Wednesday on a feature hilariously named “Truth in Politics” on Channel 2, Mike Flannery, the station’s political editor…the local version of MSNBC’s Chris Matthews (who every time he sees Obama feels a tingle up his leg)… undertook to defend charges of media bias for Barack Obama that ignored legitimate charges against the candidate. This is the same Flannery who two weeks ago on the Friday night WTTW séance of cross-eyed trained seals (so liberal Democratic they can’t see straight)…aka Joel Weisman’s “Chicago Week in Review” …said he was “crossing my fingers” that no gaffe would be committed by Obama that would interfere with his election. Yes, the very same Flannery who wrote in a paid commercial Chicago advertising supplement to “The New York Times” that he asked Obama when he was a state senator for a picture with him and his kids when he gets to the White House…and an ornament from the White House Christmas tree. The laudatory article could have been written by David Axelrod…and maybe was for all we know.

His byline on that article should have gotten Flannery transferred off the Obama beat by any first-rate TV station. Then, his statement that his fingers were crossed in Obama’s behalf should also have gotten him permanently axed. But news quality is so low in Chicago that one only has to pass two qualifications to do a standup in front of a camera: be warm with a temperature of at least 98.6 and be cross-eyed (liberal Democrat).

If there were an objective standard to journalism here, a question should be asked of Flannery: how much was he paid for the article booming Obama? Another: Since the article was an in-kind contribution to the Obama presidential campaign, was it listed in their disclosure forms?

Seriously, the disgraceful thing about Flannery’s attitude and upfront campaign contribution to the Obama campaign is this: news consumers of CBS 2 Chicago as everywhere else have the right to news that is supposedly objective-including hard news…unfavorable as well as favorable… about the candidacy of Obama. Chris Matthews is at least a commentator and certifiably so when MSNBC removed him as an election night anchor and all responsibility for coverage in favor of his opining. He’s now reported to be readying himself to run as a Democratic candidate for the U. S. senate from Pennsylvania…and has allowed his name to be used in polling opposite Arlen Specter. At least we know where he’s coming from. Flannery is reputed to be the station’s political editor and carries the responsibility to be objective-at least in appearance.

Flannery has not hinted his interest in Democratic political office; yet you never know-good name, good location (Beverly). And he is allowed to masquerade as political editor by acting as a commentator ala Matthews. Flannery and Matthews are almost identical in their views-Matthews more hyperbolic. Like Matthews, Flannery looks and sounds star-smitten when he refers to Obama.

In “Truth in Politics” (that they can bill it as thus without being knocked down by a lightening bolt is miraculous in itself) this is what he says:

FLANNERY: “We don’t speak for the media, only ourselves. The Barack Obama that [sic] we have known for years is patriotic, the same in private as he is in public. Perhaps that made our coverage different.”

HUH? Can you parse this logically? Let’s see (a) he is patriotic in private as he is in public and (b) “that made our coverage different.”

FLANNNERY: “We largely ignored the uproar over 1960s radical Bill Ayers.”

THIS IS THE KEY. OF COURSE YOU DID. Finally getting down to admitting it. Ayers was a radical only in the 1960s? Not now? In his latest TV interview Ayers says he’s still radical, that in the 1960s he didn’t do enough. Flannery: “1960s radical” despite he has never apologized for his bombing the Capitol and Pentagon and has said he only regrets he was not more successful. Plus that he was photographed standing on the American flag a few years ago?

FLANNERY: “Obama once worked with Ayers on school issues. So did Mayor Daley and big business leaders. So what?”

HUH? You’ve been covering Chicago politics here for years and don’t know Daley by this time? Unlike his father, Richard M. is INCLUSIVE…a giant sucking machine, sucking in everyone regardless of ideology…from Bernie Stone to Rick Garcia to Mike Pfleger, asking only that they support him and keep their ideology. Daleyville does them favors and squeezes support out of them in recompense. How do you think Billy Ayers got to be a “distinguished professor?” And how did he chum with business leaders (notwithstanding his own father’s high standing)? He’s “in” with the Daleyites. Why do you think Billy Ayers is clam-silent about the Daley machine? He’s in with the Daleyites. Why do you think Mike Pfleger hasn’t been canned for violating the canons of the Mass at Saint Sabina’s and turning it into a Democratic rally? The Preist with David Axelrod on his building committee? He’s Big Time with the Daleyites as Chicago Politicians understand with a wink and a nod. You’re Marilyn Katz of the SDS in the 1960s, renounce nothing but play ball with the machine and get juicy p. r. contracts. Do you think she’s become more conservative since she has been drawing dough from the city? Talk to her sometime.

FLANNERY: “There were times when Chicago reporters pressed then-candidate Obama hard.”

HUH? Hard? Were you one of them, Mr. Flannery? Didn’t see much of it from you on your station.

FLANNERY: “For months we wanted more answers about his former friend, Tony Rezko than Obama was willing to give.”

HUH? He got away with not giving you answers didn’t he while your adulation continued. Did you go on the air and demand answers? We never heard much about it from you on your station. In the face of this stonewalling why did you cross your fingers while on WTTW hoping he would get elected? Why is it that it took a blogger, Fran Eaton, to go to Jeremiah Wright’s church and get the DVDs that were for sale…why neither you nor anyone else locally made a move to buy them? Why was it following Eaton’s disclosure it took an ABC national correspondent to do the same thing while Chicago pro-Obama media masseurs like you, Flannery, looked the other way?

FLANNERY: “Reporters had another judgment to make when Obama’s critics called him inexperienced. Obama was a U.S. senator with more national experience than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton had as candidates.”

HUH? With that p. r. puff you really deserve the 3rd string slot in the Obama White House press operation you might get from Axelrod, Flannery. Or a shot at running for the House from local Dem slate-makers…which old WBBM geezer John Madigan always wanted and never got despite his pandering service to the Democratic party in the `60s equal to yours now. If you think sitting at a senatorial desk for a few months confers “national experience” which tops running a major state or even heading up its energy resources panel, you’re a hopeless naïf.

Pathetic.