First, The Evidence:

Next: The Accusation

From conservative radio talk show host Bob Grant on Wednesday 10/16/08:

But really folks, did you notice Obama is not content with just having several American flags, plain old American flags with the 50 states represented by 50 stars? He has the “O” flag. And that’s what that “O” is. That’s what that “O” is. Just like he did with the plane he was using. He had the flag painted over, and the “O” for Obama. Now, these are symptom — these things are symptomatic of a person who would like to be a potentate — a dictator. And I really see this in this man.

The Punch Line:

Oops. It’s not an Obama-USA flag. It’s, uh, the Ohio state flag.

THE STATE FLAG OF OHIO

The Conclusion: FAIL.

Adding insult to injury? That even Michelle Malkin points out your paranoia.

You LOSE. Good DAY, sir.

Just for fun, let’s have a look at other secret messages hidden in our state flags:

Arizona	Hmm. The Arizona flag DOES resemble the flowing stripes on the Obama campaign logo.
California	And why is California taunting McCain about the bear market? After all, McCain’s advisers told us a couple of weeks ago that talking about the economy is going to lose the election for them. Why does California insist on this painful reminder?
Colorado	AHA! We’ve caught Colorado red…er, blue-handed, in the midst of its addition of an “O” to its flag! Gotcha, liberal scum!
Georgia	Et tu, Georgia? Another “O” for Obama? And for that matter, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington? HARDLY fair and balanced.
South Carolina	Oh, now this one takes the cake! Is that the crescent moon of Islam I see?

Michelle Malkin is reporting today about a potential controversy surrounding tomorrow night’s Vice-Presidential debate. From her site:

But there is nothing “moderate” about where Ifill stands on Barack Obama. She’s so far in the tank for the Democrat presidential candidate, her oxygen delivery line is running out.

In an imaginary world where liberal journalists are held to the same standards as everyone else, Ifill would be required to make a full disclosure at the start of the debate. She would be required to turn to the cameras and tell the national audience that she has a book coming out on January 20, 2009 – a date that just happens to coincide with the inauguration of the next president of the United States.

The title of Ifill’s book? “Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.” Nonpartisan my foot.

It’s unclear whether the book favors or criticizes Obama - it also discusses Colin Powell and other prominent African-American figures - and it doesn’t matter. Either way, if he wins his bid for the presidency, he’s going to be a much hotter topic than if he loses. I think there’s a reasonable argument to be made that Ifill has more invested in the Presidential race than many other journalists. Sure, the rest of Malkin’s piece doesn’t really encourage reasonable discourse, but it’s still an interesting story that merits discussion so you can’t dismiss the story based on the source.

From what I’ve seen, people generally thought Jim Lehrer did a good job moderating the first Presidential debate. Giving consideration to him as a stand-in isn’t a bad idea, though it will be a big blow to Ifill who by most accounts did a good job moderating the Cheney-Edwards debate in 2004.

Thoughts? Suggestions?