For the first time in a long time, I have a polite disagreement with the opinion posted here by Joan Walsh. I still think that there are some exaggerations and over-sensitivity at play, but the tone is much different. And that is a welcome change tht I hope to echo.

I did not see, nor have I read a full transcript of Clinton's remarks. But I have read several articles about it and think I have a general sense of what she said.

Based on what I have read, Clinton did MOST of what she needed to (or needed to Tuesday). I'll start with my disappointments, so I can end this thing in a happy place. I still fundamentally disagree with her decision to "suspend" her campaign rather than end it. It is a technicality, but the Clintons have been known to live and die by technicalities in the past. I do not think she has any political capital to try and bargain with Obama with. After four days on the phone, that should have clear. She should not try to use her supporters as a bargaining tool, which is the fear that the technicality creates.

It does sound like there was an underlying tone of "he won, but I did not lose", even if it was slight. I think that that is what Olbermann may have been referring to. With four days for it to sink in, the tone maybe should have been less about her. In a 30 minute speech that can seem like a LOT of talk about one's self. Obviously Olbermann has rubbed some Clinton backers the wrong way this primary season. I think that it is possible that his remarks were viewed in the harshest possible light by Ms. Walsh because of his history.

The focus on any perceived sexism was a mistake, in my opinion. There was more racism than sexism in the campaign and its coverage. It also ignores the fact that a percentage of Hillary supporters were just blatant racists. But more importantly, it focuses on the fact that so many did support her JUST because of her ovaries. It ignores her supporters who don't have a pair themselves. I know that the Hillary supporters who need the most convincing are the women who are angry at the Olbermanns in the press, but whether she went too far is a fair question.

One big problem I have is her obsession with 18 million. It seems to be a very egotistical fetish. She need not constantly thrown that number out. She could talk about the historical nature of her campaign in a way that focused more on its importance for women than on how good Hillary's numbers were. Nancy Pelosi's comments on Hillary breaking the "marble ceiling" were more moving than another refrain of "I got 18 million votes!" Maybe Hillary should hahve had some other speakers there to praise her so it didn't reinforce the opinions that exist about her ego.

So she didn't go quite far enough in conceding and talked about herself a tad more than Miss Manners would normally approve of. She did nail almost everything else. She DID concede that Obama is the nominee. She did URGE her backers to fight to get Obama elected this November. She DID stress that Obama shared her views on most of the important issues of our time. She DID stress that another 4 years of Bush policies is NOT acceptable. She mentioned Obama by name 18 times, which is about 18 more times than she did so in the last 5 months. I liked that she stressed that this is just the beginning of the fight, not the end. I liked that she wasn't angling for a VP slot. She said most of the right things and said them well.

I think that perhaps Ms Walsh could have been more generous with Russert in her comments. As for Olbermann, I lack some key facts. Did he, at some point, appropriately praise the Clinton speech for what it did right? If so, did he start with the praise and segue to the criticism as is standard in TV journalism. (I realize that I used a different approach myself, but I feel that ending on the positive is more appropriate for this medium, as most will read the letter as a whole and not just see snippets).

I don't believe that the main stream media had it in for Clinton, although some were clearly not fans. There are people who had it in for Clinton, but I don't think sexism is necessarily to blame. Most of those people hate Bill, too. I think that what gets lost in accusations about the press is that the MSM is corporate to its core. They are no longer the watchdogs they were meant to be. Instead of reporting news, they shape it. When Hillary scored big, they attacked her. When Obama surged, the pettiest grievance became a scandal. Was it racism and sexism? I argue that much of it wasn't. Sadly, it was BUSINESS. The real winner of the last 5 months was not Obama. It was the wallet of every CEO whose corporation owns a news outlet that won. The press attacked whomever needed to be brought down a notch to keep the race close and they did it out of sheer greed. That is my opinion of the "media sexism". As for Chris Matthews and the others like him? I put them in the same category as Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly. Their job is to yell loudly about whatever their demographic wants yelled about. I have never been confident that any of them actually believe what they are saying. I think that if Matthews said something that enraged the entire nation and they were about to change the channel, he would spend the next 3 weeks yelling about that jackass Matthews every night. He isn't worth the aggravation of letting him get under your skin.