We're voters.  They're politicians.

I thought it was very heavy on appreciation of Clinton.

I do think she was convincing that at this moment, advancing the goals she fights for means voting for the Democratic ticket in November-- no matter how much bitterness built up, no matter how much sexism and misogyny to keep combatting.  Voting for the Republicans does not advance the cause of women's rights, civil rights, human rights, saving our economy and our environment, period.  

The Dumpling Dems are done or they'll give up before the race is over -- but not before the machine collects whatever's left over from paying for all the txt msging and astro-trolling.

Do you think candidates usually write others' endorsements of themselves?  

And what concerns me re: Americans being stupid? Their inability to spell and argue without trying to scream the other side into compliance.

How many people do you think you are going to convince with that rant of yours?

Look closely at the text of Senator Clinton's speech. Her "yes, we can" was obvious but no less moving for being so: she and her supporters, Senator Obama and his supporters, we all are the ones we've been waiting for.

But more subtly, and even more compellingly, she referred to "writing the next great chapter in American history" --- a pure, and stirring, motif of Senator Obama's. And she laid out the text of that chapter concretely in her platform of peace abroad, and economic and social equity at home --- her own different, though still compelling motifs.  

Hence she wove her vision into Senator Obama's, and brilliantly. They complement each other far better than I had anticipated.

I've been pushing back against the Unity ticket idea, partly because I feared a thematic clash. I now see that was unwarranted. Here's a case for keeping her off the ticket on unity grounds: She has enough of a profile, and enough of a draw, that she could effectively be a co-vice presidential candidate alongside a Webb, Kaine, Clark, Strickland, Salazar (my darkhorse), or whoever --- playing exactly the same role of surrogacy as the VP candidate in terms of holding rallies, giving speeches, campaigning relentlessly all over the country, doing rapid, devastating response to Republican gambits, the only difference being not doing the debates.

Meanwhile, the official VP candidate could be chosen to do outreach to a constituency Senator Clinton isn't ideally suited for, or lock down a particularly important state, etc. The thought is that a) no other figure could pull something like that off (i.e. doing whatever good a VP candidate can do for a ticket); b) contrary to my worries, she amplifies and augments Senator Obama's message; c) making, say, Webb the official VP candidate instantly raises him to a national status so that his ability to boost Obama's support among vets, nat'l security voters, blue collar whites is maximized; d) whereas that wouldn't work in reverse: if Clinton were the VP candidate, Webb would be too poorly known to be of significant help; e) it would allow her to retain her senate seat, which is much better for her (and the country) than putting her in the naval observatory for (hopefully) 8 years.