We're voters.  They're politicians.

I thought it was very heavy on appreciation of Clinton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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."  

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.

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.

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

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.    

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.

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