I hate to break it to people like “red_gti2000,” but the Democratic Party has been dead for quite some time – or have you missed the past 7 years of GWB and (until the 2006 election) the lengthy Republican domination of Congress? Perhaps what Democrats need is a break from “your parent’s Democratic Party.” Perhaps what Democrats need is some fresh blood and new ideas. Remember, “The Clinton Center” is what facilitated the rise of the neocons and the Republican takeover of Congress in the early 1990’s – the appeasement approach of the Clinton administration (and the entire DLC) didn’t work. It’s time to look forward and remake the Democratic Party into something that can enact and sustain real change – hopefully all of your race-baiting and rabble rousing for John McCain will fall on deaf ears. If you can’t get on board with the changes this country so desperately needs, kindly step aside. It’s a new day.

Clinton is giving the sort of speech she has been giving for months. It's just that nobody was watching until today. They were too busy praising Obama's oratory skills to bother noticing that Clinton is a damn good speaker.

Still spending your time telling strangers who you won't be voting for I see...

whatevs.

Joan Walsh()

while editor

{

obama_racism;

clinton_sexism;

}

// this is an endless loop

Simple answer: separate taxation programs for specific projects. Programs are put to a vote and taxes collected separately from income taxes. Example: Vehicle-related taxes pay for road infrastructure.

The concept is simple. Social-welfare programs should have a balance sheet. Income derived from related economic activities. Spending limited to said income. Fairer to everyone, much more transparent, very little room for corruption.

Again. This is not the thread to argue about taxation. This is about Obama, Clinton and the future of the Democratic Party. This is the last I will say about this subject on this thread.

"If you can’t get on board with the changes this country so desperately needs, kindly step aside. It’s a new day."

First, neocons preceded Clinton by at least a couple of decades. History is your friend, learn it. Second... you're getting your wish. Millions of Democrats are stepping aside for the new guard. How do you expect to win enough power to implement the revolution without our votes?

That HRC doesn't give a ---- about anyone but HRC, she still thinks she's owed this slot and she's fooled a bunch of women into somehow thinking that her not getting the nomination is an insult to women in general, which is pure nonsense.

Won't surprise me if she refuses to campaign for Obama, I think she wants to run again in 2012 against McCain, and guess what, if she does she will LOSE then too.

The screeds from the hiding-in-plain-sight GOP trolls are so tiresome and repetitive. If you're seriously considering a spite-vote for McCain because Sen. Clinton wasn't anointed as the candidate then go ahead, do what you have to do, but for Christ's sake shut up about it; just take your ball and go play somewhere else, the grown-ups are trying to win an election here.

And who are these people, anyway? What kind of person would willingly subject the country to at least four more years of Republican waste and disaster? I can almost forgive the GOP hardcore--they're old and scared and don't really know any better--but voters who DO know better and would STILL choose an extended Bush policy over the possibility for growth and improvement are, at best, felony-stupid.

This is a good day for Democrats, and a hopeful day for the country. We have a strong candidate--two, really, unless Sen. Clinton concedes--who has every chance of taking the White House in November. We have a very enthusiastic voter base who are more engaged and involved than at any other time during my adult life.

And the GOP has...McCain. The same old Keating Five, memory-impaired, sweaty McCain. You're going to vote for THAT if you don't get your way? Please. F*** off.

The only way Obama can be declared the winner is if he had earned enough pledged delegates. He didn't.

Unless the kangaroo Democratic rules committe changed the rules, the superdelegates can can change their vote at any point up to and including the convention.

Why is the media so intent on ordaining this guy. Why the deception and hysteria. Why the ignorance about the process? The guy is in very good position to wrap up the nomination why the need of the media and Dem "leaders" to promote ignorance in order to prop up Obama?

I wish I could express to you the visceral reaction I have when I see Obama

I wish I could express to you the visceral reaction everybody other than Clinton Diehards had when we heard this:

“Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002,”

As the new leader of the Democratic party, Barack Obama should receive the respectful allegiance of the vanquished Hillary Clinton, not the other way around. He should select the vice presidential candidate he prefers after careful deliberation on all the merits of the resumes of many contenders.

The speeches given last night by Obama and Clinton were perfect capsule summaries of their differing qualities as candidates and people. Obama's address was magisterial, graceful, powerful and deliberate. He was open and generous in his lengthy praise of Sen. Clinton's historic campaign. He was clear and razor-sharp in delineating his policy differences with John McCain. Consistency has been the hallmark of the Obama campaign and character since it began 16 months ago and this was reinforced in his call for principled change last night. This is why he won the nomination.

In telling contrast, Sen. Clinton's speech last night wandered through the vales of self-pity and reality-bashing that have characterized her campaign for over one year. She cited fantasy math to give herself the ego-boosting claim to having won more votes. She gave only passing notice to Obama's milestone achievement while playing up her own campaign at length.

All of this brought to mind the breathtaking moment when baseball legend Henry Aaron surpassed Babe Ruth as the leading home run hitter in the major leagues. So many fans were disturbed by the idea of unseating the Bambino from his throne that there were countless attempts to tarnish Aaron's achievement. Some said that the season was longer, the modern balls were juiced, the pitchers were weaker. These detractors said absolutely anything in their effort to put an asterisk next to Aaron's name and diminish his landmark effort. Of course, Hammerin' Hank received numerous death threats too from those who could not abide his vanquishing Ruth.

Clinton is trying now to place an asterisk next to Obama's stunning achievement. History will not look kindly on her sour and dangerous behavior at this pivotal moment.