I honestly think the media thinks it is responsible for Obama's victory

[TeamJordan23]

And thus they feel entitled to go after him hard because they put them there. I have never ever seen so much scrutiny over any of Bush's appointments. Just imagine the ruckus the MSM is going to cause when Obama has to appoint Supreme Court justices.

The actions of the press towards Obama and Gibbs each day makes me conclude they think it is their right to hold Obama to higher standards than any previous administration, including when Chimpy was declaring wars against other countries.

[FrenchieCat]

1. I think most in the media are fucking assholes who want this country to fail.....

and yes, they believe that they have more power than all of our branches of government put together....which is why they lie at will and never, ever say when they screw up, or when they screw us.

[ErinBerin84]

2. I don't think they

they they're responsible for his victory, per se. But the "The media is in the tank for Obama" was effectively spouted out, and they are ultra touchy to this. It's not our fault that his opponents campaigns had in fighting, shakeups, etc. Plus, going after Obama now helps them deal with any criticism that they weren't hard on Bush, in their guilty little minds. "See....we're doing our jobs! We swear!"

[spanone]

3. you seen cnn??? 'a new administration, and we're keeping them honest'

oh really cnn, well the real fucking liars and criminals just crawled out the door with hardly a glance from you pompous shits.

[Jennicut]

6. Ha! When did they ever keep Bush honest?

[butterfly77]

4. They do because the republicons keep telling them they did...

[Solomon]

5. Are you kidding? The media did everything to make sure he

DIDN'T become president. He was the most scrutinized candidate in history and all the while the meme was, "we don't know who he is". No other candidate had his minister, church, neighbors, etc. exposed. Thank God his barber wasn't controversial, or we would have heard about that too.

They have always been trying to tank him, and you're right, they're trying to tank him now.

[craigmatic]

7. It's the classic reformer senerio

After a prolonged period of bad government that nobody trusts and somebody who want to reform and open the government up to the public comes to power, in most cases the media and the public tend to be harder on the reformer than the guy who was corrupt. Obama is letting the steam out of the kettle that bush kept boiling. The problem is that there too much unsatisfaction to let out and it's happening all at once. That's basically what's happening here. And yes they are being harder on Obama than bush. They don't want Obama to fail they just want to seem like they're doing their job by completely overdoing the skepticism. President Carter went through thev samething after watergate.In short they want to take the shine off President Obama.

[Igel]

8. One thing you have to remember is that 1 incident is just that.

But two incidents form a likely pattern. Three incidents make it a habit.

Geithner was bad. Daschle made it worse. When the third case happened--the woman who withdrew her name from consideration--it was a solid pattern.

It's the same with kidnappings, arsons, or nearly anything else. A single incident passes with mild notice, but if there's a third, all hell breaks loose. You can even scrape by twith two incidents. Not 3.

Keep in mind there's also the "I'm going to bring change--see how much better we are?" Then Richardson, Geitner, Daschle, etc., etc. It didn't help that the day after annoying rules for lobbyists he essentially waived the rule, something he must have known he was going to do when he announced the stricture, stringent, so much superior rules.

Nothing attracts attention like hypocrisy. The thing is, it doesn't have to be real for it to be attributed.