What? biased?

They did not, however, do this unassisted; according to the far-left organization, Move On.org’s press release, they raised $88 million to elect Obama. Of course they did not spend this kind of money without expecting a quid-pro-quo. They feel they have paid for services and will demand that the payoffs start coming soon after the swearing in on January 20. Even more significantly, Obama got a huge help from an adoring and complicit media. The media was determined to see that he was elected and never subjected him to the withering criticism it did to McCain and particularly to Sarah Palin whom the media libs went after with a passion. You see, as a true conservative and an attractive campaigner, she threatened the liberals in their effort to seal the election for Obama. On the contrary, he was treated kindly as one of their own, which he is. He has more skeletons in his closet than the Adams Family production set, but the media spent all their time digging for trash in Sarah Palin’s back yard.
The Washington Post issued a back page report saying that statistics indicated their paper had actually been biased for Obama and against McCain during the campaign, using the number of positive versus negative news items as the source. Odd isn’t it? The paper never noticed this state of affairs during an entire year leading up to the election during their coverage of the candidates, but now, big surprise, they suddenly discover the bias problem. I’m surprised anyone with an I.Q. higher than a brussels sprout believes anything he reads in the major papers.