Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
The person who had the power to get every Hillary supporter's vote for Obama was -- Obama. No angst, no question, no endless discussion -- just do the right thing, put Hillary on the ticket. She earned it. Since Obama didn't do the work of uniting the party, Hillary has stood up graciously and done it for him.
The two of them together would have been an unbeatable ticket. What was more important than that, Obama?
I will absolutely vote for Obama. But, I have less respect for him than I had before he chose his VP.
As someone who has never liked HRC, I have to hand it to her -- tonight was a triumph not only for her but for the Democratic party as a whole. If she was faking it, she's truly on an acting par with Helen Mirren, but I don't think she was. I heard the emotion in her voice. She believed what she was saying. She has laid down the challenge to her supporters -- now we will see if they can rise above the disappointments of the past and move on. It seems to me that Hillary certainly has.
Now, of course, we cut to Bill. Perhaps we shouldn't. His strange comments yesterday about candidates promising the world and then not delivering coupled with the news that he's skipping Obama's speech seems so childish and petulant compared to Hillary's attitude. If he spends the majority of his speech tonight trumpeting his own administration, it will be a mistake. If he is truly concerned about the accusations of racism that have been leveled at him, he would be wise to heap a little praise on Obama before basking in his own spotlight.
I know that I for one
Just THRILL to Bill.
It was simply Hillary at her best but not that surprising to those of us whose support she won over during the primaries. Finally the media and the die hard Obama fans had no choice but to sit down, shut up and pay attention.
She captured 18 million passionate voters for a reason.
Must be because Hillary can really help Obama at this point and she's no longer a real threat.
I really enjoyed Hillary Clinton's speech. I liked the fact that she was up there by herself, her daughter introduced her and her husband was far away. She was proud of a lot of things, except being a wife. I thought that was interesting. But it was appropriate because she had to step away from that role.
Some people do not realize how difficult it is to have an independent life from one's spouse, to have ambitions of one's own, especially when one's career was put on hold for a while, especially when the spouse was the president of the US. I think she has grown over the course of the campaign. Even if she did not win the nomination, the fight made her stronger and more confident. She is speaking better and looks more relaxed.
I'll vote for Obama for president.
Read Dowd's piece today in the NYT and you'll see the shallow, self-loving, typical coverage of this convention. Dowd craves scandal and discord; she claims the convention mood is "weird" (as if conventions weren't weird in every possible way to begin with); and then seeks an explanation from--ta-dah!--a GOP consultant who offers her the red meat she wanted.
Last night after Clinton's forceful speech, Andrea Mitchell was desperate for more controversy, so she badgered a 79-year old woman who'd been tearful after the speech, trying to elicit anti-Obama comments or something. But the woman fought her off quietly, saying she was a proud Democrat and would vote for Obama and support him. It's sickening to see people at the top of this profession exhibit their lack of talent and insight. Thank God for rising talking heads like Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow, who bring a fresher perspective to the screen.
I wonder what gold Jokie Roberts has to say, I await with bated breath, till at last she "encapsulates" the whole day.
The profunity of punditry.
PUMA ("People United Means Action" or "Party Unity My Ass") is a political action committee in the United States that is protesting the Democratic Party leadership and the presumptive nomination of Sen. Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate for President in the 2008 presidential election.[1] PUMA began as an effort of supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton who believe that Clinton should be the Democratic nominee.[2][3] According to PUMA, "We are protesting the 2008 Presidential election because we refuse to support a nominee who was selected by the leadership rather than elected by the voters." [4]
That is the first paragraph of one of the Wikipedia article that comes up in response to a search for "PUMA".
There was a time when journalists explained basic things like this. It was a part of the job at the small-town newspapers I worked at, and thoughtful magazine articles usually explain basic terms like this. Not on the Web though, where you can just blow it off and let readers fend for themselves and rely on Google or Wikipedia. Problem with that is, it undermines your credibility and sends them off to another site. Maybe Web "magazines" ought to require that journalists have previous experience as, you know, reporters.
Now I'll go back and read the story.
"He's unelectable."
"And PUMAs--you got your marching orders from the boss herself."
Why anyone thinks that candidates do the thinking for their constituency, I'm not sure. Why delegates are complaining about how to vote (Hilary, tell us waht to do...) when they had their marching orders already from those who elected them is confusing to me. The people who elected them, I thought, were giving marching orders--not CLINTON. Delegates were elected to go to the convention and vote for who they were elected to vote for, I believe. There's nothing really complex or confusing about it. Were I a delegate elected to vote for Hilary, I would do. Were I a delegate elected to vote for Obama, I would do so. Party "bosses" may be hand-wringing, wanting a show of unity, but the party was not and is not unified yet. A show doesn't "make" 18 million votes of folks who are not in Denver go away. Implicit in the comment above, the whole notion of Democrats having marching orders and you better like it by god, is really amazing to me.
Guess politics is just confusing to me.
"He's unelectable" though still resonates. Wonder if she meant what she said? "He's not ready to be President." Wonder if he meant what he said?
Doesn't seem like they ever mean what they say, or rather, they did mean it, but then later have to retract it because they have their marching orders. Who's giving it to them, I don't know. The people? Hmmm...oh, well.
Lacking incisive, decisive insight, but not full of shit,
Me
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
