Regarding criticisms about the perpetual victim narrative of the Clinton campaign: what saddens me most about this narrative is that it seems almost necessary, not just for Clinton, but for marginalized demographics. It's the idea that you have to co-opt destructive narratives from the hands of your enemies, and tell them yourself in order to gain agency. I'm not sure it's possible to rend power without this device, even though it is not the only tactic, probably not the most powerful. And, I applaud the Obama campaign for rejecting it's efficacy. That being said, Clinton has been attacked, in a style that is unique, condescending and inappropriate in its tone towards women, for a very long time. If pundits didn't victimize her, we wouldn't have to bare the victim narrative, or we could at least all be as suspect about it, as her detractors. But, she is stepped on in ways that women are uniquely stepped on. The proof is in the pudding.
And regarding the "fair's fair" commentary by a number of readers i.e. If Clinton can see a pattern in MSNBC's comments, they should be able to see their own pattern of subtly portraying Barack Obama as the "black candidate," egging him into being defensive:Probably the only people who would seriously disagree that those comments were tactical, are the Clintons.
But, for the record, Barack Obama worked very hard to become the "black candidate" in Illinois, at first he wasn't accepted as such. He succeeded, and after having won over the grass roots, working class, African American constituency, he was able to return to being the "race-transcendent" candidate. Being the "black-candidate" has rarely been a liability for Obama, but I respect and support his vision of addressing "human" problems, above all else. I find the idea that Clinton's machine made Obama the "black candidate" a little bemusing. Not without merit, but neither the sufficient condition.