The speech was all this and more!

I'm going to be re-reading the full text to see whether it was Hillary's delivery or the writing that made this speech so moving and memorable to me. More soon.

by Don Williams (111 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Saturday, June 7, 2008 at 1:55:40 PM
 

I agree

Hill's speech today was truly inspiring and perfectly delivered!  This Obama supporter was moved to tears.  She appropriately demonstrated and iterated why we should be so proud of our country, and especially the Democratic Party:  who would have ever thought that the top two contenders for the nomination would be a woman and an African-American.  I used to believe:  not in my lifetime!  Hillary:  you did yourself and all of us proud.  My personal choice is to put her on the Supreme Court, but if we could just muzzle Bill, she'd make a damn good Veep I'm sure.

by John in Richmond (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Saturday, June 7, 2008 at 4:06:04 PM
 

It's the least that she could do.

The tear down of Obama in the primaries was both subtle and powerful. It started in NH when her surrogate (and head of her NH campaign) said Obama needed to be asked if he was a drug dealer and condinued downward until it reached its lowest point with the 'hard working white people' comment. She hurt Obama badly by creating this contrived 'white working class' chasm.  It was done enough times to make it abundantly clear that it was deliberate.

She'll be lucky to get reelected in New York in four years.

Adding her to the ticket takes away from Obama's luster as someone different (which he may or may not be).  I think that both he and  his campaign folks are  smart enough to know better. It also gets Bill and all his baggage.

The good news is that from Sept 12, 2007 when Edwards, Clinton, and Obama all refused to commit to a total US withdrawal from Iraq by the end of their first term, Obama and Clinton both have a more agressive stance on that required event. Once elected, the Democrats need to follow the publc and they'll do fine.

by Michael Collins (96 articles, 16 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 344 comments) on Saturday, June 7, 2008 at 4:32:52 PM
 

Multiple Faces of Hillary Clinton

Hillary reminds me of the 1957 movie, The Three Faces of Eve, a true story of a Georgia housewife with three personalities.

After attacking Obama for months that has provided the Republicans with months of commercials against Obama, I cannot believe people are now talking about Hillary's speech being wonderful.

The political game is disgusting. Candidates can tell voters blatant lies and the press makes them into heroes.

by Laura Kay (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Saturday, June 7, 2008 at 5:13:33 PM
 

I Agree

One speech doesn't change things.  Sweet, gracious, jeez it makes me wanna puke.

by macdon1 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Sunday, June 8, 2008 at 1:52:15 AM
 

Political game disgusting

I agree Laura, the political game is deeply flawed. It wasn't always thus, but always, intermittently was so. It took a terrible downturn in the Bush/Dukakis campaign, with the advent of Willie Horton fear-mongering. Maybe Obama / McCain will restore some dignity. Don't count on it, but just maybe.

by Don Williams (111 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Saturday, June 7, 2008 at 5:28:41 PM
 

One Fine Lady

I have never admired the so called Democrats, the so call Liberals, the so called Progressives who are the Hillary haters. I admired her when she walked into a White House grabbed the bulls by the horns and did something no other political person had the guts to do since FDR in 1932 and 1936 with her bold health care program of $350 per month universal coverage for every single family in the United States. The "Contract on America" crowd sunk her boat behind the corporate media of CNN, Fox and MSNBC.

When President Clinton committed adultery on her she was condemned because she did not divorce him accused of only staying with him because she had political ambitions; when she said was not made to stay home and bake cookies, she was condemned because she was anti-stay-at home wives; therefore she was anti-family making her a militant woman feminist. When she played the election game according to the same rules everyone else played, she was condemned for being in the hip pockets of corporations.

Senator Clinton is evidently a good wife, an excellent mother, a sane liberal with a pragmatic bent, as honest as the day is long. Can you imagine that there is anything we do not know about Senator Clinton after the Ken Star, Melon Scaithe, Jerry Falwell faction spent almost a hundred million dollars of our money trying to find dirt on her, and no, she is not a Lesbian as the flyer on my desk claims her to be.

She is more liberal than husband President Bill Clinton or Senator Barack Obama, more brilliant than both  of them put together and tougher than they will ever be. She is a fine lady in spite of what Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthew and Tim Russert say night after night on MSNBC; and no she is not a racist or a Black people hater as the Obama Camp, Huffpo, Robopednews, MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, and the religious right wing such as Falwell, Dobson and Land claim her to be.Phil

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments) on Saturday, June 7, 2008 at 6:15:28 PM
 

Laura

She has been counted as being a racist by those in the Obama camp when up until Senator Obama came into the picture she could count on ninety per cent of the Black vote in any election.

She was seriously accused night after night by Olbermann on Countdown and Matthews on Hardball of suggesting that someone should assassinate Senator Obama. I guess she was just supposed to be "the good little mousey housewife" while he and his people did a hatchet job on her. Shame on her for fighting back. Black people should understand what I am saying more than anyone else in this country.

Let us play your little game of holding everything against her that she said or those in her campaign said against Senator Obama; let us hold everything Obama said and his camp said against her. Let us let him get out there and fend for himself; he gets none of her mailing lists; he gets none of her financial supporters, and he gets none of her political apparatus.

What? He got 51% of the delegates while she received 51% of the popular vote. Let see him survive with that 49% of the Republican machine. How about the other fifty percent who supported her? Are you willing just to write them off by inviting them to stay home or maybe vote for McCain?

If you are in the Obama camp, you had better walk damn lightly when it comes to getting her supporters to support him. Not only must her support of him be authentic, but his support of her must be just as real.

Phil

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments) on Saturday, June 7, 2008 at 6:43:42 PM
 

There are perhaps 10% of Hillary's supporters...

who will vote for McCain over Obama because they agree with Republican philosophy. The reason they supported Hillary is because she is not a liberal. She is a Democratic Leadership Council quasi-Republican. There is another one percent who hate Obama for beating her in this contest and will vote for McCain as a "protest." Any additional Hillary supporters who vote for McCain are likely racists who wouldn't vote for Obama under any circumstances (you know, the "hard working whites" of Appalachia and points north).

The preponderant majority of Ms. Clintons primary contest supporters will support Obama to effect a change in government, and I am quite certain that they will never regret casting that vote.

by John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1172 comments) on Sunday, June 8, 2008 at 8:10:11 AM
 

John Sanchez "racist comment"

The type of comment below by John Sanchez is an illustration of exactly what people have been seeing when any mention of a positive reference to Senator Hillary Clinton is made. This person does not seem to consider that others may think his favored candidate might not be the most electable, or the brightest, or the most experienced, or a dozen other attributes that make him a less desirable candidate. The flawed logic he applies simply because people oppose the election of this AA automatically makes them racist is absurd! The racist, regional sterotyping in the comment below shows the ignorance and bias of the writer and once again illustrates the points I have made in a previous post.

"Any additional Hillary supporters who vote for McCain are likely racists who wouldn't vote for Obama under any circumstances (you know, the "hard working whites" of Appalachia and points north)."

by Bluegrass (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, June 8, 2008 at 9:44:53 AM
 

I do not believe a majority of people...

in these regions are racist, but there are enough to have had an impact in the West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio contests. Since I believe they are a small number I did not assign a percentage value to them. To suppose that they do not exist, however, is purely delusional. To pretend that Hillary Clinton did not court their vote with the standard code phrases, like "hard working whites," is similarly delusional.

by John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1172 comments) on Sunday, June 8, 2008 at 12:36:23 PM
 

Further I do not and have never characterized...

Barack Obama as an African American. His heritage, if it is to be considered must be considered as transcending these divisions. The facts of it make him a child of the world with ancestors from Europe and Africa and a formative cultural exposure to Asia, and of course, the United States of America.

by John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1172 comments) on Sunday, June 8, 2008 at 12:41:18 PM
 

Obama Calling Hillary Racist?

I would challenge anyone to describe one word, sentence or phrase in which Barack even so much as eluded to Hillary's racial attitudes?

Some others, including me, do it all of the time. But I've never seen or heard one thing that involved him referring to Hillary's racial attitudes.

by Hargrove (11 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 19 comments) on Saturday, June 7, 2008 at 9:56:11 PM
 

Hargrove-- Challenge met

Obama did not call Hillary a racist, but MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News sure did. When her husband made the ramark in South Carolina, Obama and his followers picked it up and made hay out of it. You know and I know it. When you follow it up by the "on and on" sermon by the white rogue Roman Catholic Priest who was a guest in Obama's home church, those things do not sit well.

To make it simple: to leave the impression that Senator Cllinton was slinging mud while Senator Obama was a Vestal Virgin innocently above the fray is not being truthful to say the very least.

I will work and vote for Obama's election, but I am very sick and tired of the senseless attacks on the Clinton's by so called Liberals and Progressives.

My daughter married a Black man and my grandson is half Black, so do not think I speak only from a white perspective. I marched in the Civil Rights, too, in Dallas when it was not popular to do so, especially if you were a Southern Baptist ordained minister which I was and am.

Phil.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments) on Saturday, June 7, 2008 at 11:52:30 PM
 

It would seem that if the challenge were met,...

something in your reply would have to be inside quotation marks. I'm curious to see that evidence myself.

by John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1172 comments) on Sunday, June 8, 2008 at 8:17:12 AM
 

Obama Did Not Open His Mouth-He Did Not Have To

Laura,

Obama did not have to open his mouth to call Senator Clinton a racist, his hatchet men and campaign did it for him at every turn.  One could not post a positive comment about Senator Clinton anywhere on the internet for the past six months without being called "racist" simply by posting supporting comments about a candidate (Sen Clinton).  If one goes to any of three YouTube videos of which I am aware, you will see clips of the sexist gestures, comments and innuendo which Obama demonstrated and stated..."PERIODICALLY, when Senator Clinton is feeling down" and using rap gestures of giving her the finger, brushing her off his shoulder (as in crap) and scraping her from his feet as in wiping offal from his feet".  All this done in his efforts to appeal to his young constituents so as to appear "cool" in their eyes.  This, coming from someone who is trying to become the President of out great nation..APPALLING!

 No, Laura, Senator Obama did not come to the defense of Senator Clinton even once in the onslaught of biased and hate-filled vitriolic comments made by his supporters, MSNBC, CNN, and NBC gossips, pundits and talking heads.  Guilt by omission as well as co-mission is all guilt....and Obama WILL pay the price for that.  If the DNC and Obama think that Clinton supporters and those 18 million people who voted for her are going to rally behind this fellow, they are sadly mistaken.  He might be able to fool a few of them, but the majority of us God fearing, gun-toting, bitter, poor voters can spot an empty suit and we certainly are not going to help elect him to be POTUS.

by Bluegrass (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, June 8, 2008 at 1:32:57 AM
 

HRC vs Obama

Not being an Obama or HRC supporter, I consider myself neutral.  But there WAS some pretty nasty stuff directed at Hillary from what I could see on many blogs, especially over the last several weeks.   I did not see the same directed against Obama.  I did my best to level the playing field by pointing some stuff about whats in his book Dreams From My Father, since I have sympathy for the underdog when the other dogs turn mean.

That said. HRC has speech writers, thats what they get paid to do.  If Obama does not win, or does win and something happens that weakens him politically or worse, she can run again in 4 years.  She still needs to play the game and keep the PTB happy, unless she wants to call it a career. 

by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 466 comments) on Sunday, June 8, 2008 at 2:05:23 AM
 

Maybe I should agree on most of what you say, but . . .

I strongly take exception to your overall commentary on Senator Clinton’s speech given yesterday, that it was a sweet, gracious, and generous speech.  First, her speech was too long and included not only what she should have said but also too much of what she should have left out.  For example, she said too much of self-serving, self-congratulatory remarks at the beginning of her speech, and then she also said, toward the end of her speech, too much of what suggested, not in very subtle ways, that she was the best available nominee for the democratic party, that she should really have been chosen as the democratic party nominee, that she regretted that it did not happen that way, that the main reason for her failure to get the party nomination was the prevalent sexism in the country, etc.  These remarks made it look as if, from her own perspective, her campaign had not been a major national campaign for the good of the country, but rather a women’s campaign to make the first woman president in the country.  It is a truly significant historic event that a woman led a major national campaign for the whole country (i.e., equally for all men and all women) the way she did, but if her campaign had been a women’s campaign and the focus of her campaign was, in any significant way, to make the first woman president of the country, then it is not a great historic event, on the same level, that a woman led such a campaign because would you really expect a man to lead such a campaign, though that is certainly a possibility?    

In point of fact, Senator Clinton did not need to speak anything about this aspect of her campaign because the very fact that her campaign was a major national campaign and that it was led by a woman (namely, her) was an indisputable fact, so that that very fact itself could have spoken far louder than whatever she could have said in her speech.  If she was silent on this point, her speech would have been that much more impressive.  But by saying too much to glorify what she thought was her personal accomplishment and also by saying too much of what she thought was the sexist aspects relating to her campaign (namely, the campaign’s goal of nominating and eventually electing a woman as president and the alleged sexism as a significant, if not the principal, reason for her failure to get the nomination, etc.), her speech diminished, rather drastically, what could have been accepted as her great historic accomplishment and was also an insult to many men who supported her campaign.   

When you do something, it is not only important that you do everything that needs to be done, but it is also important that you not do what should not be done.  There is a Chinese proverb that describes this point and it is referenced as the “snake’s legs”.  The story goes something like this:  A great painter has drawn a snake, which is so vivid, so lively and truly looks like a real snake about to strike.  Everyone was deeply impressed and moved by the painting.  But when another person saw this painting, he thought that the snake was beautifully drawn but that it was less than perfect because it did not have four legs as other animals; so he drew legs to the snake on the painting.  But, of course, the moment he did that, the snake in the painting immediately lost its vividness and liveliness and looked exactly what it was, a drawing on a piece of paper.  In other words, because a real snake does not have legs, by adding these unnecessary legs to what was already a perfect drawing of a snake, this idiot destroyed the painting.  To repeat, the moral of the story is that once something perfect has been created, you can destroy it by simply adding something superfluous or redundant.   

At the same time, Senator Clinton failed to formally release the delegates who are now pledged to vote for her and also failed to declare that the remaining super-delegates are now free to do whatever they felt appropriate to do.  By failing to do even the latter, she gave the impression that she was still waiting for something to happen that may enable her to re-enter the electoral contest.  Even if she releases the delegates now, she could, with equal ease, re-enter the election campaign if some unexpected event happens which makes Obama’s candidacy a practical impossibility.  So, by not publicly declaring that she releases her delegates in her speech yesterday, she betrays or at least gives the appearance of a small-mindedness and opportunism, and makes her look very small indeed, giving rise to the view that she may not be worthy of being president of this country.  In fact, at least arguably, she may have shown many of the stereotypically “women’s” weaknesses in this election campaign and thus may also have unfortunately set back the feminist agenda, rather than contributed to a progress in that arena.   

In other words, if she was bold enough to make her speech much shorter and made the main points of endorsing and whole-heartedly supporting Obama’s candidacy on a going forward basis and explained the reason for doing so by contrasting the choice faced by the nation in the general election, as she brilliantly did in her actual speech, and if she was silent on many of her personal sentiments and factual aspects of her campaign, letting the fundamental facts of her campaign speak for itself, then she would have made a truly great speech and she would have been perceived as a far greater statesman (or, statesperson).  And the fact that she was a woman would have been that much more impressive and outstanding as a historic event.    

by Nathan Nahm (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments) on Sunday, June 8, 2008 at 2:07:24 AM
 

business as ususal Hillary -- ugh

Well put.  One self serving speach doesn't cancel out her atrocious behavior, like trying to elect McCain.  This woman degraded the Goddness at the very time we needed her the most.  Dear God, she wasn't defeated BECAUSE she was a woman, but because she pandered to the worst kind of feminist.  Let's hope she didn't ruin things for high office women in the future! The Clintons are the worst kind of political cancer.  She's going to have a lot a rage waiting for here in New York.

by W. Christopher Epler (Bill) (232 articles, 44 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 540 comments) on Sunday, June 8, 2008 at 12:20:09 PM
 

Well if this endorsement speeh was Hillary's.......

first move towards redemption, then God Bless Her...........But, I hardly think so............It's amazing to me (and I've been in the Middle East for 18 years and experienced about every heart breaking event you can imagine) how this woman can make men melt in their shoes (including Rob Kall) I'll never understand..........what a bunch of wuses...........

This woman has commited enough crime to put ten men in prison......one already served time for her (another wus)........one blowed his brains out for her (the biggest wus).......and all the rest make excuses for her actions.......

In my opinion....she doesn't come close to being a real woman..........I'm so happy about the way this turned out...I'm dancing............

Now regarding a woman in the President's Seat....all you wuses and women blew a great opportunity to have a touch of class and some heart felt "Mother's Kindness" and symathy for mankind where it really counts........Instead of selecting a real woman you chose "the Medussa's Head" to be your leader........

I only have one question for the wuses and women who promoted Hillary Clinton......did you learn anything yet?...........or do you need another slap in the face come 2012?...................

by Ernest (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 132 comments) on Sunday, June 8, 2008 at 2:32:24 AM
 

Sweet and gracious?

Will the real Hillary Clinton please step forward? When I think of her, sweet and gracious do not come to mind. The speech was self serving and self centered. I don't trust her. She "suspended" her campaign.........wants to hold on to delegates for some reason............

by Linda Bailey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments) on Sunday, June 8, 2008 at 6:45:34 AM
 

Don, Laura and Hargrove-- Point Proven

Do not listen to me, Listen to the comments following my previoius comment; however, be careful; some of these making comments are Ron Paulites Libertarians who are scared to death that either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton will be elected with their social welfare programs.

Phil

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments) on Sunday, June 8, 2008 at 7:30:58 AM
 

Good Enough

I felt about the speech, much like Obama's comment "Likeable enough." It was "good enough," even though it began with the same self aggrandizement as the original nonconcession speech.  It also focused on the sexism blame game (Clintons always have to blame someone or something for their own failings) and her efforts to crack the glass ceiling.    She was more helped by sexism than harmed by it.  I felt no disrespect for Senator Clinton when she began her campaign, although I did not feel she was the typical woman who had achieved.  Good grief, she was a former First Lady!  I became more and more turned off as she struggled to find her "voice," in other words as she tried to find out what the voters wanted to hear.  She could never really admit her vote to go to war with Iraq was wrong.  She embellished her resume and out and out lied about the sniper fire.   I thought she was the stereotypical female with her crying and smirky musing about whether Obama is Muslim or not.  Her comments about