She asked for it. The nerve of that b*tch, running for president.

Not to be a bitch, but she would not have so much pressure to accomplish so many things tonight if, you know, she had handled the past four months more graciously and appropriately (like not continue to rile up her supporters after it was clear she had lost).
I will grant her she had been doing well lately but still. It is largely her fault.

Not that it makes a lick of difference (the speech was probably more or less fully written weeks ago), but it would be fervent hope that Hillary doesn't give that polished a speech. I'd almost like to see her simply rant: "We're all here for the same reason, we've got an election to win. There's nothing I can tell you I haven't said a hundred times before today. The Democratic Party and this country needs you to tell all of your friends to vote for Obama. We need you to volunteer to tell people how great a candidate Obama is. At this point, people either like me or they don't, I'm not going to change any minds, least of all the so-called PUMAs who believe in what I stand for, yet say they'll vote for McCain. If we can't change their minds, let's change their friends' minds, their neighbors' minds, their communities minds and completely obliterate any impact they think they'll have on the election."

Not platitudes. Not aspirations. Not sunshine and flowers. Nuts and bolts this-is-what-we-have-to-do-to-beat-those-bastards common sense.

Bush has often been called the "Master of Low Expectations" and with good reason... that's the way the press wants to present him. Now we have Hillary setup for "Impossible Expectations."

I'm no Hillary supporter, but I know when I smell a rat.

the sincerity issue is a suckers bet, just like it was for Michelle.

i've seen two types of reaction to Michelle's speech last night:

1) She was great! I was impressed!
2) She was great, because she was faking it, hiding the fact she is really the second-coming of Angela Davis, only more dangerous.

The same will be true of Clinton. If you like her or seek unity now, and she does well, you'll think she did what was necessary.

If you dislike Clinton or are a pot-stirrer, no matter how well she does, you'll say she was just faking it and was insincere.

Which is to say we've become a cynical, jaded, electorate whose analysis of nearly all inputs are based solely on what serves our predetermined positions.

yep, i'm cranky this afternoon. dammit.

Clinton can't win tonight. But then, she knows that.

And one feels sympathetic on her behalf, even as one remembers that a) the actual candidate for president, which she wanted to be, gets 100 times the scrutiny and can't-winnery, and 2) insofar as some of her worse-natured supporters won't get real, she and her campaign purposely egged them on to world-class snitdom and fake victimhood. Is it really so surprising that she can't talk them off the ledge now?

Although she may very well satisfy her partisans, I think it's a foregone conclusion that the Obamabots will manage to find an interpretation in her words that will add to their fury.

Did Howard Dean stump for John Kerry? Did Bill Bradley promote Al Gore? Did Paul Tsongas rally for Bill Clinton? Did Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown praise Mike Dukakis? Was Teddy Kennedy there for Jimmy Carter? Why is it that Hillary is expected to grovel to Obama and his supporters?

Aw, zeit, I think that's a bit simplistic. Many of us fell squarely in the Michelle-did-fine-and-any-minor-plasticity-is-part-of-the-political-game camp. Unless she surprises me and does something really off the wall up there, I expect I'll come away from Hillary's speech tonight thinking that despite minor problems or missteps, she did mostly what she needed to do.

Did Howard Dean stump for John Kerry? Did Bill Bradley promote Al Gore? Did Paul Tsongas rally for Bill Clinton? Did Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown praise Mike Dukakis? Was Teddy Kennedy there for Jimmy Carter?

Um, I'm pretty sure the answer to all those questions is "yes." This is how it's done.

She'll have to do all of those things and do it while receiving sniper fire.

We reap what we sow. She's in this position because she gambeled that she wouldn't be. Politics, if nothing else, is surreal. Hans Arp would have had a chuckle over this one, and then would have gone to his studio to create "Head with five annoying objects" before supper...

J Bean,
Clinton will campaign for Obama because she knows the stakes. Regardless of what the twits on both left and right think about her, she will work to get Obama elected. I expect the same of her husband. Both sides will say she hasn't done enough but that's because they see her as a demon with superhuman strengths.

No matter what Hillary says, she'll be condemned by the hard left of her own party. One is almost wistful for the old days when only right-wing Republicuns hated her.

These minor tasks should be of no difficulty for the lioness of Tusla Airport. If Obama is not a Muslim, as far as she knows, her own delegates should be loyal Democrats and will do the right thing as far as she can tell as well.

shortstop, no offense intended. i was more referring to the wingnut sites where they had to find some fault with a largely untouchable performance. near as i can tell what they came up with was "so what, it was all fake."

Honestly, I think if she beats McCain to a pulp a lot of the rest of the stuff falls in line.

Of course, many of the PUMA folks will no-doubt use that to point out that she's the real fighter, and not Barack. But they can suck it.

Did Howard Dean stump for John Kerry?

Yes.

Did Bill Bradley promote Al Gore?

Yes.

Did Paul Tsongas rally for Bill Clinton?

Yes.

Did Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown praise Mike Dukakis?

Yes.

Was Teddy Kennedy there for Jimmy Carter?

Yes.

Why is it that Hillary is expected to grovel to Obama and his supporters?

Because that's the way it's always done -- you have a primary and then everyone rallies around the winner. Why are you arguing that Hillary should get a special exemption from doing things the way they've been done for a hundred years?

I'm positive she will be brilliant, and all of her real supporters will be as fully behind Obama as they have been for the past few weeks.

I'm also positive the floor feeds from FOX will be as awful tonight as they were last night. (WTF was the DNC thinking agreeing to that?)

And finally, I'm positive that the existence of PUMAs will be further overblown by every major news network.

Let's not forget the importance of where she points her belly button (for PA and not TCBR folks...go to Steve's old site and search for belly button...I cannot do that right now). Then you will understand just how terribly ludicrous the MSM coverage truly is.

it is hard to credit Teddy with doing anything for Carter after primarying a sitting Democratic President. thats a little hard to make up for.

Jerry Brown really did very little (i'm being safe - I dont recall him doing anything) for Dukakis.

and there were Dean supporters who never could get over it and go to bat for Kerry, regardless of what Dean asked of them - just like HRC and her supporters now.

J Bean wrote: "I think it's a foregone conclusion that the Obamabots will manage to find an interpretation in her words that will add to their fury."

I think it's a foregone conclusion that Obama-haters will always find some pretext to screech "Obamabots! Obamabots! Obamabots!" at every opportunity, or even without an opportunity.

I'm a registered Green Party voter and a strong supporter of Rep. Dennis Kucinich's campaigns in 2004 and 2008 for the Democratic presidential nomination.

From my point of view there is not much substantive difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Both of them fall short of what I believe this country needs, and either of them would be an infinitely better president than John McCain, whose presidency would be a planetary catastrophe.

Supporters of both Clinton and Obama need to put aside their absurd and pointless bitterness towards each other, get real, and get working at the extremely difficult challenge of defeating John McCain and his powerful ally, the corporate-owned mass media, which is busily propagandizing the American people on his behalf to get him close enough to steal the third presidential election in a row with voter disenfranchisement and fraud.

doubtful, I just read today that Fox had the feed. I am appalled. Anyone wonder why we're screwed?

NPR is all over the Hil v. Obama horserace. I'm completely disgusted by the whole coverage.

Clinton is a tough, accomplished political pro who will give an accomplished, professional speech. It won't be good enough for the overpaid, nihilistic morons who cover politics on TV. Who cares about them?

The Washington Post's Marie Cocco had a good item today...

—Steve Benen

I agree. Two of the most poignant lines I thought were these:

"As if to heap insult upon injury, the Obama campaign let it be known that it did not for a minute seriously consider Clinton as a vice presidential candidate, notwithstanding the 18 million votes she earned during the primaries and her demonstrated ability to win over white, working-class voters who remain cool to Obama and who are necessary for victory in the fall. ... It is not lost on them [her supporters] that in selecting Joe Biden as his running mate, Obama chose a Washington insider who voted in favor of the Iraq war -- two of the sustained attacks on Clinton that Obama used to devastating effect during the primaries."

We should keep these in mind as she gives her speech.

Oh, I wasn't offended in the least, zeit.

Regardless of what the twits on both left and right think about her, she will work to get Obama elected. I expect the same of her husband.

I hope you haven't put a lot of money on #2. As of--what, a week ago?--he still couldn't bring himself to say Obama was qualified to be prez and he was muttering darkly about "feeling freer to speak out next year." What an arse.

She's doing fine and I expect she'll continue to do so tonight. It will be very interesting, however, to see how much the Big Dog manages not to refer to Obama in his speech.

Media "personalities" are referred to as talking heads. This election cycle has garnered yet another reference to these endless hot gas blowers: talking empty heads. What they are covering in the way of "news" seems secondary to their need to hear themselves pontificate what usually ends up being utter non-sense.

I think Colbert captured the corruption of our news reporting in the early 21st century: How do you feel the news seems to be the concern of today's pundit class, not what do you think now that the reporting has been made as indepth as possible.

So much of the campaign/convention news coverage has been speculation, hearsay and prurient titillation that the more salient issues we face as a nation going into the next 4 years have been dwarfed by the non-sense reporting we have had to put up with. Oh well, should I expect more from the likes of salaried gasbags. -Kevo

But we all know she's the tough-as-nails, experienced leader. She'll handle whatever is required of her...

This seems like the right place to vent my annoyance with what passes for political coverage from our media these days. I listened to Michelle’s speech last night on the radio while driving home. NPR. Before her speech, the coverage was so insipid I actually started screaming at the radio, and THIS IS NPR !!!
The commentators spent a good twenty minutes prior to her speech, prattling on about what she was going to say, and what she “had to accomplish� blah, blah, blah. Why can’t they just let a person speak and allow the listeners to draw their own conclusions without setting up a bias in advance? These commentators spent my listening time doing nothing more than trying to prove to me what interesting and insightful commentators they are. Except they weren’t, and I don’t care about that. Pleeeease …. Get out of the way of the story.
All of this is depressingly related to the “horse race� coverage that substitutes for real journalism these days. I have reached the point where I no longer think that the press is failing in its journalistic duty to society, it has become an obstacle to people becoming informed.
Michelle’s speech was great. It didn’t need any pre-delivery or post-delivery analysis.

I like to use the term crowing craniums when describing the bone heads who like to call their robot acts 'personalities'

No matter what Hillary says, she'll be condemned by the hard left of her own party. One is almost wistful for the old days when only right-wing Republicuns hated her.

I have absolutely no hatred towards Hillary whatsoever. I don't know anyone that does and I haven't seen anyone say anything ill about her here. Obama's supporters have moved past the primary and don't have any hard feelings against Hillary. Those who insist that there is still such intense animosity between the two groups are either sad, pathetic PUMAS or republicans or both.

Hillary will do great. I'm actually more worried about Obama losing focus. I mean, I got THREE SEPARATE e-mails today from him and Michelle. I'm flattered, of course, but don't those two have more important things to do today than write e-mails to me? I didn't hear from McCain ...

Pat, those weren't emails; those were summonses. I warned you that those restraining orders aren't jokes.

As promised, here is the 'body language expert' touting where Hillary aims her belly button sends a message. I shit you not.

I am back at my hotel and the teevee has been on for three minutes...CNN has already mentioned Hils body language. Oh, for a real station to watch. （ｓｉｇｈ）

shortstop: Anything you want me to mention to the Senator when I respond to his e-mail? I already told him that if he gets nervous before his big speech, to picture all the delegates in their underwear. It worked for Marsha Brady when she was taking her driver's test ...

She'll have to do everything Fred Astaire did, except backwards and in high heels...

She's been doing that just about all her life, as has, apparently, Obama's "better half".

This is not the first election cycle in which I wished "wifey" was on the ballot instead of the "head" of the family...

Think about it.

Jacqueline Bouvier vs. JFK.

Lady Bird vs. LBJ.

Rosalyn Carter vs. Jiminy Peanut.

Hillary vs. Bill.

Elizabeth Edwards vs. John.

Hell, let's go go for it, and bring up Eleanor Roosevelt vs. Franklin.

If you want to vote on character, depth, sincerity, IQ, self-discipline, rationality...

Look at those match-ups and wonder how the "worse half" always gets the top job...

Amd mostly screws it up.

Pat, given the contents of your rap sheet, I don't think you want to be making references to underwear during violations of restraining orders. Those Secret Service guys have worse senses of humor than the DC cops.

I think it's a foregone conclusion that the Obamabots will manage to find an interpretation in her words that will add to their fury.

I've been very, very harsh on her, and on the PUMAs. And yet, when she said, "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I do not approve that message," I had nothing bad to say. I thought that was great. All I want is more of the same. Anything she can do to help is welcome.

Actually, all the pressure is on Obama. He picked Biden, instead of Hillary, for VP and he is dropping in the daily tracking polls. Obama and McCain are tied on Rasmussen Reports and McCain is up by TWO on Gallup.

He didn't pick Hillary for a reason. I am glad he didn't.

It sounds like you don't want to get past that.

Get past what? I strongly support Hillary while fighting against every one of her policies and convictions. Maybe you'd call that stupid. Well, stupid is as stupid votes.

You completely lost me.

I strongly support Hillary while fighting against every one of her policies and convictions.

This makes no sense at all.

I'm generally anti-Clinton. When this primary started, my "Anybody But Clinton" feelings were almost as strong as my pro-Obama feelings.

However, I have a good feeling about this speech. I think she knows what she needs to do to stay near the top of the Democratic Party, and I think she'll do it. Will people be able to find faults with her speech tonight? Of course. Maybe I will, too.

But my sense is that overall, she's going to do a job that can make her supporters proud (yet still get them to vote Obama in November) while doing at least something to repair the damage done to her reputation amongst folks like me who were not happy with her behaviour during the primaries.

MsJoanne,

This makes no sense at all.

Of course it doesn't. If you look closely, the second statement is not signed by me. I have a stalker on this blog who attacks me (and others) everytime we say something she doesn't like or agree with.

I think that the pressure of the election is getting to her.

I've already given up on Obama getting any convention bounce this week. HRC has ensured that the week is about her, not him. The news coverage is overwhelmingly negative, in the "are the Democrats really as divided as they appear?" vein. Sigh. And the RNC will be an endless parade of praise for John McCain without all the static. Way to go, Dems, we're screwing up another one.

Econobuzz @ 5:15 PM posted - "...the Obama campaign let it be known..."
Once again we get un-named sources issuing statements, the sole apparent aim of which is to pit Obama and Clinton supporters against each other.
I suppose it could be me, but I find the idea that anyone anywhere near the decision-makers in the Obama campaign would say such a thing for publication beyond implausable. I'm not saying that Clinton may not have been quickly ruled out as a possible VP; for one thing, it's the presidential candidate that's supposed to be getting the headlines and with Clinton on the ticket that could be difficult, what with the present state of our media...
Frankly, the whole thing sounds as if the un-named source is simply some "gofer" who a) doesn't like Sen. Clinton, and b) likes to talk as if they actually are part of the group that makes decisions. If that isn't the case and this is an example of what to expect from the post-convention Obama campaign, we are going to get a nasty surprise in November.

Parodies of me are stalking. Blogs reporting on the Roger Stone t-shirts are assaulting women. Hillary didn't get the nomination so I've been disenfranchised. How dare you people make fun of me? That just makes me ten times more resolute in my support of John McCain. You people will learn a lesson if this country has to burn to the ground to teach it to you.

Hillary Clinton will graciously thank her supporters, praise Obama, and tear John McCain and the Republicans a new Hannity, leaving the Democrats unanimously convinced they're nominating the wrong candidate.

I have a stalker on this blog who attacks me (and others) everytime we say something she doesn't like or agree with. -emmarose

MsJoanne,

Yeah, a stalker. Like InsaneFakeProfessor was a stalker.

All she has to do is rip McCain a new hole and point out that on every important issue it is Obama who is in line with her and McCain is against her, say that any of her supporters who vote for McCain are betraying her, basically she has to rally her supporters to Obama and i'll be satisfied, if she fails then she will never see my vote.

Hillary Clinton will graciously thank her supporters, praise Obama, and tear John McCain and the Republicans a new Hannity, leaving the Democrats unanimously convinced they're nominating the wrong candidate.

whaaaaaa?

Making trouble again Alibabba.

I don't think so. Hillary and J-Mac are friends. And are BOTH ready on day one.

Thank You

McCain Blog Outreach Coordinator

I am a New Jersey voter who voted for hillary and I still feel she was robbed and mistreated. This was a very close primary in which she won a majority of the major states and lost caucuses. This shouldn't have come down to the "super" delegates. I am not sold on Obama and if Hillary was the nominee she would be up in the polls by double digits. I wonder if the tides were turned what would be expected of Obama and how quick to jump on the bandwagon his supporters would be?

I think Hillary needs to do one thing: be herself, at least her political self.

Some have complained about Obama giving too much to the Clintons. But the truth is he needs the Clintons to give what they can. The reason is that on Thursday everyone else will be contrasted against Obama.

I'm guessing his hope is that after Biden's speech and his, it will be obvious to everyone why they are on the ticket.

So hopefully Hillary will attack McCain, Bill will attack McCain and then Biden will more effectively attack McCain. Finally Obama will demonstrate that he has a way to defeat McCain, and he will call on all Democrats for help.

I wonder if the tides were turned what would be expected of Obama and how quick to jump on the bandwagon his supporters would be?

What is the answer you want to hear and more importantly could anyone ever possibly prove it to your satisfaction?

This is not to try and diminish your disappointment, but simply to ask a practical question.

"Hillary and J-Mac are friends."

Yeah, but, she can't stand McCain's probable running mate, Mickey Rooney, and the feeling is mutual. Today, on Fox News, the portly little Hollywood legend vowed to, "sock that dizzy dame right in the schnozzola!"

A McCain campaign spokesman denied Rooney is under consideration for veep, but confirmed the actor is "on everybody's 'short list'."

U R konfused Bubba.

The VP will be Mitt. Everyone likes him.

Thank You

McCain Blog Outreach Coordinator

Like some others, I've been harsh on HRC both during the primary and since, but I think she can meet these impossible expectations if she wants to. I think she's that smart and that good. Always have. Her advisors, on the other hand... one never knows.

I don't think she needs to meet every expectation 100%, but if she gets close, the cumulative affect could turn the general in a very different direction.

Barack Obama came out of nowhere, toppling the campaign Hillary spent years being coy about even entering. By the time he appeared, it looked as if the Republican candidate would face a movie we'd already seen, and that wasn't enough change. We thought we knew Hillary's plot, and chasing Bush out the door wasn't the satisfaction we wanted. We wanted the Bush era undone, repudiated, damned.

Obama looked soooo different. He had so many possibilities. He became the Democratic fantasy. He was all things to all Democrats. So, what, if he had little experience, no fire in the belly, no new ideas? He was soooo kewl!

Now his negatives among many voters are that he has little experience, no fire in the belly, no new ideas.

In a few minutes, Democrats are going to be reminded of that 8-year interlude of not being hammered in a presidential election. Hillary and the Big Dawg will fire up the crowd in a way we'll remember long after Barack Obama joins Michael Dukakis in the Republican trophy room.

Whatever you think of Hillary on specifics or character or whatever, we should all be proud of her for what she tried to do, and how close she came to achieving it.

tyrannogenius

Oh bullshit. I'm old, I remember those campaigns. I guess that Howard Dean did campaign for Kerry, but the others sure didn't. Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson didn't even concede until the conventions.

I'm old, I remember those campaigns.

Kind of funny, then, that you sound like you've never been near an electoral process before.

And Coco is right. The concern trolls aren't happy with Hillary's speech and the schmucks at Camp McPOW say she didn't endorse Obama. What a surprise.

I have an idea: Spend more time focusing on what non-assholes think.

And slightly OT: Am I the only one who hates the fact that Yahoo! now tags opinion articles as "ANALYSIS"? The only possible excuse is the people of Yahoo! think "Ysis" means "To speak out of."