The charge that the ‘elite media’ are biased against conservatives is an old one. For decades, American conservatives accused the media of trying to promote a liberal agenda, and liberal politicians. The elite media, however, defended themselves and could successfully argue that although they may have had an anti-conservative bias, this bias did not influence their reporting. For a long time, elite media reported honestly; the only place where one could truly see their bias openly at display were the editorial papers of America’s major newspapers.

But that has changed considerably in this year’s campaign. No longer do members of the ‘elite media’ feel forced to hide their bias in their reporting. This year marks the first year that they let their bias openly influence their reporting, and, what is most remarkable, they do no longer apologize for bias, or come up with reasonably valid excuses; the message they sends nowadays is that they are indeed biased, and that they know it, and that they could not care less about what conservatives or even ‘the public’ at large think about it.

That is a first timer, and it marks an important break with tradition. It could very well influence their reporting for years, and decades, to come. The more they get away with biased reporting, the more they will do so. When not punished for their betrayal to their profession, the elite media will continue traveling down the path of pushing a liberal plan for America and pushing for liberal candidates, such as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and, yes, Barack Obama.

Obama himself was undoubtedly surprised by the overt media bias in his favor. He thought he would have to fight an uphill battle, against the establishment. That is not how it went, however. At the very moment he announced his candidacy, liberal journalists joined his campaign and turned a man with little to no experience and a radical background into a viable candidate for president.

To a very large degree, Obama thanks his current success to the elite media, who have defended him when attacked, and attacked his opponents so that Obama could appear to be ‘above the frey.’

The only question that remains is whether media like the New York Times will continue to actively support Obama once president, or whether they will become more critical after January. It seems logical to assume that they will become more critical; after all, newspapers sell when they are critical of those in power.

However, Obama will have won one term after November 4, but he and his supporters will instantly focus on a second term. To become too critical of Obama could result in him losing reelection, especially if the criticism is combined with overly liberal policies. The more liberal Obama acts as president, the more liberal policies he pursues, the more likely it is that a strong conservative Republican will stand up in 2012, challenge him and possibly defeat him, much like what happened to Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Elite media and the Obama campaign know their history quite well; they too realize that the liberal Obama could cause a major conservative backlash. They know, and fear it, which is why they can do the following two things in the coming years:

1. Obama can rule like Bill Clinton did: a moderate Democrat. If he does, he’ll have a fair shot at reelection. The only problem for him is that it means he will have to disappoint many of his supporters and, to a very large degree, betray his own views.

2. The elite media, which helped him get elected in the first place, can buckle up and dedicate themselves to four years of defending Obama. This means that Republicans will be criticized even more, and Democratic policies defended almost constantly. When Republicans resist, they will be depicted as racists who do not wish to ‘improve’ society, and who try to stop those who do.

As far as I am concerned, the second option is likely, although it is also quite possible that Obama will rule pretty moderately (less than Clinton but still) in his first term only to become an all-out liberal if he wins a second term. At that moment, he will have nothing to lose, and he will finally be able to pursue the rather radical policies he wanted to pursue for years, decades even, if he would ever be in a position of power.

Meanwhile, one suspects that this possibly ‘moderation’ will only be applied to domestic policies, not to foreign policy. He will almost instantly try to change with Bush’s foreign policy, and implement a soft, dovish approach to all countries, including those ruled by some of the most horrible regimes known to mankind. Israel will undoubtedly feel the heat and either feel forced to accept losses in territory it would never have accepted if a strong America backed it or it will be attacked by its Arab and Persian enemies, possibly resulting in quite a massive war in the Middle East, in which the U.S. and Russia will take different sides (for Obama cannot truly desert Israel), but in which both will not become involved and Israel will have to face its dozen enemies alone.

We are, I think, in for a tough ride in the coming years; and with ‘we’ I do not mean the United States but the world. It will be interesting to see how Obama will behave once in office, and how he will deal with ‘rogue regimes,’ but it seems not unlikely at all that the coming four years will be grand years for extremists in the Middle East, while Western interests will be pushed back increasingly further.

The ‘moderate Obama,’ if invented, will almost certainly be a ‘domestic’ moderate, but a ‘foreign policy dovish liberal.’ We can only wait and see what such policies do the world and especially to the Middle East: since the Middle East survived eight years of Bush(’s bad policies), perhaps it will also survive four (or eight) years of Obama.