Thanks for the thoughtful reply, which I find neither haughty or pretentious. I appreciate it.
First, who said I had a (coherent) argument!?
Second, fair point about the subject matter and its handling of it on large and serious and grand terms as new in a sense. Not sure if I buy the argument that the idea or depiction of civic corruption was mind-blowing to an HBO-watching American viewer in 2002, but, yes, the Wire did delve into a lot of new kind of stuff in a more series and sophisticated way than, say, Menace II Society, and created a truly great tapestry to set the drama to.
On the "big questions" point. I think I kind of have to hold my tongue. I agree the show was "asking" those questions, but I don't think it was answering them as straightfowardly as you perhaps do. (Don't mean that in a sarcastic way at all). I can feel great sympathy for Dookie without having to repudiate vast tracts of American political orthodoxy on both sides of the aisle.
I think other shows ask big questions, too. If you wanted to pigeonhole them, you could expatiate for days about how the Sopranos or Deadwood or Mad Men, etc. are tackling the theme of America in big ambitious ways, some more metaphorical than others.
But, in summary, I think you made some very good points and I agree with a lot of what you're saying.