Jack Kelly Sunday

Interesting.

As one of Sarah Palin's truest boosters (he was boosting Palin back in June), you'd think that Jack Kelly would have had something - anything - to say about this week's debate. The debate was Thursday evening, right? Surely on such an important occasion he'd want to get something on the record as soon as possible.

But check out his column this week - nothing. No chest thumping histrionics supporting the wingnut notion that Palin wiped up the floor with Joe Biden. No whiny allegations of "bias" about Gwen Ifill's book. No self-righteous charges of media sexism for bringing up Palin's many misstatements, distortions and lies.

No, this week Jack's on to Senator Obama's campaign contributions. It's always interesting what Jack doesn't say. Sometimes it says more than what Jack actually says.

While I could be wrong, this week's column seems to be a rehash of this column from Newsmax.com. (Note: Jack quotes from it so this is not a case of plagiarism.)

But Newsmax? Since when is Newsmax a credible source for P-G columnists?

For those who don't know, Newsmax's CEO is Christopher Ruddy. He's the "Vince Foster was killed" guy who also asserted that Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, whose body was found in a plane crash in Croatia, was actually killed by a gunshot wound to the head. No explanation for what happened to the gunman who would have conceivably died in that plane crash, as well.

Yea, That Newsmax.

This is how the rightwing noise machine works. Some goofy, half-baked (at best) idea gets burped up in the wingnut media and then conservative pundits complain that the story's NOT being picked up in more mainstream media outlets and then those outlets cover the controversy and BAM! the story's on everyone's desktop.

You can tell that that's what's going on when Jack writes:

If Mr. Obama were a Republican, the news media would be demanding he disclose the names of all of his donors...

He then points out that the McCain has already disclosed the names of all his donors (we'll get to this in a bit).

Let's start with the closest things to facts in Jack's column. The first:

Mr. Good Will -- who lists his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You" -- has contributed 1,000 times to the Barack Obama campaign.

All the contributions have been in amounts of $25 or less. But they add up to $17,375 -- far more than the legal limit of $4,600 ($2,300 each for the primary and general election campaigns).

Jack tried directory assistance and found no info on Mr. Will. And the second:

Mr. Doodad Pro made 786 contributions for a total of $19,500. Like Mr. Good Will, Mr. Pro lists his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You." Mr. Pro said he is from Nunda, N.Y. Directory assistance found no listing for him, either.

Michael Isikoff (a real reporter) also did some digging. Here's what he found:

"Good Will" listed his employer as "Loving" and his occupation as "You," while supplying as his address 1015 Norwood Park Boulevard, which is shared by the Austin nonprofit Goodwill Industries. Suzanha Burmeister, marketing director for Goodwill, said the group had "no clue" who the donor was. She added, however, that the group had received five puzzling thank-you letters from the Obama campaign this year, prompting it to send the campaign an e-mail in September pointing out the apparent fraudulent use of its name.

"Doodad Pro" listed no occupation or employer; the contributor's listed address is shared by Lloyd and Lynn's Liquor Store in Nunda. "I have never heard of such an individual," says Diane Beardsley, who works at the store and is the mother of one of the owners. "Nobody at this store has that much money to contribute." (She added that a Doodad's Boutique, located next door, had closed a year ago, before the donations were made.)

Gee, who would have thought that "Good Will" might mean "Goodwill"? Apparently not Jack Kelly. Isikoff follows that with this most important stuff:

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the campaign has no idea who the individuals are and has returned all the donations, using the credit-card numbers they gave to the campaign. (In a similar case earlier this year, the campaign returned $33,000 to two Palestinian brothers in the Gaza Strip who had bought T shirts in bulk from the campaign's online store. [emphasis added]

No where in the column does Jack even imply that the donations have already been returned. Don't you think he should have? I mean, isn't that was kinda important for the fabric of the whole column? Then Jack quotes Timmerman's column directly:

"In July and August, the head of Nigeria's stock market held a series of pro-Obama fund-raisers in Lagos," Mr. Timmerman said. "At one event, a table for eight went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000."

Uh-oh. In a column on illegal fundraising, we're left with the implication (aren't we?) that that $900,000 was funnelled into the Obama Campaign. Jack doesn't say it was and he doesn't say it wasn't. But the implication is there. That the seemingly fraudulent fundraisers took place in Africa and Senator Obama is an African-American must simply delight, uh, certain constituencies within Senator Obama's critics, no doubt.

Too bad the question of where that money went was answered a full month ago:

Hundreds of the city's high-society elite and business leaders paid up to £11,000 for a table at the glitzy fundraiser, but police intervened when it became clear that US laws prohibit overseas donations.

Staff from Barack Obama's campaign team said the Democratic presidential hopeful was in no way connected with the "Africans for Obama" organisation and added that no money from the group would be accepted.

The organiser of the August 11 event, Ndi Okereke-Onyiuke, chair of the Nigerian stock exchange, was questioned by corruption investigators but was cleared of any wrongdoing on Sunday because no Nigerian laws were broken.

Oh well. In fact this pargraph follows directly:

She said in a statement that the money had never been intended as a direct donation to Mr Obama's campaign, but was to "mobilise and sensitise Africans" about his policies.

Something Jack doesn't tell you.

So Good Will's money's already been returned. Doodad Pro's, as well. The two brothers in Gaza and the Nigerian funds have all been returned.

Tell me again what Jack was talking about? And why he decided to write about THIS as opposed to cheering for Sarah Palin's debate performance?

The world is filled with mysteries.