I am no fan of Obama but I think the differences are far more pronounced than similarities. Roh was fundamentally a political incompetent, as well as a man lacking in intellectual sophistication. Neither charges can be really leveled against Obama.

Apparently the protester-mourners couldn't give a flying F that Kim Jong-il just detonated another nuke practically in their backyard. Good to see these folks have their priorities straight!

AAAAAHHHH-MENNNN!!!!

Obama's gonna change the world!

Because you're arguing that like Roh Moo-hyun, Obama was elected based on widespread "misinformation" and because the MSM in were "in the tank" for him. Sounds like you're insinuating some sort of liberal conspiracy on the part of the MSM in the US, I'd say.

Look, the MSM in the US hammered Obama pretty hard at many points, such as during the Wright affair and his "bitter" comments in San Francisco. At the same time, Hillary's primary campaign was resuscitated with MSM support at several key points, such as during the "tearing up" incident which helped her win New Hampshire and kept her campaign alive, and I recall that Saturday Night Live gave her boosts on several occasions and seemed to be pretty obviously behind her.

Anyway, in the case of Obama's campaign, I would argue that his ground operation was the decisive factor that helped him win the election. Clinton and McCain had terrible ground operations in comparison.

You want to talk about liberal media conspiracies in the US, tell me why the US media was so obviously "in the tank" for Bush's invasion of Iraq, and why they let the Republican/Rove smear machine destroy Kerry with so many obvious lies and distortions, such as the whole Swiftboating thing to name the most obvious example. More to the point, Bush was such a clueless dolt that there obviously had to have been some kind of media conspiracy that helped get him elected both times. He was not "vetted" at all by the media, and constantly got a free pass by the media at every turn during both presidential elections. He was "elected" to the position of most powerful leader in the world (well, by a negative factor of 600,000 votes) because, basically, he seemed like a "cool guy to have a beer with." Ridiculous.

So give me a break about the liberal bias of the US MSM. They only care about making money and corporate interests, and everything else is quite secondary.

Paranoid? Where did that come from? Paranoid about what?

Anyway…nothing you write in that first paragraph contradicts what I wrote. The key clause was "When the media decided that Obama was actually viable over Hillary…"

They decided they didn't like Hillary for reasons like those you point out. And when they saw Obama gaining and believed he had what it would take to win the whole thing, they went after Hillary and pumped Obama up with a hell of a lot of cheerleading.

I forget where I read it, but something I read laid out a good case on this point: the writer pointed out how the few negative stories on Obama – like his past (and present) associations – came out early in the campaign — but — later on, the media not only remained silent on those issues but went out of their way to shield Obama on them by saying they were a "distraction" and so on.

Basically, the US media are owned and driven by corporate interests most of all, so they’ll stand behind left or right political candidates as long as they feel its in their interest.

I'm not sure how true or false that was in the past, but it doesn't work today — and MSNBC is the perfect example because of the route it's taken and the fact it is owned by GE. During the last of the election, GE was reported to have had discussions with the news branch of the corporation about the bias — but it was a perfect example of a phrase I never quiet understood before — that it was the exception that proved the rule:

Some GE big shots finally complained about the horrible bias at MSNBC — but nothing changed…

Basically, the US media are owned and driven by corporate interests most of all, so they'll stand behind left or right political candidates as long as they feel its in their interest. Of course there are exceptions like Fox and MSNBC, but that's the general paradigm overall.