dijamo's picture

    Hillary's Non-Concession Speech Revisited

    Hillary took her speech last night to speak for the 18 million people who've supported, campaigned for her and care passionately about her goals. If you take a look at the segment of the speech "What does Hillary want?," it expresses to a tee why I've cared so much about her campaign. It's not about her being the first woman or him being the first African American. It's about those progressive liberal policies that I truly believe in and yes, I am saddened by the fact that with Hillary exiting the race, so goe sthe hopes for truly universal healthcare, aggressive foreclosure prevention policy, and a foreign policy based on aggressive diplomacy.

    Obama folks were so angry she didn't concede last night that they couldn't even acknowledge the obvious - there is much common ground in her speech with her and Obama - much more so than McCain.

    And Hillary folks were angry because Obama and his campaign would not give Hillary the space to give Hillary and her supporters one night to celebrate her campaign before moving in to the next phase of the election. I hate to use Jesse Jackson as a reference for democratic primary candidates since that would make me a racist, but I do not recall him conceding the race to Dukakis in 1988 before the convention precisely because he wanted influence on the issues of the party platform. Obama's policies can use some progressive liberal influence. We have great hopes of expanding the democratic margins in the House and Senate. Now is the not the time to be safe and timid with our economic policies. If there was ever a time to achieve truly universal healthcare a presidential goal, it is NOW.

    In the spirit of unifying the party had I been Obama's campaign, I would have let the voters speak last night in SD & MT rather than pressuring super dels to put him over the top before voting had ended. I would have given Hillary one speech to her supporters to thank them for their dedication to her campaign. I would have taken the Clinton campaign at their word that they were NOT conceding Tuesday night. I would have scheduled this victory rally jointly with Senator Clinton conceding to the delegate lead to him publicly in a campaign rally like last night. THAT would have been a move towards party unity. I regret that is not the way it played out.

    I will say this for Obama - his campaign knows how to play harball and has done it to stunning effect. They've demonstrated the Rovian skill to smear and slur and attack without appearing to get their hands dirty (who me sending out memos about the Clinton's being a racist? We would never push the RFK assasination story except in memos to the press! What's in those tax returns?!?!?!) That bodes well for November in that perhaps they can slur McCain as well (he's a nutjob! what's the deal with that black baby! he's senile! his time in captivity made him psycho and not likeable enough!), but in the meantime has left many Hillary supporters angry that the candidate we believed could win and bring the best progressive policies to the table was being unfairly attacked not on substance or policies but on is she likeable enough and is she member of the Klan. The way she has been treated by the Obama campaign and the media has been appalling.

    Obviously time is necessary to heal the breach and move forward to November, but I would ask the Obama supporters to go back and take a look at her actual speech rather than just continuing to attack Hillary over and over again which I can say with conviction will just continue to deepen the divides in the Democratic party. Isn't what Hillary wants what we all want?



    Don't confuse the 20 percenters with the campaign itself. Just as there actually are racist supporters of Clinton, there actually are sexist supporters of Obama. Just as there are those who smear Clinton, there are those who smear Obama. Just as there are the "I won't vote for Obama in the general" pouters, there are the "we don't need your votes anyway" gloaters. Don't conflate these people with the campaigns of the candidates they support.

    Heck, it seemed that yesterday you were blaming the Obama campaign for how the media was interpreting Bill Clinton's words.

    Great Post. Recommended. Though, You will be assailed any minute in the worst terms here. But thanks. Well thought out and right on the mark. As usual

    I don't know Ben. But if TPM is pretty much ground zero for Obama supporters then most here would tell us to go do whatever we care to do.....Obama and themselves do not need our votes. Would you disagree with that assessment?

    The general calls for unity and respect I agree with. Giving Hillary a coupla days to let her supporters cool off (and raise money) I agree with.

    The stuff about not rushing to declare victory, I cannot agree with. It's important that there be a moment of victory, and it's very important (for PR reasons) that the moment should coincide with an election, not with Jim Superdelegate having a three-martini lunch. It's theater, but it's theater that helps us all as Democrats.

    Barack didn't pressure Hillary. He was very gracious. As Ben says, you've gotta ignore the 20-percenters. Pay attention to the top 80 percent, and especially to Barack. Barack's giving Hillary all the respect he possibly can.

    Did his campaign play hardball? Yep. You bet. Everyone in this race played hardball. This is not a competition to be choir-boy-in-chief. Democrats have to know how to fight. If they can do it without getting their hands dirty, more power to em. In a couple of months, we're going to make John McCain wish he could time-travel back to 1959.

    The media was not interpreting Bill Clinton's words when the AP erroneously reported that "campaign sources" confirmed Hillary was conceding last night. I still believe the source of that AP story was the Obama campaign. I still believe the Obama campaign was putting pressure on super dels to declare before voting was over last night - even ones like Jimmy Carter that said they'd have preferred to wait until all the voting is over.

    I would disagree with the word most. Definitely several have, and perhaps many of the rest of us have been guilty of remaining silent during those statements. I usually remain silent myself. Humorously, on at least one of the few occasions when I did speak up I was accused of being a GOP operative (presumably because the GOP would like nothing better than to see us all getting along).

    Similarly, I don't think that most of the minority group of Clinton supporters at TPM have said they're not going to vote for Obama, but it feels that way sometimes to us Obama supporters—selective perception at its finest. (In fact, I think most of the Clinton supporters here have already positively said they would vote for Obama in November if he were the Democratic candidate.)

    No way. We need Hillary supporters' votes. We need your vote in particular.

    There are times when particular Clinton supporters who were threatening to go Republican have been told, "Look, if you want to vote for John McSame, go do it." That happens, generally, when the Clinton advocate has gotten so repetitive that they no longer seem to be listening, or genuinely interacting -- just seeking to cause pain. But I have never felt that was the case with you or dijamo, or with the Clinton supporters I know in daily life.

    Why would the AP trust Obama campaign sources for such a news item? In order for your conspiracy theory to work, the AP has to pretty much be in on it.

    Thanks Alex, First time a Obama supporter has admitted that he was as hardball as we saw him. My question though is about your 80/20 rule. Look at the right of the page. I think the 80% are really not that kind or forgiving or wanting the help of any of the 18million.

    Evidence? The AP would have to be pretty trusting to print a "Clinton concedes" story if their source was inside the Obama camp. That would be r-e-a-l-l-y trusting, so I kind of doubt it. My guess is that it was a case of miscommunication.

    18 million? Is anyone so deluded as to believe that Hillary speaks for every single person who voted for her in the primaries?

    I would say your right about Clinton Supporters taht are left here. By and large to be here anymore you need to be a total Political junkie and Party people. I take the point well that Barack has brought in a lot of supporters that weren't Party members and won't be party members. That is fine. But, there is an obvious rub there and I think that is where a lot of the division between the two sides here stem from.

    Excuse my "your"

    The source was Terry McAuliffe, and it was on the record.

    Is anyone so deluded as to believe Obama speaks for every single person who voted for him in the primaries?

    Self-selection. People who post here tend to be people who like to argue. It's not a sample that represents average supporters.

    I would also happily admit that there is an unhealthy obsession with Hillary on TPMEC. I'm really interested to see what happens when she does concede. I'm afraid it might take weeks for people here to stop posting about her.

    Wrong Terry Mac said she would not concede until after he had reached the critical number of delegates and they expected to concede this week. the AP story deifnitvely said Tuesday night she will concede sourced by ""campaign officials". Every other story they have sourced say Aides to Clinton or sources within the Hillary campaign or Clinton fundraisers clearly identifying at least the affiliation or camp it was coming from. First time I have ever seen sourcing that ambiguous in reference to Hillary's campaign. But whatever - you say potato, I say bullshit.

    The thing that concerns me is the immediate knee jerk reactions. She is going to concede now or at the convention. It actually really doesn't matter to Obama if she does ..does it? He should keep going with what he has done so far this month and work on the General. Hillary might take this to the Convention but that is party politics and is not a General Election. Platforms and positions within the party are decided at the Convention, not how Obama will work on the General.

    If I am him. I shrug and go on. He even called her last night. Why?

    It's not that the 80% are all gumdrops and daffodils. It's just that they're not claiming that Hillary is the devil. While I'm arbitrarily breaking things up into 20% chunks, we could take that 80% group and divide them into 4 groups—those who really like both candidates, but thought Obama was better (and/or more electable); those who thought Obama was clearly the superior candidate, but that Hillary wasn't bad; those who saw significant problems with Hillary being the Democratic nominee, but who are also capable of seeing the positive in her (I include myself in this group), and those who don't trust her one whit, but who also don't think she's the devil.

    Clearly some of these groups are going to have more to write about (and to recommend) than others.

    Hey, at this point it's a running joke!

    Now when you do it, I suspect it's intentional at least half the time, just to tweak my sensitive grammatical instincts. ;)

    As one of those 18 million, she speaks for me and my sister and one of my best friends who were all very sad that Hillary for sure. My mom sold out and joined the Obama bandwagon back in May. She tries to deny she voted for Hillary but I know the truth :) 3 out of 4 in my randon social network poll. So she speaks for at almost about 13 million folks. Not a number to be ignored.

    It actually really doesn't matter to Obama if she does ..does it?

    I'd argue it does, exactly because we can't take her supporters for granted. Obama needs time to win them over, and the sooner she concedes (but, yes, she needs to do it on her terms), the longer he'll have to do it.

    He even called her last night. Why?

    All kinds of possibilities. Maybe he wants to discuss her interests in being VP. Maybe he wants to know what he can do to help with her finances. Maybe he wants to know what it'll take to get her completely on board ASAP. Maybe he was just seeking advice. :)

    And as I said last night, the end to the democratic primary season means one thing above all others:


    Carry on :)

    Not that it's any of my business, but was the other "mo" who posted here your sister? (I'm guessing this based on the fact that you suggested she should change her "mo" to a "will" or something like that.)

    Regardless, you're absolutely right that those who still support Clinton, whether it's 13 million, 18 million, or 23 million (who says that all of her supporters actually bothered to vote in the primary?), should not be ignored.

    I can assure you that the Obama campaign isn't going to ignore 13 million voters.

    Yeah, keep telling yourself that. You'll be drawn into the Obama/McCain drama before you know it!

    Your central thesis is manufactured, as there is but a dime's worth of difference between the policies of Clinton and Obama, and if anything, Obama may be the more progressive. Whatever your real problem with Obama (gender, charisma, newcomer), it's very probable policies have nothing to do with it. And if you're anything like your militant sisters at the RBC, there may be a bit of man-hating involved, too. If not, I simply can't account for your failure to see the obvious: The fact that Hillary's defeat and Obama's victory coincided is entirely due to Hilalry's decision to push the nomination beyond reason until "the last dog dies." Well, it's dead now. And rather than seeking donations and advice from "18 million" supporter emails no campaign could read through, she might have thought about the FUTURE of those policies you say are dear to you and make damn sure they got advanced beginning today through the Democratic nominee. If you think Obama's not liberal enough, you'll love John McCain's policies.

    I agree, I support her....but whats left to say after she concedes? Even now. She has no part in his campaign to play. She really has no part to play in his Administration. There are far more important things for Obama to worry about now. For me. He needs to start fleshing out his positions on Economy, Enviroment, War, etc etc. etc.

    You say bullshit, I say you're blaming the Obama camp out of wishful spite when it's clear that the Clinton camp was trading mixed signals with itself all day.

    I've got three women in my immediate houshold and I will have to do some Politiking myself to get them turned around. I have a busy summer ahead.

    The stuff about not rushing to declare victory, I cannot agree with. It's important that there be a moment of victory, and it's very important (for PR reasons) that the moment should coincide with an election, not with Jim Superdelegate having a three-martini lunch.

    That would be pretty funny.

    Tonight, after 54 hard-fought shots at the National Democratic Club, my liver has finally come to an end

    but whats left to say after she concedes?

    That I hope you haven't forgotten our bet? ;)

    Sure I remember it Ben. What was it that I was supposed to name myself?

    And yes, Di, I realize that was shameless. :)

    It's interesting how these factions seem to have formed. I know only 2 Hillary supporters IRL, one of them was the best man in my wedding, and the other is the SO of one of my wife's co-workers. Charlottesville, where I live, seems to be very strongly an Obama-city. (Of course, VA itself went very strongly towards Obama.) I know much was made about the latte-sippers, etc., but even amongst latte-sippers, it seems that the two groups are somewhat separate from each other in ways that I don't fully comprehend.

    I forget, and I don't have the link readily available. We'll just go with anything positive about Obama. I trust your judgment on that. Of course, she hasn't conceded yet!

    The 20% is filing in.

    Wrong. You've been seated quite some time now.

    By the way, what a stunning rebuttal of my argument you've made there. Give yourself a cookie.

    I think the differences (outside of policy which I think are huge) is the way people want to see their candidate perform. I know Obama supporters find this trite but Clinton supporters really do want someone that is willing to go Toe to Toe with their opponent. We know the next President is going to have to do some heavy lifting against some tough odds to get something done. Having friends on the other side if fine....but the divide in this country is pretty huge between the Mitch McConnels of this world and the Barbara Boxers...

    You made an argument? I didn't see one. All I saw were statements from a sore winner who can't give up the Hate. What I want to know is what the Obamaistas will do now? I actually can't wait to see.

    I agree that there is no rush on this and that self-righteous demands for an immediate concession would be counterproductive.

    I expect that Clinton will concede this week. And as long as we don't spend all summer fighting with each other, I expect that the party will be OK.

    Actually, I'm referring to the way the two groups don't seem to interact much in the real world. Maybe I'm reading too much into anecdotal evidence, but it seems that most Obama supporters here (myself included) know an awful lot more other Obama supporters than they do Clinton supporters, and that most Clinton supporters know an awful lot more Clinton supporters than they do Obama supporters. I'm not talking about people they've met during organizing, either, but family members, etc. Even the exceptions are telling—like the Obama supporter who is surrounded by Clinton supporters. I don't think I've heard from a single person who knows approximately equal numbers of both, although perhaps there's a selection bias at work in that such a thing might not seem noteworthy to the person in that situation.

    What you claim to "still believe" does not make it so. Just because you can imagine something, that does not make it real.

    So now you are reduced to calling your own Mother a liar, but you are upset at what some strangers say about Senator Clinton. Shame on you. Go apologize to your Mother. She knows who she voted for , and you do not, so stop calling her a liar.

    I am surrounded by Republicans so..I didn't expect to find anyone. My brother and his wife are Obamaistas but we really don't have much of a chance to talk about Hillary v Barack.

    C'mon, liam, it's a joke!

    Giving up the hate seems like good advice no matter who your candidate is, Louisville.

    Well said, read upwards. I think the worm has turned.

    My central thesis is not manufactured as I have spent waaaaaaaaay too much time on TPM arguing the serious policy differences between Obama and Hillary. Hers are certainly more progressive./ Of course Obama is closer to HRC than McCain. That said, she can annd should use her leverage the way every other nominee has. Edwards wanted a poverty czar and tour. Done! Now Obama cares about poor people (except in WV). I suspect HRC leverage will be used to push Obama towards truly universal healthcare as that is he overarching policy concern and where they have the most difference. Will he hear out the concerns of the HRC and Edwards voters who are pushing for universal healthcare for it? I certainly hope so and think he'd be a better candidate if he did.

    And I've taken my happy pills this morning so I will nto engage in your petty insults like "man Hating" HRC supporters. If you are so small minded that you can't envision a democrat with policy diferences with Obama that are not insignificant, I doubt there's anything that will get through to you. Carry on with your HRC attacks! Barack/Unity 08!

    That's the funny thing—I also know a lot of Republicans, but very, very few Clinton supporters! (Two, to be exact.)

    I took your previous "three women in my immediate household and I will have to do some Politiking myself to get them turned around" to mean they were Clinton supporters. It didn't occur to me that they might have been Republicans!

    Anyways, good luck with that! I've been slowly trying to wear down my father, although I can't admit that I have much hope. The best I'm hoping for is that he'll be able to dispel some of the misinformation that's been going his way. (Just last night he told me that he'd heard that Obama had been sworn in using the Koran. I'm afraid he believed it, too. I told him that he needs to correct the person who told him that.)

    Happy now?

    No, all people in my family are Democrats. My father , god rest his soul, would haunt us the rest of our days if we didn't vote and play a role. My girls were all HillBots.....to the Nth degree. I would not even let them close to this blog. They would have been banned within hours.

    That works, although I'll point out that I haven't actually won the bet yet!

    Still, if you want to concede the bet, the clock can start now. That'll make July 4th your independence day! ;) (Since the terms of the bet were that the name/avatar change last for a month.)

    Get some eyeglasses, or perhaps adjust your ethics. That may help you discern the real hatred in a post that ostensibly discusses unity but begins with faulting Obama for not being Hillary-liberal enough, goes on to fault Obama for not having sense enough to make himself scarce while Hillary gave a speech the night he clinched the nomination, and continues the boilerplate bullshit about Obama's "Rovian skill to smear and slur and attack ... has left many Hillary supporters angry that the candidate we believed could win and bring the best progressive policies to the table was being unfairly attacked not on substance or policies but on is she likeable enough and is she member of the Klan. The way she has been treated by the Obama campaign and the media has been appalling."

    Then you cap it with "Obamaistas." Like Sandinistas?

    You were calling my argument hateful? Oh, you're too funny. ROFTLMAO!

    It is what it is.

    Thanks louisville :) I'll hang around of course but it won't be as much fun. TPMs an echo chamber already. Can you imagine the threads once it's general election time?

    McCain sucks sucks sucks all day long. With the random Hillary is the devil thrown in.

    You've got this one pegged. It's something I've been meaning to blog about for MONTHS, and its now probably too late.

    The night before New Hampshire, one of the few young Clinton supporters I know said she was turned off, even offended, by any talk of bipartisanship or broad coalition.

    She flat out wanted someone who would torch Republicans like they've torched us for 8 years. She wanted someone who would give the GOP "what it deserves."

    As an Independent with a lot of Republican/Conservative friends and family that I talk politics with, I see things differently. I think the most damaging thing that the GOP can suffer is the loss of their mandate, and their mandate is more fragile now than I've ever seen it.

    Many Conservatives I know are so politically upside down right now. They thought George Bush would protect their values. They know John McCain won't.

    Using the next administration to brutally punish all things GOP sounds awesome. I'd get pleasure out of it for sure. But I know how counterproductive it could turn out to be, because it lends credence to their lies. They tell our friends and neighbors that Liberals are threatening their way of life, and people swallow any other bullshit they throw into the mix.

    I think their's an approach that's more long term. I won't pretend to be smart enough to know what it is, but I can hear rumblings of it amongst my Righty friends and family.

    McCain doesn't move them. Obama moves them in way's they don't understand. From my perspective, it has the potential to gut the GOP from the inside out.

    Who are you talking to?

    "Carry on with your HRC attacks!"

    Funny, I didn't attack Hillary at all. Just your ill-conceived attack on Obama disguised as unity. Or do your attacks on Obama get a free pass or fail to ring a bell: "Rovian skill to smear and slur and attack ... has left many Hillary supporters angry that the candidate we believed could win and bring the best progressive policies to the table was being unfairly attacked not on substance or policies but on is she likeable enough and is she member of the Klan. The way she has been treated by the Obama campaign and the media has been appalling."

    Obama may be the more progressive.
    Hers are certainly more progressive.

    At the risk of getting all mathy, we're talking about reducing a multi-dimensional space to a single dimension, and a fairly subjective one at that. I always this reduction as using an intuitive version of the principle components analysis, but it really depends on what you consider to be the more important dimensions! There are some ways that Obama is the more progressive candidate, and there are others in which Clinton is.

    Really, I think all either of you two are doing is substituting the phrase "more progressive" for the word "better". :)

    I was on the road last night. Watched Hillary's speech and the first part of Obama's. When I realized the rest of the speech was going to be a stump speech, I switched to the women's NCAA softball finals. I suspected the more extreme tenants of the echo chamber would go crazy over Hillary's speech. I so hope she has the good sense to stay far away from that ticket.

    Repost from yesterday-

    Breaking news: proof that Obama campaign was behind the AP story that Hillary would concede last night:

    Axelrod: Pssst HRC promised to concede tonight. Spread the news.

    AP Reporter: Great news! I am so excited. Obama rocks! Let me rush this to press with no journalistic standards whatsoever and then I'll do my happy dance!

    Axelrod: They can't know it's from us - how can we deflect attention

    AP reporter: I know! How about "Campaign Official". Just shady enough so it can be misinterpreted as from the hillary camp while not being an outright lie to save my last shred of journalistic dignity.

    Axelrod - Perfect! sounds like a deal.

    AP Reporter: Let me just verify over with HRC campaign

    Axelrod: Why you wanna do that? Trust don't verify. Run with it.

    AP Reporter: How could I ever doubt you? I apologize for having offended Obama. Your wish is my command.

    At least you're honest about that. The people who are a joke are the ones who hang at TPM all day and claim they're giving their clients or companies any value. Urge to spit on the ground.

    I have no idea what I was thinking when I typed their's. There's is what I meant.

    You're quite right, Ben. It's a sham to call Hillary the more progressive candidate in a post allegedly about "unity" the day after Obama won. It's like calling Obama the slow child in the family.

    I was talking to you.

    We may disagree about the source of the AP Story, but this is one thing I definitely agree with you about. Back to work for me today but I wanted to say I truly appreciate your conciliatory tone this morning and I feel confident Hillary will do the right thing once she passes the hat one more time. There will be something of a mourning process for your prefered candidacy, but in the end I'm confident we'll all come together and elect a democrat this fall.

    Re: Universal Healthcare - I reckon that Obama's lack of mandate is more to get the plan past an electorate that doesn't like to be told what to do. The republicans would've hammered on Hillary's mandate and screamed socialism - never mind they are perfectly happy for the government to nationalize Bear Stearns assets when the "free" market has to be rescued.

    The mandate is a serious problem they're having with the program that exists in MA. To succeed, universal health care needs to be sold as a new choice. Hence the language Obama used in the speech "anyone who wants it" rather than "everyone". In the end I don't think the difference is that much, mostly marketing. Make of this what you will, but I think Obama is a far better salesperson for the kind of progressive policies we all want enacted.

    I think I referenced before that I am a Yankee fan and I HATE Roger Clemens. Despise the man - always have. When he became a Yankee, I rooted for him to win. Did I buy a Clemens jersey? Of course not. But when he was on the mound I rooted for him as much as any other Yankee we had because he's got skills (that were likely artifically enhanced, but that's besides the point) and those skills that I hated seeing on display against the Yankees, I loved seeing when he was in pinstripes.

    Same with Obama. I despised the Rovian tactics his campaign used against Hillary, but I recognize that same skill in smear and slime will be to our advantage when it's being used against McCain. Why? Because he'll be on my team idiot and what I want is a democrat in the White house.

    You my friend need to try the new Unity Kool-Aid and quick.

    And if you believe that, then you're in serious denial.

    I'm hoping you're just being funny.

    If the new Unity Kool-Aid is fortified with your smears and the minimum daily requirement of "idiot" I think I'll stick with the old flavor. It's called: Obama won, get used to it and quit knocking the nominee.

    I'm fairly certain that you're deliberately missing my point. ;)

    Nope. Got it. Your point is that applies equally to both sides of this petty tiff, but I would draw your attention to the use of "unity" in the same post that rehashes Clinton's Resentspeak talking points.

    It really is a fundamental difference. I would rather just knock the snot out of the Republicans. I think they have proved over the past 20 years that there really isn't any talking to them.

    Point of clarification please. Is Obamawon pronounced OBAMA ONE or Obama-Wan (Like Obi-Wan)?

    I vote for Obama-Wan.

    If the worm has indeed turned, post. You'll be rec'd and deservedly so. If anything, you've been persistent. And I hear that pays off ...

    Oh no, I was right about your statements. They are Hateful. Mine are well reasoned and thought out. I thought you understood that by now.

    Dammit, Beautiful and smart too......:)

    This is enough for now.....I am a very very very bad loser. You've no idea.

    A Yankee fan? Well, guess it could be worse could be a Red Sox fan....Anyway, Glad to see Joba the Hut confirm he is a bullpen pitcher last night.

    Like hell I have no idea!

    I think we all have a pretty good idea about that ...

    An 'A' for effort and 'recs' if you were to deign to post ...

    GAWD could I get ONE break my way last night?!?! It could have been worse though. Joba had an ugly first inning and he got out of it fairly well. Nerves and all that. He'll grow in to a fine pitcher. I'd been saying the same thing about Eli Manning for years and then he goes and proves me right in the Super Bowl.

    The Giants won the Super Bowl! I am happy again! Thanks for cheering me up :)

    With all due respect (and in your case it's not very much), idiot is kind compared to what I have been called (and many Clinton supporters have been called) on these threads. Not to mention what has actually been said about HRC. My criticisms of Obama are based on issues and policies and campaign attacks, not personal. "get used to it" is not the most compelling argument for an HRC supporter that needs to be convinced Obama's better than McCain. I'm not one of them. But your assaciousness may drive some HRC supporters to feel they are not respected or part of the party. Not something I'd want to do - but that's just me.

    I am in Cleveland. We could cheer up anyone at anytime when talking of sports teams....or weather......or jobs.......or....well there you go :)

    That's my crazy ass conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.

    Agreed - I can't decide whether I'd like to see Hillary go off with Bill promoting philanthropy around the world or stay in the Senate and push for the progressive liberal policies that she believes in. I don't want her reduced to VP when she can have MUCH more impact elsewhere. Other Dick Cheney, VPs don't have much authority or impact on policy and I for one do not want another Fourth Branch of Government.

    "self-righteous demands for an immediate concession would be counterproductive?"

    what is self-righteous about demanding that the winning candidate be appropriately acknowledged on the day that he sewed up the nomination? you say that there is no rush, and i would agree. she has had months to deal with this reality, to come to terms with her political mortality. this wasn't a surprise. nobody (with a grip on reality)thought that she was going to pull out a surprise victory on tuesday evening.

    i find it incredibly disingenuous the way that obama supporters are bending over backward to accomodate this woman's burdensome ego. this final period of her insincere simle, the backhanded attempts at extortion with her assumed legions of zombie followers, is so over-the-top as to remind one of the cult of personality that has been built around her. now we get to read posts like this from other disillusioned and ill-informed clinton supporters who slyly (they think) make ridiculous claims about obama and his supporters (they're so mean to us... everyone picks on hillary) and see how far they can push our patience and the limits of reality.

    if get used to it is not the best way to respond to clinton diehards like dijamoron, then try this: life sucks.

    get used to it.

    I'd rather see her stay in the Senate. During an early debate, Obama said he'd seek her advice on certain issues, and I think he will.

    Nice avatar.

    What happened to the name change? I thought it was pretty funny.

    Agreed with all except the PR of accepting the nomination last night. In the interests of unity, I think it would have been more helpful to present a united front in the concession. Having it play out the way it did just

    In reality, Obama hit the magic number with super dels before the voting wa sover in the finals 2 states because he encouraged the super dels to make endorse him early (rather than facing a split decision in the last two states that still left him short of the finish line).

    If your PR interests make Obama supporters angry at Hillary for not conceding and Hillary supporters made at Obama supporters for not letting her have that moment in the spotlight, then objective accomplished. If it was to help unify the party, not so much. I'm a Hillary supporter and I know yesterday I was livid at the way the whole thing came to pass. I don't think angering Hillary supporters is in the best interests of party unity. Especially those that are the brink of going over to McCain.

    Look at the time-stamp of the comment you're responding to. :)

    Hillary's speech was different as people were analyzing to see if she'd concede (as the Obama campiagn was implying she would). Barack's speech was pretty standard. Although he did thank his racist grandmother, so that was a first.
    Posted by dijamo
    June 3, 2008 10:45 PM

    Barack Obama 2008: Get Used To It!

    It's kind of catchy! Great campaign slogan for Obama to unify the democratic party and turnout the vote to take back the presidency in November. It encompasses the entitlement Barack displayed when he so pompously declared he could get all of Hillary's voters, but the question was could she get his. It says eff you! Your opinions and concerns matter not a whit to me. Your vote matters not in the least so just get used to it. I am the nominee and you can submit or be out.

    Inspirational! Really trademark that and put it on a bumper sticker.

    So what. I get sarcastic when I'm pissed. Can you link to the many many many attacks on Hillary (and me) that pissed me off enough to get to that point? At some point you wake up and realize I am better than that and my party is better than that, or you can just wallow in finger pointing and you suck more than I do. It's clear as day which side you fall on.

    So you grant yourself the right to often get pissed and make nasty attacks, while at the same time you keep on complaining about some Obama supporters getting pissed, and making nasty attacks. Well isn't that special!.

    If you treat others who disagree with you to the terms "idiot" and "assaciousness" that seem to be the soul of your wit, I can't very well care if someone else has called you a bitch in the past. Not even the recent past.

    It's all part of her coy but sassy assaciousness.

    I grant myself and others the right to be pissed and make nasty attacks that they may or may not come to regret later. Granted that comment you posted is rather mean and out of character for me, but let's be honest. People write MUCH meaner things about Hillary Cllinton and will continue to do say till inifinity.

    At some point we have to come together. For you that day may not be today, but for me it is. Then again we could just continue to make nasty attacks on each others canidates up until November. Stellar insights. Barack should put you on staff.

    Excuse me but I've trademarked assaciousness so back off. Can you get some wit of your own? Because you are sorely lacking in it which is why you resort to perjorative terms like bitch.

    I treat others in the manner in which I am treated. Those who treat me with repect, I can disagree with in a very respectful manner. Those who are so childish that they resort to personal attacks, well they can GFY. They usually have nothing to add to the conversation. So GFY.


    I think you mean "pejorative," as in "idiot" or "assaciousness." My bad. I thought you trademarked "bitch."

    Right, let's all come together, asshat.

    As good a division as I have heard. Place me in the final 20% chunk, but it is mostly other Obama supporters who have brought me to the point that I don't think she is the devil incarnate.

    Dude, seriously. Do you have to?

    That's pretty damned good: Obamawon, formerly Lville1975. I like it. This way we can all remember who you "were." And how classy to do it even before the bet is officialy won. Wecome, the new you.

    I've got Terry on video.

    I guess the argument is what "magic number" you want to use.

    Dude, you're losing the funny war here. "Assaciousness" was funny.

    It's a farce to compare her not conceding to Jesse Jackson in 84, or Kennedy in 80. WE LOST THOSE ELECTIONS!!! And that's exactly the point - history very well proves that contesting a nomination will result in the party losing in November. That's what everyone has been up in arms about - that's what is meant by 'party unity.'

    It's also a farce to compare her candidacy to that of her husband's who didn't become the nominee officially in 1992 until the California primary in June. Everyone knew that Bill Clinton would be the nominee in 1992 by April 7. Jerry Brown, the only real contender left in the race, sent emissaries from his campaign to let Clinton know that he would not even run TV ads against him in CA, though he would still campaign. He also pledged not to go negative on him, in CA. Again, that's called keeping the respect of your candidacy and not letting your supporters down, but acting in the interests of party unity.

    It's like a math problem. Like in a 7 game series when one team wins 4 games, the series is over - you know the winner. In sports they don't even bother to continue at that point. But you could keep playing til the end - maybe you get a 4-3 split. Closer than 4-1, but the team that won 4 out of 7 still wins. This nomination was over a long time ago and Clinton has had plenty of time to adjust and thank her supporters and blah blah blah.

    No one forced superdels to Obama's side yesterday - they saw the train comin' and decided to get on. There are many, many superdels who have wanted to support Obama but haven't either out of fear or loyalty or respect to Clinton. Now they can.


    . . . and we can breathe again . . . .

    Looking over the thread, I find it's not too hard to pinpoint the moment when it descended into ad hominem attacks:


    So really, chill. Barack won.

    Why not? Certainly wouldn't be the first time.

    Mitch is going down.

    When I wrote that I thought the name change would be reflected in all of the profile's posts, like an avatar change is.

    I later saw that this is not true.

    Jackson did go all the way to the convention in 1988 to represent the issues of those that voted for him, of which I was one. The convention ended with Dukakis being nominated and polls gave him a 13-17 point lead on Bush after the convention.

    Dukakis squandered the lead on his own through candidate malpractice so you look a bit silly trying to blame it on JJ.

    Perhaps, in the interest of party unity, you'll quit posting inflammatory, intentionally insulting posts someday soon. Spreading manure on top of bile is hardly the way to end the rancor. Or perhaps you'll vote for John McCain.

    "I still believe the source of that AP story was the Obama campaign."

    Well, if you have some evidence to back up your allegations, you should put it out there. Otherwise, what you're saying amounts to little more than wild speculation and vague slander.

    I like what you're saying. I hope Hillary stays far away from the Obama ticket as well.

    "Isn't what Hillary wants what we all want?"

    What Hillary wants is only slightly interesting at this point. She needs to step aside. Officially, Obama is now the party spokesman. She was grandstanding last night. It was ungracious and slightly pathetic. I was a little angry last night, but by this morning I just felt sorry for her. Last night must have been one of the roughest nights of her life.

    Hillary's going to need some time to unwind and get used to not being in the spotlight. Let's hope it takes days, not weeks.

    And this is exactly why I think we need members from the corresponding 80% of Hillary supporters to work on their 20 percenters.

    I treat others in the manner in which I am treated.

    No you don't. Don't pretend this was a civil post. Don't pretend you didn't intend to express your contempt for those who didn't support your candidate. When you bring up "Rovian tactics" you're being ridiculous and disrespectful, and you're doing it on purpose. You're going out of your way to offend. Don't pretend you're not intentionally acting like a shithead.

    Demanding concession?

    I don't see Obama doing that at all. Nor his campaign. I do think it is important on both sides not to conflate supporters and followers with candidates. Or to confuse media with candidates. Although I actually saw quite a few media types and pundits arguing that she did deserve some space, that she had earned it.

    I do not demand that Hillary do anything. I actually think taking some time to sort next moves is okay. My issue with what she did yesterday was that she then didn't follow through with that, she began the VP pressure cooker strategy immediately, even before the evening.

    Even though I think it is okay for her not to concede, I do think doing that would have been better given the VP thing. If she hadn't done that (and had actually taken the space), my response would have been different. She not only didn't take the space, she began pushing into Obama's territory, directly and through surrogates in a way that I think was unprecedented in its timing.

    In general, not conceding under the circumstance is unusual in politics, as it is part of the job, and you earn respect by doing it well, although I don't think you should be vilified for not doing it well. So that is why it became news, that she chose to avoid part of the job. If she were to do that for some larger ultimately purpose that served the Democrat Party for the fall, that would be completely okay. Jury still out on that.

    Yes. He even said he looked forward to her advising him.

    I have been struck by that same observation myself several times recently. It occured to me the other day that I do not know any Clinton supporters in "real life." My aunt in Florida started off as a Clinton supporter, but ended up switching to Richardson by the time of the election and is now firmly on the Obama bandwagon. I tend to suspect that some of my aunts and uncles probably voted for Clinton, but they have no bumper-stickers or yard signs or suchlike to indicate as much and they have not said anything to me in favor of Clinton. Among the folks that I know who take an interest in politics, I have a lot of Obama supporting friends and acquaintences, a few Edwards supporters (all of whom have since switched to Obama) and a few Huckabee supporters (some of whom have taken the plunge to support McCain and some of whom have not). Admittedly, Obama took my part of Missouri by more than 2 to 1, so it stands to reason that there are more Obama supporters for me to know around here than Clinton supporters, but it is still somewhat curious that I do not know any Clinton supporters.

    I don't think you get it. It's shitty when Rovian attacks are done to my candidate. It's GREAT when it's directed at the other side. It is not a put down - it's an acknowledgement that if Barack is the nominee, it is going to be to our advantage in November. If his campaign did this to Hillary, what will they do to McCain!

    That said, acknowledging Obama as nominee does not mean saying every single damn thing I post is going to be positive. Somehow I think retaining some objectivity and saying Obama has flaws but at least he's not McCain adds some value - particularly for Clinton supporters who are wavering and seriously considering McCain. This whole Deal with it shit helps no one. If what you are looking for when you say unity is submission, then I'm sorry but the unity train can pass me by.

    I don't want her reduced to VP when she can have MUCH more impact elsewhere.

    That is largely my own thinking. It would be a waste of talent and intelligence to let her languish in the VP's mansion. Towards what end?

    Ummm. How is this diary on the recommended list? Slow day at TPM? I'm horrified that this is actually what someone thinks. To call Obama "Rovian" is laughable.

    Dijamo - I'm sorry but either you're mental or this is just to stir up people. Is that really your pic or are you someone just pretending to be a black woman? Cuz that's what I'm thinking. And no, the Obama camp did not "leak" that Billary was conceding. For Christ's sake.

    Alex, you're confusing ad hominem attack with pointing out the obvious petulance of the poster and her uncanny echoing of sore-loser Clintonites.

    Funny is subjective. Thanks for your opinion.

    Bitchy mitchy is as slimy as they come. The problem is that he plays well out in the state and in Louisville. I wish they could beat him but I think its unlikely.

    Lil to much captain already?

    Oh rabbit...

    time to move on

    Shhhhhhhhhhh! Don't tell! ;)

    It seems Hillary really only wants one thing now: For McCain to win. And it would seem a large percentage of Hillary supporters want that as well. I'd love to revel in it and paint everyone with the same brush as you do with Obama supporters, but I know there are some reasonable Hillary supporters who will not vote (explicitly or implicitly) for McCain. But many will out of sad, childish spite.

    If you had left out the misguided comments about 'Rovian' tactics this post would have been much more balanced and good. But it's tainted. To pretend that Hillary did not take any 'Rovian' tactics while proclaiming that Obama was the master of them is quite a statement of absolute blindness and stubborn bias that is difficult to overcome.

    You can give your complaints about the way you perceive Obama ran the campaign, real or imagined, but don't pretend Hillary didn't do similar.

    "What does Hillary want?,"

    That is exactly what the Clinton campaign was about. Listen to her speeches. They are filled with "me, me, me, me, me" and "I, I, I, I, I". They were always about her and the pursuit of her personal goal. Her campaign was never about America or about the betterment of "Democrats". It was never about the party that made "her" possible. It was never about what her supporters wanted either. It was always about what she wanted, what she thought was due to her, and what people were willing to give to her. This is where the belief that Hillary suffers from a narcassism or borderline personality disorder come from. She really displays no ability to be magnanimous in any shape or form because her personality prevents her from seeing beyond her own personal interests. Her failure to deliver a concession speech was also indicative of her condition, especially when she pondered that very question you extracted. "What does Hillary want?," That should not have been the issue last evening, but her neurosis pushed it to the surface. It is this very reason why she is unfit for any of the highest offices in the land. "What does Hillary want?," will always come before the needs of those so many she is supposed to represent.

    Reading his fundamental. I didn't say Obama was Rovian. I said his CAMPIAGN used Rovian tactics. Guess what? Rovian tactics work. How else did Bush get reelected in 2004 with his saggy approval rating. Get some perpective.

    And of course that's a fake picture. Like all Hillary supporters I am an 92 year old white woman. I wanted to post my real picture, but Hallmark has the shoebox greeting lady trademarked.


    Dude, I have to. When your reply to my fairly reasoned comment upthread calls me a fringe sexist or racist, yeah, I have to. When dijamo can't reply without calling me an idiot and assacious, yeah, turnabout's fair play. So clean up your act, and maybe I won't have to reply in kind. Otherwise, STFU.

    When did I say Hillary has NOT used Rovian tactics? All political campaigns do. Obama's campaign did it better and were able to pretend that he's above all that old politics while sending out the Clinton smear memos.

    Let me guess. Reconciliation is only possible if Clinton supporters acknowledge Barack's and his campaign are perfect. Anything else is blasphemy. If that's your position, you're leaving half this party out in the cold.


    Come visit greg....though...you are a Michiganer and you guys don't come here unless your going to Cedar Point.

    It's only disingenuous if you don't mean it. As for self-righteousness, it's a matter of tone rather than content. Thank you for providing an apt example.

    Have at it. Don't let me get in your way bitterman.

    And, axelrod uses the best of the rovian tactics. He did a good job of it. He made sure his candidate stayed out of the "mud" as it were. Is no different tactic than GWB used both elections. The natural genesis of this comes out of Lee Atwater days in the Reagan Elections. Keep away from specifics, do not ever denigrate your opponent outright, seem "above it all". It worked. Hats off to them.

    Is ok. Explains the original statement. Didn't make a whole lot of sense with that one.

    Toward her own. 59 + 8 = 67. "Hillary for President" in 2016 as successful VP incumbent.

    You are in denial. HRC ran her campaign in a way that would make the GOP proud. To get back into the contest she deliberately defined the electorate in terms of race and class. That tactic alsone showed that she didn't care about anything but her personal agenda to get elected come hell or high water. After losing the nomination, instead of being gracious in defeat, she wants to strong arm the VP slot.

    I doubt that her tactic will work which makes me wonder what is her real motivation. Is it to continue to inflict damage to Obama in hopes of further marginalizing his candidacy.

    My guess is that her strategy will only work if independents, African-Americans and the youth vote stays home in November. All indications are that this base of voters will only become more excited and more numerous by November.

    So note to Obama, pick the VP of your choice,and know that you can depend on your coaliation of voters to support you in November. Let Hillary continue to work on her plan whatever it may be!

    Nothing of the type. Clinton supporters must stop deluding themselves that she was 'robbed' and that she played fairly but was simply a victim.

    Obama screwed up several times. He played a couple of games. Don't pin your own ego on me, I'm not the one pretending.

    I don't think the party will be cold because many Clinton supporters have the fires of political arson and childish playground tactics at the ready.

    I agree with you here. Clinton had a strategy to deal with the race issue, and so did Obama. Neither candidate had completely clean hands. Clinton used surrogates to do the dirtiest work. So did Obama.

    But, frankly, don't you see a little difference between the two situations? It's not quite a level playing field, is it? Because -- newsflash -- there are more white people in the US than black people. So any time the debate gets onto race, it's inherently a tricky thing for Obama to handle, without coming across as angry or blameful.

    So isn't it kind of impressive that Obama beat the Clintons at this particular game? And isn't it kind of strange to waste time feeling sorry for HRC -- on this particular point?

    Obama hit the magic number with super dels before the voting wa sover in the finals 2 states because he encouraged the super dels to make endorse him early (rather than facing a split decision in the last two states that still left him short of the finish line).

    First With all due respect, please consider:

    1) DNC leadership and the SDs themselves have been on record for weeks, if not months that decisions would come quickly on or about June 3rd when the process was "over".
    2) Do you honestly believe those few hours would have made a difference? Say for example, that none of the SDs had broken before the results came in from South Dakota. Do you honestly believe that any of them would have thought "Hey, they split Montana and South Dakota... that's it, I'm pledging for Senator Clinton!"

    Looking at these two axioms together, what significant difference would Obama see by getting their pledges before or a few hours after the end of the primaries?

    Second and more importantly, what magical "pressure" did Obama bring to bear that forced them to declare the morning of the 3rd that he was not able to use before? Did he suddenly discover naked pictures of them? Both the Obama and Clinton campaigns had been "pressuring" SDs for months if not years. Please tell me - what pixie dust do you know about that can compel people to suddenly and instantly make decisions they had refused to make before?

    Your conspiracy theory lacks both motive and method.

    What is your opinion of how the GOP are eagerly re-using Hillary's talking points and video of her to hit Obama? What is your opinion of Hillary fawning all over Fox News? What is your opinion of Hillary putting McCain on a level above Obama? What about "as far as I know"? What about the long list of other straight-from-the-GOP-book actions/words on her part?

    You have the nerve to say that Obama is the one who used Rovian tactics? This is why I say you are blind to your bias. We all are, but some can at least recognize it and try to be balanced.

    I dislike some of the things Obama did during the campaign, I think he said some dumb things. But he didn't cross the line in the way Hillary did MULTIPLE times.

    And then now it's all nothing but victim-hood...please. She is simply trying to lock in hardcore supporters who will blindly follow her in whatever direction she says. Once she has a mass of disaffected misled voters who won't blink without her approval, she thinks then she'll have the leverage to get whatever megalomanic thing it is she is wanting.

    I will say this for Obama - his campaign knows how to play harball and has done it to stunning effect. They've demonstrated the Rovian skill to smear and slur and attack without appearing to get their hands dirty

    Yeah, claiming that McCain is ready to be president but Obama is not is a real Rovian smear;

    claiming only she can win the vote of "working Americans, white Americans" is right from the Rovian playbook - I mean, she didn't really say that, did she??

    claiming to have been under sniper fire in Bosnia (as if every news outlet in the world wouldn't have reported such a thing) was right out of Rove's "Best of," wasn't it?

    oh, and assuming she'd be the nominee right after Super Tuesday was really devious of the Obama campaign wasn't it?

    Time for Hillary to start taking responsibility for her own mistakes. Not everything can be chalked up to that Machiavellian Obama character.

    No I think we can objectively say that you're not funny.

    Funny or original for that matter. I respect people who are least witty and dickish. You resorting to "bitch" just confirms that you are indeed both an idiot and assacious.

    It seems the only justification Clinton supporters can offer for her outrageous non-concession speech is that Hillary & co. "needs time" before she can act with class and dignity and that "she needed a night" to thank her supporters.

    Earth to Hillary:

    Guess what? You could have thanked your supporters profusely AND endorsed Obama. Yes, a twofer! These 2 things are not mutually exclusive.


    Adults - barring Hillary and co. - know that grown ups often have to do things they don't want to do when they don't want to do them. This is one of the first lessons we teach our children.

    You know how Hillary seems to find it impossible to apologize when she screws up? Well I think she finds it impossible to humble herself in any fashion.

    How is she helping Party unity when everyone knows Obama's the nominee but she's still in the race?

    Just being ridiculous. As usual.



    Evidently he's the one who is supposed to concede. Hooray for illusion!

    Did Jesse Jackson lack class and dignity when he didn't concede because he wanted his issues on the table? Did Teddy Kennedy lack class and dignity when he took it to the convention? Jesse Jackson didn't concede until the convention because he wanted the issues he was fighting for on the table for the democratic party. I don't recall him being accused of being "ungracious" at the time. If what you are fighting for is so important to you, then yes you will make damn sure your issues and concerns are heard. Hillary has said all along she will back the nominee and campaign on his behalf this whole NOW NOW NOW movement is really unbecoming. Why is it that Hillary must submit now as soon as he gets over the hump?

    If you actually paid attention to Hillary's speech instead of just waiting for the words "I CONCEDE," you got some real insight into what matters to Hillary supporters. I don't begrudge her the right to make sure those issues are addressed on behalf of her supporters before conceding and moving on the general election where she will campaign for him.








    "Hillary supporters made at Obama supporters for not letting her have that moment in the spotlight, then objective accomplished."

    That is my issue with Hillary and whey she should NOT be the nominee. It was NOT her moment to be in the spotlight, because all it did was egg on the dead-enders. She lost! Get over it!

    I find it hilarious that Obama is supposed to come crawling to her, hat in hand. And why? Because her feelings will be hurt if he doesn't? Boo-friggin-hoo! All of this "acknowledge how she is feeling" b.s. is getting pretty tiresome. Especially when it come from people who refuse the acknowledge the polarization that they encouraged. So I say to Hillary "Good bye and good luck." Go figure out how to be the best senator you can be. Because after all this crap (not to mention BC's Gina Gershon problem), Obama, if he is smart "Thanks Hillary, but I think the Vice Presidency woudl not be a suitable use of your skills."

    "Did Jesse Jackson lack class and dignity when he didn't concede because he wanted his issues on the table?"

    Yes. Because he had no constituency but acted as if he did. An embarassment to brothas everywhere.

    "Did Teddy Kennedy lack class and dignity when he took it to the convention?"

    Yes. Because he put his petty issues before the good of the party. That is what I suspect Hillary will do. But you know what I bet? 90% of the Hillary fans will end up backing Obama. The other ten won't because Obama is "inadequate" and lacks the "necessities" and "electability" to be a White man . . . Oh, did I say that? I meant he is inadequate and lacks the necessities and electability to be "President."

    I bow to your bitchy humor.

    "Hillary has said all along she will back the nominee and campaign on his behalf"

    She doesn't really mean that though. That's politics talking. She is trying to hold the party over a barrel until she gets her demands. She's just as likely to join with Lieberman and McCain. She's already helping them out with their campaigning.

    "Did Jesse Jackson lack class and dignity when he didn't concede because he wanted his issues on the table? Did Teddy Kennedy lack class and dignity when he took it to the convention?"

    Yes. The Democrats lost all three times.

    When my kid was 5, I taught her not to cry when she lost at musical chairs. She got the point. Shame no one ever taught Hillary and her minions that it is NOT ABOUT THEM!

    Teddy Kennedy - maybe. Jesse Jackson, come on! You can't blame Jesse for Dukakis. And please note that both they took it to the convention. Hillary's campaign gave every indication that she was wrapping it up this week. To say she must concede the very second Obama crosses the threshold or the evening he crossed the threshold is an unfair standard that has not been applied to other candidates.

    Did you also teach your kids that when they win they can say everyone must submit to my dominion NOW NOW NOW. I'd hate to be the kindergarden teacher with that kid in the class.

    Really? Do you think you are being helpful when you keep calling Hillary a Republican. What in that speech last night sounded anything near Republican? Barack's the one using Republican talking points against universal healthcare! Can we not acknowledge there is a diversity of views in the democratic party and we are all still part of one family. Hillary is more moderate on the foreign policy issues and Barack is more moderate on the economic issues. That said we are closer to each other than McCain - unless you keep telling Clinton supporters that they are not welcome in the party.

    Again I do not see the logic in saying to borderline HRC supporters go to McCain. It's like the GWB "Bring it on!" comment to the insurgents in Iraq. It's asinine machismo and you might just get enough folks to take you up on your offer that we lose in November. If that's the outcome you want, carry on. I'll be on the opposite side saying I heart Hillary too, but Barack is the next best thing. Harder to convince folks when they are being pushed away on the other side.

    Moderate improvement. I prefer bitchy to bitch. But you are still assacious.

    Tell that to all the Hillary supporters who vow to vote for McCain or stay home. Tell that to all the Clinton supporters who are chanting "Denver" and pledging to fight against Obama any way they can.

    It's not necessarily the fact that she didn't concede the second Obama reached the delegate number. It's the language in her speech, it's what she's doing to build up her supporters into a frenzy of anger and victimness.

    She didn't just 'not concede', she willingly went out of her way to try and de-legitimize any win Obama might have. She is going out of her way to say she is the one who should win and she's been robbed. Those are the same talking points McCain is repeating. He sees it, republicans see it.

    She's trying to blackmail the party and build up a loyal base who she can control so as to gain some kind of false leverage on Obama for her gain.

    As one of those folks who thought she got screwed by the RBC committee with Michigan, I was one of those saying "See you In Denver :)" Cooler heads prevail. It's about what do we want in November versus Hillary getting shafted by the RBC committee. Eventually we need to come together and we don't get there by playing the blame game.

    That said I have ALWAYS said as a Hillary supporter I will outreach to other Hillary supporters and encourage them to support Barack. This election is much more important than Hillary or Barack. It's about Not McCain.

    I'm not good at kissing ass, especially the ass of an extortionist.

    "those oh so unifying Obama supporters"

    Just as there are Obama supporters who are gloating and not being very unifying, please don't tell me you believe all Clinton supporters are being great Democrats...Reference your own statement "It will take a miracle of all miracles for me to pull the lever".

    "you will need quite few of those votes to even have the slightest chance of winning in November"

    Is the game today "Take the party hostage" or "Blackmail"? Hillary's ready to play either and she has a large number of supporters who are more interested in their own ego than anything else.

    The caveat of course is that we are NYers and so writing in for Hillary will have 0 impact on the general election. If we lived in MO or OH or PA, it would be a much different story.

    "she got screwed by the RBC committee with Michigan"

    Her own people screwed her when they voted to punish Michigan? She screwed herself when she agreed to not campaign there and that the election wouldn't count? Oh, no, it was all Obama and his supporters! She talks about counting every vote, but actually not any vote that isn't for her. Talk about counting all the votes, but ignoring all the states that had caucuses.

    No reasonable person not blinded by bias believes that her Michigan demand was fair. All votes for her, none for anyone else? In a contest that she originally agreed wouldn't count? PLEASE!

    Do you at least recognize that Obama supporters HAD the votes to make it 50-50 but didn't? In the name of sanity you have to recognize that.

    Effectively a campaign for McCain. Congrats.

    Right. Every loser in an election should get some "time" to adjust to that. In November, the election results should be put off for at least "a day" so that the loser can have some time to get over the sadness of trying so hard, but then LOSING!

    Do you want to start a new tradition? Did Gore get a day or two to get over the fact that he won but SOTUS gave the election to Bush? How about Kerry?

    Why do you think Hillary should get this "day?" I have never heard this whine about any other candidate in history! Gore actually won the popular vote of the whole freaking country, and not by "Hillary math" -- he actually won, but the Supremes accepted a fraudulent vote from Florida and didn't want to take the time to validate it, and so it was over.

    Why should she get an extra day or two? Because she is a girl? You djiamo, Hillary, and your ilk have set the clock back for feminism for at least a decade with this victimhood crap. I am sick of it.

    What is your point? That certain people need to get extra time to admit they lost when they lost? What certain people -- women? As a 60 year-old woman, I demand that you just stop this shit!

    Hillary has to stand up and take it like a woman! She is doing our cause no favors! The only bright side to this, is that I can rest easy that she will not get the VP slot! (How could he run WITH someone who is still running AGAINST him?)

    Speaking as a supporter of Hillary's, after hearing her speech it inspired me to think about what it is that Hilalry wants and what I want. I was not revved up to take back the nomination and got to Denver. I was EXTREMELY disappointed at all the hatred and venom spewed at HIllary after a speech that talked about core democratic values. Her speech affirmed my stance on getting behind the democratic nominee. How does a Hillary supporter after that speech praising her progressive libveral policies say you know what? McCain looks like the best option!

    Now the more you say Hillary's a Republican and despicable and keep smearing her, the more Hilalry supporters will not focus on their policy similarities and instead focus on how she was treated in this campaign personally. Great if all you care about is nyah nyah nyah my candidate won. Not so great if you want to bring th eparty together to November. Barack si going to need every vote he can get and I don't think any of us should be saying to folks if you are not 100% happy, BOUNCE.

    It is not obvious to me that VP is a really great position from which to run for the presidency. It was no great help to Nixon, or Mondale, or Gore. It worked well for the first Bush, that seems more like the exception than the rule. If Clinton wants another shot at the presidency, it is not at all clear to me that her odds would be improved any if she were to run as Vice President Clinton instead of as Senator Clinton.

    "Speaking as a supporter of Hillary's, after hearing her speech it inspired me to think about what it is that Hilalry wants and what I want."

    UNBELIEVABLE! This is the essence of the whole brouhaha. When are you going to understand that this is about the American people, a point Obama repeats often, and not Hillary? OH! And not YOU!

    Honestly, she has an ego the size of Montana.

    Did you teach YOUR kids that when they lose they should stomp their feet and ask rhetorically, "Who should really be the winner?" and deny that the winner, um.......won?

    Hillary needs time. She is a WOMAN, after all! Thanks for setting us back a couple of decades!

    I'm not going to respond to you any more; you are just a troll and it is a waste of my time. YOu never respond specifically, you just repeat yourself. I did put something at the end of this thread, but you are so unworthy of response because you are deaf and blind to actual comments.

    You make me wish we had an "ignore" feature, but I am starting my own for you. Enjoy your vote in November...I will enjoy mine!

    I will be a part of our country's future and you will be a part of all the victims who love being victims...you will have no responsibility for the good that Obama will accomplish, but I have no doubt that you will claim it as your own.

    PS -- Who would YOU like to be VEEP?

    Dear mos,

    Please note: she is voting for Barack.

    What good does it do to argue about bygones?

    It's over. If Clinton supporters want to come on board, I don't demand that they denounce any old friends or reject any old beliefs. As long as they're on board, I'm happy.

    Teddy Kennedy lost and did not concede - took it to the convention. Jesse Jackson lost and did not concede. Was there all this outrage about them not conceding the nanosecond their opposition got the nomination. NO Why are the standards different for Hillary? Gore did not concede as soon as the Supreme court decision came down - he took a day so check your history.

    I am not saying she should get extra time because she's a girl. I am saying all this focus on bow out gracefully and with dignity is bullshit and she's been subjected to it at a much larger degree than any male candidate perhaps because hse's a woman and she should be ladylike, stand aside and sweep the dust in front of him as he proceeds to the nomination? Politics is hard business and not for the faint of heart. She's fought a hard campaign and she is entitled to take time to have her concerns brought to the table.

    I'm saying Hillary is so concerned with herself that she's using GOP tactics and has turned, wittingly or not, into a talking point for McCain against Obama.

    "How does a Hillary supporter after that speech praising her progressive libveral policies say you know what? McCain looks like the best option!"

    That's what some Clinton supporters are saying, actually.

    "Great if all you care about is nyah nyah nyah my candidate won. Not so great if you want to bring th eparty together to November."

    I don't think there are many people AT ALL that are saying Obama doesn't need those votes, or that "if you are not 100% happy, BOUNCE." It's many Clinton people who are saying that's what they want to do in fact.

    I don't think either one of them came to the stage after an introduction as "The Next President of the United States".

    Did you listen to the speech? This is what she wanted and what I want. It's what we all should want as democrats? How do you not see this brings us closer together rather than being egomaniacal???

    You know, I understand that a lot of people are asking, what does Hillary want? What does she want? Well, I want what I have always fought for in this whole campaign. I want to end the war in Iraq. I want to turn this economy around. I want health care for every American. I want every child to live up to his or her God-given potential, and I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard and no longer to be invisible.

    You see, I have an old-fashioned notion, one that's been the basis of my candidacy and my life's work, that public service is about helping people solve their problems and live their own dreams. This nation has given me every opportunity, and that's what I want for every single American.

    That’s why I want universal health care. It is wrong that Americans pay 50% more for health care than the people of any other wealthy nation, with costs doubling this decade and nearly 50 million people without any health insurance at all. It is wrong for parents to have to choose between care for themselves or their children, to be stuck in dead-end jobs just to keep their insurance or to give up working altogether so their kids will qualify for Medicaid. I have been working on this issue not just for the past 16 months, but for 16 years. And it is a fight I will continue until every single American has health insurance. No exceptions and no excuses.

    I want an economy that works for all families. That’s why I have been fighting to create millions of new jobs in clean energy and rebuilding our infrastructure, jobs to come to all of our states and urban and rural areas and suburban communities and small towns. That’s why I sounded the alarm on the home mortgage crisis well over a year ago, because these are the issues that will determine whether we will once again grow together as a nation or continue to grow apart. And I want to restore America’s leadership in the world. I want us to be led once again by the power of our values, to have a foreign policy that is both strong and smart, to join with our allies and confront our shared challenges from poverty and genocide to global terrorism and global warming.

    These are the issues that brought me into this race. They are the life blood of my campaign, and they have been and will continue to be the causes of my life. And your spirit has inspired me every day in this race.

    As I follow the conversation, dijamo is planning to vote for Barack. She says that Hillary's speech inspired her to take that leap.

    Great. Good news. So what exactly do we have to be unhappy about?

    Instead of beating up on dijamo, we ought to try to convince her to work on her sister, who isn't quite there yet.

    While I can't prove it, I sincerely doubt that Jesse Jackson or Ted Kennedy didn't introduce themselves as the next president of the US even after they had lost. That's what every candidate comes out to. Even Kucinich uses that line and trust me he had less chance of the nomination than Hillary has now!

    Teddy Kennedy lost and did not concede - took it to the convention.

    Yes, he didn't until he got some time at the 1980 Convention and gave what is considered the best speech of his life (personally I think that was at the funeral of RFK, but whatever).

    However, let's tell the rest of the story: Kennedy didn't help Carter campaign afterwards (despite promises to do so) and while the Iran situation is ultimately what did Carter in, Kennedy didn't help.

    I wouldn't go using him as an example for your thesis, unless you are keen on having McCain elected.

    You sure take a long time to basically say a whole lot of nothing.

    Unless you have some sort of a comprehension problem - which is doubtful - you know perfectly well that in last night's speech Hillary was NOT talking about what she wanted for the country - she was talking about what SHE wanted for herself! And if anyone wasn't sure you only needed to ask her!

    "What does Hillary want?" Pulleez!

    As my father would have said, "She's got class she ain't even used yet!"

    "As for the "take the party hostage" dramatics i guess that's fitting since Hillary got her votes in Michigan and Florida hijacked"

    And the people who stayed home because Hillary and the rest who had agreed the votes wouldn't count only to have Hillary turn around and change the game for her own ego also had their votes hijacked. Hillary DOESN'T CARE about any of those people, just the vote for her. What about all those people? All the people who voted uncommitted only to have her do her best to have all those stay uncounted while she got all of hers? Be smart.

    I respect your independence.

    But are you closer to agreeing with McCain or with Obama on the war in Iraq? Or how about a woman's right to control her own reproductive life?

    If you supported Hillary, I think you're probably closer to agreeing with Obama on those issues, and I hope you'll be with us in the fall.

    ummm errr I am a NYer so if I write in for Hilalry and don't actively vote for Obama it's going to have zero impact on the election. I have the privilege of voting my conscience versus knowing my non-vote for him might equal President McCain. Will Barack convince me to actively vote for him? Maybe. Universal healthcare, liberal up that foreclosure prevention policy etc and I could concieveable vote for him. But I've found in the general election candidates move to the center which is why Obama's moving towards the center on that meeting with dictators stuff. I don't think there's a chance in hell his economic policies will become more liberal unless HRC actively uses her "leverage" to push for it as much as she can.

    All that said, I will encourage the Hillary supporters in close blue states, red states, purple sates, magenta states, crimson states to get a post it called NOT MCCAIN if that's what they need for Obama and put it over his name and vote for him. I encourage them not to stay home and get out and vote for our congressional delegation - we're going to need to increase our majority.

    Umm those words after the first paragraph are from Hillary's speech. That's what SHE said she wanted. Does that seem selfish to you?

    Even on healthcare, Obama's position is much closer to Hillary's than McCain's is.

    Makes me happy. Sure, if you live in NY, write in whoever you like for President. The big picture is what matters.

    But everything I've seen of the man suggests that Obama's instincts are further left than some of his official (economic) positions might suggest. When he gets into office, I bet he'll aim for a healthcare bill as universal as he can get out of Congress.

    Dijamo has kicked everyone's ass so many times I tremble whenever her black smiley face comes over the hill. And that's from kicking your ass, not mine. Hate to imagine her pissed at me.

    NOT HILLARY VP should return to being a subservient, back burner role expecially after our Fourth Branch of Government Dick Cheney. I don't Hillary to accept the role even if offered - her talents can be used to better effect elsewhere. I don't want him to pick a woman just because he thinks that'll smooth over the female ruffled feathers. I don't want him to pick a blue dog democrat like Jim Webb.

    I like Joe Biden, although he can be quite assacious at times and is gaffe prone. But he's smart and well informed and would rip McCain apart on undertanding foreign policy and diplomacy. His Iraq stratgey should have been implemented years ago. He can even lend his talents to the new campaign theme song "so Fresh and So Clean" by Oukast.

    But at the end of the day, it's about what Obama wants as the nominee - not Hillary and certainly not you or me.

    Your opinion is respected, but simple common courtesy says when you lose, be gracious in defeat. If you win, acknowledge your opponent, praise them lavishly.

    She didn't do that. Top to bottom, her event was the exemplar in what not to do. From Terry McAuliffe introducing her as the "next" President when Obama had already clinched the nomination, to her not so veiled swipes at Obama, to the clear threat of going to Denver, to the inability of the campaign to control the 300 or 600 who were in the tiny sub-basement gym, not instructing them to be gracious also, to the glum faces of Bill and Chelsea standing on the sidelines.

    Everything she did said "defiance" and also showed she could not be trusted to be the number two. Number two is not number one. Number two does not steal the spotlight from number one.

    So sadly, Hillary miscalculated. She thought this was all about her, when it was all about Barack and the Democratic Party, of which Hillary is a part. But last night should have been about Barack and a very historic achievement for our nation. Instead, it showed the true nature of the Clintons: narcissistic grandstanding, self-centered whining, backstabbing and arm-twisting.

    Overlay last night, with all of the speeches you heard during the Ken Starr years about the scandals. The are nearly identical in tenor and tone, only changing in subject matter.

    That is why people are angry and disappointed in the behavior of Hillary Clinton today. Let us hope that if she concedes on Friday, as is being reported widely this evening, that takes a page from Leticia Baldridge, chief of protocol for Jacqueline Kennedy, and does it with the grace and elegance befitting a former First Lady.

    You're right - it is from her speech. Sorry. I found it so long-winded & boring that I failed to recognize it from last night. That's likely because I was in such a state of shock that she could give a speech that was so utterly and essentially narcissistic in nature. Really, it's a remarkable feat to spin an astounding win for Obama into a monologue about herself. Such talent cannot be easily overlooked!

    I repeat. Last night was all about her. If it had been about anything else - or anyone - she would have made more than passing mention (without admitting he'd passed the magic number) of her opponent and she would have discussed the party & her supporters uniting behind Obama. Oh, and she would have endorsed him. That speech was all about Hillary still selling herself as she parroted her made-up Math, the list of states she won, that more people had voted for her than any other candidate in history, etc. I mean, what the hell was that all about? Come on!

    Let me ask you a question: Just what is it that the die-hard Clinton supporters find so distasteful about Obama? The fact is Obama & Clinton basically agree on policies. Even Clinton has publicly said that - many times.

    So, just what is your problem with the man? If you agree with her policies, by extension you must agree with his and would thus far prefer him over McCain. Or, such would common sense dictate, n'est-ce pas?

    Could it be a personality thing? If so, is that relevant?

    Could it be - (gasp) a race thing?

    I'd really like to know.

    And I'd also like to add that more people voted AGAINST Clinton than any other candidate in history. Think about it.

    Teddy waited until after the convention and didn't campaign in the general election. You are telling me that Hillary doesn't deserve until the end of the week to concede, have her issues heard and move forward? That's what her campaign officially said. I certainly don't think it's fair that she's being treated differently.

    One more comment and I'm out of here. I'm going to try it a couple of different ways, out of sheer frustration.

    Hillary = not the issue.

    Nothing about Hillary is the issue.

    Fighting about Hillary = not the point.

    What Hillary said = a matter of purely academic interest.

    (Issues in this election) (Hillary)
    look, no connection!

    Hillary's campaign is over. Let's talk about things that actually make a difference.

    I really doubt that. I think you're so full of bluster and outrage and SHE MUST CONCEDE NOW that you never even saw the speech or read it. You're just parroting the talking points of others. Which is fine. Do that. Continue to be angry and outraged that she did not immediately concede.

    But I think that you should know as an African American and a woman I was proud to have two candidates with the potential to break barriers for President. But hey whatever - because I'm a Hillary supporter I'm against Obama because of * race * gasp. That's the stupidest shit I've ever heard and I've heard a lot of stupid shit at TPM.

    In terms of personality and character, I choose Hillary. She's smart and well informed and tough yet she genuionely cares and has passion for her goals and vision and the people who are impacted by them. Lawyers who work in public interest for law guardians for women and children don't particularly strike me as selfishly motivated. I admire that Hillary speaks her mind publicly even when it's unpopular. While Barack has his campaign do the dirty work for him and send out memos saying the Clinton's are racist, he himself says no such thing and will only publicly say my campaign would do no such thing. Hillary will say I would have left Trinity Church. She'll say things like I can win the hard working white blue collar vote herself. She doesn't leave the dirty work to others. She's raised an intelligent and thoughtful daughter in the spotlight of the media glare that by all accounts is as normal can be.

    There's many reasons I choose Hillary and I would hope there's many that you chose Barack. I'd reccomend not assuming that just because you don't see everyone's motivations that they don't exist and they are just voting on *gasp* race.

    PSSSST I'll let you in on a little secret. If you want to ignore, then don't come into a post I started. The door is that a way -->

    Please stop following me around now.

    "And Hillary folks were angry because Obama and his campaign would not give Hillary the space to give Hillary and her supporters one night to celebrate her campaign before moving in to the next phase of the election."

    This is not logical. Obama has given Hillary plenty of space -- most of the universe, it seems to me. In what way has Barack prevented Hillary and her supporters from celebrating her campaign?

    Please remember that she was introduced by McCauliffe last night as "the next President of the United States." And you suggest that she wanted ONE NIGHT to celebrate!!!

    I'd like to see Hillary and her supporters go bestow their wondrously brilliant beneficence on some populace other than that of the USA -- how about Antarctica.

    I am so baffled by people's wishes contrary to that sentiment. They sound like they drank too much caffeine or something.

    Winning this fall is my priority, not reordering dijamo's belief system to match mine precisely. Voting for Obama and urging others to do so is all I ask of any Democrat.

    Last poll I saw he was down 49-44.

    Hillary is fake and a liar who is concerned only about her own power. Plus, as she showed in this primary, actually a poor leader and organizer. Politics as usual with her.

    She changed positions as it fit her immediate circumstance. She doesn't *actually* care about people or many issues. See the whole Michigan/Florida thing. When she was talking about how it would be over Feb 5th, she didn't care at all to 'let every vote be heard'. Only when she needed those votes. Not the people, the votes.

    If that's what you want to believe...I don't think so.

    Ever read hillaryis44.org? You are ok with them?

    I don't agree with extremists on either side.

    We agree. There are extremists at hillaryis44. Don't hang out there and never posted there probably because I enjoy dialogue with people who are not just echoing back my own viewpoints.

    There are also extremists at TPM who accuse Hillary of murder or advocating the assassination of Obama. I am not the nutjob Hillary supporter. Hell, I'm not even the Hillary supporter saying Hillary or McCain. The question is which Obama supporter are you? And if you are not in the bottom 20% why do you continue to trash Hillary when the nomination contest is over and her concession is impending. I repeat not helpful in the least.

    Frankly, as long as this isn't a discussion pointing toward "Hillary or else" then I'm fine. I call out how I see her (not as a great person) as I go. Pointing out that "Obama did this or that" and feigning that Hillary didn't take part in similar or worse tactics and all of the talking points she either handed to or got from the GOP is deceitful. That's all.

    Of course, as very few of you probably know, Armchair Guerilla has posted his belated and not highly coveted concession and endorsement of the Senator from Illinois. I tried to refrain from mentioning my erstwhile candidate as I believed the focus should rightfully be on the nominee and not the also ran. Still, I was fairly disgusted with the bloviating asses on CNN last night savaging Hillary for her self-centerdness, blah blah blah. I would not expect her to concede at a rally of her supporters just because he reached the magic number. She will concede and endorse him. I must say, though, the longer she draws this out the more it plays into the nasty stereotypes that have been bandied about here, and even I will begin to question her character.

    Of course, as very few of you probably know, Armchair Guerilla has posted his belated and not highly coveted concession and endorsement of the Senator from Illinois. I tried to refrain from mentioning my erstwhile candidate as I believed the focus should rightfully be on the nominee and not the also ran. Still, I was fairly disgusted with the bloviating asses on CNN last night savaging Hillary for her self-centerdness, blah blah blah. I would not expect her to concede at a rally of her supporters just because he reached the magic number. She will concede and endorse him. I must say, though, the longer she draws this out the more it plays into the nasty stereotypes that have been bandied about here, and even I will begin to question her character.

    Shit (excuse me, Mr. Moderator), my post came up twice and I wasn't even able to create a hyperlink to my own endorsement. Where is Ben Hocking when you need him?


    So you're saying that your viewpoint echo's the hillaryis44 crowd?

    You sir are very ASS-TUTE. Actually I don't know that all hillaryis44 folks are nutjobs. I'd assume that many of the folks at Hillary is 44 are normal minded loyal democrats who have been driven away from sites like TPM by mean old Obama folks. I honestly haven't visited there much. I like to debate and it's easier to do so when you are not talking to someone who agrees with you on your candidate of choice. That said, now's probably a good time to go over and coax out the Hillary voters who are democrats first (and those that are wavering).

    Are you on house arrest. You're been at the computer all day. Are you a paid staffer for Hillary? We need to know.

    I am finishing up a project at work and am STILL HERE. It would have gotten down hours ago had I focused, but I've been online almost all day.


    That Ass-tute comment hurts my feelings.

    I have surfed hillaryis44. Some of the winning comments there include comparisons of Obama to Stalin, with no objections from the crowd.

    From what I have gathered from your posts, you're a few steps above the 44 crowd in terms of intelligence. But my feeling is that you have still reached the wrong conclusion.

    re: he had no constituency

    uh, point of clarification...

    I lived in VA at the time and I know he won at least that state. I believe he won several more. I'd call that something of a constituency

    Sentimental hogwash.

    Virtually everybody in the media agreed that she showed extremely bad character, as has become her character, by not stepping aside, not trying to rally her troops on with a veiled threat to take it to "Denver, Denver..," or not congratulating Senator Obama and giving him his due.

    I wouldn't expect anymore from a Clinton apologist. If Charlie Rangel's great quote today is any indicator, I'm sure Democratic leaders had perhaps more subtle things to tell her when she asked what she should do now.

    "We pledged to support her to the end," Representative Charles B. Rangel, a New York Democrat who has been a patron of Mrs. Clinton since she first ran for the Senate, said in an interview "Our problem is not being able to determine when the hell the end is."-Rep Rangel, NYT and on TPM front page.

    Thank God she's finally heading out the door, and thank God she won't be VP. Hopefully, you come around and join the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. We'd love to have you. Watch John McCain's speech and ask youself if you want that zombie as POTUS.

    Dijamo: Read all your comments. Don't agree with all your comments, but thanks for being willing to come around to Obama. (Pls. work on Minamo....)

    I was angry last night and this morning about her "defiant" speech. But by afternoon I was thinking we are all overreacting and it's a pretty big deal to let go of a campaign you've poured your soul into. And she and Bill (maybe her particularly) must have been really angry about that tacky Vanity Fair article. (Which I thought was unnecessarily negative and gossipy; although the business dealings and financial interests were an important consideration in terms of her race.)

    I also realized today that I only get anti-Hillary Clinton when she's campaigning. I think I just dislike that style of politics. But I was always cheering her on C-Span when she was in the Senate tearing down some Republican windbag.

    I say at this point kudos to Hillary Clinton for doing the right thing. Enough with the negativity about Clinton. She's done the right thing now and we should back off. Nothing worse than smug (and gloating) winners. And I'm out of here before I get blasted.

    Christ. Unlike yourself I've actually been working all day and didn't get a chance to notice your asisnine bloviating until now. Hopefully, now that your candidate is gone we can look forward to the same from you. Oh, and don't forget, you don't need to report to work after Friday and your last paycheck is June 14th. You might want to email that resume off to the McCain campaign - it looks like they could use someone that can actually put a sentence together. (And like your posts here, it doesn't have to make any sense.)

    Oh, just shut up.

    Sorry-now that your candidate has won, your blogging subsidy is being cut off. They only need bloggers now who can spell and compose something other than hate-filled spews. They especially do not need bloggers who encourage the former competition to join the current competition.

    Yeah - in '88 Jesse did take 30% of the Dem primary vote and I thing 13 or 14 states including Michigan. Not bad at all.

    I will say this for Obama - his campaign knows how to play harball and has done it to stunning effect. They've demonstrated the Rovian skill to smear and slur and attack without appearing to get their hands dirty (who me sending out memos about the Clinton's being a racist? ...

    Pot, kettle on line 1!

    The one distinction I'll grant here is that the media called out Clinton as slinging mud, so her hands did get dirty. Obama may have found some of Ronald Reagan's teflon.

    The way she has been treated by the Obama campaign and the media has been appalling.

    I agree with the latter half of that statement, but not the former. It's politics, and we're all far more sensitive to the perceived slurs aimed at our candidate than to those aimed at the opposition. To my observation, Hillary took far more undeserved abuse from the media than she did from Obama's campaign.

    The media coverage played up sexist stereotypes in ways they never would have considered with racist ones: harping on the "cackle", her cleavage, the pundit on CNN saying some people really are bitches, the "pimping out" line, and Chris Matthews's denigration that she only won her senate seat because Bill cheated on her are just a few examples where the media demeaned and attacked her simply because she was a woman. And certainly all of that was appalling.

    To my eyes, Obama never tried to make Hillary's sex an issue, while Clinton did try to make Obama's race an issue.

    IMO (biased though it is), "... as far as I know..." was more scurrilous than "... you're likable enough...", but I could see where a Hillary supporter might view things differently. I've drunk the kool-aid, but I can't see anything Obama said that was comparable to Clinton implying he hadn't crossed the Commander-in-chief threshold, but McCain "certainly" had. But I could have missed something.

    If you were honestly appalled by Obama's treatment of Clinton in this campaign, take a look again at Clinton's campaign from a pro-Obama perspective. There's plenty of material one could be appalled at.

    I will note (and I sent an e-mail to Josh Marshall about this at the time) that I thought Bill was unfairly denounced for his Jesse Jackson comparison. His comments and delivery were nothing but complimentary to both men, yet by mentioning both he conflates the two in listeners' minds. To me, that wasn't dirty - Bill knew exactly where the line was, and while he came close to it, he never crossed it, IMO. He effectively made his point without actually doing anything wrong, and it was vintage Bill (and I mean that as a compliment).

    I thought Bob Johnson, Bill Shaheen, and Geraldine Ferraro all crossed the line, however, so the backlash Hillary's camp took for that was, to me, deserved.

    As the saying goes, politics ain't beanbag. Undoubtedly the Obama camp played hard - but so did Hillary. Which side you think was dirtier is most likely predicted by which candidate you prefer. Obviously the opposition must have been worse.

    From skimming the other comments, though, I do see (and very much appreciate) that you're backing Obama in the fall. As I've said elsewhere, we don't need to convince Hillary supporters that Obama is actually a stronger candidate than she is, but we do need to convince them that he's stronger than McCain.

    GFYWAIR, m'tard

    Everyone in the media denouncing Hillary? Yup that petty much happens no matter what she does if you haven't noticed. Of course I will join the nominee, but that doesn't mean denounicing my candidate of choice. I still heart Hillary and I deserve one sentimental hogwash post to pour a little Crown Royal out for the candidate that is no longer with us. And hopefully explain to Obama supporters that now is a critical time where people will be either driven away from the party or brought closer together. Reading the comments at TPM recently that continue to be all about Hillary sucks does not add to the unity. Some respect for Senator Clinton might be too much for many of you I understand, but some respect for her supporters and some appreciation of their viewpoints is what we need to try to bring the party together.

    Actually, I remember Jesse Jackson's introduction by his son as "The Next President of the United States." I remember wondering what the hell that was about, and since then I have seen it repeated so many times.

    It is pretty ridiculous to make such an introduction a trite phrase, but that is what it has become!

    I live in Oregon and am surrounded by Obama supporters. I know of one Clinton supporter. Of course, people have been accosted on the street for wearing a Clinton pin and yelled and screamed at.

    I was discussing the election last night with someone blithely assuming I was in the Obama camp. It was actually hard to stop the flow of vitueration long enough to say, just so you know....

    You first.


    HAHA maybe the gov't can take over and become the grammar police too.

    Latest Comments