I think this is very good stuff and certainly explains better than I could why her supporters ought to line up behind Obama. Genuinely moving, and excellent overall -- really a total home run.
« Oh Noes! Charity in a Church! | Main | Infrastructure »
Clinton's Speech
07 Jun 2008 02:24 pm
Comments (42)
I agree. It was really fabulous. It both honored her accomplishments and made the case for Obama in a way that came off as completely sincere and respectful of those still emotionally invested in her campaign. It actually got me thinking that she making her the VP candidate might not be such a bad idea.
I think it also puts Tuesday's speech in the right context. I think Hilary is someone who does whatever she is doing with maximum commitment, and that, for whatever reason, the switched hadn't flipped for her yet. Now that it has, I have no doubt that she is going to be a true professional from this point on. Bill, on the other hand, I do have my doubts about.
Agree. It was a very good speech. A great combination of Hillary's themes and Obama's with a dollop of why Democrats are better overall.
Matt, great comment.
I just really hope these Clinton supporters at least bother to read McCain's platform before they vote for him so they know what they're responsible for.
Yes, hopefully her most rabid fans listen to her.
OT-
"But nobody who sent her a donation could accuse her of not giving them their money’s worth."
-Gail Collins, NYT
Does she even know who Hillary hired, and how much she paid them?
I watched it on Fox (so's to get the proper amount of F & B) and their immediate followup commentary was
a) She talked too much about herself, and
b) the longer she talked, the less enthusiastic the applause...law of diminishing returns, or something
Great speech -- she has gotten much better as a speaker. This nomination race turns out to have been Affirmed-Alydar (Belmont-appropriate reference).
I also had the tabloid-reader sappy reaction of, I want Hilary and Barack to be friends now! I was surprised by myself.
I love it: all is forgiven. "As far as I know," "and Mr. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002," "hard-working Americans, white Americans," "Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June," etc. I lost because of sexism, he played the race card on me, he's a pansy, etc. I'd consider being VP, I'm not interested in being VP, I'm ambivalent about being VP, it's his choice who is VP, etc. If there is anyone out there who thinks the Clintons are no "deranged narcissists," they are deranged.
I forgive them. That doesn't mean I'm going to forget how they played this one--just that I don't have any interest in dwelling on it. And it really was a nice speech.
Who said all is forgiven? It was a good speech and it's a good point from which we can stop complaining about her and start focusing on McCain. Obviously she had to get her supporters to accept that he won, but in a way Obama supporters needed to make that realization too (in an emotional sense). With all the legitmate complaints about Clinton supporters threatening to vote for McCain, it's easy to forget that Obama supporters need to move on from the primary too to be most effective against McCain. You're free to continue hating her if you want, but she just gave you a way to transition from anti-Clinton mode to anti-McCain mode, not just rhetorically or logically, but emotionally. Obama supporters, myself included, have been arguing that she needed to concede for the good of the party, but we also need to accept the concession to achieve party unity. If you're just going to continue trashing Clinton at this point then any "good for the party" arguments were just hollow anti-Clinton sentiments.
"certainly explains better than I could why her supporters ought to line up behind Obama"
Well, given the number of times that trust-fund scumbag Matthew Yglesias explained during the campaign that the Democrats without an inheritance were really voting for Clinton because they were racist, rather than because they preferred Clinton's economic policies, Matthew could certainly now try to keep repeating that Clinton's supporters ought to vote for Obama because they're racist.
Can the strange idea that Hillary Clinton isn't charismatic finally be put to rest?
People, lovers and haters, are fascinated with her. The media can't get enough.
In fact, her high-wattage charisma may be the primary reason she'd make such a poor VP; in certain ways, she'd upstage the president.
What is it about this woman that inspires so much emotion?
She contains multitudes -- warm, icy, sincere, conniving, idealistic, cynical.
Bill was the superior politician, but Hillary may be the bigger icon ultimately. What a f'in' diva!
"Good for the party"? Worst thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party = the Clintons. Turned it into the Republicrat party. Obama has wrested it away from them. No reason to think she/they won't continue to try to regain power. This was a coup, just as the Clintonites claim. Good. And good riddance.
It was a real feel-good speech. Not enough McCain bashing for my taste, but if she'd delivered this on Tuesday I would've been pulling for a VP spot.
and Petey, I'm glad to see you've embraced your shark-jumping with such slap happy gusto. You've accomplished an awful lot for a retarded moral midget, and your father-slash-grandfather must be proud.
Mr X:
Oh shut up.
I just wasted 5 minutes of my life looking through the comments on her campaign website. It's like a whole alternate universe over there. Incredible.
If you're just going to continue trashing Clinton at this point then any "good for the party" arguments were just hollow anti-Clinton sentiments.
Agreed, but I'm not making up with the dead-enders lined up in the bunker with Larry Johnson and the like still putting out crazy idiocy about Obama being a crypto-communist, gay, *cough* black, murderer. Those people need to be atomized.
Uh, am I only the person who thought the speech sucked?
Her delivery was halting and that "refrain" was stilted at best.
Bravo and well said Mr. X!!!
Hillary Clinton is the patron saint of toxic sludge politics. Hillary has redefined the politics of personal destruction by running a campaign based on fear-mongering and race-baiting.
Nothing is more delusional, deranged, or narcissistic than speaking of yourself in the 3rd person "What does Hillary want?" on the night your opponent has clinched the nomination.
Hillary would make a great ambassador to Bosnia because she's such a hard working white person, as far as I know.
Sometimes I just have to recall that Barack Obama isn't responsible for the views of some of his more fanatical supporters. If I didn't remember that there is no way I could support him.
oh come on people. It was a very good speech. No, she is not the greatest orator in the world, but so what? I will never feel the same way about HRC as I did before this primary campaign, but she did a very good job today.
Yglesias once again reveals how clueless he is about human behavior.
She's covering her ass here, while angling for the VP slot.
If she doesn't get it, she'll do whatever it takes to make sure Obama loses in November.
And notice that Obama's reply consists of one short sentence about himself followed by five longer sentences about her. Entirely appropriate to the occasion, and politically on the mark.
My thoughts fall in the middle of most here. Very good speech - at first thought too much Clinton but realize that's what most in the crowd wanted to hear. When the boos rang out at mention of Obama, I wish she'd done more to cut them at the quick. Still, her insistence that all must fight for Democrats to regain the White House was passionate. She and Bill do not want to see the dregs of their legacy go down with a McCain administration.
I do not want her as VP though. Fortunately, I don't think the so-called vetting process will survive the VP vetting process. HRC might but Bill, never. More proof that HRC's biggest asset has become her biggest liability.
What grieves me is that, if HRC had displayed during her campaign the humility of today, I might have considered supporting her. But, no, it took this for the Clintons to realize that we are the Democratic Party, not the Clinton Party. Our cry is "Yes, WE Can," not "Yes, SHE Can."
Good speech, one of her best...
Petey: Wow...still organizing your life around a tenuous interpretation of a few sentences written by one blogger several month ago. You're so insane it's mesmerizing.
Tim K: At this point, you might want to consider that most of the "fanatical supporters" (eg, Mr. X or JK) might actually be Republican trolls.
RSH: It could be a head fake...but she really did get over 18 million people to cast a vote for her, and with that comes some power to negotiate for what she wants. I've never seen nor heard of a politician pissing that kind of leverage away.
nolaboyd:
I hope you're right, it really disturbs me the kinds of disrespectful things that are said about the Clintons here. Dissing the last successful Democratic president is not going to help elect a new successful Democratic president.
Nolaboyd: That's precisely my point. She has leverage. And she has the motivation to use it. So I believe she will.
Between now and the convention, she will be angling for the VP slot. If, as others perhaps correctly suggest, she doesn't get it because of "Bill baggage", then at that point she will go on the offensive against Obama.
The question is merely will she be blatant about it, or will she work underground to undermine Obama?
I never said she was particularly stupid, so I suspect she will carefully manage her campaigning for the Dems to maximize her own chances for the VP slot - as this speech was obviously intended to do - and at the same time undermine Obama.
All she has to do is make enough "gaffes" during the campaign after the convention to give the Republicans a shot at shooting down Obama. Not to mention that her mere presence will help that. She knows how much the Republicans hate her. The more she campaigns for Obama, the more likely he is to lose.
Then in 2012 she can make claims about how the whole loss was the result of Obama not being hawkish enough on foreign policy or whatever - which will work if Bush starts the Iran war and McCain wins - some bullshit that will gloss over her own contribution to the loss. Then all she has to do is recruit the same Clinton freaks we saw this year - and she has the nomination in 2012.
It might work, it might not - but how can we say definitely that she is sincere in supporting Obama and the Dems to the detriment of her own political future?
People are just smoking crack here. This is not how the Clintons operate.
Just as people like Richard would be blaming the loss on Senator Clinton or the fact that Obama wasn't left-wing or dovish enough.
Anybody who thinks Clinton is "sincere" about this is simply clueless.
If Obama loses, it will be because he was too "nice" (read: too stupid) to take down McCain on his "war hero" bullshit and was unable to differentiate himself from McCain on Iran, since he believes "Iran is a threat".
Hillary is just icing on the cake - using the fact that the Republicans hate her to assist in taking down Obama for her.
Clinton is a piece of shit, and a bitch (or an asshole, if you don't want to be "sexist"). It's that simple.
What we have are a bunch of suckers who STILL believe political speeches! I mean, really! How fucking stupid is that?
I think this is very good stuff and certainly explains better than I could why her supporters ought to line up behind Obama.
Don't forget--many of Clintons' supporters were anti-Obama as opposed to pro-Clinton.
Vote McCain.
This is one of the better speeches I've heard her give. Does anyone else find it odd that she came up with this kind of performance only as she decided to end her campaign? Where was this during her campaign?
(Then again, perhaps I like this performance so much because I'm finally on board with this message?)
Cal, at this point I think you can definitively be told to go fuck yourself.
Too many reasons not to line up behind Obama. Zero experience is just one of them. Teaching his flock to be hateful is another. And going to a hate-church for 20 years yet another. Not all of us will vote for just *any* democrat, even if in theory they are better than any Republican. I absolutely do not trust barack with a dem house, dem senate and media in his back pocket. Too much power for someone we know so little about.
Anne's actually not a troll. Check out her blog. It's so convincing!!!! There are so many people agreeing with her that she averages
Don't know why it got cut off, it's supposed to read "There are so many people agreeing with her that she averages
The eighteen million people that voted for Hillary are not robots. We are all different with expectations and hopes like everyone else. However, we are entitled to our opinion about Hillary and Obama based on our judgment. Listening to the political commentary, we are portrayed as bitter, delusional, vindictive, and racist against Obama.
More importantly, Hillary is blamed for spreading these ideas among us. What nonsense! We can comprehend for ourselves. If anything, we were too naive how the political system operated. In our opinion, Obama was selected by the pundits and party. Yes, he did win a greater share of delegates with the caucuses and the superdelegates. However, it was the way the process evolved over the last six months that really made us angry.
This is the first Presidential election where the MSM became a power broker and blatantly favored one candidate. By doing this, the norms of this election changed. Past candidates that had marginal delegates and victories were allowed to take their campaigns to the convention. However, Hillary was stopped from exercising this option by her own party and the media.
In addition, there were the issues of sexism and racism. Race served as an undercurrent in this process and used as a wedge issue against Hillary. Sexism became not only acceptable but openly practiced by the likes of Matthews, Russert, Beck, Cafferty, and Olbermann.
It was obvious that Hillary was pressured by her own party to suspend her campaign and endorse Obama. Now, we are to "fall in line" like good little Democrats. Like hell, we will. After seeing Hillary being trampled by her own party, we are taking the initiative and reclaiming our power through our votes.
EWard demonstrates what a Republican "fake Democrat" looks like. Look closely.
This is Clinton's "base".
And Clinton is going to use these dweebs to make sure Obama either loses in November or puts her on the ticket as VP.
Anybody who thinks otherwise is a sucker.
After seeing Hillary being trampled by her own party, we are taking the initiative and reclaiming our power through our votes.
I'm sorry so many Hillary supporters seem to see the process as unfair. I wish they had a little more sympathy for many in the Democratic party's fear of a divided, hostile convention destroying the party's chances in November.
Unfortunately, the only real power a protesting faction within a party has in the U.S. plurality system is effectively to help the other party. So you plan to cut off your face to spite your nose -- or something to that effect? After 8 years of Bush and almost that many of the Iraq war? Really?
I guess if you're a right-centrist, helping McCain makes sense. But, for those who genuinely share Democratic values, helping McCain is an awfully vindictive and self-punishing way to get revenge on the party.
In our system, only 1 person can win. The last time people felt they deserved to be 100% happy, damn the practical consequences, they voted for Nader and helped elect Bush over Gore. That wasn't just some cult of personality either -- the Iraq War, Roberts, Alito, gradual elimination of the inheritance tax, all followed.
Best Interest of the Party
The latest buzzwords are the "best interest" and "unity" of the Democratic Party. The superdelegates ignored those ideas when Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson, Rockefeller, and Napolitano all endorsed Obama even though Hillary had won their state primaries. To add insult to injury, the SDS started lining up behind BO even before the final results were in from many elections.
Again, race became an issue when Obama and the "lunatic" media started demeaning the voters. This is all about race. Her voters will not choose a black man. Yet, the pundits ignored the fact that by a huge margin, he was winning the AA vote. It was all because the Clintons were racists and made this an issue. We are to believe that the majority of AA voters selected Obama, and his race had nothing to do with it.
The pundits and the party wanted this process shut down long before June. The the news spread that Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Carter and others were going to bring this to an end as if the word came down from Mt. Olympus. We had Donna Brazile functioning as a "neutral" commentator on CNN and an "impartial" rules committee member talk about "her momma." Her role in this was so transparent.
Now, the FaceBook bloggers are trying to change our resolve by writing that our "best interest" is a joke, if we vote for McCain. The blood of more American soldiers will be on our hands. The country will suffer with more debt, foreclosures; Roe vs. Wade will be in jeopardy, and so on. For a nominee to have legitimacy, the process has to be fair and not fixed. This did not happen in the Democratic race.
When a well respected party overturns the will of half its voters, you will see a revolt against a corrput process. All the issues about Iraq, the economy, immigration, health care, and education are pushed aside. The first order of business will be to reform the system through our votes and not by "falling in line" for a selected candidate.
When a well respected party overturns the will of half its voters, you will see a revolt against a corrput process.
No matter what, in a narrowly won contest, somebody gets to be the nominee and somebody doesn't. I really don't understand where you're coming from. Yeah, it sucks when your candidate is the one who narrowly lost, but that's life, isn't it?
Hillary had a 100 superdelegate advantage during most of the primary season, including many loyal supporters in states Obama won. Was that also not fair?
By the way, your vote for McCain will do exactly nothing as far as reforming the Democratic party's rules for nominating a presidential candidate.
And if Obama loses because a large number of Hillary supporters stay as unreasonable as you? Hillary will be blamed big-time, count on it. Her chances in 2012 will not be great in that scenario.
Funny -- so far, instead of seeing a "revolt" against the nominating process, we're seeing the consolidation of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters behind the Democratic candidate, as everyone predicted.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows Barack Obama’s bounce growing to an eight-point lead over John McCain. Obama now attracts 48% of the vote while McCain earns 40%.
When “leaners” are included, Obama leads 50% to 43%. On Tuesday, just before Obama clinched the nomination, the candidates were tied at 46% (see recent daily results). Data from Rasmussen Markets gives Obama a 95.1 % chance of winning.
Obama’s bounce is the result of growing unity among the Democratic Party. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats say they will vote for Obama over McCain. That’s the highest level of party support ever enjoyed by Obama. Still, three-out-of-ten voters are either uncommitted or could change their mind before Election Day. Fifty-six percent (56%) of those swayable voters are women and most earn less than $60,000 a year. There are more conservatives than liberals among these potential swing voters.
And this is not even a week after Obama captured the nomination.
All this talk of 'revolt' and 18 million people hiding out in their basements waiting for Central Command to okay their support of the Democratic candidate -- it's all nonsense.
H/T to MyDD.
Comments closed June 21, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I haven't heard her give a speech since February I think, so I was suitably impressed when I heard her endorsement today.
Posted by Morg | June 7, 2008 2:35 PM