Yep, I think you got it right. I watched some of the returns last night on CNN and caught some of Clinton's speech. She sounded robotic to me, utterly without fire or passion. Now, I must admit that I absolutely loathe what passes for political rhetoric in this country and I generally avoid it. So I don't exactly have a big database to compare her speech to. But gee, it was a victory speech to her own supporters in her own state and she couldn't let go just a little bit?

Obama got most of the Red and Purple States, Obama got more Latinos that HRC got African Americans, Obama got more Independents and Under 30 year olds than HRC got women...

Hillary was "relieved" to win "traditional," overwhelmingly Democratic States.

Gee, I wonder who is in a better position to beat McCain?

Hillary cares more about herself than about the Party and winning a big victory in November.

And Hillary winning will not look like the "First American Woman President" to people overseas. She will look like "Another wife or family member of a rich, powerful Leader of one Party taking office after the Opposing Party loses favor." Nothing historic about that in the Third World!

Such a shame for women in our country...

You know, I'm tired too. I'm tired of people from my own party calling Hillary Clinton elitist, boring, calculating, etc. etc. I'm tired of people claiming that she is unelectable with no support other than the received wisdom about her "negatives," ie., that she's elitist, boring, calculating, and married to Bill Clinton. I'm tired of inflated rhetoric about how Obama "transcends race," with the implication that people who don't support him...well, you do the math. I'm tired of a lot of things.

We're all tired. You are no doubt tired of hearing the above from me, as I am, in turn, tired of being directed to a website written by campaign operatives as proof that a candidate "has substance."

We've got two candidates. They have almost identical policy platforms. They have almost identical moderate political identities, and are likely to stay equally moderate. One of them is more "inspirational" than the other. Some people want that a whole lot. Others, not so much. One of them has "negatives." Some people are worried about that. Others, not so much.

Let's just vote and then wait for the convention, ok?

Here's the thing we need to keep in mind, folks.....

The most important thing is to get a Democrat into the White House so we can start undoing 8 years of Republican mismanagement, mischief and malfeasance.

Either Hillary or Barack would make a fine president. But they are not equal in terms of electability. It's not at all certain that Hillary could beat McCain, or any other Republican. The level of hatred for Hillary and Bill has not diminished over the years, and in fact it's increased recently, following Hillary and Bill's nasty tactics in South Carolina. Hillary and Bill have reminded a lot of people of why they hated them during the '90s.

There is a solid 45% of the electorate who would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. Not only would they not vote for her, they would make it a point to come out to vote AGAINST her.

And they'll bring a Hillary-hating friend. The Hillary haters are not just among the ranks of the Republicans; they include many independents and, after the nastiness in the early primaries they include a number of Democrats.

Obama, on the other hand, motivates and energizes people to come out and vote for him. He would capture many, many of those independent voters who might otherwise go for McCain.

Let's keep this in mind as we go through the rest of the primaries, folks. Hillary and Barack are both well qualified, but Hillary is only a 50-50 shot to beat McCain in a general election, whereas Obama would take that old man behind the woodshed and open up a can of Democratic Whoop-Ass on him.

So, from your point of view, "overseas" is now the Third World. Interesting.

Traister's article, while interesting, engages in the same level of fudging that she seems to be accusing the mainstream media of doing. The fact of the matter is, Obama won all of the states he was supposed to, plus a couple (MO, CT, MN) that she was leading in the polls right up until yesterday. The only reason that this can be considered a win on any level for Clinton is because the chattering class talked about some sort of tidal wave. It's a very close race, and at this point Obama has a slight edge because of lead he has in the states that vote in the next couple of weeks and the money he's got. Staving off defeat is not a decisive victory for HRC.

As for the posters, the experience argument is tired. Clinton wants to have it both ways. She wants to claim her husband's years in the White House as experience, but she wants to "run on (her) own record." If those years constitue relevant experience, she should release her papers from that time so that we can know what she was doing. At the moment, the one thing that we know for sure is that the "Day One President" almost submarined her hsuband's first term with her botching of health care. If she contributed widely to anything productive, she ought to have those papers released. Otherwise, her only relevant experience in governing is 7 years in the Senate to his 3.

Finally, the people talking about the young, arrogant Obama seem to have no idea how representative they are of a generation whose time in power is slipping behind the horizon.

I've never posted a response to a Salon article before but after reading Traister's historically 'neutral' commentary and suddenly coming across this ridiculously fawning, insipid and misleading article, I have to say: Salon is starting to really lose all credibility. Caught up in Bay Area - Clinton-endorsement fever or something? I don't expect to see Walter Cronkite-level objective newsreporting but for Christ's sake why do we have to have out-and-out propaganda for Clinton? Come on.

Really nothing that hasn't already been said by other posters, just saying my peace, move along, nothing to see here...