Barack’s bad move

By Jennifer J. Foster

... or non-move. According to the Associated Press:

Sen. Barack Obama scrapped plans to visit wounded members of the armed forces in Germany as part of his overseas trip, a decision his spokesman said was made because the Democratic presidential candidate thought it would be inappropriate on a campaign-funded journey.

The spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said Thursday that Obama made his decision out of respect for the servicemen and women ...

Bad decision.

I’m confused. Obama says he was making the Middle East leg of the trip as part of a congressional delegation, and he spoke to citizens of Berlin today as “a citizen of the world.“ But now he’s saying that since he’s there as a candidate, he can’t visit the troops who will be voting for president later this year?

First of all, if Obama thought it would be “inappropriate” to visit the troops on a campaign-funded journey, then why did he have his campaign set it up? Could it be that he never really intended to make the stop?

And even if he did intend to make the stop, do you think wounded servicemen and women care whether his trip is funded by the government or his campaign? This guy wants to be their commander-in-chief. I’m pretty sure they’ve earned their spot on his itinerary, no matter who’s funding the trip.

Not visiting wounded troops. Bad move, Barack.

As for the speech itself, some media outlets pegged the crowd there to hear it at 200,000. I watched the whole thing; I wouldn’t put it up there with his greatest efforts. It was a nice speech, don’t get me wrong, but it didn’t hold a candle to his tour de force on race relations. Today he seemed like he was being careful—almost too careful. Whether he wanted to or felt like he had to, he shortened his pauses and barreled into the next phrase whenever the crowd began chanting his name, or “Yes we can.“ And the change of pace was obvious. There were a couple of times when he misspoke. All in all, the delivery was average; it was what we usually see from most politicians. But an average oratatorical performance by Barack Obama is below average for him.

Regarding the content of the speech (transcript here), I liked the parallels Obama drew between the Berlin Wall and the virtual walls of race, religion and economics that separate people around the world. The substance of the speech was solid. The one thing that seemed lacking—and to me, glaringly so—was the huge opportunity Obama missed to identify America before Europeans as the greatest country in the world. He set it up perfectly:

I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.

But instead, he said:

But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived, at great cost and great sacrifice, to form a more perfect union, to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world.

Doesn’t he still believe that America is still the greatest country in the world? Surely he does; he’s said so in previous domestic speeches.

Sure, some might say that such ethnocentrism is out of place on foreign soil and that it would fly in the face of the one-world message Obama was delivering. And those things are likely true. But in the end, isn’t it the opinions of Americans that should matter most to their president?

That first paragraph should have been followed with, “But America is still the greatest country in the world. She has done more for freedom and liberty than any other in the history of the world. Her people have fought against injustice, both within her borders and without. And she is still that shining city on a hill, the hope of humanity and the beacon of freedom that she has been ever since she was birthed as an idea in the minds of patriots who yearned to breathe free.“

And then he could have come back to the one-world thing by saying something like, “America is ready to lead again.“

Something like that!

Overall, I’d give Obama’s speech today a B- ... but, of course, we’re grading on the Obama curve.

Why isn’t anyone talking about the Edwards story?

By Jennifer J. Foster

The mainstream media (or, traditional media, if you want to use the New York Times’ term) is ignoring the National Enquirer’s stories about John Edwards’ purported affair.

But thanks to the Internet, MSM is no longer the guardian of the information gate.

The story has made the rounds on the web, but bloggers want to know: Why won’t the MSM report it?

There’s probably some truth to specuation that the MSM doesn’t want to drag itself down to the level of a—sniff—supermarket tabloid.

Ah, the mainstream media ... looking down on the tabloids as the bad egg of journalism—even as they sprinkle anonymous sources throughout their highbrow stories.

Never underestimate the presumptuousness of institutional sanctity.

It’s true: The Enquirer’s reporters aren’t bound by the same ethical considerations that constrain the reporting of MSM journalists. They pay sources. They masquerade as other people to get close to their subjects. They are aided by aggressive paparazzi who know nothing of boundaries or self-control or even human dignity.

In spite of all that—or, actually, because of all that—they get the story.

So I tend to think that the MSM doesn’t want to acknowledge that the Enquirer could get a story it couldn’t.

Or is it that the MSM doesn’t want to acknowledge that the Enquirer could get a story it wouldn’t?

Jack Shafer over at Slate offers another explanation. Compared to the press’ treatment of U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) after he was caught in a wide stance in a Minneapolis men’s room last year, a double standard is at work when it comes to the Edwards story, he says:

Yet, if the press craves consistency, it owes its readers some sort of assessment of Edwards. Is he, like Craig, a public hypocrite? Edwards is still very much a public figure. As Drudge notes today on his site, as recently as June the Associated Press reported that he was a vice presidential short-lister.

If Edwards had no affair and fathered no love child, it should be easy to erase the hypocrisy charge, and the press owes him that, pronto. If we give Edwards the benefit of the doubt, which he deserves, visiting the woman who recently gave birth to the out-of-wedlock child of a married campaign aide is completely OK. But meeting her at a Beverly Hills hotel in the early hours of the morning and running from tabloid reporters when approached and hiding in a hotel bathroom for 15 minutes, as the Enquirer reports Edwards did, is not completely OK. Not if he wants to avoid the hypocrite label.

Shafer concludes that the press is “observing a double standard that says homo-hypocrisy is indefensible but that hetero-hypocrisy deserves an automatic bye.“

What do you think? Is there a double standard at work?

‘Black in America’

By Jennifer J. Foster

I watched Part 1 of CNN’s “Black in America” documentary last night.

It was an enlightening two hours for me: I didn’t realize that the black middle class was growing at such an impressive rate—or that an astonishing 70 percent of black babies are born out of wedlock. I didn’t know that the number of black women with college degrees has tripled in the last 40 years—or that some children in Brooklyn are being paid to learn (part of an experiment by a university professor). I wouldn’t have seen the number of black men in prison as a contributing factor in the increasing number of black women willing to date and marry “outside their race.“ And although I knew that the incidence of heart disease is much higher among African-Americans, I never would have made the connection between disease and the availability—or lack thereof—of healthy foods. For example, it never would have occured to me that fresh fruits and vegetables weren’t readily available in Harlem.

If I have a complaint about the program, it’s that CNN has worn me out on the promotion of the program. It had been relentlessly advertised for nearly two months. There was no missing it—commercials, interviews between commercials and even a logo/graphic in the corner of the screen pummled viewers with reminders about the event. Even the hour ahead of the documentary itself was dedicated to it, as was the hour following it. This morning, anchors have the host, Soledad O’Brien, on to talk about the program—and how she’ll be back at noon to talk with people about their reaction to the documentary.

OK, CNN. We get it. “Black in America” is on tonight.

Oh, look! There’s another commercial for it as I write this.

Tonight’s episode is subtitled, “The Black Man.“ (Last night it was, “The Black Woman and Family.“)

Check out more at CNN’s “Black in America” page.

Just FYI ...

By Jennifer J. Foster

Members of a House committee are getting a lecture right now about childhood obesity from ... RICHARD SIMMONS.

CNN identifies Simmons as a “fitness guru.“

Heidi Collins is assuring viewers that although Simmons is known for his—ahem, really short shorts, he’s wearing a suit today.

Don’t you love government?

Ew! Ew! EWW!

By Jennifer J. Foster

Are you a lady who treats yourself to an occasional mani-pedi?

How would you feel about a fish pedicure?

It’s the latest craze in the D.C. area: Tiny fish—properly known as garra rufa, or “doctor fish”—gnaw away at your dead skin.

I’ll pause while we wait for your stomach to stop churning.

Yes, for $35, you can stick your feet in a tank and let 100 or so fish feast on your tootsies for 15 minutes. An even $50 doubles your time with the gilled gobblers, according to the Associated Press.

Customers are raving about it.

Tracy Roberts, 33, of Rockville, Md., heard about it on a local radio show. She said it was “the best pedicure I ever had” and has spread the word to friends and co-workers.

“I’d been an athlete all my life, so I’ve always had calluses on my feet. This was the first time somebody got rid of my calluses completely,“ she said.

... Or, some things ... and, ew.

...The hot water in which the fish thrive doesn’t support much plant or aquatic life, so they learned to feed on whatever food sources were available — including dead, flaking skin. They leave live skin alone because, without teeth, they can’t bite it off.

Just my opinion, but any treatment where you can count “Can’t bite your toes off” as a positive is not for me.

But the exotic meets the bureaucratic in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

State regulations make no provision for regulating fish pedicures. But the county health department — which does regulate pools — required the salon to switch from a shallow, tiled communal pool that served as many as eight people to individual tanks in which the water is changed for each customer.

The communal pool also presented its own problem: At times the fish would flock to the feet of an individual with a surplus of dead skin, leaving others with a dearth of fish.

“It would sometimes be embarrassing for them but it was also really hilarious,“ Ho said.

What can I say about that? Oh, wait: There is one more thing: OK. I could have gone for the rest of my life without that visual. But if you’re not the kind of person to leave anything to the imagination, pictures of the fish in action—if you dare—are here.