There was lots of talk about how important the ohio primary is, and how no president has won an election without it. That was the "word" until Ms. Clinton (apparently) won it this evening. I am wondering why the press is so negative against Senator Clinton?? It seems to be a flashback to her husband's political career, when the press did all they could to send out all the negative messages they could, yet the people still backed him as our president.

While I have never bought into conspiracies and plots, I have seen that the media coverage has been becoming increasingly biased. It seems like the American public is increasingly being given opinions rather than facts.

I am writing this to let the press know we want the facts about the news, and the people in the news, not your opinons, and we will make up our own minds, thank you!

In 1992 the press fawned over Bill Clinton much more openly then they are supposedly fawning over Obama now. They were treating him as the front-runner and presumed nominee while there were still several viable candidates in the race, which, as Hillary pointed out earlier tonight, wasn't decided until June. And I actually agree with Hillary about the right-wing conspiracy that was out to destroy him -- but that had nothing to do with the media. In fact, it was probably the media that saved Clinton, because people knew how transparent the Republicans' motives were and how baseless most of their charges were.