home

Obama's Response To Clinton Endorsement

Obviously, I am thrilled and honored to have Senator Clinton's support. But more than that, I honor her today for the valiant and historic campaign she has run. She shattered barriers on behalf of my daughters and women everywhere, who now know that there are no limits to their dreams. And she inspired millions with her strength, courage and unyielding commitment to the cause of working Americans. Our party and our country are stronger because of the work she has done throughout her life, and I'm a better candidate for having had the privilege of competing with her in this campaign. No one knows better than Senator Clinton how desperately America and the American people need change, and I know she will continue to be in the forefront of that battle this fall and for years to come.

A transcript of Hillary Clinton's speech.

By Big Tent Democrat

< My Thoughts on Hillary's Speech | Saturday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    He should have watched her speech (5.00 / 14) (#1)
    by masslib on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:04:13 PM EST
    instead of golfing.  That would have been a genuine sign of respect.

    I understand he watched it on a computer (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:06:31 PM EST
    Personally, I am confident he watched it closely.

    It was an important moment for his campaign.

    Parent

    They have computers on golf courses now?? (5.00 / 9) (#16)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:21:58 PM EST
    The story I read said
    It is unclear whether Sen. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, saw the speech live. He was seen shortly before the speech leaving his home in Chicago with golf clubs.
    So, unless he took one with him, or they have one at the golf course, with broadband, I am not convinced he saw it. And it would be just his style to show that sort of disrespect. After all, he is the presumptive nominee, no need for him to even pretend to be polite. Not that he is that good at pretending. Feh.

    Parent
    What they have at golf courses (none / 0) (#67)
    by independent voter on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:52:57 PM EST
    are clubs or lounges, often referred to as the 19th hole, and yes, they have TVs there WITH CABLE!

    Parent
    let me guess...an obama supporter (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:11:17 PM EST
    Psst, that's just silly. (2.33 / 3) (#155)
    by Forkbeard on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:29:14 PM EST
    I mean, come on, not everything Obama does is underhanded.

    Parent
    Nope, BO wasn't ready on Day One (5.00 / 10) (#192)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:58:17 PM EST
    of this next phase of the campaign.  He ought to have been ready to reach out to 18 million Clinton supporters by -- what was it? -- oh, yes, giving us respect, hearing our voices, seeing us. . . .

    But nope, he disrespected Clinton and us, he wasn't listening, and we were as invisible to him  as was the woman he said would inspire his daughters.

    When?  Why not start inspiring them today?  So those were "just words," and so are these words scripted for him today by some staffer assigned to actually watch Clinton.  Obama could have watched it with them, since he said he wanted time with them this weekend, but he was golfing.

    He wasn't ready on Day One, BTD.  And there never are do-overs for Day One, and no days afterward ever matter as much again.

    Parent

    It doesn't exactly seem that he watched it, yeah (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:07:46 PM EST
    I assume they had this tidy paragraph ready to go yesterday.  

    I'm not impressed.  But he's not the story today anyway.

    Parent

    Yeh, but he could have begun (5.00 / 5) (#195)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:59:25 PM EST
    to craft a new "narrative," blah blah blah.  But he didn't.

    Parent
    Wonder how the media would have reacted (5.00 / 12) (#6)
    by kempis on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:10:39 PM EST
    if the roles were reversed and Hillary went golfing when Obama gave his concession speech--whether she paused to watch it on her laptop on the course or not.

    Just an interesting thing to consider.

    Parent

    It would be the howl heard round the world! (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:12:03 PM EST
    It's that kind of importance he is giving to her (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Clinton2012 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:11:28 PM EST
    that is more important that his "Just Words" on what BTD quoted.

    Parent
    I'm not bothered by (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by standingup on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:20:09 PM EST
    him taking some time to golf.  Everyone deserves a little down time to relax and the long campaign schedule has not allowed for that to happen.  

    I would have been more troubled had he insisted (as some rumors suggested) to be there at her speech.  I think it might have been his way of letting this be her day without him being out somewhere for the stupid media to interrupt for coverage of him.  

    Parent

    time off sure, BUT (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by dotcommodity on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:58:25 PM EST
    he should have arranged a photo op of him with his feet up with friends and family cheering Hillary's speech on c-span!

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 16) (#22)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:25:25 PM EST
    "Great speech.

    Now watch this drive!"


    Parent

    golfing was a sign of respect (none / 0) (#50)
    by marqpdx on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:44:28 PM EST
    Rather than being at the speech, rather than hustling for votes, rather than speaking with some other group, he took himself out of the loop for the day, caught up on a little rest and let Hillary have the national stage to herself.

    Parent
    GWB would not agree about golfing... (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:26:09 PM EST
    ...being a sign of respect. LOL.

    Parent
    Golfing was a sign of something (5.00 / 5) (#216)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:18:30 PM EST
    but anyone who thinks it was respectful of him doesn't want to hear what it really signified -- at least to those voters whom he needs to reach.

    Parent
    Her shattering barriers (5.00 / 10) (#7)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:11:00 PM EST
    Was a reason given by Obama why she should not be president.

    We're voters.  They're politicians.

    Obama's "kind words" now fall flat.


    You ain't lying Edgar...maybe obama (5.00 / 6) (#136)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:22:38 PM EST
    thought we would become magically stupid after Hillary was pushed out.  BTW, how does one become the presumptive nominee if he doesn't have enough
    "pledged" delegates?

    Parent
    That was never said or implied (3.00 / 2) (#64)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:50:37 PM EST
    Both these candidates have done a great job at the end of this campaign to come together.  A campaign is like a road trip across the country with friends.  Befor the trip everyone has to make a promise that whatever is said during the trip, when it is over, everyone will be friends again (personal experience :))

    Parent
    Yes it was (5.00 / 18) (#81)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:01:23 PM EST
    He said the battles she fought in the 90s had polarized her and thus she would not be able to unite the country the way he could.

    He specifically turned the barriers she broke through in the 90s, specifically being a First Lady who contributed, in no small way, to the running of the White House.

    She did not sit idly by.  She had successes and she had failures, and all the while she was attacked by people for not taking her place, as a woman in the White House.  

    Obama specifically said because of those attacks, she would not be able to unite the country the way he can.

    Lying is no path to Unity.

    Accept what your candidate did and hope I get over it!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Parent

    The part I liked (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:11:12 PM EST
    Here is what I hear....Obviously, I am thrilled and honored to have Senator Clinton's support, more than that, I honor her today. She shattered barriers, and she inspired millions with her strength, courage and unyielding commitment. Our country is stronger because of the work she has done throughout her life, No one knows better than Senator Clinton - America and and I know she will continue to be in the forefront of that battle for years to come.

    I thought it was very heavy on appreciation of Clinton.

    I hope we get a transcript of Clinton's speech.  It is something I would like to explore in more detail and obviously keep.


    Just added a link in the post (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:19:21 PM EST
    transcript of Senator Clinton's speech (none / 0) (#12)
    by noholib on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:16:59 PM EST
    A transcript of her speech is available on the New York Times website.
    I imagine it will be through her own website too.

    Her own website now asks for support of Senator Obama and invites comments?  Does anyone know if those comments will go to Senator Clinton or to Senator Obama?


    Parent

    his daughters again?! (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by noholib on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:14:17 PM EST
    IMO, Senator Clinton was simply outstanding today.

    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.  

    Senator Obama's response is quite good.  BUT, do we have to hear about his daughters again?  Are they really more important than "women everywhere"?!!  I don't know if he really gets the connection between the different struggles for civil rights, that is, the women's struggle and the struggle for people of color.  All I know is that if he really wants to earn the votes of the 18 million, especially women, then he'd better not think that trotting out the girls and women in his family will do the trick.  Sexism and misogyny are broader, deeper, and more systemic than that. He's come a long way with an inspiring personal story, but please, let's get real!

    Yep! I saw that daughters bit (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by hairspray on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:13:06 PM EST
    as a cynical attempt at "wooing the older women" that Hillary has as her base.  From now on it will be Axelrove playing the numbers game.  Watch out ladies we are in for some "smooth talkin"

    Parent
    He has discouraged my daughter (5.00 / 7) (#223)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:24:54 PM EST
    she says, with what she's seen from him and others in the campaign.  But how nice for his daughters and him, as that's what it always has been about for him, huh?

    It was a very hard conversation with my daughter, in her young 20s now, so proud of casting her vote for Clinton in the primary.  And she began to get involved in a local campaign then, too.  She decided to stop doing so now and get on with her life, which won't include politics now.  I had to tell her it was the best thing to do.

    Parent

    come on, that's good (none / 0) (#17)
    by dmk47 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:22:15 PM EST
    He's just personalizing the import of what Hillary achieved for women generally --- and for men too, who benefit from living in a country and world where there is gender equity. It's a tried and true trope, but no less convincing for being recurring --- just like Hillary cited the woman in (IIRC) South Dakota who cast an absentee ballot, passed away before election day, and whose husband voted in her stead.

    Very classy, insightful response from a gifted leader.

    Parent

    I didn't have any issues (5.00 / 5) (#163)
    by standingup on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:32:11 PM EST
    his response.  I don't see where he is leading, a gifted leader would have renounced the blatant sexism when it occurred.  He has yet to even acknowledge the terrible things said by two of his close spiritual advisers.  He can work on becoming a leader but in my eyes, he has a long way to go before getting there.

    Parent
    Getting more women into positions of authority will be the best revenge.  Get active in the local party, encourage good candidates to run and support them.  Ignore the rest

    NYTimes transcript: (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by jawbone on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:19:27 PM EST
    Text of Hillary's speech.

    Atrios has some video excerpts or whole thing frontpaged. Along with a comment about her getting so far will make other female candidates more plausible to the MCMers. Baby steps needed before the woman can make it kind of thing.

    Ah, Atrios (5.00 / 12) (#31)
    by dk on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:32:43 PM EST
    Another A-lister who was complicit in the Hillary-bashing, and now pretending that other media are the sexist ones.  

    I'm waiting until one of these people actually admits their own sexism and CDS, as opposed to the fact that sexism and CDS "exists".  

    Parent

    I agree. (5.00 / 7) (#55)
    by liminal on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:46:44 PM EST
    I'm definitely voting for Obama in November, but I'm not forgiving or forgetting the figures in the MCM, on the opinion pages, among the so-called progressive blogs and websites, and/or in the Democratic leadership who were complicit in the enduring misogyny that pervaded the atmosphere of the campaign.  By contrast, I will definitely remember and support those who stood up and condemned it while it was happening.

    Parent
    But liminal, (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by dk on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:48:58 PM EST
    Obama was one of those candidates who were complicit.  Not trying to tell you what to do with your vote, but I did want to point it out.

    Parent
    who stood up? (5.00 / 6) (#79)
    by noholib on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:59:39 PM EST
    Who stood up while it was happening?

    Just for starters:
    Well, certainly BTD!!
    Early on: Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem.
    Melissa McEwen, Shakesville, with her Hillary-Sexism-watch at www.shakespearessister.com

    Marie Cuoco wrote a good piece in the Washington Post.

    Andrew Stephen in The New Statesman.

    Please supply info on others.  Thanks.


    Parent

    Kate Harding (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by eleanora on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:18:22 PM EST
    and Zuzu at Shakesville have also great. I'd add Digby to that list, Joan Walsh at Salon, Paul Krugman, James Wolcott, occasionally Jane Hamsher at FDL, Meteor Blades and brownsox at DK (at least for a while,) and the great Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler.

    Parent
    I would dispute Joan Walsh (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:26:02 PM EST
    not to nitpick, but she's been pretty 'meh' on Hillary all along.  At least up until I stopped reading her about a month ago.  Maybe she had a renaissance since then, but even if, I'd put that in the too little, too late category.

    Parent
    Walsh did a piece on sexism (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:37:12 PM EST
    a few months ago that was okay.  But a day earlier, she highlighted a comment she really liked from an Obama supporter.  The tail end of that comment featured the commenter (presumably male) telling Obama to show "goodie two shoes" Hillary what real toughness is, to go play sports and show her all the lessons he learned in the playground, blah blah blah.  It was a bunch of inherently misogynistic trash.  That Walsh recommended it made me raise my eyebrows and roll my eyes.  

    Parent
    Among the punditocracy (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by liminal on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:43:08 PM EST
    Walsh has been a good egg, and Salon.com has had more balanced coverage than most other news magazines.  She stood up to Chris Matthews over the demands that HRC quit and over the RFK flap pretty honorably.  She's not been perfect (...and who is?) but she's done well.

    Parent
    who stood up? (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by noholib on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:37:02 PM EST
    thanks Eleanora. I'd be happy to learn about more if anyone else can contribute.

    Parent
    Deep Thought She's a credit to her race and gender (5.00 / 9) (#34)
    by Ellie on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:34:52 PM EST
    Always nice to get that perfunctory validation. Wish it came with something I could use, like air miles or a coupon for feminine product.

    Parent
    Baby steps were in 1848. It's 2008. (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:26:37 PM EST
    Nice comment (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:26:37 PM EST
    This whole "he was golfing" thing is a little silly, in my opinion. Does anyone think that he didn't or won't see the speech?

    Well, but so is the (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by dk on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:30:14 PM EST
    stuff about his daughters.  They are 6 and 9.  They have no idea what is going on (nor should they at that age).  To think that anyone believes they do is condescending.

    He really has to quit the arrogance.  Frankly, I think he should either keep his mouth shut about Hillary entirely, or he should admit his own role in propogaing the CDS and sexism that we have seen through this campaign.

    Parent

    Nor should they know at that age? (4.75 / 4) (#173)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:42:37 PM EST
    I knew what was going on when I was their age - to the extent that I could comprehend it - I knew Richard Nixon was crooked because my dad was investigating him - that "we" were voting for McGovern and then Carter a few years later because my Dad was working on his campaign.  The little girls that live next door to me who were 6 and 9 came up to me and explained in breath-taking detail exactly why I should vote for John Kerry - they were better versed in the issues than most of his adult canvasers were.  The older one won a big debate contest recently - she is about 11 or 12 - she had to argue in favor of John McCain's position on environmental policy - she was mortified by the topic but she won.  I hope she runs for office.  The younger one told me the other day that she prefered literature to politics - lol - still she and her sister are both excited about Obama and the possibility of a Dem in the White House again.  I am so thrilled that there are little girls all around this country who are interested at their age - it is exciting because it makes a difference when the people participate - we get a better democracy out of that kind of interest and better citizens when they start thinking about the world early in life.

    Parent
    I think you're underestimating (4.00 / 1) (#107)
    by jsmooth995 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:13:10 PM EST
    the perceptiveness of children.. I was 7 when Reagan beat Carter and remember the time quite vividly, tho obviously i didn't know all the political specifics.. I don't doubt for a second that this experience made a deep impression on Obama's kids, and that in years to come they will gain even more from looking back on it..

    To me that's the greatest gift given by both Obama and Clinton (politically i'm cynical about both), the impression they each have made in young people's minds about what is possible.. big mistake to take that aspect of the race for granted IMO

    Parent

    It's politics (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:31:14 PM EST
    Well then, (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by dk on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:34:40 PM EST
    maybe it's politics when John McCain says something that is too right-wing.  I.e. he doesn't really believe it, and he would be a great President.

    That's the flip side of your "it's politics" argument, in my opinion.

    Parent

    But, dk... (4.75 / 12) (#141)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:23:43 PM EST
    It's the Orwellian extension of what we've seen in this campaign all along: the disjunct between words and meaning.

    The man who was going to bring "unity" has driven us irreparably apart. The man who brought "hope" has caused many of us to lose it.  And the man who said it was "in my DNA" to bring us together (and not in Hillary's, for example, which is a racist comment) has singlehandedly set race relations back 30 years.

    The man who wanted to have "a national conversation on race" has squelched discussion by calling everyone who mentions the subject a racist.  "I could never disown Rev. Wright..."

    "Just politics" is another way to say words do not have a specific meaning, and we do not have to take responsibility for them.

    It's called "lying." It's unacceptable.

    Parent

    Well no (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:36:02 PM EST
    because there's a difference between making a specific commitment on an issue and campaigning on character. The latter is less pleasant, but also less significant.

    Parent
    Sounds like (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:39:42 PM EST
    McCain then can just chalk it up to politics if he attacks Obama's character.

    Sounds good to me.


    Parent

    That will be true (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:40:59 PM EST
    Good then (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:41:43 PM EST
    I'll be happy to point that out when the time comes.


    Parent
    I just don't see (none / 0) (#42)
    by dk on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:40:08 PM EST
    how a statement can be nice and insincere at the same time.  Many politicians do in fact do this, and in that sense you are certainly right that it's politics.  To me, though, all the statements are meaningless.  

    Parent
    Bad politics! (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:35:04 PM EST
    Obama needs to hire some new people for his message team.

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:36:23 PM EST
    Like I said: lessons learned.

    Parent
    As I said above ... (5.00 / 10) (#41)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:40:07 PM EST
    I don't see the "lessons learned" thing.

    He knew very early on he was having a problem with core Dems and working class whites.  He never got them.

    The Obama campaign has strengths.  Political agility isn't one of them.

    Parent

    And he hasn't learned his lesson (5.00 / 7) (#44)
    by dk on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:41:10 PM EST
    That's the point about the lameness of repeating the daughter line.  It's condescending, not effective.

    Parent
    And I'm saying (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:41:30 PM EST
    that I hope they learn. That's all we've got standing between us and President McCain.

    Parent
    Don't hold your breath. (5.00 / 8) (#51)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:44:29 PM EST
    Too much of the campaign thinks they've already won.  That defeating McCain will be a cakewalk.

    I think the few people in the campaign fighting for new approaches will be shouted down.

    Parent

    I have a fundamental disagreement (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:37:53 PM EST
    With that perspective, and I also think it is used just as much to give some politicians an excuse for being hypocrites.

    Parent
    Of course not. He pretended he woudn't to (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by feet on earth on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:52:44 PM EST
    take is tile to respond, just in case you know... You cannot trust the ... fill the blank

    Also, GOLF? Nice choice, remanded me of  Kerry on the aquatic suit water skying.  Did no think of going bowling eh?

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by LoisInCo on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:29:24 PM EST
    you are probably correct. No wonder it didn't resemble the speeches he gives at all.

    I'm pretty confident that he (5.00 / 16) (#30)
    by liminal on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:32:15 PM EST
    - did NOT write any part of her speech.  Your comment was incredibly patronizing.  Is this what unity feels like?

    My thought, exactly (5.00 / 13) (#59)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:49:07 PM EST
    Hearing the campaign that ran on misogyny say that was like a knife in my chest, again.

    I wish they wouldn't try to sweep their sexism under the rug. Be bold. Be in-yo-face. You ran on sexism -- bring it out into the open. Be willing to pay the tab.

    Obama did not run on sexism. (1.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Forkbeard on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:34:07 PM EST
    Sorry guys, I'd go with Hillary happily as President, but Obama didn't run on sexism. It popped up in the campaign (particularly on the part of the media - ugh), but Obama didn't run on a "don't vote for the woman" platform.

    Parent
    Passive-aggressive (5.00 / 10) (#176)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:44:19 PM EST
    He sat on his fanny and did nothing. That's the kindest interpretation.

    You mean he has no idea about the "Bros before Hos" tshirts and campaign materials?  How about his wife's crack about Bill straying because Hill wasn't keeping the fires burning?

    Shame on them.

    Parent

    Boy, I hope your last line (5.00 / 14) (#60)
    by suki on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:49:08 PM EST
    isn't reflective of the Obama campaign, because if it is, there's going to be a real problem getting in the WH.
    And I highly doubt that there was any collaberation on her brilliant speech.
    Actually, I find that quite funny.

    That last line is EXACTLY reflective of (5.00 / 11) (#110)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:14:32 PM EST
    obama's camp and followers.  And, as far as I can tell, Hillary is brilliant at speeches and doesn't even require a teleprompter to make it seem good.

    Parent
    Of course there was collaboration. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Alter Ego on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:20:02 PM EST
    Do you think she would be "yes we can" without asking him first?

    Parent
    Anyone else feeling (5.00 / 8) (#152)
    by suki on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:27:16 PM EST
    a sense of doom?

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 8) (#218)
    by RalphB on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:20:48 PM EST
    between authoritative ESP comments and squeaky the hall monitor popping up to insult randomly, it's gonna be fun getting along.

    Parent
    I'm sure she can use it (5.00 / 6) (#160)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:32:01 PM EST
    It's just an expression.  And really, do we want to talk about Deval Patrick again?

    Parent
    Do you think that he asked (5.00 / 10) (#180)
    by liminal on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:46:43 PM EST
    the United Farm Workers and/or Dolores Huerta (a Clinton supporter) before he took Cesar Chavez's line?  

    Parent
    2008 (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by BillyPilgrim on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:49:19 PM EST
    I originally supported Edwards in the campaign, but eventually switched to Obama, primarily based on his vocal opposition against the war.  I would have helped Clinton wholeheartedly despite my preference for someone else; I think she was absolutely qualified to be president.  I think her very narrow loss to Obama cannot be attributed to sexism.  I believe the majority of younger women voted for Obama.  While sexism absolutely did exist, I feel her campaign misread how people were going to react to Obama's oratory and optimism.  While I would agree that Obama has gotten a lot in the way of good press, Clinton was the "inevitable" candidate in the media for a long time. I feel that Clinton was a much better candidate than her campaign staff allowed her to be.  I completely understand the identity issues that have gone into this primary, and how either women or African-Americans would have come out of this election feeling disillusioned.  I feel that the idea of identity over issues is counterproductive for everyone who is invested in Democratic politics.  A vote for McCain or an abstention is actively working against Democratic ideals.  Not voting for Obama means actively working against the very issues that Clinton stands for.  I guess I just see it that the things that Clinton cares about are bigger than herself, and to not heed her call for unity is to dishonor her values in the name of supporting her.  McCain will do a lot of damage in four, or eight, years. He is not a liberal or moderate Republican.  He will work against our shared democratic ideals.  He will continue policies that are detrimental to this nation.  Four, or eight, more years of Republican rule is more lives wasted in Iraq, more hits to the economy, more chances to overturn Roe, more people going uninsured, less done about global warming at a critical time, more warrantless wiretapping, continued torture etc....  The list is very long.  I ask that all people concerned about the future of this nation think about the underlying issues at stake in 2008 before deciding the Democratic party does not represent your ideals.  I'm certainly not saying that Obama shouldn't work to garner your support, but that everyone remain open and listen to the differences between what a Repubican presidency and a Democratic one would mean for all of us.  Thanks.  

    This (5.00 / 10) (#95)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:05:55 PM EST
    I think her very narrow loss to Obama cannot be attributed to sexism.  I believe the majority of younger women voted for Obama.  While sexism absolutely did exist, I feel her campaign misread how people were going to react to Obama's oratory and optimism.

    is sort of a strawman.  Who here says that Clinton "lost because of" sexism?  

    Sexism does exist, did exist, and will exist, esp if we allow our media to dump on a candidate as they did Clinton, AND if we allow them to put that in the past by praising her (once her loss was assured) and glibly analyzing sexism now.  They got what they wanted - Hillary lost.  Now they'll act like they didn't want it, because they're objective, and certainly did not savor it (because they're good people!).  

    Looking back at the primary's sexism as if it were over is not adequate.  I'm sure the hits will continue.  This isn't just about Hillary - it's about her supporters, who were characterized as unsightly older women, bitter and incomprehensible ("white women are a problem.")  It's about the way Michelle Obama will be characterized and the way Hillary will be characterized from this moment onward if she dares seek the spotlight again.  

    I agree with most of your statement.  I will support Obama.  But now is not the time to eulogize sexism in the primary, because it ain't over.

    Parent

    I've lost rack of what the Democratic (5.00 / 9) (#167)
    by hairspray on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:36:58 PM EST
    Party really stands for anymore.  I really think the power in the DNC (expcept for Donna) pushed the "golden boy" forward because they wanted a movement with plenty of cash.  Just read about how gleeful they are over the donor lists of Obama and how when you blend them with MoveOn and others the DNC will own the keys to the vault. Then look at who Obama is standing for (certainly not the poor and downtrodden) and I am getting the picture.

    Parent
    I guess (4.69 / 13) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:55:41 PM EST
    the cut and pasters are coming out of the woodwork now. If I ever even think about voting for Obama these posters drive me further and further away and more determined NOT to vote for him.

    Parent
    Also (1.00 / 1) (#100)
    by BillyPilgrim on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:09:07 PM EST
    My plea is to focus on the issues at hand and not the personalities involved.  I meant no harm by bringing the post over, just wanted to get something out that I felt was important.  The fact that I, or anyone, should dissuade you from voting for the Democratic candidate based on my posting stikes me as myopic.  Vote on the Democratic ideals we all believe in, not based on posters you take issue with.

    Parent
    But (5.00 / 4) (#234)
    by criticalthinker on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 05:19:40 PM EST
    The actions of THE "Democratic candidate" and DNC in the past few months showed me that they no longer represent the Democractic ideals I believe in. Sad. They don't deserve my unwavering support. They have not earned it.

    Parent
    No need to plea.... (4.50 / 8) (#177)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:45:07 PM EST
    ...I'm not in the frame of mind to be hurried into sorting out my feelings. I don't get the sense of urgency. It is perfectly alright for Obama supporters to enjoy their win. You really don't need us to join you in order to do that. November is months away, if Obama is everything that you believe he is then he will earn our respect and support.

    Parent
    If you (4.00 / 8) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:11:40 PM EST
    are so concerned about the damage that posters are doing then why are you doing it?

    Democratic ideals? Obama doesn't like them it seems to me. He likes Republican ideas better.

    Parent

    Cut and Paste (none / 0) (#90)
    by BillyPilgrim on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:04:43 PM EST
    I apologize for that.  Its just that I wanted to say that and I had noticed my post from a few minutes ago was going into what I thought was a dead thread.  No offense meant.

    Parent
    Wait till Downtick Dems see BO's glass floor (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by Ellie on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:50:10 PM EST
    Heads exploding won't mar THAT suit.

    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.

    I'd love it if they started turfing each other, though.

    CDS defined (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by noholib on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:50:29 PM EST
    Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
    http://www.jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/ had some posts on it during the campaign.

    Vision and Policies (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by santarita on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:52:51 PM EST
    Obama did improve as a result of campaigning against Hillary and Hillary improved as a result of campaigning against Obama.  If he paid attention, he'll know what his weaknesses are and if he is humble he'll figure out how to compensate for his weaknesses - through finding a good running mate or otherwise.  

    He got schooled by Hillary especially once she stopped being careful and started campaigning all out.  Hopefully he is a fast learner.  

    Overall (5.00 / 8) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:53:54 PM EST
    the excerpt above is good except he has got to stop talking about his daughters. It's always about him or his isn't it? Another thing is he's got to stop the "change" thing. It's become a joke simply because he can't seem to define what change looks like. Since he hasn't defined what he's going to change, the GOP will define it for him.

    Zigacly. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Landulph on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:56:56 PM EST
    See Dukakis, Michael, '88.

    Parent
    what makes you think (5.00 / 7) (#70)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:55:16 PM EST
    they collaborated on it?  At all?  Most of the speech was her thanking her supporters.  

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

    What a weird suggestion.

    I 100% (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by LoisInCo on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:58:55 PM EST
    believe Richarson's endorsement was crafted by the Obama camp.

    Parent
    The playing (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:57:44 PM EST
    golf thing sounds elitist once again. Big mistake. It plays right into that meme.

    On the contrary (5.00 / 13) (#76)
    by Foxx on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:57:52 PM EST
    women and girls everywhere have learned that even if you are ten times better you will still have abuse and homicidal wishes dumped on you from all quarters and noone will care or defend you. And that men will do anything to keep you from power.

    yep (5.00 / 9) (#138)
    by ccpup on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:23:00 PM EST
    that's what my teenage nieces are taking from this.  They don't see the need to work hard and get good grades or go for their goals because, evidently, the charming boy with the good smile who DOESN'T do his homework is going to get all the goods anyway, so why try?

    And if I try to explain politics to them, they just roll their eyes in that "oh, please, I know what I saw and I know what happened.  Save it" kind of way.

    Parent

    Yes, thank you for this. (4.30 / 10) (#108)
    by FemB4dem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:13:18 PM EST
    I do beleive that unless women stand up and say in a loud voice: "NO" the lesson learned will be that no matter how qualified and capable you are, sweetie, you can't be president.  The Humphrey comment upstream is laughable.  There is no comparison here -- what happened, plain and simple, is that a green rookie was selected by the party over the highly accomplished veteran who got the most votes.  What is there not to understand aboout that?  Hillary is not the dem nominee today because, and only because, she is a woman.  And because of that, I can no longer be a democrat.

    I asked in a different comment and will ask again this simple question:  If Al Gore had decided to run, do you honestly believe -- in your heart of hearts -- that Obama would have thrown his hat in the ring?  I do not.  I believe his campaign knew they could take on the woman candidate with their potent brew of sexism and racism, and would have the media as an echo chamber.  The Obama campaign was not stupid at all, it simply chose the vilest strategy I have ever witnessed and won with it.

    The message of this campaign is clear as a bell to women -- "qualifications be d*amn*d, we're giving it to the guy, sweetie."  And thus it will ever be unless we fight it out now.  If Obama wins, women's rights will fall so far and so fast it will make the argument that we need to save the Supreme Court seem silly.  That's why I can, and will, hold my nose and vote for McCain as a caretaker candidate until Hillary can run again in 2012.  Otherwise, even Obama's 6-year old daughter isn't young enough to have the hope to someday see a woman president.

    Parent

    Sexism as determinative in the campaign (3.00 / 6) (#202)
    by Blogblah on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:05:47 PM EST
    I'm sorry you found my Humphrey comment "laughable", but I wish you had confronted the comparison rather than take off on a screed about misogyny.

    Sexism exists and it is extraordinarily difficult to fight.  Quite apart from sexism, there is a reservoir of ill-will against Sen. Clinton that has been filled by many years of Republican Faux News of gratuitous swipes at her and many many people allowed those "negatives" to be amplified by sexism and vice versa.  ALL Democrats are or should be outraged beyond measure by this.

    Nevertheless, I have yet to see any evidence that the existence of misogyny was determinative of the outcome of the primary.  

    "Green", Sen. Obama may be.  However, to say he stole the election from the better candidate is to denigrate his accomplishments in fundraising and grassroots organizing, among others.  To ascribe to him some underhanded methods or means to achieve the nomination denigrates ME as someone who chose Sen. Obama for his anti-war stance compared to my unease with Sen. Clinton's vote for the war resolution.  For the millions who preferred Sen. Clinton's stand on universal health care over Obama's whatever-the-hell it is position, I wouldn't dare call them racists.  

    Please consider that much of the sexism we saw in the campaign came not from Sen. Obama and was never intended to advantage his campaign.  I was outraged by William Kristol, Pat Buchanan and dozens of other GOP operatives and former operatives that appear on the news networks.  No doubt they said stomach-turning things about Sen. Clinton.  However, to ascribe that to Sen. Obama seems to me to be a stretch.  They were saying those things since 1992, long before the Obama campaign came along.  They will continue to say those things next year and the year after as Sen. Clinton continues her career.  Why would we let those voices poison our well?

    Please celebrate Sen. Clinton, as I do.  This does not require you to tear down Sen. Obama.  

    Parent

    Ummm... (5.00 / 8) (#84)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:03:10 PM EST
    ::snort::

    He might have made some suggestions. But the idea he wrote part of it? Or that he'd insist on "approval." That's kinda funny...

    Some Unity Ambassadors (5.00 / 7) (#91)
    by kmblue on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:04:45 PM EST
    are better than others.

    I'm guessing (5.00 / 10) (#96)
    by kmblue on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:06:32 PM EST
    that Obama supporters are coming to TL to see what's in the comments now that Senator Clinton has stepped aside.

    I can only say calling Hillary supporters "stupid" is not a good way to put Senator Obama in the White House, IMHO.

    She didn't really shatter (5.00 / 9) (#98)
    by hairspray on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:07:46 PM EST
    anything.  She tried and look where it got her. The most vilest media and apathetic Democratic party response. It was a sham. She says that the Democratic Party is a family.  Well it is a family that I can do without.

    Yawn ... (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:12:48 PM EST
    I was commenting on a specific aspect of his campaign.

    He and his campaign aren't beyond criticism.

    obama PRESUMABLY wins and the (5.00 / 9) (#115)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:15:52 PM EST
    whining continues from his side.  It really makes me think his followers know he is on thin ice.

    Gotta agree with Semper (1.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Forkbeard on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:31:34 PM EST
    He meant that maybe Clinton and Obama were working together. That's not a sign of disrespect. If we freak out over it, then we're the ones who are plainly unhappy with Obama's attampt to be gracious and stay out of the limelight on Hillary's big day.

    Parent
    Don't insult other commentors here (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:16:58 PM EST
    please review the site rules.  Do not insult Jeralyn, BTD, the site or other commentors.  Calling other commentors stupid will get your comment deleted.

    Repeat Posting... (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:18:47 PM EST
    You've posted this elsewhere it the thread.

    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?

    Trust me when I say that preview is your friend.

    10 comments per day. (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:21:04 PM EST
    Jenny, new commentors are limited to 10 comments per day.  You are at 10.  Please come back tomorrow, thanks.

    Also please review the site rules.  Do not insult Jeralyn, BTD, the site or the other commentors.

    This isn't DKos ... (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:22:35 PM EST
    civility reigns here.

    How would that be a "show" of unity? (5.00 / 9) (#142)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:23:48 PM EST
    If they don't come out and say they wrote it together, then who are they "showing" besides a commenter on a blog who thinks he has ESP?

    This comment is illogical.

    If they had collaborated..... (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:25:04 PM EST
    ....I'm sure it would have been leaked to the media. And they had NO idea what she was going to say.

    Is this more of you factchecking? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by standingup on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:25:15 PM EST


    This is going to be a very very (5.00 / 7) (#157)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:30:32 PM EST
    long GE.

    Good thing I started a new copy editing gig and won't have enough time to focus on the "Be excited, now! Or else..." campaign.

    Parent

    I hear that (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by standingup on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:03:48 PM EST
    and in a sort of odd way am feeling somewhat relieved to not feel as invested in a candidate this election cycle.  I am looking forward to spending more time on neglected projects, outdoors and away from the bantering about politics.

    Parent
    I thought Clinton looked (5.00 / 6) (#148)
    by bjorn on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:25:47 PM EST
    extremely sharp today.  I know all the arguments against her being VP, but when you see a speech like that and someone who is so smart and passionate Obama has to be thinking how much Clinton could help her.  One way to keep her voters engaged is to keep her in the process.  It was also satisfying to see all the pundits falling all over themselves to say how wonderful Clinton is...of course they did the same thing when Gore bowed out.

    So many sterling moments -- my change of heart (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by dmk47 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:26:48 PM EST
    This is really one of my proudest days as an American.

    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.

    Thoughts anybody? BTD?

    Hillary: Please go to Bunker #3 or #5! (5.00 / 4) (#187)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:53:50 PM EST
    I promise to go away today, but please, no unity ticket.

    BHO is getting a little bump in the ratings right now, but he's been tanking since mid-February. It's going to get worse. No candidate with this many uninvestigated skeletons is going to get elected. There's more on the way.  

    Please, Hillary. You're doing the right thing. Get far away from it. Remove yourself from the blast zone.

    Parent

    "Reality"? (5.00 / 10) (#153)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:28:47 PM EST
    What proof do you have that this speech was put together by Obama's speechwriters in tandem with Clinton's?  
    I am 100% sure nothing she said about women was written by the Obama team.
    I am 100% sure nothing she said about her supporters was written by the Obama team.  
    The healthcare stuff was in her usual style.  The speech was very similar to the speeches I've heard from her this year - the humor in particular.

    I just do not see where this supposition that he helped write the speech is coming from.  

    The proof is in the pudding (5.00 / 8) (#201)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:04:07 PM EST
    it doesn't sound like something he would write, or have written for him, as I suggested in my comment above.  Nor do I find it likely that in the three days after the end of a hard fought primary, Obama himself, and his team, wrote part of a very personal speech by Hillary and her staff.  

    Also, this source:

    Hillary's Speechwriting

    The Sun Sentinel:

    Clinton spent much of Friday working on her concession speech with campaign manager Maggie Williams, media adviser Mandy Grunwald and strategist Mark Penn. Aides described the process as painstaking and emotional but said there was no question Clinton would enthusiastically endorse Obama in the speech.

    All on her team.  Unfortunately so, for Mark Penn.

    Why you needed to say Obama probably wrote part of the speech to respond to a troll, I don't know.  But I don't think it's true.  Do you still?

    Y'know, when she made Life magazine (5.00 / 13) (#204)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:07:30 PM EST
    for a speech that Clinton gave at the age of 22, he was 8 years old -- amd being a "street urchin" in Indonesia, so he says.  (Lie.)

    When he wasn't even in a state senate yet, Clinton gave a speech at a UN conference in Beijing that won her the respect and appreciation of women -- and a few good men -- worldwide, a speech ranked by experts as one of the top 100 speeches by any American.

    If Obama was a wise man, he would have listened today.  He has a lot to learn from her  But he didn't, so he won't.  Maybe there's "hope" for you, though, if you learn to research and reflect before reflexively typing the standard puffery.

    As Clinton said, the barriers (5.00 / 13) (#219)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:20:59 PM EST
    are still there, and the glass ceiling is not shattered but only cracked.  Bad form by him, which shows again that he doesn't listen well -- or even read well what she said, since he wasn't listing when she said it.

    He is the One who has shown us that the barriers to women reaching the top, even when they win the most votes, still are not shattered when she and we see her and our votes taken from her column and moved into his column.  Wonder if he cheats at golf, too?

    Keep it up (5.00 / 3) (#221)
    by Davidson on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:24:40 PM EST
    As someone who knows quite a few people who work for McCain you're making their job ridiculously easy.

    I just got an email from (5.00 / 7) (#225)
    by camellia on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:25:30 PM EST
    Harry Reid, with a golden opportunity -- "please join me in congratulating Senator Obama on his winning the nomination.  Here, right here, is a place where you can send an email of congratulations to him telling him how you feel".  Nice of them, huh?  Do you think I used it?  You betcha -- I told him exactly how I feel about the DNC, the MSM, and his campaign.  Felt good -- do you think they'll send me another one?

    That isn't unity..that's patronage.. (5.00 / 13) (#228)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:28:46 PM EST
    Why would Hillary need Obama's help on a speech?? She has been writing good ones since he was nine years old. Check her history. It might take you a while since her history is a lot longer than Obama's. And the idea that she needs his approval is laughable. He is just the sort of snotty male to think he needs to give it, but she doesn't need it.  To suggest that she does is the sort of paternalistic humoring that is repugnant to most women. We don't need men's approval to do what we think is the right thing. We really don't.  

    Nobody can deny! (5.00 / 5) (#229)
    by RalphB on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:30:34 PM EST
    Are you that effing stupid?  Earlier you admitted you had no information and then you keep chattering about how "nobody can deny it" because you think it.  Are you 12 years old?  

    When you don't know something or have any evidence of it except your vague feeling, you should shut your mouth or you look like an abject fool.


    oh, come on (5.00 / 5) (#231)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:32:01 PM EST
    he had final approval?  Give me a break.  I'm sure they discussed her concession on Thursday.  But I have read no evidence that he helped her write it, suggested wording, etc.  Just because he's "team leader" now doesn't mean he got to control her concession speech.  It was not a simple endorsement speech, as that of other Obama endorsers before her.  This was big and personal.  

    She worked on the speech, as the article above shows, with Williams, Grunwald and (ugh) Penn.  It bothers me that on this day, a special moment for Clinton's supporters and campaigan, you need to assert Obama helped write her speech, when there is 100% no evidence that that occured.  As a matter of fact, before the secret meeting was held, at the request of Senator Clinton, the only indication that the two were going to communicate was Senator Obama saying he expected to talk to Clinton "in a few weeks."  

    Clinton is on the Obama team now, but before this speech, she was not.  Again, I highly doubt Obama had any real input into this speech, and he was probably best served by not giving his input, and staying out of the spotlight, for today.

    Maybe I'm just clinging to my bitterness, (4.90 / 20) (#20)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:24:56 PM EST
    but I would say that this campaign sent a very strong signal that there are, indeed, still limits to our dreams.  As for barriers that were shattered, whatever they were they were reduced to tokens for me by the overt sexism that was used to try to keep those barriers in place.

    Women have been fighting those barriers since the beginning of time, so in my opinion, it would have been far more inspirational to have had Obama deciding to be a role model for his daughters by not condoning or encouraging the constant smears and jeers that were thrown at Clinton in this race.

    He still doesn't get it, and he still thinks that if he throws around the right code words, we women will just fall into line.

    of course you will, sweetie (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by ccpup on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:28:19 PM EST
    and I hope you get the evident snark in that.

    :-)

    Parent

    I wish TL's ratings (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by camellia on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:06:42 PM EST
    went higher than 5-- I would give you 1000, Anne, for that post.

    Parent
    A better campaigner? (4.81 / 22) (#23)
    by Inky on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:25:41 PM EST
    I'm a better candidate for having had the privilege of competing with her in this campaign.

    That's not the Barack Obama I saw for the last three months. I saw a campaigner who refused to debate after realizing he couldn't out-debate his opponent, who relied unsuccessfully on outspending his opponent, who refused even to campaign in states he knew he couldn't win, who grew wearier as his opponent grew stronger, and who finally had to be carried over the finishing line by a partisan press corps and a corrupt DNC.

    But perhaps I'm biased.

    you hit the nail on the head (4.83 / 18) (#32)
    by ccpup on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:34:00 PM EST
    I hadn't thought of that angle, actually.

    Because of Clinton, we saw that Barack has trouble with debates, can outspend his opponent and have the support of a temporarily besotted Press behind him and STILL lose core Democrat demographics and, after one debate where the Moderator was briefly not as conciliatory as they usually are (eg. asking some difficult questions rather than handing him a bat to hit Hillary with), he has a tendency to complain and whine about how tough it was.

    He isn't a better candidate because of her.  He's the presumptive Nominee solely because of a corrupt DNC and a Press Corps with ulterior motives (clue:  and it ain't to help the Dems get the White House in November).

    Parent

    I hope Alexrod et al are believers in (4.77 / 9) (#26)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:28:21 PM EST
    "lessons learned." Because the campaign against McCain is going to look a lot like the campaigns against Hillary in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, and Indiana.  

    Parent
    Let's see who gets his back when the mud flies (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Ellie on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:41:14 PM EST
    It's coming hard and hope Club Obama can get off Boss mode and do their own heavy lifting.

    The nice thing is envisioning the Pester Power being unleashed on voters and media.

    "Aw come on. Vote for him. Oh you're mean."

    Parent

    Are they really? (4.80 / 10) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:37:04 PM EST
    I only saw one speech and one strategy throughout the campaign.

    I saw no flexibility or agility.

    One of the reasons I didn't support Obama.

    Parent

    No they (4.57 / 7) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:45:20 PM EST
    have learned no lessons. You've seen it already--a speech should solve all problems etc. They still think that the south side of chicago represents the entire US.

    Parent
    It will certainly be an issue (4.50 / 8) (#87)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:03:57 PM EST
    for him going forward.  I'm sure the Repubs will be sure to point this out at every opportunity.  I happen to think the more complimentary they are to Clinton, they will get more of her voters, but if they slip up it will be more a matter of staying home.  

    The RNC is already using the line... the elitist DNC elected the elitist candidate, Clinton was the candidate of the people.  eh...

    Parent

    a better campaigner??? (4.00 / 2) (#48)
    by 18anapple2 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:42:47 PM EST
    well said

    Parent
    She wrote it yesterday. Maggie and (4.81 / 11) (#182)
    by nycstray on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:49:33 PM EST
    someone else (sorry, feel bad I don't remember the name) were there. Both long time Hillary people. I'm guessing Bill n' Chelsea were there also or available for feedback.

    I think she can handle a speech on her own. The woman knows her politics and it absolutely sounded like her.

    It's not all about Obama, 'k?

    do you have a source for that? (none / 0) (#191)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:57:46 PM EST
    I would like to know more about this speech.  It was a goody!

    Parent
    Heard it on C-span or Fox after the speech (none / 0) (#198)
    by nycstray on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:03:29 PM EST
    prob Fox since they were chatting more :)

    It was a goody! She rocks and was so good! :)

    Parent

    for me, it's too little, too late from obama. (4.75 / 16) (#18)
    by kangeroo on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:24:25 PM EST
    he manages to be gracious after treating her like garbage for a year?  he really has no shame, does he.  words can't fully express right now the amount of contempt, disgust, and loathing i have for him.

    as for hillary, i'm amazed and humbled by her dedication to the party, even after it's so obviously stabbed her in the back.  at this point i'm thinking the party doesn't deserve her.

    She is thinking that this is an incredibly (5.00 / 6) (#143)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:24:28 PM EST
    important election in an incredibly important time in history and that it is most important for Democrats to win and I thank her from the bottom of my heart for that dedication and ability to see beyond her own personal professional aspirations.

    Today Senator Clinton rose above the fray and met her challenge gracefully - with wisdom and foresight - she has set a high bar and I hope that both sides can rise to her level as we go forward.  I hope that Clinton supporters can show some folks that the way to get things done is to keep going.  

    I think that Hillary Clinton just entered the history books as one of the most important figures in American politics ever - she has gone well beyond the statistical milestones of being a woman, a former First Lady cum Senator, etc. - she has achieved parity with some of the greatest political leaders in our party imo.

    There are a lot of politicians who would have taken their red wagon and gone home.  She did not.  That is to her credit.  I felt I saw the very best of her today and for some reason I have this feeling that she is going to be better for this loss at everything she does from now on.  She has evolved from being a candidate who couldn't lose to a person who seems revitalized - back in touch with the reasons she and her husband pursued public life in the first place - she has seen and met the people of this country again - her committment to those people - to us - is clear.  That is going to be good for her and this country in the long run.

    I hope you'll think about supporting her and her pursuits in whatever capacity she serves :)  

    Parent

    to inclusiveheart (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by noholib on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:40:13 PM EST
    "I hope you'll think about supporting her and her pursuits in whatever capacity she serves :)"

    For some reason, I read "pantsuits" instead of "pursuits" the first time. :)

    I too will support "her" and her "pursuits" and indeed her "pantsuits" in whatever capacity she serves!  

    Parent

    I never understood why people talked (4.88 / 9) (#188)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:54:09 PM EST
    about pantsuits so much in a year where we are engaged in two wars, have a failing healthcare and economic system and when everyday it seems we have a new revelation about just how bad the Bush Administration's effects on this country have been.

    I am no fan of sexism - obviously as a woman that would be hard - but I think I will resent the lowly quality of the debate during this primary more than anything as I look back.  One reason why I gained more respect for Senator Clinton than I had when she kicked off her race is because she kept hammering away at issues and that meant a lot to me.  Today she proved beyond any reasonable doubt that those issues really are important to her - if they weren't so important or if she didn't feel strongly about them it would have been really easy for her to take her ball and go home.  She did not do that.

    Parent

    Ain't nuthin' (4.83 / 6) (#156)
    by kmblue on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:29:16 PM EST
    like the real thing, baby!

    Senator Clinton made me cry.  

    Parent

    As I listened to her (4.80 / 15) (#88)
    by camellia on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:04:16 PM EST
    speech, I kept thinking -- how could the Democrats let this woman go to waste?  Then I remembered -- she's a Clinton, and we can't have a dynasty again; and she's destructive, disruptive and selfish, and furthermore that she doesn't know when to quit.  Also, of course, she's a woman and we don't want THAT kind in the White House except to plan state dinners because women periodically get all unreliable, don't they?  

    Maybe I can let go of this, but it's going to take a long time.  I am 71 years old and although I am in good health, I don't know how many more election cycles I will see -- I would really like to see a woman president, although that's not really why I supported Hillary--I supported her because I thought and still do that she is ten times the man that Obama is.  

    Parent

    Too true... (1.80 / 5) (#137)
    by NvlAv8r on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:22:42 PM EST
    Anytime she attacked him it was justified, anytime he attacked her he was treating her like garbage.

    And because she ignored the caucus states to her campaingn's detriment and is heavily in debt, it is really sexism, the MSM, and the DNCs fault.

    Parent

    What I read here is: (4.69 / 13) (#19)
    by feet on earth on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:24:30 PM EST
    Sweeties, you've got to wait. Come along, be patient, when I daughters are of age (40 years or so) maybe it will happen.  sure, whatever.

    I've waited a long time (4.50 / 8) (#54)
    by Blogblah on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:46:12 PM EST
    I've been lurking here for a long time and this is my first post.  Please let me introduce myself as a white male lawyer from Oklahoma and someone you may wish to describe as an "O-bot".

    One reason I've not posted is that I've had a fundamental disagreement with many of you.  I agree that there has been sexism (as well as racism) that has affected the primary.  However, I felt that Sen. Clinton's campaign decision not to contest the Feb 5 caucus states and effectively not campaign in the 11 states that followed was far more significant than the sexism.

    That said, I agreed with most of you on something far more important -- Sen. Clinton earned my undying respect after the Wisconsin primary with her grit, determination, exceedingly hard work and fealty to strongly felt and passionate embrace of progressive issues. There is no doubt in my mind that she would have been a fierce and ultimately successful Democratic Party nominee and I would have supported her with my whole heart.  That is why I've lurked here almost every day for several months.

    Today's speech by Sen. Clinton was, imho, a triumphant and clarion call for those progressive issues she supports and a fitting end of her active primary campaign.  I laud her and the superlatives fail me only because this post is already so long.

    I deeply regret that some of you have decided to either sit out the general, not vote for president and vote down ticket or, worst of all possible worlds, support Sen. McCain.  This is the reason why I have decided to post now.  I am old enough to remember the 1968 campaign.  I felt the same way about Sen. Humphrey then that you feel about Sen. Obama now.  I have regretted that decision often.  While I do not see a return of the Chicago riots of '68 come our Denver convention this year, I reference them to try to tell you how strongly I felt back then that Sen. Humphrey (who did not even compete in the primaries) had stolen the nomination unfairly in a way that makes the R&B committee decision this year look like pattycake.  

    I was wrong.  I was very wrong.  And, my poor judgment was rewarded with Richard Nixon in the White House.  

    While I don't pretend to be able to crawl into your skins and "feel your pain", I believe I do have some insight into your raw hurt over this primary campaign.

    I only ask that you do not make unshakeable and unbreakable pledges now to take some action in November that you may later regret.  I would ask that you continue to be interested in this election, even if your activism is diminished -- keep coming to this site, e.g., and read what I've found to be mostly very good left talking.    

    It's a pleasure to make your acquaintence.

    I can't do anything but laugh (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:47:27 PM EST
    slaps head

    Yeah.  Please to meet you too.

    Parent

    Maybe you could let (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by standingup on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:17:01 PM EST
    the Clinton supporters have a little more time before trying the hard sell on why they should get behind Obama.  There is plenty of time between now and November but the feelings are still pretty raw at this point.  

    Parent
    hard sell (4.00 / 4) (#230)
    by Blogblah on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:31:47 PM EST
    I agree and I hoped my post would not be seen as a "hard sell".  All I hoped to accomplish was to say that those who are now disaffected have an historical precedent to consider.  And, I hoped to persuade some few here to remain open to further persuasion as the general election goes forward.  If anyone can benefit from my experience, I want to say again that I've often regretted feeling that I helped elect Richard Nixon by my failure to get behind HHH in '68.

    Parent
    A return of the 68 riots in Denver (4.85 / 7) (#179)
    by Nike on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:45:52 PM EST
    I find this comment very interesting. I know most of us saw the images of those riots which were posted over on Obama site before the DNC meeting last week. These images were ultimately scrubbed by the Obama site when people complained but they were there and were clearly intended to be a kind of threat. Why are you mentioning convention riots? I am missing the logic to your argument, but it feels to my mind like a kind of velvet version of the threats Donna Brazile has been making for months. If I am wrong here, I withdraw this query, but I do find it troubling, particularly since I don't see how you cannot get people to vote in line by threatening to riot if they don't.

    Parent
    Riots (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by Blogblah on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:24:51 PM EST
    My mention of the riots was only to say that I understand how it feels to be outraged by the party process because I was there back then -- it was an attempt at presenting bona fides and nothing more.  I was unaware of any posting of such images on the Obama site (and find it curious that it would appear there).  I hold no brief for Donna B  -- she's said some of the dumbest things during this campaign I've ever heard and her vision of blacks rioting in Denver tops that list.  

    Again, I only wished to share my experience with the '68 campaign in order to say my own vows to turn my back on the Democratic Party nominee have haunted me for many years.  I have NO threats to make.  I only hope that those who are now incredibly disaffected will consider my experience as they make their own decisions this year.

    Parent

    I don't think the DNC has to worry (5.00 / 8) (#232)
    by samanthasmom on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:36:54 PM EST
    about Hillary's supporters rioting in the streets of Denver.  We have too much respect for the people of that city to destroy any of the things that they have worked so hard for.  The people of Denver have not done anything to deserve our wrath.  Hillary's supporters who are not falling in line behind Obama will "riot" the way that thinking people do.  We will withhold our votes, our money, and our time.  The only thing we are interested in "burning down" is the DNC, but we won't touch a brick of its building or any other.

    Parent
    Man (4.50 / 8) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:58:57 PM EST
    the Obama campaign is really desperate aren't they? The cut n pasters are out in full force.

    PS Have you heard that Obama plans to stay in Iraq indefinitely?

    Keep your eye on the Brass Ring Folks (3.66 / 6) (#140)
    by AllDems08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:23:42 PM EST
    I'm a 50-ish white woman who has defended the Clintons for almost 2 decades now.  I am truly disturbed with the condition of our country now that the republicans have had control for the last 8 years.  Much damage has been wrought that needs to be undone.

    We must unseat the republicans and we cannot do that if we vote for another republican.  We MUST regain a Democratic MAJORITY - something we cannot achieve if the Insane Mcbush wins in November.

    Please - coalesce with Hillary and follow her lead.  We must step outside of our egos and keep our eyes on the bigger prize.

    if you can point to the last two years (5.00 / 7) (#154)
    by ccpup on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:29:08 PM EST
    and show me HOW a Dem majority in the House and Senate have benefited us, I may consider voting Top of the Ticket.

    But, as of yet, the Dems are looking like a corrupt Do-Nothing Party who shoved the best candidate they've seen in years -- at least since 1992 -- out the door so their dear Precious (lagging in voters, in electoral votes and in, dare I say it?, honesty but with a great smile and the ability to make a good teleprompter speech) could have a go.

    As of yet, the Dems have given me NO reason to continue supporting them.  And certainly not after this embarrassing fiasco.

    Parent

    Not A Majority (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:38:43 PM EST
    In any workable sense. We need more Dems in congress because whether you like it or not the math is against us.

    As much as I think that there are a lot of lilly livered Dems I do understand that they do not have any real power. Ten or twelve more of them, as progressive as possible, and we will be singing a different tune.

    Parent

    They've also been running scared ... (3.00 / 2) (#189)
    by eustiscg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:56:18 PM EST
    ... of a veto.  Get us a Dem president, any Dem president and the Do-Nothing party goes out the backdoor.


    Parent
    Find the worst votes in the past 7 years (4.00 / 4) (#217)
    by Knocienz on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:19:08 PM EST
    And they were all under the Republican controlled congress. Military Commissions Act being a prime example. SCOTUS votes. etc.

    I'd argue a Democratic president will create fewer opportunities for spineless surrender.

    Parent

    Wrote It? (3.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Spike on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:53:06 PM EST
    I doubt that the Obama campaign actually had a role in writing the speech. But I just watched the speech for a second time. Upon closer examination, there are key sections of the speech that feature themes, devices and even language that directly reflects Obama's own speeches. She and her speech writers were clearly working to begin to meld their messages for the general election, which is a major step toward unity.

    Obama website (2.00 / 1) (#5)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:10:06 PM EST
    now has special page to Thank Hillary and features her picture.  That's good.

    Wonderful (5.00 / 7) (#112)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:14:48 PM EST
    Now that the threat of a female president is gone, I expect we'll see a lot of gestures.

    See you in 2012.

    Parent

    Sexism (1.00 / 1) (#85)
    by BillyPilgrim on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:03:14 PM EST
    I certainly agree that sexism, as well as racism, are alive and well in American.  However, I do not think these were determinative of the outcome in the primary.  To allow a McCain presidency because of the very real spectre of sexism is a terrible irony.  A  Republican presidency in no way alleviates misogyny, its institutionalized misogyny.  Again, I realize the deep disappointment Clinton supporters have, and especially women voters.  But to allow a McCain presidency, the candidate that would take abway abortion rights, that calls his wife a c*** in public, that will continue the religious right's most ardent efforts agaisnt women, does not help empower women or fight misogyny.  Once, again, thanks for listening.

    I know I shouldn't respond to you (none / 0) (#99)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:08:12 PM EST
    but actually, this is what Americans are seen as stupid - "democrate"??  

    Also (none / 0) (#104)
    by stillife on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:12:06 PM EST
    too many typos.

    It's hurting my eyes (none / 0) (#125)
    by suki on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:19:24 PM EST
    STOP!!!!! n/t (none / 0) (#111)
    by independent voter on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:14:33 PM EST


    Sorry (none / 0) (#117)
    by BillyPilgrim on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:16:16 PM EST
    Whose.  Typing faster than my brain.

    I think "approve" (none / 0) (#209)
    by Y Knot on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:10:43 PM EST
    is probably a poor choice of words.  He undoubtedly knew what she was going to say.  He probably made suggestions.

    I highly doubt he (or anyone) could tell Clinton what to say or what not to.

    It was a great speech.

    Do we know (none / 0) (#236)
    by Melchizedek on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:24:32 PM EST
    that Obama didn't watch the speech live? Putting golf clubs in a car does not mean he spent the time of the speech playing.

    Have fun feasting on Karl Rove's smorgasbord of trumped-up stories and rumors this fall. Looks like some of us are ready to eat.