Early in the campaign Barack said Hillary's supporters would back him but his would not back her. That's why he'll NEVER get a vote from this Hillary supporter. His nasty wife said she could not vote for Hillary. Well, I have news for Michelle. I can't vote for Barack. They are the ones who are not loyal Democrats. Why are you putting that on Hillary?

I second the post that for her, it's about Hillary. To hell with the party. I never believed the crap Hillary allegedly said yesterday that she'll do whatever it take for a Democrat to win. She wants her followers to be RESPECTED? What the fuck does that mean?

I find it strange that when I see Walsh on TV, she reminds me of Clinton: it's all about her, her career, her righteousness. It looks like Hillary's ardent supporters identify with her because they're all cut from the same cloth.

Bill made Hillary unelectable, and the party is probably very happy that they don't have to try to run with her in the general. To many people screwed over by his policies and decisions, to many scandals, Waco, Elian, etc... The Republicans probably couldn't afford enough air time to broadcast all the dirt on Hillary, but they would certainly have tried.

To Fender, you apparently have no idea what went on when Bill selected the location of his office. After being told that asking the taxpayers to pay about $1 million a month for an office on the top floor of the WTC wouldn't do his wife's political aspirations any good, he settled on Harlem. And by doing so he immediately quadrupled rents in the area and drove many black-owned businesses out of business. This is how globalist conservatives posing as liberals show their love for minorities.

AP says she has already stated she would accept VP. This would be a huge mistake, but exactly what we should expect from a party that does everything in its power to lose presidential elections.

I was hoping the Democrats would win in November. I hope President McCain doesn't pick too bad a nominee for the Supreme Court......

to Ben Alpers, I couldn't get past the sentence: "The first-term Illinois senator was propelled to the nomination by Tuesday's rush of support from superdelegates, " (even Jimmy Carter couldn't wait, a man I admire. )

Perhaps I should not have aimed my anger at Shapiro, who is just reporting what he saw happening. A few sentences that bothered me, however (after getting through it):

"delays the inevitable","Clinton seems determined to follow her own timetable ","alternative universe that Hillary Clinton and her most loyal supporters still occupy". All anti-clinton writers seem to know what she is thinking, or worse, feel the need to express what she should be thinking. I find it annoying.

delay, timetable, alternate universe...just give her some time to breath. It's been a roller coaster for both of them.

Hillary Clinton can be John McCain's VP. The Republicans like her so much and want her to fight on. Well they can have her.

Last night she had a chance to show some class. She failed again. She is way too self-serving a person to be our Vice-President. She tells us that she cares about the people. This is true as long as they keep their place. To Hillary "their place" is always one rung or more below her.

One day in the near future a woman will be our President. Fortunately, it won't be Hillary Clinton.

Visit theliberal.co.uk for a wide ranging analysis of the meaning of Barack Obama's candidacy, hope, the american narrative, JFK, and the possibility of change:

'Barack Obama and the Idea of America'

http://www.theliberal.co.uk/Obama_and_the_Idea_of_America.html

Obama, McCain, what have we? Two candidates of the major, bifurcated corporate hegemony! Both have accepted large contributions from big pharma, the nuclear, "defense", insurance and banking industries. This is Obama's "change"? Not worth much!

The only candidate who offers real change from the subjugation of most Americans is Ralph Nader. By voting for the candidate who cannot win, we send a message to the corporate party: we know who your real constituents are.

Don't be fooled by phony "change"! Vote for real change! Vote Nader!

Barack Obama may well turn out to be our first Black president. BO is many things; however, why does your headline writer insist upon calling him "young"? If he takes office at age 48, he will be just three years short of 51, which was my age when I had a heart attack. If he's "young," what do you call someone who's 18, 28, 38? Barack Obama is middle-aged; there is no getting around this. According to Webster's, mid-age starts at 45. And it's nothing to be ashamed about. So much has been made of Obama's inexperience, at a relatively "ripe" age, that you'd think his supporters would prefer to downplay the age factor. Not that youth is always a bad thing. There have been younger presidents in my own lifetime: John Kennedy, Bill Clinton. These "young" men were at least as competent as their eleders: Nixon, Reagan, Bush, etc. In your enthusiasm to hand Obama the keys to the White House, you don't seem to realize that the lily does not need gilding. Obama's accomplishments have already put him in the history books. Why are you trying to put him in a nursery?

It really wasn't Bill that made Hillary unelectable, as one reader here has claimed - it was actually Hillary that made Hillary unelectable! (True enough, Bill did manage to contribute quite 'strongly').

Hillary probably would have won the nomination had she right at the start of her race accepted her gross error of judgment in voting for GW Bush's phony war in Iraq.

What prevented her from saying something like the following:

"I was mistaken. I was lied to by GW Bush and Gang, just as all US citizens were. And just like most US citizens (and most members of Congress), I too fell for the lies. (That should be translated into proper 'American', of course).

I would guess Hillary's underlying problem would have to be the difficulty we all face in making such admissions about errors of judgment, at all the forking points we come across in our journey through life.

True enough, that strategy of accepting her Iraq error in the face of GW Bush's lies would have provided a strategic starting advantage to Obama in that he had not allowed GW Bush and Gang to pull the wool over his eyes. But it seems clear (to me, at least) that such a starting advantage would have been strongly countered by Hillary's actual strengths versus Obama. In the event, what happened was that Hillary was always playing to her major weakness - that idiot vote permitting the Iraq war - and not to any of her real strengths which were pretty sizable vis-a-vis Obama's inexperience.

But all said and done, it is probably the best thing that could have happened for the US and for the world that Obama has won the Democratic nomination. Now the Obama campaign has to ensure that he now wins over McCain in November, for sure, whatever Rovian tricks the Republicans may come up with (and they're already coming up with plenty!) Best not to be too complacent: In 2004, Democrat voters (if not the whole Kerry-Edward campaign itself) lost the election in good measure on account of complacency: I think they believed it was impossible that a proven liar like GW Bush could win. But it turned out he could and he did - was it Josef Goebbels that said something to about the willingness of people at large to accept 'the big lie'?

-- GSC