again, the myth of the liberal media

I could go on for many pages, but this example sums up the argument nicely:

Thus, in 1994, Time celebrated the Republican victory in the midterm elections by putting a herd of charging elephants on its cover. But its response to the Democratic victory of 2006—a victory in which House Democrats achieved a larger majority, both in seats and in the popular vote, than the Republicans ever did in their 12-year reign—was a pair of overlapping red and blue circles, with the headline "The center is the place to be."

Remember George W. and his "mandate"? Bush won essentially by one state (Ohio, which I believe could have easily been rigged). In contrast, when Clinton was unquestionably demolished Dole in 1996 for re-election (supposedly as the Republicans were surging in popularity), he never made the same type of grandiose statement about the power vested in him.

This is why I always feel like the Democrats play nicer/more humbly at politics than (and get burned harder for it by) the Republicans. I also find it ironic that Republican candidates of extremely dubious experience (Reagan) are touted as heroes, yet candidates like Clinton (and Obama especially) are consistently questioned about their experience. Why isn't the same standard applied to the likes of Mitt Romney - what experiences make him any better suited for President than Clinton? Than Obama? Because he wants to 'double' Guantanamo? Morons.

Of course, the conservative counter-argument is that the ones in power shouldn't gloat, lest they reveal their power and suffer the wrath of the misled public. But wait, do the Reps take their own advice? See above.