Mr Blue Sky wrote:I think your point about the alleged pro-liberal media bias is a red herring. If it does exist, it has probably always existed (and I've certainly seen my share of right wing bias from Fox News for example)
Its not a red herring at all. To even question its existence is like questioning a right-wing bias among members of the U.S military. And interestingly it has not really always existed. The left-wing take-over of the media was primarily a post WWII thing. If the left had the media during WWII we wouldn't have won the damn war!! Fox news does indeed have a right wing bias. And in a perfect world I would be concerned about that. Same with domination of US radio air. However, the multi-generation fascistic and corrupt dominance of the media by the liberal establishment has been and is (although we're making inroads) so severe and destructive that the little sliver (do you know how relatively small an audience Fox news is?) of the pie that Fox and right radio have is not only completely just but goes further toward promoting justice than any liberal affirmative action program ever could. Right radio starting with Rush Limbaugh, leading to Fox in the '90's, is the product of the end of the so called 'fairness doctrine' in the late '80's. Corrupt, fascistic, disingenuous liberals have been trying to get the 'fairness' act back of late because they are so threatened by the emerging sliver of democratic justice and semblance of balance-of-power in the national institution of public persuasion (or is that the national institution of 'The News'?).
Mr Blue Sky wrote:so Obama is in no more an advantageous position than any other black candidate from previous generations. Apart from his obvious advantage of being more articulate, having greater presence and having more vision than any previous black candidate.
He wouldn't have been elected in, say, 1960 in large part due to racism. So in that sense he is in a more advantageous position. But liberals still try to assert - even if they don't explicitly say it - that it still is 1960!
Mr Blue Sky wrote:You may call these superficial traits , but if voters didn't like what he had to say policy-wise he wouldn't have won so many primaries.
Not so. Many...most of these fainting, hooping, emotional, often young, Obamagasmic party-goers wouldn't have a clue about a policy if it bit them on the ass. They 'feeeeeeeeeeeeel'. They 'swoooooooooooon'. They get the 'vaaaaaaaaaaaaapors'. But policy? Don't ruin the Obama-rama party, man.
Mr Blue Sky wrote:But to be fair I think you've already conceded that Obama has some extra quality about him that sets him apart so there's no need for me to keep banging on about that.
Yes, but don't be mistaken in the non-significance of that 'concession'. These qualities wouldn't persuade me. And chief among these qualities, for the hundredth time, is being black (or more appropriately, only half-Caucasian).