I'd say you've pretty much nailed it with that comment. A lot of the coverage of Obama was prompted by attacks that he was "pallin' around with terrorists" and whatnot. The press investigated, found that the concerns were baseless, and the result was what ammounts to a positive story for Obama.
 
  I don't care who you are, that right there is funny!

The press investigated? The post says themselves that they didn't dig into Obama enough. Didn't research his undergrad years, his Harvard years, his past drug use. I read a lot of news and not even on Fox did I see anyone asking why Obama refused to release transcripts, co-workers names, where he lived, and with who, while at Columbia. Where did he get the money to pay for tuition? The press simply fell in love with a great "underdog" "first black president" "rags to riches" story and ran with that to the almost exclusion of anything that would even pass for actual reporting. Anyone who thinks they "know" Obama just from reading the papers is sadly deluding themselves.

Personally I hope the man does well. He has a lot of expectations to live up to, and I hope for our sake, he is able to do so. But please don't kid yourself into thinking that the press gave both sides a fair shake in their coverage. We know more about Palan's daughter's sex life then we know about Obama and his past.

Last year, you spent $1, 975 per-capita on medicare and medicaid. A number of countries provide universal healthcare for less than this.

Who's point are you trying to prove? Medicare and Medicaid ARE Gov't run programs. So we spend more on healthcare when the Gov't runs it. Isn't that what the point of the previous post was?