I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

The 1st is from a former Hillary supporter who will now support Obama but noted Obama's lack of "voltage", "fire-in-the-belly", fighting Dem spitit.

Then Josh posted a reply from an Obama supporter stating Obama can't be "an angry firebrand" Dem candidate because Obama is black and the country is white.

IMO, the Obama supporter is missing the point: Obama is losing the Democratic base, the very people who will support him because he is black, by being a milquetoast.

The way you sell Obama to people who are not yet convinced that he is the greatest thing since sliced bread is not to insist that yes, he really is that awesome.  It is to emphasize the fact that he represents values and issues that are bigger than just himself.

So what did she do? Well, she came damn, damn close to getting my wife and I to drink the koolaid. Masterfully done to talk about all of the people she had met who were suffering and to challenge her supporters to think of them over thinking of her. But more importantly, she challenged OBAMA to run for those people too. This was every bit the challenge to Obama as it was to her supporters. I don't think that really sunk in at the time due to her very artful use of emotion in that appeal, and her very forceful statements of belief in Obama carrying her goals forward. It will sink in though. The premise for her appeal to support Obama is that he WILL fight for those Democratic values that SHE based her presidential bid on. If he doesn't, if he continues to mouth mealy platitudes, the entire premise of her appeal is GONE.

Obama got what he asked for, the best possible, the strongest possible appeal from Clinton to her supporters and voters to unite behind Obama. I think it is going to dawn on him that he may not have wanted what he asked for.

I also posted this separately, the kicker:

Sometimes the key line is the speech is not necessarily the most powerful or most memorable line.

This is the key line said after she runs through the very powerful (and very Democratic) list of why she ran:

"Those are the reasons I ran for President. Those are the reasons I support Barack Obama. And those are the reasons you should too."

Basically, if he does not follow through on those "reasons", you have no "reason" to vote for Obama. Plus, throughout she emphasized fighting for those reasons, that it will be hard work, that it will require pushing through adversity and against rabid opposition.

Brilliant, effective, powerful. The ball is indeed in Obama's court now.

Not just personal history, or recent history, but call outs to the founders and pioneers of the principles that became the core of the democratic party.

I sometimes get the feeling that the new "progressive" movement wants to think that everything good's only been invented in the since PC's and Mac's came along, and old stuff like unions aren't really worth spending time talking about.

The Obama campaign has deliberately blurred the lines between us and them, in an effort to appeal to voters who may be tired of the partisan fighting.  While I believe people do get tired of it, their frustration comes when nothing is getting done, not when a battle hard-fought results in positive movement, because, in their heart of hearts, they do want someone to fight for the issues they care about, not water them down to meaningless gruel that satisfies no one.

You have only to listen to the crowd.  Say what you will about Kucinich, but his speech had the crowd roaring and on its feet.  Mark Warner?  Not so much.  The difference?  Kucinich wants to fight for the things Democrats believe in and Warner wants to hold hands and sing Kumbaya around the campfire.

Kumbaya doesn't cut it.  Not now.  Not this year.  Hillary Clinton gets that, and it was clear in what she said, in the exhortations to the crowd; I have to believe that the roar of approval was not just for her, but for what she was saying.

I think Joe Biden will continue to sharpen the lines that Hillary drew last night, and if he is smart, Barack Obama will ditch what I expect to be a quasi-religious spectacle at Invesco for a meat-and-potatoes, we-are-Democrats-and proud-of-it continuation of the call to arms.

He could very well do that.  The question will be, does he mean it?  Will it be a repeat of leaning-left-to-win-the-nomination, followed by the really-more-comfortable-over-here-on-the-right president who will forget about us once he gets where he wants to be?

I have no reason to trust him.  I have no reason to trust Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the rest of the people who will be steering the party and the country in their roles in the DNC and in the Congress.

Also, I know I am not crazy, or too old or feeling like I have to catch up on some change if I want to stay a Democrat.

I feel like something big and important but misplaced has been found.

Obama needs a nanny to clear obstacles, pad sharp corners, bring all of the reluctant Democrats to his play group, prop him up as he learns to walk through the GOP minefield, and pat him on the head telling him what a smart young man he is, yes he is.

In his career as state representative, who were his closest associates and what were their roles in his political life?

Did he regularly attend state Democratic meetings and functions?

What were the five top issues he felt passionately about and what efforts did he make to obtain success with them?

In reality did he tend to favor business over community ?

Did he give time in campaigning for other Democratic candidates and loyally
support them?  Did he ever sacrifice for another Dem?

Now, a large percentage of those Democrats know more about "what being a Democrat means" than they wanted to know. And, they aren't happy with the definition of "what being a Democrat means" anymore.

Er. That would be me.

So, while I am a sadder, wiser voter than I was in, say, the middle of May, 2008, I'm no longer a Democratic Party partisan. What "being a Democrat means" to me, doesn't include stealing delegates and awarding delegates to a candidate who wasn't even on the ballot. With that act, "what being a Democrat means" was cheating Democrats out of their best candidate.

So, "what being a Democrat means" has different meanings for different Democrats. Those in the DNC have a different idea about it than I do. And, the fact that Hillary Clinton has been practically forced to grovel at the feet of Barack Obama to prop him up, just proves my point. That's not "what being a Democrat means" either.

They want to "drill into our brains," according to Nancy Pelosi. Well, dismissing Democrats who question cheaters isn't what "being a Democrat means" to me.

Harriet Tubman - Hillary Clinton:

He and his team, supporters and fans aren't entitled to demand to know my current plans about voting.

If they assume my thoughts and feelings today or behind the future event of casting my vote, they're not entitled to bash me for that or their own speculations and strategies.

Obama and Bob Casey Jr have exercised their choice to use their respective offices to deprive women and others of our choice to determine our own lives ... and live by the choices Obama and Bob Casey Jr have made for us.

If Obama still doesn't understand the illegality, injustice and unconstitutional crime in all of the above, he's not only undeserving of the office but unfit to serve.

He's told me in advance -- and I AM ENTITLED TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION -- that he has no intention of honoring his oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Sen Clinton helped clear away a lot of accumulated fog yesterday.

The gaggle of Hillary Haters and micro-nitpicking media gossipmongers helped me rest even more easily about exercising the diminishing choices in my life.

They made me realize I'm treating these matters with more consideration and respect than they've shown.

Sen Clinton ASKED for my vote and with her words and actions gave me solid reasons to give her my support.

Never again will I hold my nose and support a party and "my" elected representitives who'll just once again dump their responsibilities and befriend the enemies of my freedom.

Sen Clinton is entitled like anyone else to ASK for it for herself or consider giving it to a colleague and she did that beyond reproach yesterday (though you'd never know it from the bobbleheads.)

It's not that I won't accept a substitute for Sen Clinton but that I won't accept anyone less in public office.

Yeah, she set the bar high, given the dismal state of "New" Politics, but her showing should be the everyday standard.

From now on, it's my minimum. I deserve exactly that much: the best. Obama and the Dems still have time to bring their A-game to this "contest".

And they don't want others anything less from others than that they be Obama believers -- your  vote isn't enough for them, they want your devotion.

Hillary gave Democrats important, vital, pragmatic reasons to vote for Obama.

But she didn't enumerate all the personal qualities and abstract reasons that inspire Obama's most dedicated supporters' belief in him. She also didn't acknowledge his superiority. In their minds he won the primary because he is a better, purer person than Hillary. And they want nothing less than for her to acknowledge that.

BTD is right, as are many peolpe who seem to see the forest for the trees.  The Democrats should have the White House.  Since the only other option is a Republican, one would think the choice relatively clear.  

Further, how in the world could HRC accept the VP nomination from a candidate she consistently called "unqualified" and not appear to be the world's biggest opportunist?  If one looks past the instant gratification and considers the attacks that would have immediately flown from the other side, Obama's decision makes sense.

HRC is a smart politician and a pro.  She provided a clear justification for voting Obama.  Her really committed supporters can't have it both ways...they can't support her and then accuse her of being disingenuous to preserve her position.  She either is a reliable truth teller or not.  

Choosing not to participate in the election, merely because you're not fond of the choices invalidates any future complaints you might make.  For example...if McCain gets elected and Congress fails to prevent him from succeeding with a conservative nomionee to the Court, what's the root cause?  It isn't McCain, or Congress...it's the failure of preventing the possibility of a nominee in the first place.    

I've written before that a substantial number of Republicans actively despise McCain; despite his slavish support of the Bush agenda, he's not "conservative" enough.  But they're moving mountains to get him elected.  

I cast my first vote in 1992 for Bill Clinton and have always voted democratic (except for a couple of votes for one of the few Republican congressmen who voted against Iraq).  This year I was dead set to vote for Clinton, or for any Democrat, for the reasons Clinton espoused last night.  However, since the end of the primaries what I have seen from the Obama campaign and from Obama himself has not been about those values, but about Obama.  Frankly I don't need to elect a messiah -- I already have one.  I became more and more troubled when I heard people endorse Obama not because of his values or experience or wisdom, but because he was a "symbol."

Bill put together his own machinery to get elected and govern how he wanted to on the issues that he wanted to favor, i.e. NAFTA etc.  The problem of course was that Gore didn't use Bill's tools to get elected.

Obama is similar to Bill; he has his own positions on some things which are more centrist than liberal Democrat, but he is combining his machinery with the DNC's machinery (in Chicago which I think is a bad idea, the last thing he wants to do is stamp the DNC with a Chicago political brand). Even though I do think the whole "50 state strategy" of at least trying to pump voters out in every district (i.e. the south) is good for the long run, since the DNC will carry that forward even if Obama loses.

Hillary is the most true Democrat of the three.  That speech she gave last night struck me as much as Kennedy's speech back in 1980.  He gave a defense of liberalism much in the same way that Hillary did last night.  The core themes struck me in the way that only a Democrat could see it as all of you did.