The BBC report says "there was an angry feeling among many of her supporters that Mr Obama only won because the complex rules of the Democratic Party process suited his campaign."

Oh my. "Only won because the complex rules of the Democratic Party process suited his campaign."

If Hillary Clinton had mastered those rules and had the grace to apologize for her war-powers vote, we'd have been listening to Barack Obama's concession speech instead. And I'd be planning to vote for Ms. Clinton in November.

How do I get off this list? I am appalled by the sexist comments made during the campaign.

You're not progressives; you're just a sorry pack of misogynists.

Jane

I'd say it was one of the most gracious speeches of this campaign.

Hillary'd be great as the head of HUD or HHS in the Obama administration. It was a very positive note to end her campaign on.

I have worked very hard to support Obama's campaign over the last few months, and I have been so deeply disappointed in the Clinton campaign so many times during this primary. But I congratulate Senator Clinton on a gracious and honorable speech, and appreciate her unambiguous support for Senator Obama. I love the metaphor about the 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling. I will continue to work my heart out to get Obama and other Democrats elected in November. And someday the right female candidate for President will arrive, and I will be right there working as hard as I can to get her elected.

People are saying that Hillary knocked it out of the park with her concession speech. I haven't been able to find a link to the FULL video of the speech yet (do you have one?) but from the segments I've seen, I have to agree. I'm puzzled as to why she didn't campaign in that mode the entire time. She looked more presidential in her concession speech than in her other appearances I've seen.

Granted this is more an emotional response than a rational one, but Hillary Clinton did a great deal to repair her image with me today. I have not been pleased with some of the tactics she's used during the campaign, but when it truly reached the end of the road she did not hold back one iota in pledging her support to the higher goal -- preventing a continuation of the ongoing administrative train wreck that is threatening American society.

As an interesting side note, both times she mentioned gay issues, she got a huge cheer. I was a little surprised at how big (and that she mentioned it at all). I wonder if the LGBT-equality-as-civil-rights thing is finally gaining major traction among John Q. Democrat with the recent California decision and the lack of sky falling on Massachusetts.

Hillary's speech was invigorating. Hey all you neocon McCain-ites, ready or not, here we come.

Jane. Get over yourself you old femi-nazi. And I appalled by the racism of your cohorts

BJ's comment perfectly illustrated what Jane was talking about. The name calling. The "you are racists" comments directed toward anyone who didn't support Obama. The behavior of many Obama lovers was childish and disgusting.

Their paths merged long ago, if the issues actually mattered. Militarism and increased military spending; corporate-dominated health insurance; support for right-wing militarist Israeli elites; all options on the table for Iran; pro-nuclear power; opposition to impeachment of war criminals; opposition to a Wall Street securities speculation tax, etc.

Actually, isn't it likely that Jane is trolling? She wrote "How do I get off this list?". LIST? What list? BlueOregon is now a subscription service? Yes, I know there's a weekly-highlights option, but presumably if Jane were truly as offended as she claims to be, she would have taken steps to unsubscribe long ago. I vote for TROLLING.

She did a lot to start healing the Party?

I agree but the real test will be to see if Obama can rise to that same level.

I also agree that the big-worded insults for anyone who diagree's with some of you is counter productive to the citizenry taking back the country

The question isn't what Hillary says or does to heal the party, it's what <u>Obama</u> does. Embracing her health care plan would be a good start.

John

BJ's comment perfectly illustrated what Jane was talking about. The name calling.

Yeah!.....oh, you mean like this:

you're just a sorry pack of misogynists.

Hillary's moving speech was the buzz of the 2nd Congressional District Convention today in Medford. I think the healing has begun.

It was great to get together with Hillary supporters today and congratulate eachother on a hard fought campaign. I gave my Obama button to one of Hillary's delegates who was glad to receive it. Those of us who were selected as National Delegates today, for Clinton and Obama, are looking forward to going to Denver and representing Oregon, together.

I don't think he should embrace her health plan, without significant debate. Backing it is good, making sure the debate happens is good, but the rest needs to have the process work on it for a bit.

She said insured, and I'm not so sure that's the right way to get health care done. It could be, but the devil is in the details.

A generous, magnanimous speech, crafted well to both congratulate and thank her supporters and to invite them to join her in helping elect the Democratic nominee to the presidency, for the sake of the country and the world, and to realize those values she and her campaign espouse.

First of all, let me say I was impressed by Hillary's speech. Had she spoken that way more often during the campaign, I might have voted for her. I totally agree with Carla, Posted by: carla | Jun 7, 2008 11:06:30 AM

That was the speech of Hillary Clinton's career.

I have not supported Hillary in her campaign for the Presidency for a number of reasons. In fact when it came time to mark my primary ballot for President, my vote for Obama was against her rather than for Barack in many ways.

That said, Hillary showed a graciousness and statesmanship today that made me proud.

Now, about this:

" I am appalled by the sexist comments made during the campaign. "

As someone currently working with elementary school kids (more time spent on the issue of name calling than I care to remember!), it seems to me that the level of name calling in this campaign did not all go one way.

"Sen. McCain and I have experience, Obama has a speech"

and similar dismissive comments are not what one would expect from a mature adult. I say that as someone whose oldest friend graduated from Wellesley in Hillary's class. In the beginning (the months before the Iowa caucuses) we were told "the train is leaving the station...", Hillary was the inevitable nominee, how dare anyone even look at any of the men! And how dare anyone question her voting record---it was aimed at winning the general election (which went against Bill Clinton's rule that politicians should never be looking at an election beyond the one currently being contested).

What that Jane Edwards quote reminded me of was elections in prior decades like Margie Hendricksen running for Congress in the primary which nominated Peter DeFazio in 1986, the year he was first elected to Congress. There were women living in the 4th Cong. Dist. who had been voting for both Peter and Margie (county office for him, legislative for her) and knew them both quite well. Did they have the right to make up their own minds on that primary?

There was a big debate about the nature of feminism in the 1980s: A)Does it mean woman are mature adults able to use the brains God gave them to make their own decisions? OR, B)Does it mean if a woman was running for office, feminists aren't allowed to even consider voting for a man?

As I recall, there was an incident in the 1980s when a campaign manager said of those considering qualified male primary candidates, "Why are women voting for the men running against our candidate"?.

In the case of 1986, women registered to vote in the 4th CD who decided based on their own experience that Peter would be better suited for life in Congress voted for him. No amount of women living outside the district saying things like "anyone who doesn't support Margie doesn't support women!" (quote from a well known feminist legislator of the time) was able to change the minds of the registered voters in the district.

It did, however, lose friends and alienate people who thought the suffragists like Abigail Scott Dunniway fought for the right of women to make their own decisions, not to have "feminists" tell them how to vote.

BTW, here is the dictionary definition:

mi·sog·y·nist
n. One who hates women. adj. Of or characterized by a hatred of women.

Now, if someone wants to make the argument that no woman should have read the Obama books or gone to see him when he came to their town because that would show hatred of women, that is a whole other debate.

OF COURSE things are said in the course of primaries which make others angry. That is true even when 2 men run against each other!

(Note to Novickians--yes, a defeat is difficult to endure, as the Lonsdale and Rust supporters discovered in the 1990s in the primary losses to AuCoin and Bruggere. Having been in that group, I understand how tough a losss that can be. But on the other hand, that's politics--someone wins, someone loses. )

"McNasty"? What is it you find so "nasty" about John McCain other than his party affiliation? Perhaps my cynicism module is in need of recalibration, but I cannot find a reason to loathe the man when directly compared to many of our Democratic leaders. My biggest beef with the guy is his pre-Iraq invasion hawkishness. I'll continue to hold that colossal blunder against him, but lets get real here. Obama & Clinton's rhetoric amounted to little more than pandering to progressives when they were trying to one-up each other on who would pull out quickest. Both know how recklessly irresponsible that would be and it aint gonna' happen. We would not be in this situation had Democrats not gone along with highly skewed speculation in the first place, but we're in the thick of it now.

Then there's "Universal health care". Only an idiot would suggest that the U.S. health care system isn't flawed, but only progressives lay 100% of the responsibility squarely on corporations & politicians. What about us? The average U.S. citizen demands state of the art care whenever they want it and doesn't take care of his/herself. When we become ill, were quick to get litigious. I don't know about you, but having health insurance ranks in my top 3 on the priority list, right below food & shelter. When an employer doesn't provide it, I buy it. My current employer shells out over 500 bucks a month (too much IMO, though I'm happy to have it) for my current plan, but a wise person is able to view that as part of his compensation rather than a de facto human right. The finest, albeit flawed health care in the world aint cheap, folks. None of our Presidential candidates are going to change that.

This rant has been brought to you by an '03 California Pinot Noir. More to the point, I'm not seeing the angel vs. devil equation between Obama & McCain. Strikes me as quite similar to Carter vs. Ford. I'll vote come November, but I cannot say for who. Perhaps for Obama, not ruling out McCain, maybe even Bob Barr. That's the beauty of not being a partisan disciple and maintaining a proper degree of cynicism.

Brian, to be very terse, first, if you have ever lived in a country with a nationalized health care system, as I have, you will very quickly grasp the problem with the US "system". As for what is or isn't a de facto human right, to use your phrasing, here's the short answer: nothing. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; liberty, equality and fraternity; or however you want to word it, we have human rights only to the extent that we are collectively willing to fight for those rights. And the way these are codified varies from one society to another. If We The People collectively decide that decent medical care is a "right", then so it shall be. I see nothing fundamentally different about this in respect to medical care than in respect to, say, the "right" for workers to freely organize into unions.

McCain is running for Dubya's 4rd term. He has embraced every substantive Bush policy of the last 7 years. If you're on board with that, well, then fill in the oval next to McCain's name with your #2 pencil.

TJ, Thank you!

Doug in PDX, what? why not? you do realize how important universal healthcare is to every American right? Clinton's healthcare plan was the number one reason many folks supported her. Obama is my candidate now and I can't wait to see his health care plan for the general. Your comment seems ill-informed to me. Go take a look at Hillary's plan and come back and tell me what you don't like about it. Which specific "details" need to be worked out? You won't find another elected more committed to health care for every American than Hillary Clinton, besides perhpas our very own John Kitzhaber. I'm confused by your comment. This is fundemental issue and one that seems even more fundemental than education, to me anyway. Why do we all take for granted that an education is a fundemental right but health care (the very thing that keeps us alive in order to learn) is not? Nobody questions that we all have a right to free public education. Why don't we feel that way about health care? If there's one thing I really really hope Obama swipes from Hillary it's her health care plan. and sorry for any spelling errors, i'm tired

"Imagine how far we could have come, how much we could have achieved if we had just had a Democrat in the White House."

Oh, I can imagine it alright. Democrats run Portland, and we can't even afford to have potholes fixed.

Oh, I can imagine it alright. Democrats run Portland, and we can't even afford to have potholes fixed.

nice drive-by trolling. what is it with all the trolls here lately? did limbaugh or one of the other screaming heads issue an all-wingnut alert? "calling all morons, calling all morons..."

"bonehead" is right. these jerkoffs have lost congress and are about to dig themselves deeper into that hole as well as lose the white house. i guess if i were in their position and trolling was all i had left, maybe i'd resort to that too.

Brian said, "Obama & Clinton's rhetoric amounted to little more than pandering to progressives when they were trying to one-up each other on who would pull out quickest. Both know how recklessly irresponsible that would be and it aint gonna' happen."

You're right, it ain't gonna happen if the choice is Obama and McCain. But "recklessly irresponsible"? When the Nazis occupied France and Holland, they said the same thing, i.e., "It would be irresponsible for us to leave and allow our supporters (the Nazi collaborators) to be attacked by the terrorists (the underground insurgents). They left and the underground got back at the collaborators, but, by your standards, the Nazis should never have left.

<h2>The occupation of Iraq is immoral and illegal under U.S. and international law. Ask yourself how you would respond if Russia had invaded and occupied the U.S., turned the country over to a "government" that it thought would do as it was instructed, destroyed all institutional structures, and then announced that it could not leave because it would be wrong to do so in an "irresponsible" way. That's the "liberal" point of view on foreign policy.</h2>