I think he said it just fine.

Obama people spent 98% of their time falsely accusing Clinton of things based on false readings of what her or her campaign said.

I think this is a good chance for me to be consistent in my rejection of that kind of thing.

Although it's not just that, it's intermixed with a narrative that all media folks love, that all politicians suck and what we really need is a politician who pretends he's not a politician.

And with a healthy dose of CDS, you have the toxic stew.

It's their nature. Clinton's were essentially vulgar.  

Second, there's the narrative.  It is a great story.  An insurgent campaign knocks off the preordained candidate.  Also, the Clintons have always had a media problem.

Third, attacking Obama is difficult.  He's got an unusual name and he's the product of a mixed race marriage.  You must be very careful about critiques of Obama, or, as FOX discovered, bad things will happen.    

Fourth, Obama is a stunning politician with public speaking skills that put other candidates to shame.  Clark's description of his meteoric rise was spot on.  They're simply not accustomed to dealing with someone like Obama.

 Fifth, the Obama campaign understood the primary strategy as well as the new media reality.  Did they ever allow something like this?  Absolutely not.  

1. The main reason is probably that the media loved the way he attacked the Clintons.

2. Some columnists said that he shouldn't be criticized in some ways because he's black.

3. Russert loved that he made social security (Russert's pet issue) an issue in the campaign and called it a crisis, even though it wassn't a crisis.

4. There are many Obama fans, that send hundreds of anrgy e-mails and letters, whenever they feel the media is unfair to Obama.

5. Many journalists liked that he was the only Dem candidate to be pushing the "unity" post-partisan rhetoric.

Obama has raised $80 million, and it would be a grievous mistake to describe his candidacy as a grass-roots affair, particularly when he counts among his bundlers many of the lobbyists and political-finance pros who buttress the Clinton run... Worse still, Obama's financial backing is reflected in some of his Senate votes and campaign positions, including most notably his support for expanding NAFTA to Peru, limiting the ability of injured workers and consumers to sue for damages, and pouring federal funds into E85 corn-based EthanOl, an alternative fuel for which the market is dominated by the Illinois-based [Archer Daniels Midland] Company. More than once I heard Obama give stirring speeches, only to mar them with plugs for ethanol.

As quoted here

But I think the cherry on top of the sundae is the final paragraph:

Doug Thornell, a spokesman for the DCCC, said, "It is understandable that House Republicans would be embarrassed about their lavish celebration of George Bush's record of high gas prices and their coziness to Big Oil special interests, but facts are facts. Clearly, the truth hurts."
 

"If you want sycophancy, this isn't your place."