I stumbled across the ultimate madlib today, which is fitting after watching Obama’s speech in Wilmington, Del. Tuesday is his big day, and one Web site is trying to make it a little easier by constructing his inauguration speech. Here’s mine:

My fellow Americans, today is a plastic day. You have shown the world that “hope” is not just another word for “personalized coffee mugs”, and that “change” is not only something we can believe in again, but something we can actually pigeonhole.

Today we celebrate, but let there be no mistake – America faces effervescent and egocentric challenges like never before. Our economy is plastered. Americans can barely afford their mortgages, let alone have enough money left over for Post-it notes. Our healthcare system is flamboyant. If your uvula is sick and you don’t have insurance, you might as well call a chocolatier. And America’s image overseas is tarnished like a Rubik’s cube tape dispenser. But forgetting together, we can right this ship, and set a course for Lubbock, Texas.

Finally, I must thank my fiery family, my crooked campaign volunteers, but most of all, I want to thank the Sugarhill Gang for making this historic occasion possible. Of course, I must also thank you, President Bush, for years of masticating the American people. Without your sepia efforts, none of this would have been possible.

And then, I thought about it. And I was in utter disbelief that McCain would actually “approve” — in those now infamous words — “this message.”

My guess — Sen. McCain probably thinks this is more funny than it is accurate. But instead, this creates a preview of the disgusting, annoying and tiring attack-ad campaigns that are to come.

So thank you, Sen. McCain. Not only for your low blow on the Democrats (cut them a little slack), but for instigating an attack worse than Sock’em Boppers to the head.

In an ad against Barack Obama, John McCain compares Obama to “worldwide celebrities” like Hilton and Britney Spears. Hilton took offense (I think). So she responded with a video:

McCain seems to want to be a stand-up comedian. That has been somewhat of a theme throughout his entire campaign — campy comments on The Late Show, American Idol, etc. are my reasoning for this.

McCain defended the ad, as the report above said, thinking it was “humorous.”

If McCain wants to be taken seriously, he’ll probably need to start laying off the issues and start focusing on what matters.

What do you do?

Contact pet associations and get their take.

That’s what the AP did. The article actually ended up in CBS3′s “News of the Strange” section. The article, which says that people who own pets will most likely vote for Sen. McCain, is based on an AP-Yahoo! poll.

But, it’s written like the writer was scrambling for information, for facts, for substance. And that’s where it loses me.

It’s no use to predict who’s going to be president until election night. Polling is usually flawed. I don’t care what pet lovers think. I don’t care what ice cream scoopers think. If I cared what psychics think, then I don’t anymore.

(The world’s only psychic twins, who just happen to be Temple alumnae, predicted in March that Sen. Hillary Clinton would be the next president. While that’s not fully out of the picture yet, it does seem quite unlikely.)

And we all wonder why the media get criticized so much.

Original version from The Temple News. Photo by Christopher Wink.

CHRIS STOVER
The Temple News

She’s been compared to a monster and Rocky. High-ranking Democrats have called for her to quit the race. And the media have been ruthless in her campaign coverage, including commentary by The Temple News.

It seems that no matter what Sen. Hillary Clinton does, she’s under constant attack by the media. The other presidential candidates don’t have that pleasure.

For example, MSNBC’s David Shuster said in February that former First Daughter Chelsea Clinton was “being pimped out” by her mother. Yet no one says anything about Sen. John McCain’s traveling, blogging daughter.

Another incident occurred when President Bill Clinton recently tried to defend his wife’s misspoken words about Bosnia, saying she was tired at 11 p.m. one night and was under a lot of pressure when she gave the speech.

The media filled with glee. I remember watching the local news that night, as the anchor speculated about the contradiction between the president’s statement and the infamous “3 a.m.” Clinton commercial.

The anchor said, and I paraphrase, “Some wonder if Hillary Clinton can answer the phone at 3 a.m. if she can’t even speak clearly at 11 p.m.”

Such unfair, presumptive attacks on the senator seem like attempts by local and national media to slant their coverage toward Sen. Barack Obama. That is, until ABC’s nationally televised debate last Wednesday.

Moderators and ABC journalists Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos have been heavily criticized for their handling the debate. Many say they spent too much time on rumor control rather than hard issues and agree that the debate was slanted to Clinton’s favor.

ABC helped to give journalists – broadcast journalists, in particular – a credibility battle. First, Stephanopoulos was a staffer under President Clinton, which, to me, presents a clear conflict of interest.

It wasn’t until halfway through the debate that “real” questions began to get answered – questions on taxes and the economy, the war in Iraq. Questions that truly matter to millions of Americans.

ABC had a chance to shine with their exclusive debate, yet floundered by asking questions about not wearing U.S. flag pins or associating with an outspoken pastor.

If this was ABC’s attempt to give Clinton a larger lead in Pennsylvania’s primary polls, it nearly failed. If they tried forcefully to depict Clinton as the Rocky underdog, it could have turned voters off.

But thankfully for the democratic process, Pennsylvanians responded while ignoring the polls. Despite media reports of Obama closing the gap within percentage points, Clinton won by about 10 percent of the votes.

As journalists, it is our responsibility to find the truth. We present the objective facts and avoid speculation. It is a journalist’s duty to report all facts from all views so the audience can make its own speculations and decisions – despite personal beliefs of the New York senator.

These are fundamental rules of journalism – fundamental rules that many news organization seem to have forgotten.

But they aren’t the ones suffering here. We are.

Chris Stover can be reached at stover@temple.edu.

Maybe they know I can’t vote. Maybe I look too busy. Maybe they’re discriminating. Who knows? But I really don’t mind.

All these people are Obama supporters and volunteers. I haven’t seen one person decked out in Hillary pins and posters asking people to vote. You’d think she’d have the people out in Philadelphia, since this will probably be her biggest challenge.

I’ll be at Hillary’s election party tonight – and as I mentioned before, I’m hoping for a victory. I’ll deliver the latest from the event through here and broadandcecil.com. Keep checkin’.

After six weeks of build up, the Pennsylvania primary is finally here.

I will not be able to vote tomorrow, but would I be able to, my vote would be for Sen. Hillary Clinton.  This may come as a shock to many.  But, it’s true.

I previously vowed to leave the country with my cousin should Hillary become the next president.  The world’s only psychic twins – Temple alumnae – say I should start packing my bags.  But after stalking the Clinton family for the past six weeks for The Temple News, I’m beginning to sway.

When it comes down to it, Sen. Barack Obama scares me.  I don’t trust him.  Or Michelle.  And I know people say the same about Hillary.  But there’s a certain charisma – the one Obama possesses – that just irks me.

But I’ll let Pennsylvania decide – I have no other option.  I can only hope.

Photo from National Constitution Center debate on ABC, courtesy Michael Bryant, Philadelphia Inquirer