Come on now...you didn't think she was just going to give in without a few last jabs did ya? These are the Clintons we are talking about.

Jesus Christ this is like a Three Faces of Eve or Sybil speech. If that was supposed to be unity...it was very unconvincing.

I was truly hoping for some sort of show of class........I'm waiting.........

Perish the thought, but if McCain won this thing in Novemeber, it boggles my mind that Clinton couldn't see herself being blamed for it all.

All the potshots she took at Obama, all the things she did to make him look bad has actually undermined the entire party. If that translates to a loss for the Dems on election day, I hope she's happy with her never-say-die-it-was-MY-nomination-how-dare-anyone-try-to-take-what's-rightfully-MINE attitude.

The only one to blame if Obama doesn't win this election is Obama himself. Not Hillary or her husband or her supporters or anyone else.

Ultimately true. But for many, its simply not that black and white.

That trivializes the impact of the Clintons and their cronies. If HRC doesn't make steps towards party unity then several of her supporters are going to stay home and not vote, or worse, vote for McCain. She is as much a factor in this fall's election at this point as Ross Perot was for Bill's first victory.

Yes, Obama is not a shoo in at this point and he has a lot of work to do to help close some of the demographic gaps but she and many of their cronies have to work towards party unity without selfish demands. Last night, she didn't show any signs of that. Basically she made sure she or Bill were not going to lose the spotlight, pretty selfish in my mind.

I'd hate to have an Obama campaign or presidency overshadowed by the Clintons (kinda might make a good Showtime series except Bill ain't as cute as Jonathan Rhys-Meyers).

Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall in the room when Obama and Clinton have a talk? I hear this may happen as soon as today or tomorrow at the latest...I don't think Barack needs to rush any V.P. selection right away as McBush has not yet...but it shall be interesting to see what goes on between both Democratic camps over the course of the day couple or few days.....last night while watching Barack speak in St. Paul, the eyes got moist several times....its been a blast being a part of this campaign history, and I look forward to the next big battle ahead.......

The only way to blame Hillary for Obama's loss is if she ran for President as an Independant. That is probably what she is holding over the DNC for the VP Nom.

Hillary isn't running as an independent. Besides already being in debt to her campaign as it is, she won't be able to raise money. She won't be able to get on all the states' ballots. She has no chance of winning as an independent. It would be suicide to any future she has as a Democrat, whether in the Senate or a Cabinet post or a judgeship.

Only if you believe in this vast conspiracy where the Clintons are solely out for themselves and are willing to destroy everything to get what they want is this scenario even possible.

All the hysterics over what Hillary is doing -- it's just laughable. Wait until McCain and the GOP really ramps up their campaign. You ain't seen nothing yet.

I don't believe one has to believe in a conspiracy to think that the Clinton's are just out for themselves and will do anything to further themselves. We've just seen that she's capable of anything, and trust me, if she had the money she'd be running as a 3rd party candidate.

And to think I supported them......

If Obama showed any signs of being "capable of anything" I'd feel better about his chances in November.

I still keeping this is Dukakis 2008, though.

What are your data points for this kind of statement? It's so easy to say things like this without even understanding the candidate. Unfortunately it has little data to back the statement. He has provided more direction within his campaign and in his policies than Sen. McCain can even think about.

All Sen. McCain can claim is that he's a POW war veteran and a moderate campaign finance reform law that he sometimes has a hard time adhering to (check some of the data on Cindy McCain before you say anything else). Sen. McCain has even admitted he doesn't understand economics. His foreign policy is Bush redux and we know where that has gotten us. Find differences between him and Bush on foreign policy.


There are so many other ways she can sabotage this election by not releasing her delegates and keeping the fury going just to get her way in the party. In other words, she is treating her supporters as her army to hold the DNC and this election hostage.

You hit the nail on the head there! If she had the cash, she'd still be running. And her entire reason for not conceding yesterday was so that she could beg and plead for bucks at her web site. In her speech last night, she used the guise of, "Go to my web site and please tell me your stories and let me know about you." And when people went to her web site this morning, alongside the "tell me your story" box was her same tired "click here to contribute now to my campaign" link. Knowing that the vast bulk of her supporters are old or uneducated, it's pretty disgusting to think that a lot of people were probably misguided enough to give her money today. Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker would be proud.

Co-sign!!!!

I know people get all up in arms on this board whenever race is raised as an issue and good for them. I get pissed off when I see double standards and higher hurdles for the candidate who happens to be African American. At least recognize that Sen. Obama has more qualifications for most jobs than 99.9999% of the country. For one to become the head of the Harvard Law Review one has to be one of the top minds in the country. He's been an accomplished attorney and an effective legislator. When one has the ability to think they are able to solve problems and be a leader using intellect. I know it's been some time since we had a leader like that.

I'd say he's a step above an AWOL drug addict who's presided over several failed businesses and will say one thing and do the opposite.

It seems the choice is between a man who is educated, committed to uniting us as a country, wants us to gain our strength back internationally by being respected by the world community; and a man who has no "real world" experience, is a war monger (and by all accounts has a short fuse..just what we need a hot head with lots of power) and has changed most of his "core" beliefs in order to secure the nomination.

I think the choice is pretty clear if the goal is a better country. If it's to be "right", both politically and ego maniacally, the McCain should be your guy.

People love to whine about seeing the same old faces in Washington, the same old entrenched interests, the same old families, etc. Then when a new guy comes on the scene, they whine that he doesn't have enough experience. "Experience" doesn't necessarily have to be measured in years of elected public service. IMHO.

This is way over the top, but remember that Lincoln had only served one term in the House of Representatives in the 1840s before being elected president.


Joe, it's not like anyone will be shocked when the GOP noise machine openly questions Obama's patriotism, calls him a terrorist, goes after his wife, Ayers, Wright, etc. You don't need to patronize us about it.

It looks like she will be conceding on Friday at a fundraiser (presumably to help retire the $20M debt she has). What was bad was how her campaign staff continues to handle this. One of her senior advisers was asked about why not end gracefully last night. She pointed to Ted Kennedy and Gary Hart who took it to the convention. After being told those were negative examples to cite, she stated Hillary wasn't going to do. Then why bring them up?!!

Her campaign has misstepped so badly. I hope this puts an end to these old guard campaigners and starts a new era of change in campaign tactics. If anything, her own campaign beat her. They just can't seem to see it that way.

Good points, all! I can't stand the argument used by the Republicans that Obama's too inexperienced to be president. McCain and company seem to think that the only way anyone gains experience is by being a senator, or by being a part of the Washington political machine for decades. In my mind, Obama's short time in Washington is a huge plus! After a quarter century in D.C. politics, just look at McCain. He is all over the map with his pandering and changing of positions to suit a political purpose.

The funniest thing about McCain's speech last night is how he actually said at one point that Obama represents the politics of the past! That's downright hilarious to hear a 72-year-old man speak that way.

I fail to see the humor at all. Obama reached the delegate count required to be the presumptive nominee (and yes I know the Super's don't "officially" count until the convention), but Hillary barely acknowledged he was to be congratulated for being "in this race", much less that he beat her ass.

She showed absolutely no grace when there was room for her to have it both ways and "stay in it", but give Obama his props and at least a hint at unity. Instead, she tells lies about the popular vote (irrelevant and disingenuous) and is just a shit in general about EVERYTHING through the entire self-serving speech. It was pathetic and far from humorous. She's freaking Norma Desmond and last night was bad timing for her demanded close-up.

She had her chance and ran a horrible campaign. It's just about convinced me that her Presidency would have been rampant with lies, scandal and Rovenian tactics that will only hurt public discourse and do to the Democratic Party what Bush did to the GOP.

Obama may not win, but he's a welcome breath of fresh air. He's a brilliant man and smart/savvy enough to put together an incredible administration. I think he would be great for our country. I haven't been this excited about a candidate since Bill Clinton.

Apparently I do, except it's not patronizing to remind people that this is POLITICS. It's not this genteel polite society ball where everyone is nice and respectable. It's down and dirty and requires smart thinking and strategy and a deep desire to do what it takes to win, and then to get things done once you win, even if it's something you'd rather not do normally.

Everyone seems to think Obama ran a masterful, brilliant campaign while Clinton's campaign was inept, mismanaged, offensive, etc. Yet Obama barely -- BARELY -- won enough delegates. Even after it became inevitable -- let's say, after Pennsylvania -- that he was going to get enough delegates there still wasn't this wave of enthusiasm allowing him to sweep the remaining states.

The Clinton-bashing is beyond tiresome. Get over it. You got your wish. She lost. Worry about Obama instead, because even with everything in this country the way it is, he's still going to have to be brilliant to win in November and get things done after that.

Nice little rant there. Again, you don't have to patronize people who are justifiably happy about their guy winning by reminding them of things they already know.

Obama didn't "barely" win enough delegates. We have known that he would be the nominee since Super Tuesday, and possibly before that--the path was laid out quite clearly. Their campaign decided to go for a bunch of smaller wins in marginal states instead of a big knockout punch--just the kind of "smart thinking and strategy" I would have thought you'd appreciate. Even after writing off the entire lower middle class as bitter whities clinging to guns and religion, and even after Reverend Wright and Ayers and his wife talking about not being proud of America, Clinton couldn't narrow his delegate lead. Those bad things she was waiting for happened and it wasn't enough. As for the Clinton-bashing...I agree that some people have been over the top, but that non-concession concession speech didn't do her any favors. The vitriol coming from sites like Larry Johnson, TalkLeft, Taylor Marsh, and Hillaryis44 isn't exactly seemly, either. She had a chance to do the classy (and politically advantageous) thing by gracefully exiting, but decided not to. People will respond to that.

Charlie Rangel:
"We pledged to support her to the end. Our problem is not being able to determine when the hell the end is."

Maybe Obama will be Dukakis, and we all hope he runs a great campaign. We know that he will have to do just that to beat McCain. But your gal lost, and as you say--"get over it."



EDIT

This post is a little harsh...will probably look at this as salt in the wounds in a few days. Sorry about that

Obama was a huge underdog. It was Hillary's to lose. That's what she did. I'm seeing a brilliant campaign and an inept one that couldn't even pay it's bills, much less see beyond Super Tuesday.

THANK YOU!!!! Whenever I hear Pat Buchanan or anyone else criticize Obama for not putting Hillary away at the end, and her continuing to win contests I always remember that it is SHE who was deemed the inevitable candidate last summer. It is SHE who has the Clinton brand name. It is SHE who had the connections. Whether he won by 1 delegate or the 200+ he did, it is still a political upset of gargantuan proportion. Clinton had very much a head start, but relied on old chronies and a message that didn't develop until it was too late. Its a change election and she mistakenly decided to run as the establishment, experienced candidate. Its a rebuttal of the Clinton/Bush dynasty we have dealt with for the past 20+ years and Hillary's team needs to look at the critical mistakes they made that allowed Obama to sweep in and win. She definitely has this sense of entitlement and gives off the aura that it was stolen from her. What a crock of BS. She's a very intelligent woman but this campaign exposed some things about Hillary that I'd rather not have to deal with. What Obama did was INCREDIBLE. A man named Barack Hussein Obama trumps Hillary Clinton through a well oiled grass roots machine. So yeah he won, "BARELY". But the bigger question to me is...How did MISS HILLARY allow him to win at all?

Which only really proves how amazing his campaign strategy and leadership have been - and that is a big reason why I am not that worried about his ability to handle the general election. As numerous pundits were noting last night, a year ago Senator Clinton was ahead in every poll, had amassed a seemingly insurmountable campaign fund, and was supported by a large chunk of the Democratic leadership (and those who didn't outwardly support her certainly would not have been upset at her nomination). Tim Russert pointed out that on one magazine cover with the likely Democratic contenders who could potentially beat Clinton, Obama wasn't even included. This may have been one of the greatest upsets in political history. He raised far more $$ than Clinton did, spent it more wisely, devised a long-shot but ultimately winning strategy (had he lost Iowa, it would have been all over), created an entirely new kind of fund-raising system, utilized the new media of the Internet and e-mail like no other candidate and expanded the Democratic party with young and energetic voters. That seems pretty amazing to me.

Now I get that a lot of people (and I think you may be one of them, Joe) are kind of weirded-out at the cult-like atmosphere that some supporters tend to create, but they are a small number of the overall total within the campaign. I know that I'm a realist, and clearly see Obama's weaknesses as a candidate (he's going to lose all of Appalachia, for instance), and he is far from perfect. But he managed to weather some blistering right-wing attacks on his personal life without resorting to tit-for-tat tactics (and without trying to ignore them, as Kerry did in 2004). He called bullshit for what it was, and I find that refreshing in the political landscape.

He has an enormous amount of work to do, but as a Republican I was chatting with a the airport bar tonight said "If he gets the turnout the Dems got in the primary, he wins." Even this guy admitted that McCain only wins if Obama screws up royally. Unlike '88, the public polling on nearly every issue is anti-GOP. Even with the nastiness of the latter primaries, the Dems still saw record turnout after record turnout - the country is hungry for change. Quite frankly, I couldn't imagine a better time to nominate someone who challenges the political status quo, not to mention our social conventions. It's a risk, but when would be a better time to take it?

Yep, and he was one of the greatest presidents we've ever had, a man who followed one of the worst US presidents of all time (James Buchanan, who refused to do anything when South Carolina and other states seceded), who was strongly disliked by voters in half of the US, who had to deal with a party in development and transition, who had to prosecute, win and end the worst domestic war in US history, and who took a number of visionary steps for which he will always be remembered, including issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. So much for "experience."

No one can say for sure what kind of president Obama will be, but after this current one, he can't help but be better. And he will have a Democratic Congress to work with, so it's very likely that he could pass important legislation, especially if he makes sure he appeals to the American people, as he has done so far, for support.

As charming as he is, he is going to have a rough road to victory. So my enthusiasm is tempered with caution. But I think he can do it, especially if he continues to make efforts to bring Hillary's supporters on board.

Saw the first results this morning of a CBS NYTimes poll, and head to head Obama has a 6% lead over McCain for the Presidential race. I know its early, but he did get the "bounce" which has been mentioned...its going to be really interesting to see if he accepts McBushs' call for his attendance at Town Hall Meetings across the country versus say debates.....

I wouldn't really call her my gal. I did end up voting for her, but I was undecided until I went into the booth -- literally -- on primary day here. My concern is, as I've stated before, beating the Republicans in November and beyond, not only winning the upcoming elections but getting things done next year. The Democrats took over Congress but have often been out-manuevered by the administration and the Republican minority. Some of that is because the Democrats aren't good enough at coming together within their own party. To get things done they'll need a much larger majority in both houses as well as beating McCain. Theoretically, it should be easy, but theoretically the Eagles would've won a couple of Super Bowls this decade.



It's okay. Ultimately, we're all pretty much on the same side.