I have noted before that I think the strong supporters of every candidate thinks the media is biased against their candidate. As an Obama supporters, I am constantly "outraged" that they repeat the "All words, no action" trope of the Clinton campaign as though it is true when it is not true, or when they fail to capture his point by suggesting that even though he talks about "hope" and "change," his record shows he's pretty moderate. More recently, I've been "outraged" that no one picks up the utter hypocrisy of Clinton's whining about "unfair" mailers, given that her campaign premiered "smear" mailers on his support of women's reproductive rights, his healthcare plan, and his proposal to raise the cap on income taxable for social security above $97.5K. I have not seen the press "correct" these "egregious errors".... (LOL at myself.)

What impresses me time after time about Obama is that unlike me, he doesn't seem to have a need to respond to every single affront or clarify every little misunderstanding. (And there were plenty last night that had me jumping up and down in my livingroom.) As has happened so many times in this campaign, his noteworthy restraint on petty matters drives home for me why he is an effective leader. He knows how to pick his battles and he doesn't "sweat the small stuff." In contrast, it seems like HRC is constitutionally unable to get over even the smallest perceived slight. It's hard to imagine how she would focus on the big problems that face us when her sense of victimization so seems to interfere with her ability to see the forest through the trees. I probably would have the same problem that she has, so I empathize; however, it's still not a good quality in a leader.