| LordTheNightKnight said: Just because he was a darling before does not mean the media wouldn't stop if they found a "better" darling, and they did. |
You are completely ignoring the reasons why the media started giving more attention to Obama and aren't even giving any. You are just assuming the media is biased without giving any specific examples. I'm sorry, but the liberal media argument has been beaten to death. You can't just rely on it like it is a fundamental truth.
And Obama got some horrendously bad coverage during the primaries. Fortunately for him, most of his dirt was already on the table and he didn't generate much new dirt.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
