I made you -- and everyone who supported me -- a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I'm going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.

I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama.

What are the values HR Clinton shares with her supporters? I'm very curious about that. As a white woman of power, privilege, wealth, and celebrity, she seems many worlds away from the people who actually supported her. I'd love to know what she meant by that.

And as for her rallying the party behind Obama: It looks like the party has done that; rather, it's a question of whether HR Clinton's supporters will (re)join the party or not.

There's something that doesn't quite gel with your narrative, Ms. Walsh (and it's been bothering me ever since HR Clinton's non-concession speech the other day)...

Here's why: Hillary Clinton, the Goldwater girl turned '60s liberal turned ultimate insider, the former first lady and current senator, has become the belated, almost reluctant leader of a movement, mainly of women but also of white working-class voters, Latinos, seniors and others who feel left out. They don't just feel left out by George Bush's America, but also by the Obama coalition.

Because, yes, senior citizens are woefully underrepresented in politics? These same seniors who vote in droves for generations? The same ones who made Social Security "the third rail in American politics?" The same demographic that's going to explode in size as the Baby Boomers age further? They're invisible? I disbelieve. Don't tell the AARP that they're invisible, okay?

The young in this country have been shortchanged far greater than the old. Just look at the condition of our schools, and the mortgaging of America's future. So, no, old people are not left out. If anything, their narrow pursuit of self-interest (by supporting the Republicans and their politics in past elections) has contributed to the shortchanging of America's future. By looking to the past, they turned their back on the future. And invisible? By no means are they.

White working-class voters, who formed the blue backbone of the Democratic Party for, well, generations (until they became "Reagan Democrats," that is?) -- they're invisible, too? No, I don't buy that, either. Their jobs are vanishing -- that's for sure, and who spearheaded that? Oh, HR Clinton's husband, Bill Clinton, with his NAFTA. So, supporting HR Clinton helps white working-class voters HOW, exactly? Again, I disbelieve.

Latinos, who passed blacks as the largest minority group? They're invisible, too? Truly?? The same minority group even the GOP actively sought to court before their anti-immigrant plank messed that up. They're active and engaged in this country as never before -- if they weren't, the GOP wouldn't be banging the drum for "English as the national language" and what-not. They're also invisible?? I disbelieve.

And women (particularly white women, HR Clinton's base?) Also invisible? There's no doubt that the GOP has pursued an anti-family, anti-woman agenda over the years, and the Democrats haven't been strong enough in opposing it -- but the way to oppose that is to tack further to the left, to bring social spending back into the country's vocabulary.

No, these "invisible Americans" should be more than happy with Obama, who was always to HR Clinton's left, politically (even if only slightly to her left -- the chasm you and others try to craft between them is mythological; Obama was just a little to Clinton's left politically, but he was to her left.) HR Clinton was busy rattling her saber and doing whiskey shots, trying to out-Republican McCain in her bid, because she was entirely captive to interests who would not let her go to the left, to help those "invisible" people she claims to support.

This idea of her as this steward of these actually historically well-represented groups (with the exception of Latinos, who are only now coming into real cultural prominence, not invisibility) is mendacious, specious, sophistic. I get why HR Clinton would hew that propaganda line, because it creates a need for her in the campaign; but why are you hewing that line, Ms. Walsh? Seems like people are trying to create a need where none exists -- Obama is to HR Clinton's left, politically; he's not going to ignore women, Latinos, seniors, or white working-class voters. He's not going to (like HR Clinton), bomb Iran into oblivion. He's going to rebuild America's strength at home, where it needs it most. And he's doing it not through fearmongering, or spin, or mendacious myth-making; but rather, through the politics of hope. Better to look ahead to a hopeful future than bray bitterly about invisible people who are all too real.

Wow, that's it? Seems like her moment of grace was last night, during the non-concession speech. Maybe waiting until Friday is to concede on what she feels is on her own terms (e.g., "you didn't defeat me; I just decided to not continue the fight"). Or in some way try to dictate terms for her benefit? Why Friday? Unless they're launching a third party bid or something, under the pretense that "her" 18 million supporters won't be represented by the nearly-identical politics of Obama?

I'm kind of surprised to see Emanuel endorse Obama, even this late in the game. He's a DLC darling, so he was clearly tight with the Clintons. Still, he's a fighter through and through, so if even Emanuel is going Obama, then HR Clinton is going to have to go third party, or else dig a deeper bunker.