CNN's Toobin accused the Clintons of having "deranged narcissism"
SUMMARY: CNN's Jeffrey Toobin accused the Clintons of having "deranged narcissism," stating: "[Sen. Barack Obama] has won the nomination. So, you know, without the deranged narcissism of the Clintons, I don't understand why this isn't ..." Gloria Borger responded by asking, "What do you really think?" David Gergen later responded to Toobin's claim by stating, "I must say, I disassociate myself from 'deranged narcissism.' "
During CNN's June 3 coverage of the Montana and South Dakota primaries, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin accused the Clintons of having "deranged narcissism," as the Huffington Post noted. Toobin stated: "The Obama campaign announced right as the polls closed that 26 more superdelegates had signed on. The margin is now without dispute. We're not talking about one or two delegates here. He has won the nomination. So, you know, without the deranged narcissism of the Clintons, I don't understand why this isn't ..." CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger responded by asking, "What do you really think?" Toobin replied: "I know, but what does that mean, 'It's her night'? He just won." CNN senior political analyst David Gergen later responded to Toobin's claim by stating, "I must say, I disassociate myself from 'deranged narcissism.' "
From the June 3 edition of CNN's election coverage:
SUZANNE MALVEAUX (CNN White House correspondent): One of the things the Obama camp -- what they've been looking for is some sort of gesture, a conciliatory gesture from Hillary Clinton to come just a little bit farther than she has. They were looking for that tonight.
BORGER: Well, she'll be his vice president.
MALVEAUX: But at the same time, that is what she's floating.
ANDERSON COOPER (host): And there was certainly no conciliatory gesture.
MALVEAUX: That's what she's pitching and there was nothing that they could work with. And people were saying that's what they needed from her to somehow come together. And if they're not going to get that, then there's no point in trying to bring that unity together.
TOOBIN: The Obama campaign announced right as the polls closed that 26 more superdelegates had signed on. The margin is now without dispute. We're not talking about one or two delegates here. He has won the nomination. So, you know, without the deranged narcissism of the Clintons, I don't understand why this isn't --
BORGER: What do you really think?
TOOBIN: I know, but what does that mean, "It's her night"? He just won.
BORGER: Well, the point -- the point he was making to me was, you know, you guys, it's hard to --
COOPER: We get it, it's hard. David?
GERGEN: I must say, I disassociate myself from "deranged narcissism."
DONNA BRAZILE (CNN poliltical analyst): So do I.
GERGEN: But nonetheless, I do think that this night has been coming for a long time.
This was the only night on national television in front of a large audience that he would have a chance to claim the nomination. And she had a long time to prepare for this psychologically. She had a long time to make phone calls to superdelegates and to others to make the preparations.
It does seem to me that the Obama people have a point in believing, "This was supposed to be our night. This was supposed to be a night when we began coming together as a party and shoved off from there."
Tommy, I have to agree. Would have it been so hard for her to admit she has lost and help unite the party. If it is not narcissism what the hell is it?
It is arguable at best whether Clinton got more votes. Michigan screwed everything up. I personally believe people who claim that Clinton had more votes are being disingenuous.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
She got more votes. She was railroaded.
Using the Enron accounting procedures will not make the facts any different. She had name, money and everything going for her but she screwed up, ASSumed and she lost. The End!
It seems to me that the people who were offended by Sen. Clinton's speech Tuesday were mostly people that hate her to begin with. She was speaking to the millions of people that want HER as president and she had just won another primary. Last night was not the time for a concession speech----despite what the media had led you to believe.
She spoke much more kindly about Obama than I think necessary. As the so-called agent of change, his political actions have been extraordinarily the same: arrogant, dismissive, contrived and self-serving. Saying you are different and then acting to the contrary will not serve him well long-term.
I am surprised that the power of media propaganda is evident even among the posts here. Neither candidate is evil incarnate. Neither is worthy of canonization. Both have been manipulated to facilitate defeat of the Democrats in November.
Will. You. People. Stop it, already!
Nobody asked Teddy Kennedy to quit in the middle of the primaries in 1980 against Jimmy Carter. Nobody asked him to quit 33 seconds after the polls had closed in the last primary. He took his fight to the convention, where he lost and accepted the result.
We don't need a new set of rules and expectations for Hillary. And the Democratic Party doesn't need a bunch of posters creating division by jumping all over Hillary for no rational reason.
She will probably concede very soon (Saturday, I hear). Both she and Obama are giving very respectful speeches in which they're not criticizing one another. Please: follow their example, and conduct yourselves with some dignity.
Please explain to me how Clinton highlighting all of her failed kitchen sink talking points, such as popular vote, stronger candidate, swing states, Kentucky and WV, in Tuesday's speech was honerable? She didn't have to concede immediately, but she showed no class by hammering away at perceived failures of the winner on the very night that he won.
Her speech was the equivelant of the sore loser in a sports game that talks trash and makes excuses at the press conference after their loss. Whether it was close or a blow-out, it still lacks class and dignity.
she chose to 1) talk about herself
The horror!
I didn't watch it, but I read it. The transcript is available here:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5he59ddWydflHq-SUqPAFYXFlxw_wD9130FSG0
Yeah, vicious spin. How does she get away with the following lies and half-truths about her opponent?
"I want to start tonight by congratulating Senator Obama and his supporters on the extraordinary race that they have run.
"Senator Obama has inspired so many Americans to care about politics and empowered so many more to get involved. And our party and our democracy is stronger and more vibrant as a result. So we are grateful.
"And it has been an honor to contest these primaries with him, just as it is an honor to call him my friend. And, tonight, I would like all of us to take a moment to recognize him and his supporters for all they have accomplished."
Seriously, I don't see anything "despicable" in there--and I don't see how anybody could. I see the standard speech of the candidate at the sunset of his/her campaign: "We fought the good fight, I still believe in the ideals we fought for, thank you for your support, I'll continue to fight for you." That ain't narcissism. It's not deranged. It was a pretty good speech.
If you see anything else in that speech, it's because you're blinded by hatred for Hillary.
By the BTW, I'm not a rabid Hillary supporter. I voted for Obama in the primary in early Feb--because I didn't believe Hillary could unite the country the way that he can. Butt I voted for positive reasons--because I liked Obama, not because I hated Hillary. I just don't get all the hatred I see out there for Hillary. And I don't think you-all are doing the Democratic Party any favors with your vendettas and your tirades.
HUGH:
The emotion you see from those who endlessly criticize Hillary has no basis in fact, history, reasonableness, or fairness. It is pure emotion, and it's of the kind reserved for ex-wives. It's beyond dislike, it's a loathing reserved for all women who dare to think they can do better, or KNOW better.
It's not personal about Hillary, it's personal to those who project their feelings of rejection/inadequacy onto her as an ICON. Hillary has done nothing to exact such a personal, emotional reaction within these Hillary haters, so it must be something more deep seeded in the American misogynistic psyche.
Black folks who sought to claim their rights as full citizens were excoriated as "UPPITY" by those clinging to their own insecurities and bigotries of the past. Women have not yet gained a full emancipation in our society, and the proof of that is the primal knee-jerk rejection Hillary receives by some posters in here. It's beyond anything explainable, except by preconceived notions.
I will admit to not liking Hillary much although I can agree she has gotten a bad deal from the press, but to just throw away criticism of her as misogyny is avoiding the points being made. The second Barrack passed the threshold, the race was decided. The classy thing to do would be to concede and congratulate Obama. She needed to bring the party together.
But having said that, the Clinton campaign deserves some of the negativity now and the reasons for that are laid out in many a post on here.
Further, I still "like" Hillary and think she is a remarkable person with a good platform and would have voted for her had she been the candidate.
Will McCain listen?
If he listens, will he act?
The answers are no and no.
No Bob
In your view, how should they be 'heard'? Are you saying that Hillary should automatically just be given the VP slot?
Hafta side with Tommy on this one... they voted and they have been heard already. This one's a no-brainer.
It's common practice for the runner up to get the VP slot.
Without Hillary, Obama will definitely lose. If just 5 per cent of Hillary supporters stay away from the polls, he's a goner. If they vote for McCain instead, he will lose by a landslide.
And it's doubtful he will even get California, with a gay-marriage prohibition now on the ballot.
Obama-maniacs will learn their lesson. Enjoy your arrogance and self-righteousness now, folks.
The same could be said about Republicans who voted for Obama during this process. One of the problems here is that Republicans have had so much influence on our final nominee....from the Republican legislature that set the early primary date in Florida to those crossing over to vote in the Democratic primary.
It's troubling that even here-on the Media Matters site--the media has successfully made Sen. Clinton the enemy--resulting in an almost maniacal hatred of a woman who has worked very hard for many of the things we all say we want. We have watched her being tarred and feathered almost daily by the media since she had the audacity to try to reform health-care---long before it was fashionable. The real change agent is the one that was bullied out of this race by an activist media and a cash rich Obama--whose old-style tactics belies his claim of being different.
This old claim is nonsense and false. Why can't Obama supporters face the truth--millions and millions of Democrats chose to vote for HIllary Clinton because they like and admire her and believe she would be a better president than Mr. Obama. I am one of those voters. To continue to dismiss half the Democratic party in this way is to ask for a loss for all of us in November.
And, enough of the "enron accounting" cracks, regarding the popular vote, too. Check Real Clear Politics: the only way Obama can claim more votes than Clinton is if we give all 238,000 "uncommitted" votes in Michigan to him. That's not fair and not right. for one thing, thousands of those votes were by Edwards and Richardson supporters. For another thing, it was Obama who chose to remove his name from the ballot at the last minute; yet we give him votes he doesn't have any right to claim. In any case, only one person got more people to vote for her than anyone else managed. That is Hillary Clinton.
I still hope for unity in our party, but the divisive and mean-spirited determination by Obama supporters to both gloat and attack, is just not going to make that possible, I fear.
"This old claim is nonsense and false. Why can't Obama supporters face the truth--millions and millions of Democrats chose to vote for HIllary Clinton because they like and admire her and believe she would be a better president than Mr. Obama."--Doc
It is not at all false. I know many people who are Republicans who have admitted they did this even before Operation Chaos was officially announced. I am sure many people like and admire and prefer Hillary, just not enough to give her a clear victory.
"And, enough of the "enron accounting" cracks, regarding the popular vote, too. Check Real Clear Politics: the only way Obama can claim more votes than Clinton is if we give all 238,000 "uncommitted" votes in Michigan to him. That's not fair and not right. for one thing, thousands of those votes were by Edwards and Richardson supporters. For another thing, it was Obama who chose to remove his name from the ballot at the last minute;..."--doc
According to the DNC rules - which Hillary originally supported - none of the votes in Florida and Michigan were supposed to count as they moved their dates to the front of the line without getting a waiver first. The fact that any votes were counted in those states is a significant concession.
Secondly, are we to believe that none of those 248,000 voters would have voted for Obama? Why do you expect Obama to get zero votes there? Is that fair? NO! Besides, the fact that the Michigan vote was one of the few where more Republicans showed up at the polls than Democrats indicates many stayed away from the polls because they knew their votes would not be counted the way the Rules were originally made.
Thirdly, you are ignoring the vote counts of the caucuses. We do not know how many people voted in the caucuses because no one counted them officially. Obama won them all from what I remember. Why do their votes not count Mr. Lay? Enron would indeed be proud.
Obama supporters aren't the problem. Hillary just needs to start showing some class.
I am one of those voters. To continue to dismiss half the Democratic party in this way is to ask for a loss for all of us in November.
I'm not dismissing Clinton supporters, I'm simply tired of the whinning and excuses. Hillary lost, after being the front runner for most of last year, she lost. While we all can agree that some media coverage of her was unfair, it's not the sole reason she lost. Refusing to acknowledge that seems delusional.
And, enough of the "enron accounting" cracks, regarding the popular vote, too. Check Real Clear Politics: the only way Obama can claim more votes than Clinton is if we give all 238,000 "uncommitted" votes in Michigan to him. That's not fair and not right. for one thing, thousands of those votes were by Edwards and Richardson supporters.
Come on, you can't cry 'count the vote' but ignore voters who turned out for caucuses nor can you use the popular vote in primary races where delegates are the measure used to determine the winner. Both Richardson and Edwards endorsed Obama, he would get their delegates.
For another thing, it was Obama who chose to remove his name from the ballot at the last minute; yet we give him votes he doesn't have any right to claim.
Sorry, that excuse didn't work for Hillary and it damn well won't work here. BOTH candidates agreed that neither Florida nor Michigan would count! It only became an issue when Hillary found herself losing. Whether Obama name was or was not on the ballot, it didn't freaking matter. In the words of Hillary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg&feature=related
Of course when she realized she was going to lose she said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6-ZU-NALaM&feature=related
In any case, only one person got more people to vote for her than anyone else managed. That is Hillary Clinton.
Good for her and if the popular vote was the measure used to determine the nominee, Hillary would have won, but it's not and she didn't.
I still hope for unity in our party, but the divisive and mean-spirited determination by Obama supporters to both gloat and attack, is just not going to make that possible, I fear.
This Obama supporter doesn't appreciate Clinton supporter Bob Johnson sending a letter to Jim Clyburn asking him to lobby the Congressional Black Caucus to support Hillary as VP. It's Obama's choice!
As long as you only find fault with Obama supporters unity is impossible.
Gotta love that "OPERATION CHAOS".
Four "SAFE" GOP Congressional seats were LOST, thanks to the Dem's "prolonged" primary process.
And it seemed like such a clever practical joke at the time ... who is the joke REALLY on? Hmmmm?
But I expect that both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama will be taking the higher ground in the next few month, and I hope most of us will do the same and stop the petty bickering.
Everything you said is patently untrue. Very few times has the runnerup received the VP slot in recent history. It isn't even a very good strategy. In general, it strikes me as kind of strange. And, it has not had a very good history of working. In this case, the person to blame for Clinton not deserving the nod is Clinton herself. She took too many pot shots at Obama and she sealed the deal with her comments about him not being ready and about McCain being a better candidate than him. Why on earth would he put her on the ticket after comments like that? Imagine the situation reversed, or with two different people. Can you imagine any reason why the winner would allow that person to be their number 2?
Also, to think that McCain would win with even 5% of Hillary's votes not going to Obama is fantasy land. Did you see his speech on Tuesday? He'l get creamed. We already have the latest poll at Obama 48%, McCain 42%, and it'll get worse from there. Besides the fact that if Clinton thinks that is a real possibility, the best thing she can do to help her party defeat the opposition would be to get behind Obama instead of holding her voters hostage. It is classless and narcissistic.
She wants the millions of voters who voted for her to be heard.
Don't you make you voice heard by voting? Didn't her supporters vote? What else to they want to say besides they pissed off that they lost?
Hillary spoke and the majority preferred her opponent, move on!
Hillary spoke and the majority preferred her opponent, move on!
The majority of what, Pearline? Certainly not votes.
Can you show which votes you are counting and which ones you aren't? Are you counting estimates of caucuses? Are you counting votes against Hillary in Michigan - where Obama wasn't even on the ballot? Do you think that is a fair way to count the votes?
Obama won fair and square.
Car, you keep beating this dead horse! H
Hillary did not have the majority of anything! She lost! The voters did not want her! GET OVER IT!
PEARL:
Seventeen million and some odd WANTED Hillary.
Seventeen million and some odd wanted Obama.
To call that REJECTION ... i.e. "The voters didn't want her" ... is asinine.
TEX:
Call it what ever makes you happy, the fact is she lost!
Take this notion that Obama is not smart and got where he is through affirmative action. President of Harvard Law review, constitutional law professor, US Senator; crikey what does a guy have to do before he can be considered intelligent??
Aha, to the racist, blacks are not as smart, so any black that has accomplished what Senator Obama has must have got affirmative action breaks all through his life. Shows a severe racial bias and a misunderstanding of affirmative action.
What are you guys gonna say when Obama loses on November?
Who are you going to blame?-- supporters of a less qualified Dem candidate? That would mean blaming yourselves.
What are you going to say when he wins?
It's insane to argue about strong candidates among Dems after the candidate has been chosen. You know how to make a strong candidate? SUPPORT HIM!
What are you guys gonna say when Obama loses on November?
Who are you going to blame?
McCain can't win w/o Clinton voters. Should he win, I'll "blame" the two-party duopoly.
-- If Obama loses because of the "white" vote, that will reaffirm what everyone believes about racism -- snoopy
I wouldn't favor anyone voting for a candidate solely on race. The issue of white racism against Obama gets a lot of press...but it's strangely quiet when it comes to reporting that blacks are voting in lock step for Obama.
-- Are you suggesting that is solely because he's black? -- snoopy
No...I'm not suggesting...I'm stating it as a fact that many blacks are voting for Obama simply because he is black.
That action is just as wrong as "not" voting for Obama because he is black...but little is dared to be mentioned about the overwhelming black support that Obama receives...and the inherent racism of that action.
No...I'm not suggesting...I'm stating it as a fact that many blacks are voting for Obama simply because he is black.
That is an opinion, not a fact. Many whites are going to vote for McCain simply because he's white. That's my opinion. It's also my opinion that tens of thousands of more whites will do this than blacks come November.
snoop,
Let me be clear...I'm not claiming that "all" the blacks are voting for Obama. I'm saying that many are voting for him because he is black. It's ridiculous and you know it to ask for proof...after all , our ballots are secret.
But there is plenty of evidence from the exit polling data...if you believe it to be accurate. The comparison to the republican percent is faulty. The comparison to look at is between Hillary and Obama...he received an extremely high percent of the black vote...against a white candidate.
And that fact seems to be taboo when discussing racism among voting blocs...and it shouldn't be if we are going to have an honest discussion on racism...racism is not limited to non-blacks.
Blacks weren't voting in "lockstep" for Obama at all early on. Remember back in the day when Obama wasn't "black enough"? I think that shows that Barrack has won them over these days - changed some minds. As far as I know the supposed white racists haven't shifted at all and not gotten much press either.
Besides, Obama pays little attention to race. I think that is a good idea and was the problem of earlier black presidential candidates.
Doris,
When has she not been heard?, she campaigned, people voted, she lost.
Oh Doris, that is absurd. Those states messed up and all the candidates knew it. You can't change the rules afterwards just because you're behind.
She knows it. It's done.
You are the one in delusional land. Look, your candidate lost. If you can't accept that and hope the party goes down in flames like she does, so be it.
Don't tell me what I don't understand. I understand that your candidate is a whining sore loser who is selfish and narcissistic. She knew the rules, all the candidates did, so whine elsewhere.
I love how "rules" are being used to throw out votes. That's some rules.
Exactly what good public policy are these "rules" exhibiting?
I am not aware of how Iowa, SC and New Hampshire broke the rules. Can you send me a link on that?
Because they are the elites of the party, they felt she did not even have to run in the Primary. It is the ultimate "Arrogance of Power".
Tommy,
It's simple. They are doing it because the can.
created delegates for Obama out of thin air.
THAT is not true. NO candidate had any delegates because neither Michigan nor Florida were counted! So if Obama's delegates were thin air , Hillary was the fairly godmother!
You're wrong. Obama gained Michigan delegates who did not vote for him!
He removed himself from the ballot there. He didn't have to. So why does he get those votes-- or 4 of Hillary's?
That sounds like Soviet Union tactics-- and really really bad karma will set in over it, too.
You can't change the rules afterwards just because you're behind.
Hillary advocated for those votes FROM THE BEGINNING!
And it's awfully strange to call the top vote getter "behind."
SHE LOST! She DID NOT have a majority of the delegates!
Here's Hillary on Florida and Michigan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULxxBz-PAjg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xHRqi8nsvI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6-ZU-NALaM&NR=1
SHE AGREED that Michigan and Florida would not count. She is on tape saying that Michigan wouldn't count. If she didn't like the rules she should have spoken up before the election, not try to change the rules during the election. Hillary was part of the committee that decided Michigan and Florida wouldn't count; ALL her claims of those states being disenfranchized are disingenuous.
Hillary was part of the committee that decided Michigan and Florida wouldn't count;
That's completely untrue.
Obama's got the votes, what's her problem? Must be one or more of those seven deadly sins?
He's got the votes based upon a phony scale, where Florida and Michigan voters only count for half, and where he earned delegates that didn't vote for him!
That's mighty convenient-- and we can only IMAGINE what would be happening right now if the tables were turned and Hillary had been given this advantage.
Do you realize how silly you sound? Obama now has a delegate lead of over 200. How many Delegates would CLinton have received if she got all of MI? not nearly that many. Furthermore, do you really think that there weren't hundreds of thousands of Obama supporters who voted uncommited or worse, stayed home becuase they knew their votes didn't count? I guess its ok that those people are disenfranchised?
And please stop it with the Obama took his name off crap. You know who also pledged to take their names off? CLINTON, before she sneakily left it on. Also, they weren't the only two people running then. Every other candidate besides Kucinich took their names off. Everyone who supported Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, Biden, Gravel, and Obama got shafted in MI. Not by their candidates, but by the MI legislature and governor. If you have such a problem with this, you should have taken it up with them a year ago. But you didn't care then, just like Hillary didn't care. Only when it become politically convenient to whine about it does this come up.
Hillary's political ambition has always been about herself...not about being a good public servant.
She has an itch that needs scratched...I'm not sure where it is...but she won't drop out until she gets the nomination or gets something out of the deal. It will be about her...not the good of her party.
There will be no going quietly into that good night.
Just give her some time.
FOR WHAT?
She should have done that last nite instead of launching into her pathetic speech. She really has no class. Same thing applies to her hubby.
Obama clinched it. Period.
APPLE:
WESLEY must have a stand out on the board walk, "MYSTIC KNOWS ALL", mindreading and knowing everyone's deepest motivation.
This "she cares only about herself" stuff fits nicely with the emotional projections rightwingers are throwing at Hillary, the kind reserved for ex-wives or girlfriends who have rejected advances.
Our rightwingers feel personally assaulted by Hillary's ambition and success, and so they feel qualified to psychoanalyze her as being the one at fault for the failed relationship.
All politicians run to win. They all have ambition. When Hillary does it, then all of a sudden she's "narcissistic" and "selfish". This doesn't apply to Obama or McCain, apparently, since Hillary is singled out for this drubbing.
It's just psychobabble from emotional cripples, lashing out at the ICON for "those women who did me wrong." They are more to be pittied.
If she were really that concerned about "party unity", she would have conceded last night and urged her supporters to fall in line behind Obama. If she really wanted the VP slot, that would have been the best way to get it, in my opinion.
I think the ultimate nod to their tactics came from McBush, when he said that "Pundits and party elders" had chosen the Democratic nominee. We can thank the Hillary campaign for that little talking point.
And you can also thank her for her "commander in chief" slap she took at Obama a couple months back, saying her and McCain are better equipped for the job.....as expected, McCain is now using that little gem in his ads.
Thank you Hillary.
THIS was in Texas, you can look up the other times she made statements like this.
I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”
(Hillary more than Obama).
WHAT experience does Hillary have?
She NEVER had Natl Security clearence during her 8 years in the WH, I don't think being married counts and she like Obama are both referred to as 'Junior" Senators so what IS Hillary's experience? By the way, Hillary couldn't answer a reporter when asked that same question.
Hey, I'm just trying to find out what she said. McCain has more experience than both Hillary and Obama (Hillary more than Obama).
AGAIN what is Hillary's experience? YOU just said Hillary has more experience than Obama but you won't say exactly what her experience is.
You can criticize Obama for his lack of experience as long as you understand I will criticize Hillary because she doesn't have any experience herself.
My dad did a lot of hiring. On "experience" he had this observation: "Some people have twenty years' experience. Some have one years' experience twenty times."
Bush has eight years' experience at actually BEING President. Nobody wants him to continue, because his "experience" is a record screwing everything up. Experience is only valuable if it's experience in doing WELL.
They don't care about the truth. He probably is one of those brainwashed ones that believes Gore thinks he "invented the internet" too.
Link
I believe many, many people (including me) called this way back when she made this speech.
HC continues to get a raw deal from the Obama-adoring press. It's ridiculous. She lost. Maybe she's not magnanimous in defeat, but it was a close campaign. Guys like Toobin, Olberman, Matthews and others act like she commits a mortal sin by deigning to challenge the holy one. .. . Give me a break.
She'll come around. She has no choice. But that little twerp's comments are just another example of the blatantly biased press being dismissive of someone challenging the anointed one
She'll come around. She has no choice. But that little twerp's comments are just another example of the blatantly biased press being dismissive of someone challenging the anointed one
She'll come around my a**. SHE LOST! and trying to bully Obama into choosing for VP by not conceding will not work. It's tacky and pathetic and there is nothing wrong with the media pointing that out. In American politics when you lose you bow out gracefully. Even Hillary supporter Charlie Rangel is questing whether Hillary's really sincere in wanting Democratic party unity. He can't understand why she has not endorsed Obama.
Hillary wants media attention focused on her and her currents antics are guaranteed to garner the media attention. Have you ever heard of a primary race where the losing candidate supporters started a public petition to force the winning candidate choose the losing candidate for VP? Have you ever heard of a losing candidate needing a little "down time" before conceding? The media is covering Hillary becuase Hillary wants them to cover her otherwise sh would act like a damn adult and accept the fact she lost!
I agree, this is beyond ridiculous.
And to MMFA... really, WITH? Because of the word 'deranged'?
Hillary wants media attention? Good one. They always been so kind to her.
Hasn't stopped her from speaking to the press has it.
I so tired of hearing this BS about "campaign antics". Most all of it was made up by the drive by msm. They've had it out for her since day one.
No
"They've had it out for her since day one."
Scratch that. Do you not remember the months of coverage of Clinton as the inevitability? She started off with over 200 superdelegates. Even after Iowa, Obama was still the upstart and after she clinched NH, it was more inevitability.
"campaign antics"
Would you prefer acting an a**?
Tommy,
We may not agree much.... but in this case.... I'm in full agreement with you.
Up until her speech last night.... I would have been as happy for her to be running for president as Obama now is. I've been an Obama supporter since the begining.
When she mentioned the 18 million that voted for her...(twice she mentioned the 18 million) and at no time did she even attempt to begin the healing process of the party......
I still believe she will be a valuable asset of the Democratic party in the Congress.... which I think is what she wants.... Harry Reids job: Majority leader.... to push her universal healthcare program.....
She would have little power to push that issue as VP.... she may also be giving her thoughts on other potential VP's to Obama?
But her whole speech did nothing for healing..... it sounded like it was all about her....... Its over..... Obama is the nominee....
Lets begin to heal the party!
I'm referring to the claims that HC supporters won't support BO . . .
Actually, an exhaustive study was recently released showing that on the whole, Obama and Clinton received very similar favorable and unfavorable news stories.
Snoop,
The media was in the tank for Obama most of the time while bashing Hillary at every turn [MSNBC being the most blatant culprits] That they took a break in their gushing to examine the Wright Controversy was hardly noticeable in the larger scheme of things.
It was the number one story for over a month. I didn't see anything aimed at Hillary or McCain that was comparable.
Wall to wall coverage? Nerzog, it may have seemed like that's all we heard 24/7, but through it all I still heard Hillary getting knocked around...and Obama, once he gave his speech in Philly was praised up & down. I'm sure Matthews got a tingle or two.
I don't blame the media for covering Wright. And thanks to that same press he walked away with hardly a bruise.
Oh, really? Nobody told Hillary.
Huh? I'm talking delegates. So now lets critize Hillary for not being a quitter.
And by the way. The Wright issue was actually something real. Are you saying the media should have ignored it? Compare this to the crap the media just manufactured about Hillary (eg, LBJ/MLK, fairy tail, RFK).
If anybody's gotten a pass from the MSM, it's McBush.
Apple, NO media manufactured LBJ controversy.
Hillary compared LBJ signing a bill to black folks been beaten, jailed, killed. Black folks fought and died for the right to be treated like a human being, LBJ used a pen.
"It took a president to get it done." was what Hillary said.
It took the blood sweat and lives of many many people who endured beating, jail, fire hoses attacks and dog attacks TO GET IT DONE! While I won't belittle LBJ's used of his pen many many others gave a hell of a lot more than a pen and they should NEVER be forgotten or belittled!
Snoop,
I agree 100% that McCain gets more good press, or at the very least a pass, no matter how many gaffes or goofs he makes. And no, I can't think of anything equal to Wright being attached to McCain, though of course MMFA & MSNBC have tried to push the Hagee stuff to that level. It just hasn't caught the interest of most of the media or the general public. Hey I'm Catholic, & I didn't get put out by Hagee's remarks. I considered the source [a nutjob] & shrugged it off.
I will always believe the media did favor Obama over Hillary, probably because he was new, fresh & just a more exciting, compelling story...plus a great many in the press are probably sick of Bill & Hillary.
Hillary had the perfect chance to bring the heroism that the Democratic Party needs after a grueling primary season, and she blew it.
When it comes to why she did, is there any other possible reason aside from what Toobin said? I'm genuinely open to reasoned explanations.
The MSM didn't vote, the people did, the party rules apportioned the delegates, Obama won.
Will her whining never end?
Doris:
The are represented. She is lying when she claims to have won the popular vote; she claims ALL the popular vote in Michigan (where Obama was not on the ticket) and Florida. That is disingenuous. She was part of the committee that decided not to count the votes in Michigan and Florida. Hillary lost. Claiming otherwise is dishonest.
Yeah, and Senator Clinton received more votes than Obama. What's your point? The msm still has been beating the drums since Iowa from Senator Clinton to exit the race.
Well, with them changing the rules in Michigan and making them up as they go along, you can understand why Senator Clinton wouldn't be happy.
You sound like a Republican, looks like you wanted an election stolen from Obama.
He sounds like a Rushbot. Next thing you know he'll be screaming DISENFRANCHISEMENT the way Jeffy-Poo did last week with the 'Obama will be an illegitimate candidate' garbage.
Hey, he also used the term 'drive-by' earlier. Who the hell uses that except you-know-who?
Well, with them changing the rules in Michigan and making them up as they go along, you can understand why Senator Clinton wouldn't be happy.
Actually that would be Hillary who couldn't make up her mind. She first said that neither Florida nor Michigan would count, she accepted and agreed with the DNC. When she found herself losing she wanted the rules to change. It's the same with the superdelegates, she was more than ready to accept them as the deciding voice when she had a majority but when she stared to lose their support it was the people should choose.
Facts are, when Hillary was the front runner she paid no attention to any of the other candidates. She ASSumed she didn't have to work for the nomination. When she lost Iowa she started moving the goal post. She simply wanted to win and if it took a rule change or a different map to make that happen she was more than willing.
Hillary's a sore loser.
I don't know about the deranged part, but certainly narcissism could fit like a glove in this case.
Hillary, I thought you would have made a very fine President. But it's over. Leave with some dignity.
Obama has been very respectful & complementary towards Hillary, I think it's time she return the favor & do what's best for the Democratic nominee & the party rather than herself.
Hillary, I thought you would have made a very fine President. But it's over. Leave with some dignity.
Millions voted for her they deserve respect.
Doris, You keep talking about her voters not being heard or respected. Do you attribute that to every voter who doesn't vote for the winning candidate?
It makes no sense.
And you sound like an idiot. I support Obama, have since Day 1.
Hey Einstein, just becuase I did not support Miss Hillary does not mean I am a Republican.
When you vote for someone, you ENTRUST them with your vote. You expect them to fight to make your vote MEAN something.
For this reason, a candidate WHO CARES ABOUT THOSE WHO VOTED FOR HIM or HER to not take those votes lightly. When Gore conceded Florida to Bush, it was both premature, and it seemed as if he was cavalier about all those who supported him. He didn't care to fight. When it became clear that Florida's vote was deeply in question, he finally stepped up and fought ... NOT FOR HIMSELF, but for those who SUPPORTED HIM.
It's easy to throw around phrases like "sore loser" and "narcissistic" in elections ... everyone involved has an ego, and everyone involved wants to win. What's difficult is to take time for consideration and reflection, to make sure no hasty announcement or decision will betray those who supported you. Hillary is taking time, and there is NOTHING RIDING ON IT. Only the Media wants things wrapped up with certainty in great haste ... they have news cycles to feed.
Take your time, Hillary. Let the buffoons bloviate. Maybe they'll blow a gasket.
Of course they do Doris, but there can only be one nominee & Obama has triumphed. I'm sure Hillary & her supporters will not be pushed away. In fact I'd guess they will be courted like royalty if Obama want to win in November.
I heard a few times during this primary that had the Dems run their primary like the GOP did [winner take all], Hillary would have likely ended up the nominee
Also, she probably would have won if the media hadn't trashed her the way they did (just like Gore would have won easily in 2000). And make no mistake, Obama had his hands in some of the media smearing of Clinton (eg, the completely innocous RFK comment wouldn't have taken off if not for the emails to the media the Obama camp sent out). But such is politics. Hillary would have used the media in the same way if she could have, but we all know it'll be a cold day in hell before the media assists her in anything. But once again, what disgraceful performance by the media.
And for all you worry warts out ther, give Hillary a fews days. She'll come around and will end the end do what's best for her party.
From one Hillary supporter, I would like to say go Obama.
Apple,
I agree, the media bashed & trashed her. I don't know how much that factored into her losing, but it was still very unfair.
I'd like to think that most voters are smart enough not to be swayed by numbnuts like most of the crew on MSNBC & other news outlets.
They are respected, the process is over. Move on.
Vacuous propaganda. Heard other reports that she gave a hellofa speach. The lady hasn't schriveled up and died yet. She's likely to be influential for a long time regardless of the media's continual refrain that they've finally put the stake to her and she's finally dead forevermore.
Considering their track record of prediction, I think its a safe bet.
He might be right, this time. I doesn't escape my knowledge of history we have an african-american from the same state President Lincoln, who freed the black people from slavery, hails from, possibly being our next president. One whose history records to have freed the slavesin 1865, and the other,in 2009, presiding over the same country.
The fact for many people was that she was thoroughly DISLIKABLE. Her selfish and mean-spirited personality is now there for all to see
Not sure what side of the Aisle you are on D, but this is what the Cons were saying about her all last year and being taken to task here at MMFA for it. It's almost like you are saying shes the "B" word??
-- It's almost like you are saying shes the "B" word?? -- demsol
Whoo boy...did you ever nail that one.
There are a few issues there. A lot of those criticisms came before Hillary's behavior during the campaign. So I don't buy "Hey I was right...even though I had zero basis for saying it at the time". There's also a big difference between the man on the street saying it and news commentators saying it. Obviously the latter lowers the public discourse. And were they saying it because of something genuinely unlikable and unpleasant or because she was just an assertive woman?
I don't have a problem with someone here saying that about Hillary, if they can back it up with examples of her behavior. But people in the public dialogue using it because she's assertive or just because they don't like her politics is unacceptable. It seems likely that most of the MMfA criticisms were regarding that sort of behavior.
There is nothing noble in using dishonest numbers to claim the "popular vote." There is no nobility in agreeing to ground rules (regarding Michigan and Florida) and then say you don't agree to them. Right now, those who claim that the dem. voters for Hillary "weren't heard" or "weren't respected" are the ones disrespecting the vote. Lots of heat and little light.
Thanks,
I was looking for some clarification on that.
Doris is simply mentioning that Hillary still can exert a lot of influence on Obama by not conceding.
She could threaten to run as a third party candidate. Why not? She has nothing to lose and can leverage that as her ticket to the VP. What can Obama do? Nuttin.
Clintons play hardball. Nothing new here. They are both slick lawyers and realize they don't have to concede anything. By ignoring the rules and saying she won the popular vote, she has provided herself some cover for legitimacy.
Another possibility: She can stay silent till the convention and let the Republicans attack Obama and hopefully for her, bring him down a peg or two. Of course there may be other Obama revelations. Bob Beckett thinks there is a "smoking gun" of a tape out there regarding Michelle Obama. Maybe there is??? If Obama keeps getting labeled as a radical leftist, (which I think he is,) he will drop in the polls as he has since Super Tuesday. At the convention Hillary will then try to position herself as the only one who can win against McCain.
It costs her nothing to remain silent and is within her rights. Obama supporters will rant and rave but they can't stop her.
Well stated AA.
There are many reasons and scenarios which could benefit Hillary between now and the convention...and nothing is beyond suspicion with her history.
J,
It's not about whether Obama won or not. It is the fact that the delegates don't vote until Denver and this is the closest nominating race in history.
Even with all the counting shenanigans, Hillary has a case, by tallying more actual votes, to be included on the ballot. You may not agree, but she does have the case.
She is not just going to throw it away by conceding. Clintons never concede.
From a practical aspect...Obama has indeed won the nomination. From a technical aspect...he hasn't won anything until the delegates actually vote at the convention.
Hillary has every right to take her campaign to Denver...many candidates have done so with a lot fewer delegates. To paraphrase Hillary, "anything could happen between now and the convention".
Bingo - we have a winner!
I think that ship has sailed. Hillary is now irrelevant. She is no longer an assett to the Democrats. If Obama loses, a big part of it can be pointed to what happened on that historic Tuesday night. By not helping Obama, she is helping McCain. I don't know if her image can even be rehabilitated at this point.
Pray tell, where is the basis to support your claim that Clinton's image can not be rehabilitated at this point? The latest polls had her "favorables" up to 54%, slightly lower than Obama, but higher than McCain's. Just because she did not give the speech that you and every other Obama sycophant hoped for, doesn't mean that her image is damaged beyond repair. It is also beyond ridiculous and pathetic for you to make the argument that her Tuesday speech will play "a big part" if Obama loses five months from now. You Obamabots keep going on and on that Clinton lost because she blew it, but you are already trying to blame everyone else but Obama just in case he doesn't win. That is self-righteous hypocrisy at its best. Also, if she is not an asset, then why are you and the rest of your ilk up in arms because she has yet to endorse Obama?
We have a difference of opinion. Clinton has a long way to go to get some respect from me. I have talked to dozens of people who have told me the same thing. I think Hillary's next negatives will be up even higher than before as a direct result of the speech.
I did not say Hillary is not an asset. That is probably why your strawman makes no sense. I said she is no longer an asset. She had her chance and blew it. She is irrelevant from her own choosing.
While the msm has been lacking when it comes to substantive issues vs. flag pin/reverend/Bosnia sniper nonsense, it has happened in varying degrees to both Dem candidates as well as the Rep. candidate.
The difference for me is that while the Obama campaign seemed to be behind some of that type of mindlessness stuff, I don't recall the campaign or their surrogates going down the misogyny road. But if memory serves, there were some distasteful tid bits coming from the Hillary side that had to do with Obama's race/religion/upbringing. To me, that makes the two campaigns very different.If you believe the media's version of Hillary playing the "race/religion/upbringing" card then you have a point. I personally do not. I believe she has uttered some very unremarkable statements that were completely distorted/scripted by the media. The most recent is the RFK statement. She said the exact same thing 3 months ago and not one word in the media was said about it. It was an innocous statement and every (reasonable person) knew what she meant. So what happened this time around? Was it perhaps the 1000's of emails sent out by the Obama camp suggesting that Hillary said she was staying in the race because of what happened to RFK? Where was Oberman's outrage back in March?
People always say the Clintons will do/say anything to get elected. It sure seems to me that they will do/say anything to AVOID getting elected. Playing the race card would have been the dumbest thing they could have done. They actually had a lead in the black vote over Obama at the end of 2007. Plus any fool knows they would have been savaged in the press for doing so. When a crime is committed police always asks who had the motive and who benefitted? When the Clintons commit a "crime" why is it they're the ones who seem to benefit the least?
You make valid points. As far as the race issue coming from the Clintons, the comment from Bill regarding Jesse Jackson to me is very illustrative of what they are about. There also seemed that they never disavowed responsability for the photo of Obama in traditrional African clothing.
However, I don't think you addressed what I was getting at, that is, the Obama campaign did not indulge (as far as I can recall) in any of the misogyny that played out in the msm.
I agree the Obama campaign didn't do the misogyny thing. Instead the media did. My point is that the Clinton camp did not play the race card. Doing so would only result in more trashing from the media.
As far as the Jesse Jackson comment goes. Bill made this comment in a parking lot while talking to reporters about SC politics. His point was that like Jackson, Obama was helped by the large African-America population in the state. He was trying to minimize Hillary's defeat there. The only problem with his comment is that some view Jackson in a negative light, and that Clinton was trying to label Obama as the black canditate. Again, if this is what Clinton was doing then he is an idiot. After Hillary got nailed for MLK/LBJ and Bill for "fairy tail", do you really think they decided to piss of some more people. Simply put, the Clinton's had NO motive for playing the race card. It could/would only hurt them.
Hillary saying that she is open to the VP slot is about as offensive as it gets. She lost all my respect with that one.
In the dictionary next to the term 'Entitlement complex' is Hillary's pic. No question.
What's offensive about it is that it comes off as blackmail on her part. Choose me or else. She's hanging that VP crap over Obama's head as a veiled threat and it STINKS to high heaven.
I already know that. Of course she's open to it.
Suppose Obama does choose her. Guess what that means? Another Dick Cheney. Even worse because Bill will be right there giving the orders.
I am highly disgusted with her right now...
Dick as in the sense that she will overshadow Obama.
Come on, you really cannot see it?
Sorry, I can not. I simply do not have this media created portrait of Hillary Clinton that many people have. I think an Obama/Clinton ticket would be fine. And in order to believe Hillary would over shadow Obama you would have to assume Obama would allow this. I don't know much but I do know this:
Obama != Bush
It's hardly a first. Many candidates have done similar things...John McCain for example or Ronald Reagan or Ted Kennedy...I don't hear them getting pounded the way the Clintons always are.
Did they concede or did they hold out trying to blackmail the nominee into choosing them for the VP slot?
APPLE, LET ME BE CLEAR
All contests have winners and losers, and the losing side is never happy. On the GOP side there was a lot of bellyaching over McCain being the nominee, but after he won the required amount of delegates those running against him congratulated and conceded with grace. Hillary is doing something entirely different and inarguably destructive. On the night of Obama's victory she needed to ongratulate and concede. BOTTOM LINE. Imagine if after the Super Bowl the losing team decided not to accept the outcome, sit down on the field and protest the loss. It wouldn't happen because most folks understand how not to be a sore loser.
How many Clinton supporting Moms are really willing to abandon their children in Iraq and vote McCain or stay home just because they didn't get the nominee they wanted?
How many Clinton supporting Dads are really willing to watch as their family starves and struggles as they fail to be able to make ends meet with his salary and that of his spouse?
If any of them do then they are clearly selfish people. And what of the cowardly undecided superdelegates? Hey, chickens, you didn't get those posistions to hedge; LEAD, FOLLOW or GTF OUT OF THE WAY!
18 Millions voters WERE heard, it wasn't enough. She had the name, the machine and the momentum and she blew it as Obama was battered with Wrightgate, flag pins and his middle name. Hell they even went after his wife and family. Obama won. He won the delegates, the super delegates and unless you accept some highly ludicrous math he won the popular vote. Sure she won big states, big blue states that even Kerry carried, big deal.
This isn't about men and women, it's not about blacks and whites; it's about the America we have become, the America we could be and the America we may lose altogether if we continue down this dark path.
HILLARY SUPPORTERS, ask yourself what is more important and the choice will be clear. And please, please stop the whining. It's unbecoming.
NB: "Hell they even went after his wife and family."
The MSM not the Hillary campaign
Nice speech. But what does it have to do with my questioning the blackmail of the VP slot?
Just to let you know I SUPPORT OBAMA. That doesn't mean I can't point out arguments from other posters that don't make sense to me. What the hell is wrong with some/most of you people? Can you not support Obama without villyfing Hillary?
BTW, to suggest that Obama has gone through more the Hillary is an absolute joke, at least with regards to media coverage. Anybody who thinks otherwise is as dishonest as those in the press.
EDEN:
I'm a Hillary supporter, and I fully realize Obama has won. I just utterly reject the notion that a lack of immediate and emphatic concession is "destructive" to anything.
Hillary is continuing to demonstrate the qualities that made me support her in the first place. She is tenacious, she doen't act in haste, she is thoughtful, and YES, she is "calculating". Those are all qualities I find are good ones for a President to have.
Hillary cannot prevent Obama from moving into the White House after November's election. Hillary cannot prevent Democrats or any others from VOTING for Obama in November. Hillary CAN help "unify" the party and garner support for Obama, but that will take careful planning, and an agreement on what her role will be.
The URGENCY for Hillary to "admit her loss" is entirely manufactured by people who do not wish well for the Democrats.
Exactly how does "I'm open to VP slot" translate to a blackmail?
Refusing to concede, having a surrogate circulate a petition requesting you be given the VP slot.
I really think a distinction needs to be made between African-Americans who support Obama, in part because he is black, and whites who don't support him for the same reason. The motivations are totally different because both their situation's are different
Blacks have a strong desire to see an African-American President because it would be a first in history. That is understandable. After all, being a minority group, they have been largely underrepresented in areas like government and business. Now of course, that desire should not be at the expense of qualifications, ideas, or policies. In other words, I seriously doubt most blacks would support a Republican candidate simply because they share the same skin color. So race is a factor for them, but not the only thing that matters.
To make charges that what they're doing is equivalent to what white racists do is silly. They are not voting for Obama because they believe Hillary, as a white person, is inherently inferior or unfit to be President. That would be racist. The same cannot be said for whites who vote with race as a factor, since they are the majority and are well-represented in society.
I can think of 3 Black Men I could support for President: Charlie Rangel. Harold Ford, and Colin Powell, but I can't support Obama, not because he is black, but because he is too Green. I am a life long Democrat and will support other party nominees, but I won't vote for Obama.
You can't support Obama because he's too 'green" but you'd gladly support Harold Ford Jr? Because Harold Ford Jr. is not "green"?
Sounds like your problems with Obama have nothing to do with him being 'green', especially when you use Harold Ford Jr. as your example. And you claim it's not about race?
"...Hillary should absolutely not be offered the VP slot, for countless reasons, among them the fact that there would be a very real risk of the Clinton Machine engineering Obama's death..."
My first post just to reply to this ridiculous comment. I bet you're the type that believes in the, "Clinton Hit List" too aren't you? It's really too bad this forum doesn't have smileys; I could really use about a dozen eye rolling ones right about now. lol
I'm a Democrat I will vote for either of these two candidates with joy. I'm not at all happy with the crap Hillary had to take misogyny is a bad thing. If there is one thing this campaign has shown me it's how far women have come and how terribly far we've still to go. Neither candidate ran a squeaky clean "nice person" campaign. Well, yeah they're politicians and they want to win. I'm, however, really baffled by the attitude exhibited by some Obama supporters. Clinton lost; you got what you wanted and you still aren't happy. How much groveling would you like to see from her anyway?
No one should be voting according to a race or gender. One of the challenges for overcoming the bigotry (racial and gender) that has effected this campaign is to recognize prejudice in all forms and degree. Only then can we encourage fairness and justice for all. Only when we starting respecting the plight of others can bigotry be neutralize. We are a LOOOOOOONNNNG way from that.
Blacks voting for Obama because he is "black" are being racist and have no grounds to criticize whites voting against him for the same reason. In my work, I have had the opportunity to work with some of the so-called blue collar supporters in KY and their concerns about Obama were similar to mine. He did not articulate what he would do to for them.
He coasted on substance-free pep talks for which they have no patience. They heard him talk about unification and a new way of doing business; but saw him stand silent while his opponent was being demonized and minimized by the press. They saw the better candidate being pushed aside in favor of one with less experience and subatnce. As a black woman, I saw the same thing. If Obama was treated the way Hillary had been treated, we would all be up in arms. The fact that we aren't is a sad commentary.
Blacks voting for Obama because he is "black" are being racist and have no grounds to criticize whites voting against him for the same reason. In my work, I have had the opportunity to work with some of the so-called blue collar supporters in KY and their concerns about Obama were similar to mine. He did not articulate what he would do to for them.
It's so easy to throw out that 'blacks will vote for blacks' comment. You totally disregarded the fact that in 2007 Hillary carried 60% of the African American vote. Your too lazy to examine why African American stopped supporting Hillary, it much easier to throw out the 'blacks vote for blacks'. And somehow because you're black we're suppose to believe you. If the lazy folks in Kentucky, yourself included, would take a moment and look at Obama's website you would see what his campaign was about. You would see that he and Hilary are extremely close in their ideas but different in their approach.
He coasted on substance-free pep talks for which they have no patience. They heard him talk about unification and a new way of doing business; As a black woman, I saw the same thing. If Obama was treated the way Hillary had been treated, we would all be up in arms. The fact that we aren't is a sad commentary.
The fact that you rant about 'substance free pep talks', shows you're lazy, to lazy to research Obama. You decide which candidate to support from listening to a speech.
but saw him stand silent while his opponent was being demonized and minimized by the press.
Hillary's a big girl, she doesn't need rescuing. Didn't Hillary say she was tested and vetted, more than capable of handling anything?
They saw the better candidate being pushed aside in favor of one with less experience and subatnce.
A better candidate? Experience? WHAT is Hillary's vast experience? She spent 8 years in the White House WITHOUT Natl Security clearence and she's still referred to as a 'Junior' Senator.
As a black woman, I saw the same thing. If Obama was treated the way Hillary had been treated, we would all be up in arms. The fact that we aren't is a sad commentary.
As a 73 year old African American woman I've been around the block a time or two. Hillary screwed her own campaign by not planning. She didn't need the caucus votes, she would win the big states. The race would be over by Super Tuesday so don't worry about money. She had it all, name, money, wife of a former President and Senator from New York, so why did she lose. Blaming the media or Obama is taking the easy way out.