"Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election."

If there is this temporary bias it's only partially because Obama is so good at what he does. It's also that Bush & Cheney were so bad, and that the same people brought us Palin as a national candidate. Who wouldn't think Obama walked on water after those folks had been around.

Thinking people all over the world are greeting Obama as a liberator, having freed the US from the ideological tyrants who have embroiled the Middle East in endless war and whose economic policies have led to a financial panic in the US and worldwide depression.

One also has to look at what the media was offered to cover. The Rs were running on nothing more than the same disastrous policies which were sinking the country, complete with the hillbilly ignorant and arrogant VP candidate who was busy buying clothes for herself and family, and dodging the press, for good reason. The Ds had a bright, articulate candidate with a hope for getting out from under the disastrous effects of the policies of the Rs. Whether the choice was over understanding the world, understanding the American middle class or "family values", the Ds had it hands down. Reporters couldn't help but notice one set of candidates weren't caricatures and walked the walk.

Biased? Hell no. They reported fairly. Elmer Fudd would have looked good next to the Rs. They should stop whining and put up serious people. Not like Jindal. If they expect anyone to take them seriously. It's hard to report a train wreck as anything other than a train wreck. The Rs think that every candidate should get an A so that no one will feel bad.

Arf