As I noted Sunday, the media's victory lap for Barack Obama's flipflop on same-sex marriage is really becoming disgraceful.

CNN jumped into the sycophantic cesspool Monday with a headline at its website reading, "If Clinton Was 'Black,' Is Obama 'Gay'?"

As you might imagine, the article was about Monday's cover stories at Newsweek and the New Yorker:

As if becoming the first black president wasn't momentous enough, Barack Obama has just been handed a new title: "First gay president."

A Newsweek magazine cover bestowed that distinction on Obama this week with a picture of the president and a rainbow halo. If you view that as a naked attempt to grab your attention, capitalize on the moment and have you pick up a newsmagazine, you might be right.

But that illustration – along with a New Yorker cover showing the columns of the White House lit up in rainbow colors – certainly shows how the president’s public support of same-sex marriage has pushed the issue back into the spotlight.

The magazines’ choices also speak to the broad cultural impact of Obama's announcement and pose questions about whether this moment may become a lasting part of his legacy.

Maybe what CNN.com and other media outlets should be reporting concerning Obama's legacy is how this could be looked upon as one of the worst campaign gaffes in American history if he loses in November.

Imagine how posterity will view this flipflop if key battleground states – states that Obama easily won in 2008 – go for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and the exit polls say much of the reason was same-sex marriage.

Consider too what happens if Romney as a result of this issue gets a huge coattail allowing the Republicans to expand their majority in the House while recapturing the Senate.

At that point, the textbooks will say this poorly timed flipflop completely changed the power structure in the nation.

Compounding this is the fact that the entire change of heart was precipitated by Vice President Joe Biden.

If Obama actually loses in November, and exit polls show this issue was a big factor, history might judge Biden as one of the biggest nincompoops to ever be a heartbeat from residing in the White House.

Of course, that would completely destroy his chances of running for president in 2016.

Makes you wonder why all these downsides aren't being considered while supposedly impartial reporters are giving each other high fives in plain sight of the public.

I guess that would be too much like journalism for these shills.

Hardball anchor Chris Matthews, who routinely smears his political opponents as racist, on Monday lectured an African American minister who opposes gay marriage, "I hope you evolve." The host patronizingly added, "I'm just teasing." [See video below. MP3 audio here.] How would he (or MSNBC for that matter) react if a conservative said such a thing to a black leader?

Matthews interviewed Bishop Harry Jackson, who has spoken out against Barack Obama's endorsement of gay marriage. Speaking of Jesus Christ, Matthews ridiculously linked accusations that Mitt Romney once bullied a teen, nearly 50 years ago: "Do you think [Christ] would have been chasing after the kid with long hair and cutting his hair or he would have been the one protecting the kid with long hair in high school?"

Matthews sarcastically added, "But you're with the guy who was going after the kid with long hair." (Pastor Jackson informed the host that he was not, yet, supporting Romney.)

Fellow black minister,Reverend Delman Coates also appeared on the show. After Coates indicated he supported gay marriage, Jackson retorted, "Why not let the Muslims have polygamy and bigamy?"

This prompted Matthews to insultingly suggest: "I hope you evolve…I'm just teasing."

Considering Matthews routinely plays the race card, will he apologize for telling a black man to "evolve?"

A transcript of the May 14 exchange follows:

5:39

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Do you think he would have been chasing after the kid with long hair and cutting his hair or he would have been the one protecting the kid with long hair in high school?

BISHOP HARRY JACKSON: He would have been protecting the kid with long hair.

MATTHEWS: Right. I thought so. But you're with the guy who was going after the kid with long hair.

JACKSON: No, no, no. I'm not necessarily with him right now.

MATTHEWS: Oh, you're not with Romney?

JACKSON: I'm not with Romney at this point. I want to say something about righteousness and justice. The Bible talks very clearly about how righteousness, which is like personal morality and holiness. It also talks about justice. What's broken in American politics is that the Democrats think they own social justice. The Republicans think they own righteousness, but the Bible doesn't take righteousness or justice, it takes righteousness and justice.

5:43

JACKSON: Why not let the Muslims have polygamy and bigamy?

MATTHEWS: Mr. Bishop, I hope you evolve. Thank you very much. I'm just teasing.

JACKSON: That's all right.

A new Obama campaign ad – which CNN showed a clip from on Monday – features former steelworkers attacking Mitt Romney and his leadership of Bain Capital. Yet this January CNN piece on Bain Capital's ventures in South Carolina provided the same critical aura of "bad memories" and "bitterness" toward the company from South Carolina steelworkers.

United Steelworkers is one of the heavy hitters of Democratic donors, and yet CNN featured the local Steelworkers president bashing Bain Capital all through the piece without any clarification on the political position of the Steelworkers. The president took a parting shot at Romney for being "very responsible" for Bain's business practices at the steel mill.

The CNN story obviously featured a couple of quotes from Mitt Romney to get the opposing viewpoint. But the local Steelworkers union president was the most-quoted person in the piece. In comparison, Obama's newest ad features multiple steelworkers, who formerly worked at GST Steel in Missouri while it was owned by Bain, criticizing Romney for "destroying" careers and Bain for being a "vampire" in its dealings.

"He's [Romney's] running for president, and if he's going to run the country the way he ran our business I wouldn't want him there," said one of the steelworkers in the campaign ad. Compare this with CNN giving a microphone to the union president, whose view was "from the downside of Romney's private sector record on job creation."

On at least four occasions, MSNBC's Chris Matthews mocked Sarah Palin for how he felt she'd do if she were ever on the hit television game show Jeopardy!.

In a delicious example of instant karma, the self-proclaimed brainiac got his chance to show America how smart he was in a special "Power Players" version of the show Monday, but came up quite short finishing dead last with the paltry sum of only $2,300 (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):

For those that missed it, Matthews was matched up against CNN's Lizzie O'Leary and former Obama White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

Quite comically, the MSNBC anchor's first gaffe came when he couldn't even correctly request an answer to a question.

"Let's go back to, what is 'Crossword Clues E?' I mean, I'm sorry, let's go $200 for the category 'Crossword Clues E.'"

Matthews appeared to have his Joe Biden thinking cap on.

Host Alex Trebek finally read the answer, "At ____, soldier! Four letters."

"At ease, soldier," Matthews responded. What is 'At ease, soldier?'"

Although the correct response was "Ease," host Trebek graciously accepted Matthews' offering.

A bit later, the answer to another question was, "Full name of the U2 pilot shot down over the Soviet Union in 1960."

Matthews responded, "Who is Gary Powers?"

Trebek prompted, "We need the full name."

Again channeling Biden, Matthews actually just repeated the same thing saying, "Who is Gary Powers?"

Trebek said, "No," and the audience burst out laughing. The full name of course was Francis Gary Powers.

And that's when things really got ugly for the arrogant Matthews.

With the category "Law and Order," the answer was, "A U.S.D.C is one of these, charged with the jurisdiction of a specific region."

Matthews responded, "What is a U.S. attorney?"

And this guy has the nerve to ridicule anyone. Where do you find "attorney" in the acronym "U.S.D.C.?"

Obviously, the correct response was district court.

Then, in the same category, another answer was, "In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that the 'hostile environment' type of this can be sex discrimination."

Matthews responded, "What is a hostile workplace?" This brainiac thinks the same word can be in both the answer AND the question.

Of course, the correct response was sexual harassment.

And then the fun really began in the category "6-Letter World Capitals" with the answer, "St. Basil's Cathedral is there."

Readers are once again reminded the category was "6-Letter World Capitals."

Almost astonishingly, the pompous and holier-than-thou Matthews responded, "What is Istanbul?"

The correct response – containing six letters and not eight! – was Moscow.

As such, when Double Jeopardy! ended, Matthews had a whopping $4,600, almost $10,000 behind O'Leary and over $8,000 less than Gibbs.

As they all missed a very tough Final Jeopardy! question, the game concluded with Gibbs having $5,600, O'Leary $4,200, and Matthews pulling up the rear at only $2,300.

This from a man who on October 2, 2008, shortly before that evening's Vice Presidential debate, said of Palin:

"Is this [vice presidential debate] about her brain power?… Do you think cute will beat brains?…Do you think she’d do better on the questions on Jeopardy! or the interview they do during a half-time?…My suspicion is that she has the same lack of intellectual curiosity that the President of the United States has right now and that is scary!"

Then on January 12, 2010:

They find these empty vessels who know nothing about the world! Nothing about foreign policy! Who immediately begin to spout the neo-con line. I read her book — it’s full of that crap….It’s unbelievable how little this woman knows!…Don’t put her on Jeopardy!”

And again on November 2, 2010:

“Senator, do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to be President of the United States?…If she were on Jeopardy! right now and the topic was national government, American government generally defined, would she look like an imbecile, or would she look okay? Does she know anything?"

And finally on January 19, 2011:

“I’d like to see her on just a couple of episodes of Celebrity Jeopardy! or It’s Academic Mac McGarry to just see if she knows anything.”

Well, Chris, America just saw you on Jeopardy!, and you came in last with only $2,300 missing what most viewers likely thought were pretty easy questions.

What's that they say about people in glass houses?

Reuters correspondent Margot Roosevelt touted over the weekend that “Weary Warriors Favor Obama.” According to the latest Reuters-Ipsos poll, “If the election were held today, Obama would win the veteran vote by as much as seven points over Romney, higher than his margin in the general population.”

Under the heading “Fading Cool Factor,” Roosevelt summarized that many veterans sound like Obama did in the last election cycle, pessimistic about the wars Bush started:

The GOP's heated rhetoric, aimed at the party's traditional hawks, might be expected to resonate with veterans. Yet in interviews in South Carolina, a military-friendly red state, many former soldiers expressed anger at the toll of a decade of war, questioned the legitimacy of George W. Bush's Iraq invasion, and worried that the surge in Afghanistan won't make a difference in the long run.

"We looked real cool going into Iraq waving our guns," said [Mack] McDowell, 50, who retired from the 82d Airborne Division in November with a Legion of Merit and two Bronze Stars. "But people lost their lives, and it made no sense."

Now he worries. "I really don't like the direction we are going, how we seem to come closer daily towards a war with Iran."

This is how it began, underlining how Obama is winning over the real rock ‘em-sock ‘em military:

Mack McDowell likes to spend time at the local knife and gun show "drooling over firearms," as he puts it. Retired after 30 years in the U.S. Army, he has lined his study with books on war, framed battalion patches from his tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, a John Wayne poster, and an 1861 Springfield rifle from an ancestor who fought in the Civil War.

But when it comes to the 2012 presidential election, Master Sergeant McDowell is no hawk.

In South Carolina's January primary, the one-time Reagan supporter voted for Ron Paul "because of his unchanging stand against overseas involvement." In November, McDowell plans to vote for the candidate least likely to wage "knee-jerk reaction wars."

Later, the stories get very heavy:

For combat veterans such as McDowell, who enlisted at 19, the statistics are starkly personal.

With his direct gaze, erect posture and fondness for war mementos, he may seem to fit the stereotype of a battle-hardened sergeant. But this father of five shudders at the memory of the young Vietnamese-American at Fort Jackson, whose fear of deployment was brushed off by an officer. The soldier tried to commit suicide by shoving a pencil up his nose into his brain.

He chokes up when he recalls "the geek-faced kid" from Oklahoma who was brought in to fix office computers in McDowell's Iraq bomb dismantling unit. The young man, with no combat training, was sent into the field to hack into terrorists' laptops. Within weeks he suffered a mental breakdown. Returning stateside, he shot his two children to death and killed himself.

"It was sheer terror," McDowell said of the improvised explosive devices that guerrillas hid along roadways. "They'd strap gasoline cans to IEDs. Our soldiers burned alive. You'd hear them screaming, and you couldn't do anything."

Now he is "watching the primaries very closely to see who will be the least careless with soldiers and their families."

CBS chief White House correspondent Norah O'Donnell and Republican strategist Bay Buchanan had a bit of a tussle about women in the workplace on Sunday's Face the Nation.

When Buchanan said opportunities for women are currently unlimited, O'Donnell strongly disagreed claiming, "There is a glass ceiling in politics" which led the conservative to correctly point out this is largely due to women's personal choices rather than anything nefarious (video follows with transcript and commentary):

BOB SCHIEFFER: What's the state of women today? You know, when I came to work at CBS News in this bureau, there was one producer that was a woman, one woman that was a correspondent, one woman that worked on the desk. And when one of those three left, they replaced her with a woman. Now, I would say– what would you say, Norah, more than half the people in this bureau are women, the TCU in our journalism school, seventy percent of the students there going into journalism are women. How would you say women's chances are right now, Bay Buchanan? Is– is there equality?

BAY BUCHANAN: There is. There's– the opportunities are unlimited, both through the universities as well as business and professional. And– and– and I think what's key for women, there's too– often too much talk about– look to see how you're treated and what you can do and you better not do that because so many people will say that's beneath you and they're just asking you to get coffee because you're a woman. It's so much nonsense. I think– I think the message to young women today is, do whatever you can, learn, be part of the team, be willing.

NORAH O'DONNELL: I would just strongly disagree with that. I just think that women have had, for the past– past thirty years, equal opportunity in college. We now have more women who are getting medical degrees, PhDs, than men. But you had for the first time in the last election the number of women in Congress decrease. There is a glass ceiling in politics. We only have seventeen percent of women in the House and the Senate. And so while women are the driving force in the economy in terms of consumer decisions, they're not represented in politics or in the White House or in the halls of Congress–

BAY BUCHANAN: But– but they have a choice.

NORAH O'DONNELL: –and that affects decisions.

BAY BUCHANAN: They can run or not run–

MELINDA HENNEBERGER: And not– and we're not paid the same way.

BAY BUCHANAN: –and we choose not to run because women in politics have an equal opportunity to win. That is time and again in effect.

NORAH O'DONNELL: That is absolutely true.

BAY BUCHANAN: They have an edge to men, often, because they're more trusted. And so it's– they choose not to run because of their own personal lives, their commitment to family or– or whatever small business they might have. So it's ridiculous to say we have to have equal, equal everywhere it is.

Indeed.

Here's something else feminists should consider whenever they complain about how few women there are in politics: look at how the Left and their media minions treat conservative females that dare to run for office.

Start with former Alaska governor Sarah Palin who from the moment Republican presidential nominee John McCain announced her as his running mate in August 2008 was mercilessly attacked by virtually every press outlet in the nation.

You think that makes conservative women want to enter politics?

In the last two election cycles, the press have rallied against every conservative woman including those running against men.

They backed Joe Biden over Palin, Harry Reid over Sharron Angle, Christopher Coons over Christine O'Donnell, Terry Goddard over Jan Brewer, Richard Blumenthal over Linda McMahon, and Jerry Brown over Meg Whitman.

And they routinely attack Michele Bachmann including putting absurd pictures of her on the covers of their magazines.

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in October 2010 disgracefully referred to all of these women as "Mean Girls, grown-up versions of those teenage tormentors who would steal your boyfriend, spray-paint your locker and, just for good measure, spread rumors that you were pregnant."

But this misogyny and sexism isn't only aimed at Republicans, for the media's treatment of Hillary Clinton in 2008 once the press had firmly gotten on Barack Obama's bandwagon was almost as disdainful as how conservative females fare.

As such, if folks like O'Donnell really want to see more women in politics, maybe they ought to do a better job of treating women in politics regardless of their ideologies.

Until then, it seems any sane woman wouldn't want a thing to do with this disgusting circus and would instead stay in professions where they are treated with far greater respect.

In reality, if there is a glass ceiling in politics, the media are largely responsible.

Why this isn't obvious to folks like O'Donnell is beyond me.

As NewsBusters reported Sunday, Newsweek/Daily Beast senior contributor Michelle Goldberg called Ann Romney "insufferable" on MSNBC this morning.

Seconds later, she also compared the wife of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary).

As Mark Finkelstein previously noted, Goldberg began her Romney attack on Up with Chris Hayes by saying, "It can't only be me that maybe initially saw Ann Romney as maybe a sympathetic or neutral figure but who is increasingly seeing her as someone who is kind of insufferable because of the way she's milking this thing."

This "thing" as Goldberg put it is motherhood. What an awful "thing" for a mother to "milk" the week of Mother's Day.

"You know, yes, motherhood is beautiful," Goldberg continued. "I found that phrase 'the crown of motherhood' really kind of creepy, not just because of its, like, somewhat you know, I mean, it’s kind of usually really authoritarian societies that give out like The Cross of Motherhood, that give awards for big families. You know, Stalin did it, Hitler did it."

Here's what Mrs. Romney wrote at USA Today Thursday that somehow reminded Goldberg of Hitler and Stalin:

Cherish your mothers. The ones who wiped your tears, who were at every ball game or ballet recital. The ones who believed in you, even when nobody else did, even when maybe you didn't believe in yourself.

Women wear many hats in their lives. Daughter, sister, student, breadwinner. But no matter where we are or what we're doing, one hat that moms never take off is the crown of motherhood.

There is no crown more glorious.

There apparently are many crowns far more glorious to Goldberg who found this passage reminiscent of Hitler and Stalin.

And this is the kind of person that in 2012 not only gets print space at Newsweek/Daily Beast, but also air time on MSNBC.

Sickening, isn't it?

(H/T Mediaite)

The rainbow halo over President Barack Obama's head on Newsweek's cover isn't sufficient for some in the mainstream media.  Now the meme is shifting to the inevitability of his re-election.  Or so it would seem based on CNN's Your Money today.  Anchor Ali Velshi devoted his heavy intellectual resources to the subject after discussing Mitt Romney's opposition to the auto bailout:

VELSHI: Joining me now from Washington is, CNN's chief national correspondent John King. John, I have a thesis I want to run by you. Mitt Romney has already lost the election because of this.
 
Voters in Ohio, auto workers and union members are alienated by his stance on the bailout. You know, John, because you spend a lot of time in Ohio like I have. It is GM country in large part.
 
They will hand that state to President Obama and without Ohio, probably Romney doesn't get to the White House. What do you think?

King at least partially agreed with Velshi's thesis: "You're absolutely right about the last part, without Ohio Romney most likely doesn't get to the White House."  He went on to say that "Romney needs to get off this," meaning the topic of the auto bailout.  "Would have, could have, should have, this is not a winning argument for him," said King.

Would have, could have, should have might well qualify as an Obama campaign slogan.  Obama's successes were denied him by George W. Bush, Congressional Republicans, earthquakes, Fox News, tsunamis, the Arab Spring, ATMs. . . the list is endless.

The one thing he's got on his side are huge segments of the mainstream media.  Having assiduously labored to get Obama elected, they're not about to admit their complicity in his many failures.  The canonization, complete with rainbow halo, will continue.  If Americans can be persuaded that the election's already been decided and Obama will work his miracles for the next four years, so much the better.  It might tamper down GOP turnout.
    

Remember back in 2008 when Michelle Obama said, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country?"

The Daily Beast's Andrew Sullivan made a similar remark on this weekend's syndicated Chris Matthews Show when he said of Barack Obama's flipflop on same-sex marriage, "I never understood the power of a president's words till today, till that day" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

ANDREW SULLIVAN, DAILY BEAST: It's hugely important, and to tell you the truth, I didn't realize how important it would be till it happened. Beforehand, I was kind of steeled. I was like, “I don't care, he's going to disappoint us again,” and then I sat down and watched our president tell me that I am his equal. That I'm no longer outside, I'm fully part of this family. And to hear the president, who is in some ways a father figure, speak to that, the tears came down like with many people in our families, to be included.

I never understood the power of a president's words till today, till that day, really. I thought, all that matters is the states and the Congress and the Defense of Marriage Act, and I had all this in my head. And yet suddenly, this man saying, “I'm with you, I get it, you're like me, I'm like you, there is nothing between us, we are the same people, and we are equal human beings, and I want to treat you the way you treat me.” That, that was overwhelming. That's all I can say. I was at a loss for words.

This is the praise liberal media members give when a Democrat president is forced by his bumbling vice president to flipflop on a position that itself was a flipflop for political expedience four years prior.

Regardless of its consistency, the hypocrisy is staggering.

Media observers thought 2008 was conceivably a low for the journalism industry.

What's been happening so far in 2012 and is destined to continue through Election Day is making what happened four years ago look like journalism's heyday.

The media's victory lap for President Obama's flipflop on same-sex marriage is starting to get downright disgraceful.

The cover of Monday's issue of New Yorker magazine features an animated picture of the White House with rainbow columns:

As NewsBusters reported earlier, Newsweek's Monday issue features a picture of Obama with a rainbow halo over his head with the headline "The First Gay President."

What's next?