3 that Obama's Treasury Department and national security selections indicated "he's pragmatic (so far) in one direction -- rightward. Who knew?" Barnes wrote:

So the scoreboard looks like this: Three of the four cabinet posts that matter most are going to those with views acceptable to the center-right of the Democratic party. That's Geithner, Clinton, and Gates. The fourth, attorney general, will provoke a confirmation fight if Obama chooses his buddy Eric Holder, famous as President Clinton's deputy attorney general for facilitating the pardon of Marc Rich.

Three out of four isn't bad. Conservatives aren't jumping for joy. But imagine how the left wing of the Democratic party -- the dominant wing, after all -- feels. Let down would be an understatement.

[...]

If Obama wants to pursue economic and national security policies that would thrill MoveOn.org, William Ayers, and the Democratic left, he has a funny way of showing it. The only reasonable conclusion is he's spurning the left.

Obama has dozens of lesser posts to fill, and no doubt he'll use some of those jobs to assuage the left.

During the November 26 edition of his Cincinnati-based radio show, Bill Cunningham characterized Obama's Cabinet selections as "Reagan's economic team, Clinton retreads, and George Bush's national defense secretary" and stated, "If you're a Democrat and a liberal, especially an African-American Democrat liberal, are you this stupid?" He continued: "Don't you grasp what he's doing to you? Or are you gonna sit with your -- with your mouths shut, not voicing concern about the guy you thought you were electing, and you weren't electing him." Cunningham later stated:

Maybe Barack Hussein Obama is a brilliant politician. He gets the liberals to vote for him, then he governs like a conservative. And the liberals are so stupid; they're never gonna vote against Obama, right? In fact, I look forward -- if you voted for Obama, especially if you're an African-American -- more than 97 percent voted for Obama -- you should have a big sign put around your neck that says, "I am a dumb ass." Because you thought you were voting for change. Instead, you were voting for Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Get the signs out, put them around your neck like a sandwich board, and say, "I am a dumb ass."

In a December 3 Politico article headlined "Obama enemies are cheering," senior political writer Jonathan Martin reported that Republicans are "heaping praise on Obama's national security and economic teams" and uncritically quoted "Republican strategist and the former spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq" Dan Senor's claim that Obama's "real fight will be with the hard left of his own party." Martin wrote:

Patience isn't easy, especially for a GOP that is already frustrated at having taken severe beatings in consecutive elections. Yet the hope is that Obama's moves, however shrewd in the sunshine of his honeymoon period, will eventually create openings.

"This may be frustrating for Republicans," acknowledged Senor. "But it's an opportunity. It signals that Obama's real fight will be with the hard left of his own party. We should stand with him when he breaks with the left. It's looking like it will be a target-rich environment. This is a much better course than nit-picking on details, while he's doing the right thing on big issues."

In a December 1 CNN.com commentary, Julian E. Zelizer asserted that "[s]ome of Obama's core supporters are surprised and upset with his [Cabinet] choices," but did not cite or quote any of these purported "core supporters."

Also on December 1, Kirsten Powers wrote in a New York Post column, "They're Ba-a-ack: Obama Hires Hill -- and Bill," that Obama's selection of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state "infuriates many Obama supporters. Pulling the lever for Obama was supposed to usher out the Clinton era of baby-boomer entitlement and drama." Like Zelizer, Powers did not provide any examples of "infuriat[ed] Obama supporters."

But a USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted December 1, undermines the suggestion of significant disappointment with Obama. That poll found that in addition to Democrats' approval of Obama's handling of the transition and their support for Obama's selections of Clinton and Gates, 77 percent of Democrats indicated that Obama's administration will be "more effective" because he has chosen individuals who held positions in Bill Clinton's administration, with only 3 percent saying those choices will render his administration "less effective."

From the November 26 broadcast of the Clear Channel's The Big Show with Bill Cunningham:

CUNNINGHAM: You know, (Watchdog on Wall Street radio show host) Chris Markowski, Obama is redoing the Bush administration. For the last two years, he complained from pillar to post, from New Hampshire to California, all 58 states -- complained vociferously, Obama did -- about the conduction of the Iraqi war, especially the last two or three years. He voted against the surge, correct?

MARKOWSKI: Yep.

CUNNINGHAM: And who did he keep as -- as secretary of defense?

MARKOWSKI: Gates is back.

CUNNINGHAM: Robert Gates, who was in charge of the surge.

MARKOWSKI: Yeah.

CUNNINGHAM: And I'm thinking, "Wait a minute, I got Paul Volcker, I got Robert Gates, I have a slew of moderate to conservatives appointed by Obama." And I hear nothing from the African-American community or lefties that this is a remake of the Bush-Reagan administration.

[...]

CUNNINGHAM: The fact of the matter is he has just appointed Ronald Reagan's chief economic adviser, Paul Volcker, and he kept George Bush's secretary of defense, who for the last two years has been in charge of the Iraqi war that he campaigned against. Does anyone other than me see the delicious irony in any of this? Remember "change you can believe in?" Every sign, every bumper sticker, the commercials he ran. USA Today's got a story today that during this election cycle, Obama ran 450,000 commercials on television. I said 450,000 separate commercials on television. And after the election, who does he keep? Ronald Reagan's economic adviser and George Bush's secretary of defense.

Wow. Now that's change you can believe in. If you're a Democrat and a liberal, especially an African-American Democrat liberal, are you this stupid? Don't you grasp what he's doing to you? Or are you gonna sit with your -- with your mouths shut, not voicing concern about the guy you thought you were electing, and you weren't electing him. I support Barack Hussein Obama. I think the guy's gonna do a great job. With Reagan's economic team and George Bush's military team, how can Obama fail? Twenty-nine minutes after the hour, Billie Cunningham. You've been suckered.

[...]

CUNNINGHAM: Every day that goes by it becomes more obvious to me that Obama suckered something like 62 million people into voting for change when change ain't coming. I said it before the election, and I'm saying it after the election: This guy's gonna run like a liberal and he's gonna govern like a moderate to a conservative. He has three things: Ronald Reagan's economic team, Clinton retreads, and George Bush's national defense secretary, which, when you think about it, is not bad.

[...]

CUNNINGHAM: At this point, the war is over. America won, and the soldiers will start coming home. So, Obama -- who talked about the disasters in Iraq, about the hundreds of billions of dollars that were wasted, voting against the surge; keeps as the secretary of defense a guy who was in favor of the surge and participated in the strategy that resulted in Obama's election by criticizing it. Obama said nothing nice about George Bush and Robert Gates during the campaign, but once he gets into office, he says, give me Bush's military policy, give me the Clinton retreads, and give me Ronald Reagan's economic team.

And I can't believe that the 62 million fools and idiots and misinformed that put this guy in office can be happy with this. Because, you know what? I am. If I knew that this was the Obama that was gonna campaign -- I didn't want to vote for McCain. I held my nose and voted for John Sidney McCain III. I didn't want to do it. If I would have known that Paul Volcker was gonna -- Paul Volcker was gonna be there, and Robert Gates was gonna be there, and that Bubba and Hillary would be secretary of state, dodging the sniper fire in Bosnia for years to come, I would have voted for Obama in a heartbeat.

[...]

CUNNINGHAM: Maybe Barack Hussein Obama is a brilliant politician. He gets the liberals to vote for him, then he governs like a conservative. And the liberals are so stupid; they're never gonna vote against Obama, right? In fact, I look forward -- if you voted for Obama, especially if you're an African-American -- more than 97 percent voted for Obama -- you should have a big sign put around your neck that says, "I am a dumb ass." Because you thought you were voting for change. Instead, you were voting for Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Get the signs out, put them around your neck like a sandwich board, and say, "I am a dumb ass." I love this guy. Bill Cunningham stands with Barack Obama. B.O., keep doing what you're doing, because you're making, to me, a lot of sense -- especially that stuff about no tax increases for high-income Americans. Good job, I like that, too.

Washington Post columnist George Will and syndicated columnist Mona Charen continued a trend among members of the conservative media of responding to media comparisons between the current economic situation and that of the 1930s and between President-elect Barack Obama and Franklin Delano Roosevelt by attacking the New Deal. In recent columns, both Will and Charen cherry-picked certain unemployment figures to assert that the New Deal failed to reduce unemployment. In doing so, they ignored both the downward trend in unemployment during the New Deal and ignored statistics on the increased numbers of jobs created in the government by the New Deal itself -- the latter omission is one that historians and progressive economists have said portrays New Deal unemployment in the "worst possible light." Indeed, both Will and Charen cited former Wall Street Journal writer Amity Shlaes' 2007 book The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression in advancing their attacks, but in a November 29 Wall Street Journal column, Shlaes acknowledged using data that ignored "emergency" public employment.

In his November 30 column, Will asserted, "The assumption is that the New Deal vanquished the Depression. Intelligent, informed people differ about why the Depression lasted so long. But people whose recipe for recovery today is another New Deal should remember that America's biggest industrial collapse occurred in 1937, eight years after the 1929 stock market crash and nearly five years into the New Deal. In 1939, after a decade of frantic federal spending -- President Herbert Hoover increased it more than 50 percent between 1929 and the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt -- unemployment was 17.2 percent."

Similarly, in her November 28 column, Charen asserted, "You know the fairy tale. You were probably taught it in school. During the 1920s, America practiced laissez-faire economics. The 1920s were seen, as historian Amity Shlaes put it, as a period of 'false growth and low morals.' " Charen later claimed that "the New Deal's chief object was never achieved -- it did not solve the nation's unemployment problem. The CATO Institute's Jim Powell points out in FDR's Folly, 'From 1934 to 1940, the median annual unemployment rate was 17.2. At no point during the 1930s did unemployment go below 14 percent. ... Living standards remained depressed until after the war.' "

Will and Charen both cited certain unemployment figures during the 1930s but ignored the overall downward trajectory of unemployment rates throughout the New Deal. In a July 5, 2007, Slate article, University of California-Davis history professor Eric Rauchway noted: "Except in the 1937-38 recession, unemployment fell every year of the New Deal. Also, real GDP grew at an annual rate of around 9 percent during Roosevelt's first term and, after the 1937-38 dip, around 11 percent." Further, New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman wrote that it was a reversal of New Deal policies that contributed to rising unemployment during the 1937-38 recession. In a November 10 Times column, Krugman wrote: "After winning a smashing election victory in 1936, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and raised taxes, precipitating an economic relapse that drove the unemployment rate back into double digits and led to a major defeat in the 1938 midterm elections."

Moreover, Will claimed, "In 1939 ... unemployment was 17.2 percent," and Charen repeated Powell's claim that "[f]rom 1934 to 1940, the median annual unemployment rate was 17.2 percent," but they appear to be relying on unemployment data that ignores government-relief employment created by New Deal programs. Indeed, Shlaes acknowledged that her figures excluded "make-work jobs," instead relying on data compiled for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) by economist Stanley Lebergott. In a November 29 Wall Street Journal column, she wrote, "To be sure, Michael Darby of UCLA has argued that make-work jobs should be counted. Even so, his chart shows that from 1931 to 1940, New Deal joblessness ranges as high as 16% (1934) but never gets below 9 percent" [emphasis in original].

After World War II, BLS ceased counting those in work-relief programs as unemployed, as noted by economist Gene Smiley in a 1983 Journal of Economic History article:

Apparently the purpose of the estimates of the number of unemployed was to estimate how many private-sector jobs would have to be created to reemploy all those who were unemployed as well as those who were employed on federal government work-relief programs. These data were used by Lebergott in constructing his unemployment rate estimates for the 1930s. Since World War II the BLS does not count as unemployed those employed in any type of government relief programs, so the Lebergott rates are not consistent with those reported since the 1930s.

As Media Matters for America documented, University of Texas professor James Galbraith criticized the methodology Shlaes used in her book. On November 18, at a Campaign for America's Future conference, Galbraith stated that "the underlying numbers, which Shlaes uses ... do not count the people who actually worked on the New Deal as employed. They count them as unemployed. Why did they do that? Because in retrospect, to give -- to put a charitable construction on it, they wanted to assess the condition of the private economy." Further, Rauchway noted in an October 10 blog post that "if you don't count these people who held jobs as unemployed, you get a different picture of unemployment in the 1930s."

As Media Matters for America has noted, in recent weeks, Will has repeatedly attacked the New Deal. During the November 23 edition of ABC's This Week, Will asked, "Before we go into a new New Deal, can we just acknowledge that the first New Deal didn't work?" He added: "That is, the biggest collapse in industrial production in history occurred in 1937, eight years after the stock market collapse of 1929, five years into the New Deal."

The comments echoed remarks Will made the week before on This Week when he asserted that "one of the ways we turned a depression into the Great Depression that didn't end until the Japanese fleet appeared off Hawaii was that there were no rules, and investors went on strike, because the government was completely improvising." He added: "Net investment was negative through almost all of the '30s because, again, people did not know the environment in which they were operating because the government had the fidgets and would not let rules and markets work." Krugman was also a panelist on the show. He responded:

KRUGMAN: No, the negative net investment was because, you know, when you have 20 percent unemployment and all the factories are standing idle, who wants to build a new one? You don't need to invoke the government to explain that. No, what actually happened was, you know, there was an -- there was a collapse of the financial system, which was not restored for a long time. There was a persistent deep slump in consumer demand and, therefore, no investment demand, and so you were stuck in this trap.

Roosevelt got the economy moving somewhat. By 1937, things were a lot better than they were in 1933. Then he was persuaded to balance the budget, or try to, and he raised taxes and cut spending and the economy went back down again. And it took an enormous public works program known as World War II to bring the economy out of the Depression.

From Charen's November 28 syndicated column:

The conventional wisdom has had a rough time of it lately among scholars. You know the fairy tale. You were probably taught it in school. During the 1920s, America practiced laissez-faire economics. The 1920s were seen, as historian Amity Shlaes put it, as a period of "false growth and low morals." Greedy businessmen got out of control and created a market crash in 1929. President Hoover, obedient to Republican ideas concerning noninterference in the market, did nothing. The economy spiraled into a depression. Roosevelt was elected in 1932, banished fear, inaugurated the New Deal, and put America back to work.

A series of recent books has demolished the myth. Some of Roosevelt's reforms were salutary (the Securities and Exchange Commission, reform of the Federal Reserve) but the New Deal's chief object was never achieved -- it did not solve the nation's unemployment problem. The CATO Institute's Jim Powell points out in "FDR's Folly," "From 1934 to 1940, the median annual unemployment rate was 17.2. At no point during the 1930s did unemployment go below 14 percent. ... Living standards remained depressed until after the war."

From Will's November 30 Washington Post column:

The assumption is that the New Deal vanquished the Depression. Intelligent, informed people differ about why the Depression lasted so long. But people whose recipe for recovery today is another New Deal should remember that America's biggest industrial collapse occurred in 1937, eight years after the 1929 stock market crash and nearly five years into the New Deal. In 1939, after a decade of frantic federal spending -- President Herbert Hoover increased it more than 50 percent between 1929 and the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt -- unemployment was 17.2 percent.

"I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started," lamented Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury secretary. Unemployment declined when America began selling materials to nations engaged in a war America would soon join.

On the December 2 broadcast of The War Room with Quinn & Rose, co-host Jim Quinn addressed a Media Matters for America item documenting his suggestion during the previous day's broadcast that "we" should respond to the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, with military action even if "a lot of peaceful Muslims" are harmed or killed, as well as his corresponding remark that "there was a lot of Germans that weren't Nazis either, but we still bombed Dresden." Quinn said of his December 1 comments: "Now, of course, again we come back to, 'Yes, but there's a lot of peaceful Muslims on the planet Earth.' Well, that's true. But if I'm in a room with a thousand people, and 999 of them love me, but one has a gun and wants to kill me, how relevant are the 999? They have no relevance whatever. I'm sorry, but peaceful Muslims will only be relevant insofar as they rise up against those who are not peaceful, because this is a pox on their house, and they need to cure it themselves."

Later in the December 2 broadcast, Quinn specifically addressed his prior reference to the bombing of Dresden during World War II:

I mean, look at World War II, when I talked about the bombing of Dresden. One of the ways that wars are fought -- and nobody wants to talk about it, but it's the truth -- is you cause so much death and destruction to the civilian population of that nation that eventually the population of the nation loses its zest for the war, and the political support of those waging that war collapses. That's how you win wars. Ugly, isn't it? Sorry. What do you think Hiroshima was about? Hmm? The bottom line is reality does not always afford you a truth to your liking, Media Matters.

Quinn further discussed his October 29 assertion -- also documented by Media Matters -- that "[t]here's only one way to settle the Palestine -- the Palestine issue," and that "is to level it and then salt the earth so that nothing grows for a thousand years, because that's how the Muslims would have treated each other, and did.' " Quinn said of that comment, "Sorry, that's the truth. That is the historical truth, and -- and that's exactly what they would do to us if the technology shoe was on the other foot." Quinn went on to assert, "[T]here have been few religions in the world as deadly to man as that of Mohammad."

Talkers Magazine lists Quinn & Rose among its "Heavy Hundred," which it describes as the "100 most important radio talk show hosts in America." According to the show's website, it airs on 18 radio stations and XM Satellite Radio.

From the December 2 broadcast of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose:

QUINN: But the reason why Media Matters matters is -- is because they're different from the other blogs. Media Matters for America has a conflict of interest, and the conflict of interest is who funds them, and who runs them. Media Matters -- well, here, I'll give you an example. Now, this is the latest one, Media Matters for America:

On December 1 broadcast of The War Room with Quinn & Rose, while reading from a blog post by London Spectator columnist Melanie Phillips that discussed the recent terror attacks in Mumbai, India, co-host Jim Quinn said, quote: "We either wipe this scourge from the face of the Earth -- 'Well, you can't say that, because there's a lot of peaceful Muslims out there.' Well, there was a lot of peaceful Germans that weren't Nazis either, but we bombed Dresden. We either wipe this scourge from the face of the Earth, or we will be doomed to live under it." Quinn continued, saying, "We have the technology. Do we have the spine? Don't answer that if you have trouble sleeping, OK?"

Well, what's interesting to me, of course, is that none of you guys on the left get upset when Muslims say the exact same thing about their desire for Western civilization. I mean, go through the -- go through the Holy Land Foundation trial, and take a look at some of the transcripts from that, and what their intentions are. Their intentions are to do it both peacefully and militarily, and if they can't get it done peacefully, then militarily, but whatever it takes, a global Islamic caliphate is on the way.

Now, of course, again we come back to, "Yes, but there's a lot of peaceful Muslims on the planet Earth." Well, that's true. But if I'm in a room with a thousand people, and 999 of them love me, but one has a gun and wants to kill me, how relevant are the 999? They have no relevance whatever. I'm sorry, but peaceful Muslims will only be relevant insofar as they rise up against those who are not peaceful, because this is a pox on their house, and they need to cure it themselves. Because certainly there's -- there's no Islamic supremacist -- which is my word for "Islamic terrorist" -- there's no Islamic supremacist that's gonna be convinced by my -- by any of my arguments.

But it's interesting here just to watch Media Matters and how they -- you know, it's -- and they go on to say, "As Media Matters for America documented." Woo, they documented. You know, all you guys have to do is buy a subscription to our webpage for $39.95 a month -- I'm sure that George Soros can spring for that -- and you could just -- you could just download -- download the podcast for Heaven's sakes. It's like they've got a spy on the ground some place.

"As Media Matters for America documented, Quinn said on October 29, 'There's only one way to settle the Palestine -- the Palestine issue,' and that is to quote, 'level it and then salt the earth so that nothing grows for a thousand years, because that's how the Muslims would have treated each other, and did.' " Unquote. Sorry, that's the truth. That is the historical truth, and -- and that's exactly what they would do to us if the technology shoe was on the other foot. You don't think for a minute that Muslim supremacists with a nuclear weapon wouldn't use it? I mean, are you that foolish?

[...]

And as far as my feelings about supremacist Islam -- hey, guys, I said it before, and I'll say it again: I studied the Quran a great deal, mainly because of our position vis-à-vis the Muslim populations throughout the Middle East. And I must tell you that I came away from the study with the conviction that, by and large, there have been few religions in the world as deadly to man as that of Mohammad.

[...]

Now, we've got all these smart bombs, OK. We've got these special -- we've got -- what -- we've got that thing now -- what is it -- what is it target -- I forget exactly what it is -- technology. You can slip something that's smaller than a dime into some terrorist's robe somewhere, and -- and the rocket will hit him right in the middle of a crowd. You know, I mean, it'll take him right out. And, you know, look, we can park a smart bomb in somebody's window, and that's good when you're dealing with something like terrorism, which is an organization rather than a nation-state. It's also good, I mean -- if you're going up against a nation-state, it's only good if you park one in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's bathroom while he's sitting in there taking a dump, but other than that, folks, the way --you have to understand, the ways that wars are fought.

I mean, look at World War II, when I talked about the bombing of Dresden. One of the ways that wars are fought -- and nobody wants to talk about it, but it's the truth -- is you cause so much death and destruction to the civilian population of that nation that eventually the population of the nation loses its zest for the war, and the political support of those waging that war collapses. That's how you win wars. Ugly, isn't it? Sorry. What do you think Hiroshima was about? Hmm? The bottom line is reality does not always afford you a truth to your liking, Media Matters. Reality does not always afford you a truth to your liking. Accept reality or perish.

On the December 2 broadcast of his Cincinnati-based radio show, Bill Cunningham compared the Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden to Eugene "Bull" Connor, the Birmingham Public Safety commissioner infamous for using dogs and fire hoses against civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s. Cunningham made the comparison while discussing the zoo's decision to pull out of a promotional partnership with the Creation Museum, which, according to its website, seeks to "affirm the truth of the biblical record of the real origin and history of the world and mankind." The Louisville Courier Journal reported on December 1 that the zoo ended the partnership after receiving complaints that the Creation Museum -- which contains a display featuring "a triceratops with a saddle on its back" -- "promotes a religious point of view that conflicts with the zoo's scientific mission."

Cunningham stated of the zoo's decision: "[I]nstead of the zoo standing up against intolerance of Christianity and the bigots, they buckled under, and they did what every Bull Connor type have done since the days of Birmingham, Alabama: They allowed the passions of the mob and the opinions of the few to take the nation, or in this case the zoo, on a religiously bigoted course from which they had better get out of quickly." Cunningham also proclaimed, "We cannot put up with a religiously based discriminatory organization and the bigots at the Cincinnati Zoo who would do this to the Creation Museum. It's not necessarily about the museum; it's about publicly practiced bigoted racial discrimination against individuals who have a different faith set. Whether it's race discrimination or religious discrimination, it cannot stand."

Earlier in the broadcast, Cunningham said: "So I would imagine if the zoo would do a marketing deal with the NAACP, if there would be a lot of white racists that send emails to the zoo complaining about associating with colored people, would the zoo back down because of these emails?"

According to a December 1 press release by the Creation Museum's publicist, the marketing partnership between the zoo and the Creation Museum would have allowed visitors to pay a reduced price if they purchased tickets for both the zoo's Festival of Lights and the Creation Museum's Christmas event, Bethlehem's Blessings.

From the December 2 edition of Clear Channel's The Big Show with Bill Cunningham:

CUNNINGHAM: The zoo said, quote, "When we partner with the Reds, we don't get these kinds of emails," unquote. "It's pretty clear this is more of a distraction." So I would imagine if the zoo would do a marketing deal with the NAACP, if there would be a lot of white racists that send emails to the zoo complaining about associating with colored people, would the zoo back down because of these emails? And how about the bigots who exhibit discrimination against Christianity? They're in the same category of the Ku Klux Klan and white racist bigots who would complain if the zoo would partner with the NAACP. So I guess the standard is if five or 10 people send emails to the Cincinnati Zoo complaining about a partnership deal, that means the zoo pulls it, right? So if they partner with a black organization and white racists complain, do you think the zoo would pull the promotion?

[...]

CUNNINGHAM: Why is there no outcry from the Christian community, which is 85 percent of us? We cannot put up with a religiously based discriminatory organization and the bigots at the Cincinnati Zoo who would do this to the Creation Museum. It's not necessarily about the museum; it's about publicly practiced bigoted racial discrimination against individuals who have a different faith set. Whether it's race discrimination or religious discrimination, it cannot stand. This would not happen against any other religion in the Tri-State. It would be an outrage if Islam or Muslims were targeted in such a fashion.

So the next time the zoo comes up for a levy, they're gonna have one forceful advocate right here educating and informing you once again. At a moment in history when the zoo had an occasion to stand up against intolerance and against the bigots, and instead of the zoo standing up against intolerance of Christianity and the bigots, they buckled under, and they did what every Bull Connor type have done since the days of Birmingham, Alabama: They allowed the passions of the mob and the opinions of the few to take the nation, or in this case the zoo, on a religiously bigoted course from which they had better get out of quickly.

The zoo had better reconsider what they've done because they're gonna have forceful advocates throughout the Tri-State working hard to make sure that a zoo levy never passes again as long as the leaders of the zoo are bigots, and that's exactly what they are.

In recent days, several radio hosts, including Brian Sussman, Mark Davis (filling in for Rush Limbaugh), Lars Larson, Bob Grant, Jim Quinn, and Rose Tennent have promoted the discredited claim that President-elect Barack Obama has not produced a valid birth certificate and is not eligible for the presidency because he is not a natural-born citizen. As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, the Obama campaign has posted a copy of Obama's birth certificate on its Fight the Smears website and reportedly provided the original to FactCheck.org, whose staff concluded in an August 21 post that it "meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." A Hawaii Health Department official also reportedly confirmed to PolitiFact.com that the birth certificiate Obama's campaign posted on the Fight the Smears website is valid, proving he was born in the state of Hawaii.

Further, as Media Matters has also noted, the Hawaii Department of Health released a statement on October 31 by Health Department director Chiyome Fukino, in which Fukino confirmed that "the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

Examples of radio hosts continuing to push the debunked claim about Obama's birth certificate and citizenship include the following:

• Mark Davis: While filling in for Rush Limbaugh on the December 1 edition of Limbaugh's nationally syndicated radio program, Davis spoke with a caller who discussed several lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility for the presidency on the grounds of what Davis called "the pesky birth certificate issue." Davis said: "One would think that a presentation of the actual birth certificate, which is in a vault in Honolulu somewhere. ... If it could settle this, why not present it? That is a very, very good question."
• Lars Larson: During the December 1 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Larson said: "[A]s to the president-elect's birth certificate, I'm not satisfied yet, either. But I'm not sure we're ever gonna see the proof that he's constitutionally qualified to have run, so we may have to accept the outcome and just figure that we'll fix it on the next election."
• Bob Grant: While filling in for Mark Levin on the November 28 broadcast of Levin's nationally syndicated radio program, Grant discussed a lawsuit filed by Alan Keyes, which alleges that Obama has not proven that he is a natural-born citizen and attempts to bar the California electors from meeting to cast their Electoral College votes. Grant said: "I'm not saying it's true that he's not really a native-born American citizen. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that people like Alan Keyes do believe that because he hasn't been able to produce the valid birth certificate, he is -- he is hiding something. ... Will anything come of this? I don't think so. But it is disturbing that when you say, well, you could end the conjecture by just producing the proof. And the proof is not produced. And then, of course, there are many of us who say, well, it's too late. No, the Constitution's very clear."

Additionally, during the December 1 edition of San Francisco radio station KSFO's The Lee Rodgers Show, guest host Brian Sussman introduced audio of an interview of the Kenyan ambassador to the United States, Peter N.R.O. Ogego, by Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer of Detroit radio station WRIF by saying: "So, again, here are these morning show guys, talking to this official from Kenya. And, hmm, this Kenyan official lets something slip out of the bag. Sounds to me like Barack was born in Kenya. Sounds to me like everybody there knows it. Here. You listen to the conversation for yourself."

Sussman then aired the following audio:

CLARK: We want to congratulate you on -- on Barack Obama, our new president, and you must be very proud.

OGEGO: We are.

CLARK: Yes.

OGEGO: We are. We are also proud of the U.S. for having made history as well.

FELLHAUER: Hey, one more quick question. Obama -- President-elect Obama's birthplace over in Kenya, is that gonna be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?

OGEGO: It's already an attraction.

FELLHAUER: Yeah? OK.

OGEGO: His -- his paternal grandmother is still alive, and --.

FELLHAUER: But his birthplace, they'll be -- they'll put up a marker there?

OGEGO: It would depend on the government. It's already well known.

Moments after playing the audio of the Ogego interview, Sussman commented: "Everybody knows it. His -- his maternal grandmother's still alive. It'll be up to the government to decide if a marker needs to be placed there. Now, this government official later -- no, no, no, I was misquoted, I was misquoted. No, we just heard you, sir. He said he was referring to Barack Obama's birth father, and where he was born -- where the dad was born." Indeed, according to a November 26 article on the right-wing website WorldNetDaily.com, Ogego said that Clark and Fellhauer were "circulating misinformation." According to the WorldNetDaily.com article, Ogego said of WRIF: "They asked me about Obama's father, not Obama ... This is common-sense knowledge. Nobody is fooling anybody." The WorldNetDaily.com article also reported that "WRIF's Mike Clark told WND the show never manipulated the audio recording in any way."

Later in the broadcast, Sussman said of Obama's announcement of Sen. Hillary Clinton as Obama's secretary of state: "[M]aybe [Clinton] knows the truth about his citizenship." Sussman later stated: "You just wonder if she knows all of the information that Philip Berg has on Barack, and there was a deal struck in the background. OK, Barack, listen. We're not gonna blow the whistle on your citizenship. In fact, we'll help you keep a lid on all this. You get the nation, I get the world. You take the United States, I get secretary of state, and we're bringing in all my peeps. I mean, one has to wonder, right?" Berg had filed a lawsuit, which alleged that Sen. Barack Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. His lawsuit was later dismissed and Berg has appealed that decision.

During the November 24 edition of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose, hosts Jim Quinn and Rose Tennent aired audio from the WRIF interview. After airing the audio, Tennent said: "It's already an attraction. It's well known, he says. ... It's well known, except for here." Subsequently, Quinn said of Ogego's comments: "I mean, here's the -- here's the ambassador in Kenya saying that Barack Obama's birthplace in Kenya is already a -- it's already well known, and it's already an attraction. I think you and I should -- maybe we should go do our show from -- from Barack Obama's birthplace."

From the December 1 broadcast of KSFO's The Lee Rodgers Show:

SUSSMAN: OK. There was a radio show back east last week that was able to -- was able to interview a gentleman who is a government official in Kenya. And they were talking to this government official about Barack Obama, and it was -- it was a very pleasant interview. But there's a whippersnapper on this morning show team.

OFFICER VIC (co-host Tom Benner): Uh-oh.

SUSSMAN: He's kind of -- kind of their Officer Vic.

OFFICER VIC: Uh-oh.

SUSSMAN: Who said, I -- I -- basically, saying under his breath, I can't allow this moment to pass. I need to ask this Kenyan official about Barack Obama's place of birth. And he just sort of slips it in during the course of the conversation, and this Kenyan official answers in such a way that -- well, sounds to me like Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Now -- now, keep in mind, before we get to this audio, because it's -- it's really amazing.

OFFICER VIC: Wow.

SUSSMAN: If you were an investigator trying to determine where Barack Obama was born -- OK, let's talk to family members. Well, can't talk to his mom. She's gone. Can't talk to grandma. She's gone. Grandpa, he's gone. This is all on the mother's side of the family. You can talk to Barack's sister -- his younger sister. She has named two different hospitals in Hawaii where he may have been born. She doesn't even know. You go to Kenya to talk to the other side of the family -- his birth father's side of the family -- and lo and behold, there are two relatives who swear they were at the birth -

OFFICER VIC: Well --

SUSSMAN: -- in Kenya. OK, so now you're an investigator. It looks to me like we've got an interesting situation here -- more evidence to say that he was born in Kenya than elsewhere. OK? Now, the Kenyans are not students of our Constitution. They're probably unaware of the fact that we have this little rule that says, no, our presidents have to be born in this country. So, again, here are these morning show guys, talking to this official from Kenya. And, hmm, this Kenyan official lets something slip out of the bag. Sounds to me like Barack was born in Kenya. Sounds to me like everybody there knows it. Here. You listen to the conversation for yourself.

[begin audio clip]

CLARK: We want to congratulate you on -- on Barack Obama, our new president, and you must be very proud.

OGEGO: We are.

CLARK: Yes.

OGEGO: We are. We are also proud of the U.S. for having made history as well.

FELLHAUER: Hey, one more quick question. Obama -- President-elect Obama's birthplace over in Kenya, is that gonna be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?

OGEGO: It's already an attraction.

FELLHAUER: Yeah? OK.

OGEGO: His -- his paternal grandmother is still alive, and --.

FELLHAUER: But his birthplace, they'll be -- they'll put up a marker there?

OGEGO: It would depend on the government. It's already well known.

[end audio clip]

OFFICER VIC: That's pretty slick.

SUSSMAN: OK, it's already --

OFFICER VIC: The way he posed the question.

SUSSMAN: Yeah. Just kind of threw that out there.

OFFICER VIC: Yeah.

SUSSMAN: And the guy bit. And, of course --

OFFICER VIC: It's already -- everybody knows it. It's already a marker there.

SUSSMAN: Everybody knows it. His -- his maternal grandmother's still alive. It'll be up to the government to decide if a marker needs to be placed there. Now, this government official later -- no, no, no, I was misquoted, I was misquoted. No, we just heard you, sir. He said he was referring to Barack Obama's birth father, and where he was born -- where the dad was born.

OFFICER VIC: Right.

SUSSMAN: Did -- now did it sound like that to you?

OFFICER VIC: No, it did not, quite frankly.

[...]

SUSSMAN: Hillary Clinton, secretary of state. That's what we're waiting for him to announce. He's -- Dr. Susan Rice --

OFFICER VIC: Rice.

SUSSMAN: -- is another very, very liberal member of his national security team. I'm looking at Tom Daschle, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel. Isn't Bill Richardson somewhere in the mix?

OFFICER VIC: Yes.

SUSSMAN: Yeah. Janet Napolitaniyano or whatever her name is. These are all Clinton retreads, you know, hope and change. I'm hoping there's gonna be some change left in my pocket after the Clintons do me over.

OFFICER VIC: Yes. Here's your hope, keep the change.

SUSSMAN: I just thought -- I thought it's really interesting about all of this, and -- Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, during the primaries, there was no love lost between these two.

OFFICER VIC: No. And she was out there saying he has no experience, he's not qualified.

SUSSMAN: I just wondered, maybe she knows the truth about his citizenship. Because one of her ardent supporters, and a guy who has raised a lot of money for her -- dyed-in-the-wool liberal Democrat, former assistant attorney general of the state of Pennsylvania. And that would be the guy that -- Philip Berg, the gentleman who's filed this lawsuit that's going to be addressed by the Supreme Court later this week regarding Barack Obama's citizenship.

You just wonder if she knows all of the information that Philip Berg has on Barack, and there was a deal struck in the background. OK, Barack, listen. We're not gonna blow the whistle on your citizenship. In fact, we'll help you keep a lid on all this. You get the nation, I get the world. You take the United States, I get secretary of state, and we're bringing in all my peeps. I mean, one has to wonder, right?

OFFICER VIC: Very interesting. Very interesting. Yeah.

SUSSMAN: You just have to wonder. This -- this is not change. This is the Clinton administration coming back at you.

OFFICER VIC: Your mind works in strange, Machiavellian ways.

SUSSMAN: And, of course, Barack Obama says, well, you know, all of these people have experience, and it's the kind of change we need. That's how he spins it.

From the November 24 broadcast of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose:

QUINN: By the way, changing -- switching gears here for a second. I told you about this over the weekend. Somebody sent me this. This is a -- about one minute from a radio show, a morning radio show, on WRIF in Detroit, once known as Rockin' Stereo WRIF. I know, 'cause I hired a guy from there. Anyway, this is just a little piece of -- of what is supposed to be a prank call, OK? You see, this is one of those morning shows where everyone is laughing but nobody knows why. Because -- and the reason is because they can't tell the difference between what's funny and what isn't.

TENNENT: Right.

QUINN: Kind of like here. So -- so anyway, so they place a phone call after Obama gets elected. They place a phone call to Kenya, and they actually end up getting the Kenyan ambassador on the phone. Toward the end of this, tell me if you hear what I hear.

[begin audio clip]

FELLHAUER: How's the national anthem of Kenya? Can we hear a little bit of it? Do you know the national anthem?

OGEGO: Yes, I know the national anthem. It is online. You could Google it.

CLARK : Online googling. Ha ha ha, that's great.

FELLHAUER: You won't share it with us? You won't tell us? Can't you tell us what it is?

OGEGO: It is a national prayer, actually.

CLARK: Oh, it's a prayer.

FELLHAUER: So you don't get to sing it?

[end audio clip]

QUINN: Holy cow, they allow prayer?

TENNENT: Wow.

QUINN: In government? In Kenya?

[begin audio clip]

OGEGO: It's -- it's a prayer. It's easily available online.

CLARK: Yeah, yeah. I understand. You're ducking singing it.

FELLHAUER: You don't want to sing it?

CLARK: And that's -- that's a good move. Yeah. You know what you're doing. Well, listen. We want to congratulate you on -- on Barack Obama, our new president, and you must be very proud.

OGEGO: We are.

CLARK: Yes.

OGEGO: We are. We are also proud of the U.S. for having made history as well.

FELLHAUER: Hey, one more quick question. Obama -- President-elect Obama's birthplace over in Kenya, is that gonna be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?

OGEGO: It's already an attraction.

FELLHAUER: Yeah? OK.

OGEGO: His -- his paternal grandmother is still alive, and --.

FELLHAUER: But his birthplace, they'll be -- they'll put up a marker there?

OGEGO: It would depend on the government. It's already well known.

CLARK: Do you know the -- Barack Obama -- his father's name? Is it Barack Hussein Obama Sr.? Is that true? Do you know?

[end audio clip]

QUINN: Anyway, now --

TENNENT: It's already an attraction. It's well known, he says. Except for here.

QUINN: It's well known his birthplace is already an attraction.

TENNENT: It's well known, except for here.

QUINN: Yeah. Well, I mean -- somebody needs to get in touch. With - 'cause I mean, I've -- you know, I think one of the reasons Media Matters harps on us when we're like, what, number 56 in the country among talk shows?

TENNENT: Yeah.

QUINN: I mean, you -- you pick up Media Matters, and you would think that it was Rush Limbaugh, [Mark] Levin, [Sean] Hannity, [Michael] Savage, and us. Now --

TENNENT: Well that's pretty impressive. I like that.

QUINN: Well, I'm beginning to think, 'cause whenever they criticize -- like the other day, they say, "Quinn trivializes gay marriage." You can't trivialize something that doesn't exist. OK? You can't -- trivalize -- trivialize an oxymoron. Anyway, so one of the things they always say, though, is, "continues to repeat the discredited rumor that Barack Obama was not born here."

Now, we don't do that. We have said -- we have spent so little time on this subject, and every time we've talked about it, we have said, we don't know. We're just waiting to see what --what happens. We're just reporting; we're not really deciding here. And yet, it seems to get in their craw about this. Now remember, Media Matters is run by John Podesta, who is the chief of the transition team for Barack Obama. Could it be that this -- that because we talk about this, that this is one of those things that's really -- that -- that they just want quashed?

TENNENT: To go away?

QUINN: Yeah, they really want this to go away, and this is one of those things that really needles them.

TENNENT: Well, there's a lot of lawsuits out there right now.

QUINN: There's about 17 of them.

TENNENT: And I don't understand why he can't just present it, and let us -- let us be done with it.

QUINN: Yeah, I mean, and I've said often, it's a distraction. It's a pain in the butt. I mean, frankly, I would rather not even deal with it. But, I mean, here's the -- here's the ambassador in Kenya saying that Barack Obama's birthplace in Kenya is already a -- it's already well known, and it's already an attraction. I think you and I should -- maybe we should go do our show from -- from Barack Obama's birthplace.

TENNENT: Well, remember, I wanted to go over there, with [Obama Nation author Jerome] Corsi. I'm glad I didn't.

QUINN: That's true, because they all ended up getting arrested and detained there before they left.

TENNENT: Yeah. I don't need that. My nerves are shot.

From the December 1 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

CALLER: As we speak, I'm a little concerned about something that hasn't been brought up on any of the media. I am a veteran. All my brothers served. My brother was in Vietnam. I was in during the Vietnam era. Our Constitution's pretty important. It's not just pretty important -- it's extremely important. And there's about four cases that are fixing to go before the Supreme Court. One of them goes today. And it's not Alan Keyes. There's a lot of them that are challenging Obama's --

DAVIS: Yeah.

CALLER: Eligibility, his birth certificate.

DAVIS: The pesky birth certificate issue. Yep.

CALLER: Well, you know, and he could've -- he could've answered that if it was so simple.

DAVIS: Yep.

CALLER: Put one forth. And the reason I know is because I adopted my son --

DAVIS: Sure.

CALLER: -- years ago while I was in the military.

DAVIS: I tell you what I'll do, because with about two and a half minutes, and it'll be involved. First of all, let's examine the ways in which you are totally right. One would think that a presentation of the actual birth certificate, which is in a vault in Honolulu somewhere --

CALLER: Yes.

DAVIS: If it could settle this, why not present it? That is a very, very good question.

CALLER: Well, and I talked to Andy Martin. I actually got him on the phone. And he just -- he was very short, just like I'll be here. And he said, Bobby, he said, I do not know what's in there --

DAVIS: And we never will.

CALLER: -- he says, but we don't know because they won't show us.

DAVIS: Right. And they don't have to because the laws essentially allow for -- for the yanking of a birth certificate by people if, you know, some direct family connection, have some very, very personal regard in this.

CALLER: Well, we have -- we should have standing, though, Mark, because we're citizens and we're requiring --

DAVIS: But that's not what the law says. But that's simply not what the law says. If we want to craft a law that says that if somebody gets to president, and there's a doubt whether his citizenship is -- is all kosher, then we should be -- I think that'd be a pretty good law. But we don't have it.

CALLER: You're probably right there. There's four of them -- Pennsylvania. New Jersey. There's Lee Donofrio. There's Chris Strunk in New York. There's Cort Wrotnowski in Connecticut. I mean, I'm looking at them right now on theobamafile.com.

DAVIS: Can -- can I ask you something? Because with -- w