Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

August 27, 2008

CLINTON STEALS THE SHOW.... "You haven't worked so hard over the last 18 months, or endured the last eight years, to suffer through more failed leadership," she said. "No way. No how. No McCain."

Hillary Clinton had a variety of competing goals to achieve in her convention speech last night, none of them easy. She had to offer her forceful, unequivocal support for her former rival, Barack Obama. She had to make the case that John McCain would be a disaster. She to convince some of her reluctant supporters to come together as Democrats for the good of the nation. And she had to do it all with grace, humor, and memorable soundbites that could be replayed over and over again.



To borrow the grand-slam metaphor I've heard quite a bit, Clinton touched all the bases.

To those supporters who may be tempted to help McCain win, Clinton's message was unambiguous: "I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?" It was a powerful reminder that Clinton's values and priorities are more important than one candidate or one campaign.

It was an obvious argument that Clinton made eloquently -- it won't honor Clinton to betray her vision for a stronger nation. To support her is to support her agenda, and Obama shares her agenda.

Her indictment against McCain was just as powerful: "[W]e don't need four more years, of the last eight years. More economic stagnation, and less affordable health care. More high gas prices, and less alternative energy.... John McCain says the economy is fundamentally sound. John McCain doesn't think that 47 million people without health insurance is a crisis. John McCain wants to privatize Social Security. And in 2008, he still thinks it's okay when women don't earn equal pay for equal work. With an agenda like that, it makes sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities. Because these days they're awfully hard to tell apart."

I've seen some argue that Clinton's endorsement of Obama wasn't personal enough. Perhaps. But at the same time, she effectively explained that an Obama victory is an absolute necessity: "We are Americans. We're not big on quitting. But remember, before we can keep going, we have to get going by electing Barack Obama president. We don't have a moment to lose or a vote to spare. Nothing less than the fate of our nation and the future of our children hang in the balance."

There wasn't a hint of disappointment or regret. I don't know if this will silence the incessant media obsession with an intra-party "rift" -- it probably won't -- but most reasonable people who gave Clinton a fair hearing came away feeling more confident in the strength of the party, and Obama's chances in November.

Some of McCain's advertising this week has emphasized the line, "Hillary's right." After watching her address last night, I kept thinking, "She sure is."

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (82)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I'm glad you liked it Steve. I thought she gave tepid support to Barack at best. She made it clear that she liked and respected Biden and McCain, but didn't have similar words for Barack. Barack is still the outsider as far as she's concerned.

But, whatever. If I never hear her name again, it will be too soon. After today, I'll be glad when Sandman comes and scoops her off the stage.

Meh.

Posted by: Taritac on August 27, 2008 at 8:07 AM | PERMALINK

As asked here and elsewhere, why in the hell did the DNC set up (or allow) FOX NEWS as the veritable controlling network for camera feeds and the resulting controlling factor that plays on competing anchor desks? Why? As to Hillary's speech Fournier, FOX, Dickerson of Slate and a slew of others portray her as virtually having winked and nudged a subliminal "See you suckers in 2012 when you're ready for a real contender". WTF? Were they watching the same speech as the rest of us. Democrats are rightly aghast at the damage Bush has done to our nation in 8 years. I say equal outrage should be reserved for the media. They've enabled a good measure of the mayhem.

Posted by: steve duncan on August 27, 2008 at 8:15 AM | PERMALINK

oh fer chrissakes. the irrational hate never ends.

she only mentioned Obama 12 times in her speech. but she didn't say enough about him? she said it was imperitive that we elect him and she is proud to be an Obama supporter, but she wasn't supportive enough?

she said Biden and McCain were friends of hers. She didn't use the exact same words re Obama. Well, she's known Biden and McCain for 20 years; she's known Obama for 3. When the new guy shows up at your workplace, are you immediately as good of friends with them as the buddy you've been working with for a decade? it would have been a lot worse had she said something ingenuine.

she kicked ass. get over it.

Posted by: zeitgeist on August 27, 2008 at 8:18 AM | PERMALINK

She couldn't have been better last night,and I was awefully critical of her during the primary. She didn't need to get more personal about Obama. That wasn't what she was there to do, and it wouldn't have been appropriate considering they're not personally close.

Watching her last night it suddenly made sence. She's not cut out to be President. Pre-Iowa (and pre-pre-Iowa) when she was assumed to be the uncontested nominee, she never seemed comfortable. She was dodgy, there was always a shrillness to her. She should have landed on her feet after Iowa, but she completely fell apart. She had no control of her campaign financially or strategically. She struggled to stay on message, and sadly she resorted to pretty vile tactics.

Last night she was truly passionate, engaging and comfortable with herself. Clearly, she has alot to offer the Deocratic party and the country. Losing the nomination may have been the best thing to happen to her. I could definitely see her taking up Ted Kenedey's baton and running with it...and that would not be a bad thing at all.

Posted by: Saint Zak on August 27, 2008 at 8:20 AM | PERMALINK

You're right Steve. It was a grand slam and I hope it brought the party together. I suspect it did judging by the fury of the naysayers. What strikes me at this particular moment is how competent and inspiring Hillary, Michelle, Joe and Barack are in a positive way. Keep that in mind when watching the other side, who make up for their inability to garner any sort of positive message by being all negative all the time, down to McCain personally claiming that Barack does not love his country, only himself, and is basically a traitor.

Posted by: Mary on August 27, 2008 at 8:21 AM | PERMALINK

hillary rocked it just like michelle obama did the night before!!! she "built a bridge" to unify the party. she had so much to accomplish in her speech and did it well. she was funny and gracious and did reference some of her primary campaign attacks on obama. she let everyone know... that while mccain (mcsame) is both a colleague and friend... we cannot have "4 more years of the last 8 years". "NO WAY. NO HOW. NO MCCAIN." she let everyone know obama brings the change we all deserve and she herself wants. she hit it right out of the park!!!!!

Posted by: sarah on August 27, 2008 at 8:22 AM | PERMALINK

As someone who has not been a Hillary fan and who grew quite hostile to her candidacy in the final few months, I've got to say that she was fantastic last night. (Almost up to Obama's level of speech-giving.)

Posted by: N.Wells on August 27, 2008 at 8:34 AM | PERMALINK

When she finished, I said to myself "out of the park."

So Benen here does even better with the baseball metaphor.

Tepid? No, forceful and with reason. I have never heard her do so well.

Also, CSPAN is the way to watch the convention.

Posted by: BuzzMon on August 27, 2008 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINK

But of course, what's the headline in The Washington Post?

"Many Clinton Supporters Say Speech Didn't Heal Divisions"

WTF is she supposed to do besides--forgive me for being crude here--blow Obama on stage to show her unity? She gave a tremendous speech. For the remaining one percent of her supporters, it doesn't look like anything she does will make them happy.

I give up. I really do.

Posted by: Brrian on August 27, 2008 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINK

Zeit, BINGO! What you said exactly!

I was appalled watching Fox after she spoke. I couldn't bring myself to watch Wallace and the walking corpse tear her down...but watching one of her own supporters virtually pay no attention to what she said made me ill.

She totally rocked it. From what Hilzoy and others in Denver said, that supporter was one you had to really look for to find...which the MSM did.

I can't wait for the GOP fawning when McCain et al do their thing.

Posted by: MsJoanne on August 27, 2008 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure about a grand slam, but I was fully satisfied and quite pleased with her speech and support of Obama-- and I was often in the front row of vocal Clinton critics during the primary (OK, maybe the second row... I'm no Tom Cleaver). I thought the part of asking her supporters "were you in it just for me, or are you in it for [the various people she stands for]" was perfect.

I applaud her grace at this moment - you could see it in Bill's face how painful it was to not be giving the acceptance speech instead, but you couldn't really see it in her face, and I really think she did right by the candidate and the party. I believed her. Will it quiet the media desperation to look for intraparty conflict? Probably not. But it earned my admiration.

Posted by: short fuse on August 27, 2008 at 8:42 AM | PERMALINK

It seems to me that the real issue here is that this was Clinton's best argument to her supporters. All you Hillary-haters out there should look at this speech as if the shoe were on the other foot: could Obama have convinced you to vote for Clinton by saying he liked her ("really, no REALLY, I like her ... OK? so vote for her...")? The better argument is to remember that there is a worse candidate out there by far, and that too much is at stake to keep feeling sorry for themselves -- in other words we don't want four more years of the last eight years.

Posted by: Rob on August 27, 2008 at 8:44 AM | PERMALINK

My personal reaction wasn't quite as positive. I thought it sounded a bit too much like an aborted acceptance speech. The undertone seemed to be, "Boy, what a great president I would have made, but since we have to settle for this guy, let's go ahead and support him."

But the media doesn't seem to be characterizing it that way, and I guess that is what really matters.

Posted by: Virginia on August 27, 2008 at 8:44 AM | PERMALINK

she kicked ass. get over it.

She was perfectly phenomenal. People pettily criticizing her for not enough this or that sound damned foolish.

Also, CSPAN is the way to watch the convention.

This cannot be emphasized enough. I'm shocked at the number of people criticizing the abymsal quality of the analysis and complaining about missed/truncated speeches. Change the channel. Trust your own judgment without needing to hear what these idiot-child commentators have to say; they're only going to make you crazy with their banality and viciousness. You can listen to Rachel and the very few other worthwhile ones some other time.

Posted by: shortstop on August 27, 2008 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK

"I thought she gave tepid support to Barack at best."

I think you don't know the meaning of the word "tepid." Hillary explicitly declared her "proud" support of Obama in the first paragraph of her speech and cited him time and again. The speech was red hot.

There will always be a few "bad winners" who can't be gracious in their victory and may yet pout their way to defeat. And there's a small clutch of "bad losers" who will be interviewed over and over again by the media as if they're representative of Hillary's supporters, but she gave people who voted for her their marching orders, and I'm following her enthusiastically into Barack's camp.

No McCain!

Posted by: Zeno on August 27, 2008 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK

Please count me as another Obama supporter who was moved and impressed by Hillary Clinton's speech.

Saint Zak, above, is right: Ted Kennedy has shown what a bully pulpit a Senate seat can be. Representing New York (where my Wall Street brother is surprised to find that he approves of her performance), Hillary has the opportunity devote her herself entirely to her ideas and passions--and exercise the wit we enjoyed last night--rather than squandering her potential trying to managing a sack full of competing egos battling for the next high-level appointment or inflated consulting fee. And in the Senate, unlike the Presidency, she can leave a mark quite independent from Bill.

Posted by: Kingfisher on August 27, 2008 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

oh fer chrissakes. the irrational hate never ends.

she only mentioned Obama 12 times in her speech. but she didn't say enough about him? she said it was imperitive that we elect him and she is proud to be an Obama supporter, but she wasn't supportive enough?

Not irrational and not hate. Just 15 years of disgust at Clintonian triangulation.

What I heard from Sen. Clinton last night was, "Barack Obama still isn't ready to take that three a.m. phone call. But John McCain is even worse."

What I was hoping for (but didn't really expect) was for Clinton to say that she was wrong when she said that John McCain was qualified to be commander-in-chief and that she was wrong when she said that Barack Obama wasn't. That's what sticks in people's minds and that's what will be in Republican commercials.

Sorry, but the harsher your rhetoric, the further you have to go to be accepted again.

Posted by: SteveT on August 27, 2008 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

I think it was probably the best speech I have heard her give, both for Obama and for her ideals.

I think people who are disaapointted with her effort are a little off their rocker.

Keep in mind who she was speaking to tonite. It was not the Obama fans she was trying to persuade, rather the Hillary voters who still want to take the nomination.

She did a masterful job of explaining why an Obama presidency is absolutely essential to those Hillary Voters.

Way to Go Hillary

Posted by: Jason on August 27, 2008 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

but how does Clinton's full-throated endorsement of Obama...hurt Obama?

Come on, there must be SOME way.

Mary at TCBR would know, I bet.

For what it's wortth, the only other thing I would've wanted from Clinton is some kind of acknowledgement that she shouldn't have been so complimentary to McCain during the primary. Even if she couched it with something like "McCain USED TO BE a better person," I would've preferred that over pretending it never happened & she was in Obama's corner all along. It comes across like a married couple who have a hue fight & then act nice towards each other, "making up" without ever getting to the heart of why the fight happened. And I'm their dumpy fat son confused by the mixed signals: are they sorry? Are they gonna fight again? Who's gonna get custody?

Posted by: slappy magoo on August 27, 2008 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

No reason to listen to the talking heads, folks. What expertise do they bring to the table? None. I've got my own ears, thank you very much, and this was the best speech that I've seen Hillary give. Not positive enough? Puh-lease. It came across to me as honest, impassioned, funny and supportive. A great political speech. I know a lot of people whose pro-Hillary made them anti-Obama, and without Hillary they were acting nihilistic. Hillary has given them a sense of direction. Vote Obama.

Posted by: noogs on August 27, 2008 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, the media will continue to obsessively focus on the "Hillary supporters" who are still going to vote for McCain.

What the media won't tell you is that those "Hillary supporters" who are voting for McCain also voted for George W. Bush - twice! - as well as bobdole, H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan. They are, for the most part, women whose votes can and have been bought for years with promises of a few hundred bucks in "tax cuts", and who only got on the Hillary train in the first place thanks to the novelty of the idea of voting for someone who has the same genitalia.

In short, Republican women voting for the Republican candidate has zero to do with proving a "split" in the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Jennifer on August 27, 2008 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

For those who thought her support "tepid," John Dickerson at Slate provides some useful historical context:

Tuesday night, the Democrats celebrated Ted Kennedy. He was in Clinton's shoes in 1980, after his hard-fought battle with Jimmy Carter. When he gave his convention speech, he mentioned Jimmy Carter once, congratulating him only in passing. Ronald Reagan never mentioned Gerald Ford in 1976. Hillary Clinton named Barack Obama more than a dozen times. Kennedy's famous speech declared that the dream will never die. Clinton's pitch was that the dream cannot live without electing Barack Obama.

Seriously, there is no way she can please people. I see op-eds picking her speech apart for what it didn't do, and I see op-eds saying she really meant it as her first campaign speech of 2012, and I see op-eds saying she did too well and it will make people second guess nominating Obama or ask why he picked Biden.

So she either didn't do well enough, or she did too well, or even if she did just right it was for the wrong reasons and the op-ed writers know the truth.

*pulls hair out*

Posted by: zeitgeist on August 27, 2008 at 8:55 AM | PERMALINK

Hillary couldn't have been better. No way. No how. It was a perfect "10."

Like I've been saying, anyone who supported Hillary in the primaries and won't support Obama now is motivated by ugly racism. Nothing more, nothing less. There's not much we can do about people who are that irrational.

Posted by: OkieFromMuskogee on August 27, 2008 at 8:57 AM | PERMALINK

Rob: could Obama have convinced you to vote for Clinton by saying he liked her ("really, no REALLY, I like her ... OK? so vote for her...")?

It's not about her saying that she "liked" Obama. She made one very striking, pointed, particularly nasty attack during the primaries, that Obama was not ready to lead. All she needed to do was say that he absolutely was ready to lead. The fact that McCain is using her words in an attack ad and then released a press release saying that she hadn't changed her assessment show that those words still have an impact.

I don't know. Maybe I'm being too negative. Like Virginia said, as long as the media is spinning it like it was a slam dunk/home run/touchdown or whatever sports metaphor you like, that's what matters.

Posted by: on August 27, 2008 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK

It was a good speech. It would have been a great speech if she had included those magic three words: "I was wrong." -- wrong that McCain has "passed the threshhold" of CinCness; wrong that Obama couldn't handle the 3 AM call. She didn't have to say that Obama is more qualified than she but she had to say that he is qualified. And if she had said those words Clintons just don't say -- "I was wrong" -- if she had been explicit that she no longer believed her earlier attacks -- that would have been free media for weeks.

It was a good speech. She missed an opportunity to make it a great speech.

Posted by: Bernard HP Gilroy on August 27, 2008 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

As asked here and elsewhere, why in the hell did the DNC set up (or allow) FOX NEWS as the veritable controlling network for camera feeds and the resulting controlling factor that plays on competing anchor desks? Why?

Interesting. I noticed that poster doubtful was mentioning this on last night's open thread. I will assume it is true and add an observation:

First, I'm watching on CSPAN, a talking-head-free-zone, and so I find comments and posts on other networks quite interesting. Keep them coming.

Regarding the CSPAN feed, I do remember on Day 1 the camera was panning the floor and spotted a black man with a "Change" sign. He was dancing with it above his head. Problem was, he didn't know it was upside down.

Right when the camera found him it lingered and focused. Amazingly, he quit dancing at that moment to talk with someone next to him. The camera hung on him for 20-30 seconds hoping he might continue. He didn't. Eventually the camera moved on. Reluctantly.

Apparently someplace in a van somewhere, a Fox producer was selecting this feed from out of dozens for one purpose only: To embarrass Democrats.

Posted by: ROTFLMLiberalAO on August 27, 2008 at 9:01 AM | PERMALINK

It was a great speech, but of course the media is going to keep playing their story line of her supporters not supporting Obama. However, did any one catch Andrea Mitchell on the floor of the convention with a Hillary delegate? Mitchell introduced this grandmother saying she was a Hillary supporter who still wasn't supporting Obama and asked her why. At which point the woman said that she was supporting Obama! She said how much she thought of Hillary and that was why she was supporting Obama since she was a Democrat and Hillary and Obama had the same agenda and goals for the country. All Mitchell could do was stand there with egg on her face. It was beautiful!

Posted by: MW on August 27, 2008 at 9:03 AM | PERMALINK

What I was hoping for (but didn't really expect) was for Clinton to say that she was wrong when she said that John McCain was qualified to be commander-in-chief and that she was wrong when she said that Barack Obama wasn't.

For what it's wortth, the only other thing I would've wanted from Clinton is some kind of acknowledgement that she shouldn't have been so complimentary to McCain during the primary.

This isn't how convention speeches work. The place for her to do this is on the campaign trail and in interviews--and even then, it isn't going to be in the language above. Those of us who think she crossed the line big-time during the primaries are just going to have to get over the fact that we aren't going to get a bowed-head-from-the-vanquished-warrior routine. And who cares? Obama won. Let it go now.

Posted by: shortstop on August 27, 2008 at 9:04 AM | PERMALINK

As I said last night, it was a pretty good speech, but it took until this morning to crystallize why I didn't see it as the home run that others did.

Her presentation was enthusiastic, but her endorsement of Obama wasn't; it was pragmatic. Pragmatism was necessary for the "post-rational" folks, but it left me feeling she was endorsing her own positions -- which Obama shares more than McCain -- but not Obama himself.

Republicans are correctly noting that she did not say, 'I've come to know more about Obama and he is absolutely qualified to be President.' She didn't say his judgment more than offsets McCain's experience.

Politically, personally, and realistically, she can't take back her over-the-top criticisms of Obama. On the other hand, not refuting them gives her an out if Obama fails; she can always say, 'I told you so, but I did my duty and supported him anyway.'

There's the Clintonian element of having it both ways. I hope Obama wins and thus it doesn't matter.

It was a pretty good speech.


Posted by: beep52 on August 27, 2008 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK

Seriously, there is no way she can please people. I see op-eds picking her speech apart for what it didn't do

She pleased me, an Obama supporter.

She pleased my wife, a former Clinton supporter who once claimed (months ago) she might have to vote for McCain.

As for the criticisms about her endorsement of Obama being "tepid," what a bunch of bullshit. This was HER fucking speech. She earned the right to talk about herself and her supporters. She set the right tone and she didn't fake it.

This speech will inspire some Obama supporters to help retire her campaign debt.

This speech will convince MANY ardent Clinton supporters not to vote for McCain, even if their wounded pride (totally human and expected) prevents them from actively campaigning for Obama.

Also... she proved that giving good speeches *is* an important dimension of leadership.

Obama shows leadership by staying out of the way while Hillary, Bill and Clinton's many fans get their moment in the spotlight. He trusts that they'll do the right thing for the party, and he is right (despite what some of his more irritating supporters claim).

The most impressive thing to me are the 99% positive reviews on Daily Kos, which has had a decidedly anti-Hillary slant for months.

Posted by: lobbygow on August 27, 2008 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK

I, too, watched the debate on CSPAN. I was flabbergasted to hear Bill Nichols, managing editor of Politico.com, tell all DC news radio WTOP that Hillary gave only a "perfunctory" performance -- a "bare minimum of support for Obama." She "did what she had to do, but she barely did what she had to do." He said Hillary spoke primarily to her supporters, and the Obama campaign probably was okay with this speech, but it wasn't the "unifying moment they'd hoped it would be."

He said the Obama campaign was "realistic" about this speech and that she "did do enough that they'll be able to move on from this."

When asked to cite what Hillary did wrong, Nichols saidd that she mentioned Obama only five or six times.

Politico is a sister operation to the Washington Post, so it sounds like their writers watched the debate on FOX and compared notes.

Personally, I thought the speech was amazing and far more than I'd hoped for. The media had to find something wrong with it - they had to continue the narrative of a rift --and the lack of references to Obama was their chosen negative. Pretty puny negative, I believe.

Posted by: pol on August 27, 2008 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

I have a question. Having read a lot of comments here and across the web, why do we pay any attention at all to the bobble heads hired by CNN, Fox News or MSNBC? For the most part their opinions are no better than most of the comments I read here and at Kevin's new place. I mean most of those clowns are just pulling stuff out of their backsides. Many of them don't know shit.

The truth is unless the media can derail Clinton's real meaning the 2008 election ended last night. Her endorsement of Obama should result in a permanent 4 point swing to Obama. If it doesn't she failed and her career is over.

Posted by: Ron Byers on August 27, 2008 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

there are surely a lot of other things HRC could have said in her speech last night and didn't. different commenters above have given some of their own examples; Tomasky in The Guardian has a laundry list of things he tought she needed to say. she also had her own list, of course - things to praise her supporters, things to challenge her supporters, etc.

um, people - she had a 40 minute slot. she is one speaker out of 100 at the convention. it is irrational to think she can hit every last point, or should have to - and make it fit into a coherent flow and narrative, all in 40 minutes.

does everyone always have to look high and low to find how she failed? cant the haters just for a day focus on what she did well?

If pains me to link to the HY Post, but this column really does provide needed perspective on why this is so frustrating (and it largely refutes SteveT @ 8:53):

Hillary Clinton - amid outrage at her behavior - made her concession speech and endorsed Obama five days after the last primary. The way Obama's fans in the media tell it, you'd think she took months. Compare to 1984, when Gary Hart waited nearly a month to concede the race to Walter Mondale. Ted Kennedy, who in the ultimate act of disunity challenged an incumbent Democratic president in 1980, waited until the convention to concede to Jimmy Carter.

When Kennedy finally did concede, it was barely distinguishable from a temper tantrum. CBS's Walter Cronkite reported, "Kennedy leaves the stand, sober, unsmiling. There will be no pictures in tomorrow morning's paper, and none for posterity, of Ted Kennedy holding Jimmy Carter's hand aloft."

As Steve Kornacki (one of the few reporters to show an interest in accurate historical analogies this campaign season) aptly pointed out in The New York Observer, when Kennedy and Hart were running much farther back in their bids for the nomination - Kennedy was trailing by 1,000 delegates in '80; Hart by 600 in '84 - they didn't get hit by any serious pressure to drop out.

Clinton, by contrast, was harassed by media to drop out even as she was winning major states and running neck-and-neck with Obama in the popular vote.

When she considered taking the fight to the convention, the idea was greeted with disbelief that she'd be so selfish. Yet Hart and Kennedy both fought on at the convention; Kennedy only conceded after failing to change party rules to his favor. It's this double standard that so enrages Hillary supporters.

Posted by: zeitgeist on August 27, 2008 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

Bernard...

Never mind. zeit, say something soothing to me. Urge me to be serene in the face of this.

Posted by: shortstop on August 27, 2008 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

Republicans are correctly noting that she did not say, 'I've come to know more about Obama and he is absolutely qualified to be President.'

The first rule of giving excellent speeches is to be true to yourself. Her speech was excellent and it certainly seemed sincere.

When has she had a chance to "come to know more" about Obama? She's been pretty damned busy as I recall.

She did what she needed to do in the eyes of the majority of both Hillary and Obama supporters. Critics on all sides are just looking for something to whine about that reinforces their personal narrative about what happened during the primaries.

Thank you Hillary for demonstrating that speeches do matter.

Posted by: lobbygow on August 27, 2008 at 9:10 AM | PERMALINK

preview would be my friend if i would let it.
re: 9:08. . .

Should be NY Post, not HY Post. Link is here.

And I meant to conclude that Obama supporters suggesting that she continues to not do enough will only keep a certain segment of her support from closing ranks with you.

Sorry to swan. not enough coffee yet this morning.

Posted by: zeitgeist on August 27, 2008 at 9:11 AM | PERMALINK

Steve, you are right. It was a grand slam. Could have been something a bit better though. She could have "hit for the cycle" had she only spent a few sentences castigating the media, for its inability to portray McCain as he really is, for its constant excuse making for words right out of his mouth, for its failure to whip itself into a frenzy when a Republican spoke at a Dem convention in the same fashion as it did when a Dem spoke at the Republican convention. That, my friends, would have completed the cycle.

Posted by: bubba on August 27, 2008 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

All right, say it with me kids, the media has narratives, and they won't abandon them easily. If they did, they'd have to work, and we all know they don't want to do that. They're hacks. At this point, anyone, on any network, who sits there and continues on this "Hillary is trying to undercut Obama so she can run in 2012" is a hack. Treat their pronouncements as you would those of the homeless guy on the corner, with the tinfoil hat.

Posted by: Diogenes on August 27, 2008 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

Perhaps, when we consider the bruising primary campaign and give Senator Clinton a little room to be a feeling person beneath the professional demeanor, perhaps it is understandable that her speech last night stressed party unity, supporting the party's nominee, and beating the other party.

If she had made a speech all about Obama and how she is now a true believer, it would have been utterly dissonant and many would say dishonest.

It was a professional performance that hit the marks. She lost the primary to Obama and rather than pretend to feelings she doesn't have, she said some truthful things: the election is not about one person, it is definitely not about her now, and if people believe in what she wanted to do, they should vote for the party's nominee.

Posted by: Algernon on August 27, 2008 at 9:17 AM | PERMALINK

Well, Hillary's speech did not bring peace throughout the world, or solve global hunger, or cure cancer, so it was an obvious failure.

Posted by: bucky on August 27, 2008 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

Well, Hillary's speech did not bring peace throughout the world, or solve global hunger, or cure cancer, so it was an obvious failure.

Posted by: bucky on August 27, 2008 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

I thought Senator Clinton's speech was wonderful. I turned to my husband and said if that didn't change the minds of her supporters, they're a lost cause. I especially liked the part regarding if people were just campaigning for her or for the people in America who need a Democrat to fix this mess? I am guilty of feeling like voting for McCain if Senator Clinton had won the primary. This irrational emotion was difficult at times to overcome during that campaign. But I realized that if I (at 47) couldn't be rational/logical and actually vote against my own best interests, my children would be the losers. My 10,9,7 and 3 year old children need me to set a better example than being bitter and letting their inheritance of this planet be worthless. Now if we could just put the extra duct tape we have lying around our houses from 2001 on the mouths of the commentators, we might have a decent Presidential campaign.

Posted by: Jacklyn on August 27, 2008 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

Republicans are correctly noting that she did not say, 'I've come to know more about Obama and he is absolutely qualified to be President.' She didn't say his judgment more than offsets McCain's experience.

spin du jour

Posted by: Lucy on August 27, 2008 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

Her speech was good. I personally think she should have been a little more stern with her supporters. This morning a Hillary supporter was interviewed on MSNBC, and when asked if she was now going to support Obama (she still had a Hillary button on), she said NO. She was still undecided.

Let me tell her something, and anyone else that feels her way:

It is you foolish undecided voters that undermine the democratic party. You people need to figure out what the hell is going on in your mind and decide what is important to you in terms of winning the election. For those that will vote for McCain instead of Obama because they are sore losers, they need to have their party membership or registration revoked. We do not need these types of people in the party.

Frankly I am getting rather tired of people accusing the democrats of being weak and yellow, too afraid to attack the republicans. that may be the case, but in my mind, this internal strife does more damage to our chances than failing to respond to a particular smear.

The lady who was interviewed this morning and said that she wasn't going to vote for Obama did more damage to his campaign than any number of Rovian sleazeball attacks could have done.

Posted by: citizen_pain on August 27, 2008 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

Why couldn't Hillary give this speech three months ago? She waited until she had no other choice before she told her dead-end minions the truth. I have no respect for that.

The Clintons ruined this convention. It should be an historic event and instead it is all about the Clintons. I am so sick and tired of Big Dog & Hillary.

It is long past time to bury the hatchet, but if Obama doesn't win in November you can bet your bottom dollar that I'll remember where I buried it. I won't be alone.

Posted by: Blue Neponset on August 27, 2008 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

So, if some folks saw a triple that drove in three instead of a grand-slam, they're given to Republican spin, Hillary-hate, and justifying leftover impressions from the primary?

I guess kool-aid comes in flavors.

Posted by: beep52 on August 27, 2008 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

So that's what Hillary's like when she doesn't have some idiot like Mark Penn advising her. Listening to her last night, I got the feeling we were seeing the real Hillary and nothe one stage managed by bunch of loser advisors.

Judging by her reception and the way she gave her speech. Hillary knows she is a big shot in the Democratic Party. Being whiney would have pushed her to the margins, and instead she carried the party's mantle and grabbed her share of power on that stage.

If Bill does what Hillary did in his speech. He'll heal a lot of anger and cement his position as the patriarch of the party.

Posted by: petorado on August 27, 2008 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

I think she did a great job in a very difficult situation. Everything she said about Obama was very positive and believable.

I think those who wanted her to revisit the issue of whether he is qualified to be president are dead wrong. The Obama team would not have wanted her to do that.

All in all, if not a 10, certainly a 9.9.

Posted by: Econobuzz on August 27, 2008 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

As another person who was leery of Hillary, I agree it was a very good, maybe a great speech. I have a couple of quibbles, but they are just that. (They made me agree that it was a home run, but disagree with Keith's 'out of the park, across the street, and over the buildings across the street' remark.)

I could have done with half of her 'people I met while campaigning' schtick -- because while it may have been sincere at first, it has become schtick for her.

I would have liked her to work in her brilliant line from earlier: "My name is Hillary Clinton and I do not approve this message"

I would have liked her to say "I was wrong" or -- as someone on ObWi put it [quasi-quote] -- "as I spent time campaigning against him, my opinion of Senator Obama has grown and I saw he was ready to lead."

----

Also, my *ahem* 'compliments' to CNN for, immediately after the speech, finding a Hillary delegate who was unconvinced -- one of the 50 on the floor who might have been according to a woman from HuffPo (who made the incredible slip of the tounge of saying that she had supported McCain -- and it was a slip, in context, she meant to say Obama). Extra points to the Collapsing News Network because the delegate was both female and black.

(Oh, and referring to them, I can't criticize Larry King for running a panel of Republicans critiqueing the convention, since he's promised to do the reverse next week, but did he have to pick Michelle Bachman -- though to give her credit, she didn't come across as crazy as her reputation. Of course, if King chooses Gene Taylor and Lannie Davis next week, I will blast him.)

Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) on August 27, 2008 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

As a New Yorker and a long-time feminist who never liked Hillary much, I have to say that her speech was absolutely one of the best I've ever heard. It made me actually like her and amenable to voting for her whole-heartedly in the future. I'd call that a home run.

Posted by: Frak on August 27, 2008 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

The Hillary Clinton of last night's speech at the Convention was the Hillary Clinton that should have been running during the primaries; instead, America got the Hillary Clinton of Kitchen Sink-isms and Mark Penn-sylvania.

As for the mope-about PUMAs who are trolling about Denver this week, might I suggest that they take their anti-Obama angst down the lane a wee bit and cozy up to the Mittens and Ghoul Show? They can try the garbage-can on for size, and find out if they really, truly want to be little copies of Benedict Joe....

Posted by: Steve on August 27, 2008 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

beep52, please spare me the shopworn kool-aid riposte. It will not trouble my sleep if you think Hillary hit a triple instead of a home run. Really.

If you want to quibble that the Republican spin is "correct", fine, but you can't deny it's spin.

The last thing Hillary should have done was perform a mea culpa during that speech. It would have been embarrassing, inappropriate, and unconvincing.

Posted by: Lucy on August 27, 2008 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

I guess she said the right things but from the clips that I saw of her I thought she looked very stiff. I think that's one of the big reasons she didn't win in the primaries. She just isn't a very good public speaker.

Posted by: e. nonee moose on August 27, 2008 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

Benen: I've seen some argue that Clinton's endorsement of Obama wasn't personal enough. Perhaps.

Nah. 'Personal' was the first night.

Excellent speech by Hillary Clinton. If her primary campaign would have been of the same quality, she would have been then nominee.

shortstop on August 27, 2008 at 9:04 AM:

The place for her to do this is on the campaign trail and in interviews--and even then, it isn't going to be in the language above.

Something like, "Obama hasn't been in Washington long...But in comparison to McCain, that's not a bad thing. McCain's experience in Washington is to get cranky, flap his gums, and then get back in line with George Bush."

But yeah, you won't hear a flat-out, "I was wrong" from Clinton...not due to ego, mind you, but more due to the response from the right-whingers: "So what else are you wrong about?"

Posted by: grape_crush on August 27, 2008 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

Preview is mi amigo.

"been then nominee" should be "been the nominee".

Posted by: grape_crush on August 27, 2008 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

did Teddy ever say he was wrong about Carter? did Hart say he was wrong about Mondale?

why this once-in-a-lifetime standard for someone who defied odds and came much closer (i.e. more gut-wrenching of a contest) than either of those two old white guys came?

Posted by: zeitgeist on August 27, 2008 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

Some of you CBR alumni/ae might remember that I seldom passed up any opportunity to pile on in any Clinton-bashing contest. I didn't watch the speech live because I don't watch TV, period. I watched a vid of the speech on MSNBC's website a few hours later. And I would a lot rather celebrate what she did than kvetch about what she didn't, or might have done.

Some of you are like "if she doesn't love him to the same extreme degree that I do AND express it exactly how I would, than she'd no damned good - all I've got to say to that is - get over yourself. You aren't doing the Democrats any smaller disservice than the PUMAs. This is an election campaign, not a fucking mind meld!!!

Posted by: Stephen1947 on August 27, 2008 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

Oh for the love of Pete...

Hillary did a fantastic job. Stop with the "she didn't say this, she didn't say that" already. For some of you, there was NOTHING Hillary could have done to get it right. The thread yesterday was correct, Hillary was in an untenable, no-win situation (put there primarily by a ginned up Media needing a story) and she still came through with flying colors. Hillary gave a great speech and did what needed to be done for the Dem party.

Posted by: ckelly on August 27, 2008 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton. I am proud I voted for her in the primary. And I hope I will be equally proud I voted for Obama in November.

Posted by: jen f on August 27, 2008 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

I think it was a very classy and effective speech. I think this despite having been a very strong Obama supporter from the start, and one who thought HRC stepped right up to or even over the lines of propriety for an intra-mural contest. In the end, she showed loyalty to the party and the issues, and that's what matters.

Posted by: Matt on August 27, 2008 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

Steve T,

"Sorry, but the harsher your rhetoric, the further you have to go to be accepted again."

I find this type of argument a bit juvenile. Hillary Clinton ran against a candidate who did not have a long track record. Their positions were largely similar. The differences were in their record of public service. It is a valid argument to make that she did not (and still may not) think that Obama was ready for the job. Why is this rhetoric harsh? It is nothing personal. It is very similar to a number of comments that Obama made. Voting for Iraq war was an example of judgement (saying that Clinton's judgement was off). A valid criticism. People heard both sides of the argument and a majority bought Obama's argument. One can not forget that a substantial portion of the democratic party agreed with her, and found her position to be acceptable, and tenable. So, doubts about Obama's abilty to run the country will persist, and he needs to work harder to convince people that he is up to it.

It is Obama's job to convince the electorate that he is ready to lead, not Hillary's. Hillary did her job exceedingly well. She lost the race, and conceded gracefully. By historical standards, this was a full-throated endorsement by a loser.

Obama should be grateful for what Hillary did yesterday. She made him a better candidate through the campaign.

I hope the Obama camp gets off from whining about Hillary Clinton very soon, and start fighting, or the republicans will run them over. Hillary or not, Republicans will have their attacks ready for Obama. He better be ready.

Kari

Posted by: Kari on August 27, 2008 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

I'm a bit late to the thread but I would also like to add my name to the list of those left thoroughly disgusted by her campaign (and by many of her supporters), yet literally blown away by her speech last night.

'Saint Zak' made a great point early in the thread; that she seemed *much* more comfortable that she ever did campaigning for the Presidency.

I still believe that she did much damage and seemed to be making somewhat of a deal with the Devil in order to appeal to low-information and bigoted voters. But she seemed to be making a genuine effort to put the genie back in the bottle.

My criticisms pale in comparison but her mentions of Obama *did* seem a little forced. And someone made the point last night that she could have made an effort to show a change of heart from her campaign message; that she no longer believes he's too inexperienced for that "3:00 AM call".

Posted by: JTK on August 27, 2008 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

Just so we're clear: One can "touch all the bases" (hit a homerun) without it being a grand slam (homerun with bases loaded). The difference is the number of runs that score.

Personally, I don't see four runs scoring off Clinton's speech.

Posted by: pedestrian on August 27, 2008 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

As an Obama supporter looking forward to voting for him, I was one of those really put off by the Clinton campaign by the end of the nomination marathon, and am completely disgusted with the PUMA dead-enders.

Having said that, with respect to those (few) Obama supporters who are still unhappy with Clinton's support for Obama after her speech last night, I'm forced to conclude they would have been satisfied only if she'd performed oral sex on him right there on the podium.

The sooner the Tiny Toddler Tantrum Wing (containing both Obamabots and Hillarybots) of the Democratic Party gets put to bed with a blankie and a warm bottle the better it will be for the adults.

Posted by: bluestatedon on August 27, 2008 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

Kari, although I strongly disagree with SteveT's view that Clinton should have been doing mea culpas last night, you've mischaracterized what he thinks she should be apologizing for.

The problem with Clinton's 3 a.m./commander-in-chief rhetoric wasn't that Clinton thought Obama wasn't qualified enough; it was that she simultaneously argued that the Republican opponent was. Promoting the other party's candidate's qualifications over your primary opponent's is pretty universally understood to be a do-not-cross line.

Posted by: shortstop on August 27, 2008 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

::she kicked ass. get over it.::

As someone who edged right up to the line of Hillary hate during the primaries, and never suported her from the git-go, I have to say...

Yes, indeed she did.

Great speech!

Posted by: tam1MI on August 27, 2008 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Obama should be grateful for what Hillary did yesterday.

You can not be serious. She did what she must. No gratitude necessary on Obama's part.

(Jesus! The crap you *hear* on the net...)

Posted by: on August 27, 2008 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

Honestly, I don't think she could've been better last night. And Rachel Maddow, right as usual, beat down Buchanan and said there wasn't an Obama camp and Clinton camp; they were just Democrats.

I saw someone last night, who, despite running a primary campaign that was at times offensive and disagreeable, deserved a leadership position in the Senate, in the Cabinet, or on the Court.

I think it also further highlights the incompetence of Wolfson, Penn, and the other barnacles she's shed since ending her campaign.

She's better without them.

We all are.

Posted by: doubtful on August 27, 2008 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

You know, "unity" isn't a one-way street. It can't just be all about Hillary Contrite: The Obama camp has to be willing to let some of their anger toward her go, too. For her to go back and detail every thing Obama supporters might want her to apologize for, and do so, would not be remotely successful as a unity speech. It would give pundits ammunition for the disunity narrative; it would be embarrassing and uncomfortable for almost everyone watching; and it would serve only to make Hillary supporters mad.

Honestly, I can't help but get the feeling that what a lot of people really want is to see Hillary debased and humiliated--in the press and in this comment thread. There's something really creepy about it.

Posted by: miwome on August 27, 2008 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

I've never liked Hillary Clinton one bit and have always been highly skeptical of her and considered her likely to play spoiler and wait in the wings for 2012 (I don't think it would work- if she didn't make every effort possible to elect Obama she would never be forgiven). But seriously, my initial impression was "she hit it outta the park." Pitch-perfect, hit all the right notes, I finally feel good about the election for the first time in a month.

But then, as another poster noted, CNN finds one of a small handful of still-undecided Hillary supporters, a black woman no less, and as the first post-speech interview, gives her 5 minutes to cry (literally) about how she might have to not vote in this election for the first time in her life because she absolutely couldn't pull the lever for John McCain.

It completely sucked, and was a larger metaphor for the way this race has been and will continue to be covered.

Democrats have to run against John McCain, the McCain Stream Media, AND idiotic "conventional wisdom" all at once. It explains why so few Democrats have ascended to the presidency in the last couple generations.

Posted by: Piper on August 27, 2008 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Honestly, I can't help but get the feeling that what a lot of people really want is to see Hillary debased and humiliated--in the press and in this comment thread. There's something really creepy about it.

It's totally creepy, and I could not stand the way the Clintons conducted themselves throughout the primaries and said so at great length and at every opportunity.

First rule of winning a war or a primary: Allow your opponent to save a little face. This she-must-be-broken stuff is crazy. It's over.

Posted by: shortstop on August 27, 2008 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

It completely sucked, and was a larger metaphor for the way this race has been and will continue to be covered.

Amen.

If Ron Paul's supporters set fire to effigies of John McCain during the GOP's convention, the narrative would be that Republican's encourage diversity of opinion while Democrats force members into a false display of unity.

Posted by: on August 27, 2008 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

The media's coverage of this will be "Did it work? Maybe...maybe not!"

They will create a story where there is none. This country is ill-served by the supposed "4th estate".

And BTW, she amazing. And I say that as someone who loathed her by the end of the primaries.

Posted by: Naveen on August 27, 2008 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

This speech was great. I really don't understand why people are still obsessing over that old "not ready to lead" quote.

Well, let me rephrase. I understand why the "liberal" media and the GOP are obsessing over it, but not democrats. If you didn't notice how explicitly she said in this speech that Obama is ready, then you weren't paying attention.

Seriously, learn how politics work. She wasn't going to just come out and say, "That 'not ready to lead' thing? I take it back." That would have been much too blatant to the point of being crude (and probably still wouldn't have satisfied the nay-sayers). Instead, she went through a laundry list of issues, and on each one said, "McCain is wrong and Obama is right. We *need* Obama because we can't afford McCain." That is about as direct as a politician is physically able to get to taking back an old statement.

And then, on top of all that, she explicitly capitulated by telling her supporters, "You weren't in this for me. If you are real democrats, you'll vote for Obama."

Come on, what more could she do? She was on fire and she said everything that needed to be said. Let it go, already.

Posted by: Shade Tail on August 27, 2008 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not pointing any fingers (Howard Dean and Donna Brazille), but whoever thought it was a good idea to ice the Clintons out of the Party from the get-go and in such obvious fashion, should be placed in a booby-hatch for the rest of their natural lives. After that a cold place in Hell awaits.

Posted by: Becca on August 27, 2008 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

Jesus god. The primary is over! Can we try to beat the venal Republicans in November please?

Posted by: Lucy on August 27, 2008 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Honestly, I can't help but get the feeling that what a lot of people really want is to see Hillary debased and humiliated--in the press and in this comment thread.

I can't speak for anyone else, but that's not at all what I had in mind. Not even close.

My wishing she had said flat-out that Obama was qualified and that his judgment trumped McCain's experience was solely for the purpose of countering claims coming from the right. Instead of slamming the door (as she did with "I did not approve that message" the other day), she left it open. Humiliation has nothing to do with it.

There need be nothing shameful or humiliating about saying that an earlier assessment was wrong based on new information. Instead, we got the same old... oh, forget it.

Let's see how Bill handles it tonight.

Posted by: beep52 on August 27, 2008 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Bill is going to "hit for the cycle" tonight. I watched his response to her during her introduction and throughout her speech. He is proud and moved by her courage and willingness to take a new, elevated position on Obama. I was not a fan of Hillary's during the primaries, and felt she was not helping the party with her attacks on Barack. I now feel that she has moved to a space of full support and her admonition to her supporters to move fully into Obama's court was very clear. She looked more comfortable than I have seen her in months. I could "feel her heart" and know she is sincere.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

Posted by: st john on August 27, 2008 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Two things.

1) She said all the right things about Obama and plenty enough times. If she'd made her speech a paean to Obama, it would have only fed into the perception that Dems have lost their collective mind and given into a cultist adoration. In the long run, the election isn't about a *person*; it's about ideals, Obama isn't a Messiah; he's the *representative* of the Democratic party. Which needs to pull together to make sure that McCain is the "no way, no how" candidate.

2) To everyone who's saying she should have done a public breast beating about the way she conducted her campaign (ugly, IMO) and what she'd said then: Do you want a side of a pound of flesh and a quart of blood with that?

Read about the (forced) public recantations and renunciations which happened throughout the 30ties, 40ties and 50ties in the communist countries and you'll see how ugly an unconvincing they were. There's no place for such at the Convention, which has to focus on the positive -- eyes on the prize, not looking back over your shoulder.

As an Obama supporter, I'm very happy with what she'd done and how she'd done it (and, if Willie Wanker does half as well, I'll be happier still).

I'm also happy for her; her future as the leading light of the Senate seems to be assured especially if she continues to be herself -- passionate *as well as* detail-oriented and "wonky". I think she'll be a much better legislator now than she's been before, because she'll have less reason to triangulate, with half an eye always judging how her votes might reflect on her 8yrs down the road.

Posted by: exlibra on August 27, 2008 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

What is it with Crappy Non-news Network? They are actually going out and finding the FEW Clinton supporters who will not vote for Obama to interview? As I said in a post late last night (actually early this am PDT), I'm watching CSPAN because I don't want people trying to tell me what I should think... and the all of the Clinton delegates that CSPAN is interviewing (and I think I've seen most) are enthusiastic about Barack.

I've not been a Hillary Clinton fan and I detested the garbage her campaign threw at Obama, but last night she was tremendous. Too bad she chose to listen to Mark Penn, she could have won the nomination with speeches like that.

Posted by: Hannah on August 27, 2008 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

A strong indication of how good the speech was is the fact that the slimebuckets at Yahoo are no longer even listing it among their headlines. You can bet that if things had turned out badly for the dems, Yahoo would have it headlined for 2 weeks at least.

Posted by: michael7843853 on August 27, 2008 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Nothing Hillary could have said would satisfy some of the Haters on board. If she said I was wrong to ever mention the "threshhold test", they'd be complaining that she brought the issue up again in her speech.

Funny how none of the Haters remember anything said by their side, like when Barack Obama "approved" an ad message basically calling her a liar who "will say anything to get elected."


Posted by: pfgr on August 27, 2008 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly