This speech is to Hillary what the 2004 DNC speech was to Obama. Present yourself in mythic proportions and leave the crowd wanting an encore.

She will be back.

So long as Obama speaks in public forums and debates as a rambler who takes 6 minutes to answer a 30 second question, McCain has a hell of a shot of not only making Obama look like an arrogant, young 7 year college student in the debates, but of winning this year.

The economy is improving, gas prices are easing, and President Bush will be signing "Aspirational Time Horizons" to get us out of Iraqi cities by 2009 and out of Iraq entirely by 2011.

Democrats are going to need more to win this election than promising a "green" economy, European-inspired health care, and looking after the "invisible" man.

Don't underestimate McCain and don't think for one second that Hillary has not had her hands in the anger and possible protest voting that 10 to 20% of her supporters may take come November.

That 10 to 20% is not a small number.

Hillary showed the world tonight that she would have been a great president.

Her passion for our shared cause shows that her determination to win was motivated not by her personal ambition but her desire to make the world a better place.

I salute Hillary and all those who supported her. What an amazing woman. What an incredible speech. I wept as she invoked the words of the leader of the underground railroad and urged us to "Keep going".

Hats off to the "sisterhood of the traveling pants suits".

Awesome!

• Pedro -

An excellent speech. Obama couldn't ask for anything more. As an Obama supporter, I'm pleased and proud that Hillary stepped up and did what she needed to do to help unify our party. I think that 20% Hillary to McCain stat that's getting thrown around, just shrunk some tonight...

As a Hillary Clinton supportor, thought Clinton's speech tonight was powerful! Tell ya the truth, was in hopes for a show down and James Knox Polk ! Go get my dark horse and roll out and count those votes delegates !I'm not supporting just Hillary Clinton and do see the issues but Obama's experience concerns me and I think he's a great person and so is his wife.McCain seriously concerns me and we just let the best walk off the stage. Makes me sick to my stomach and I'm not sold on Obama running the country or McCain ! They both worry me on the issues and thought Clinton was the best we had to select from.I'm ticked off after that speech and on the fence until the debates and I make up my mind ! I own my own vote ! Did we get credit for half votes in America yet? That speech was awesome and proud of Hillary Clinton. We all need to reach out and will, independent,elephant or donkey.Obama better get specific and lay it on the table straight up, cause we just lost a fantasic experienced wonderful candidate that would have made a great president and most certainly an outstanding VP. Really think Obama blew it and like Biden. God's speed to you too !That speech was overwhelming and incredible !

Katy, thank you for your comment.

"I'm so proud to say I supported Senator Clinton throughout the primary, now I hope some of the naysayers can see why so many of us stood behind her and will continue to support her throughout her career."

My oldest friend (our Moms were friends before we were born) graduated from Wellesley in Hillary's class.

I would have gladly supported her had she sounded the way she sounded tonight the whole time she was campaigning. But she didn't. She was the "inevitable" candidate until the voters of Iowa decided otherwise. She thought big states were more important than small states--had she not studied the delegate selection rules? She seemed to think the advice of consultants was worth more than working the grass roots. She was the establishment candidate (much like Mondale in 1984) in a year of change. She pursued a large donation strategy against an opponent pursuing a small donation strategy.

I admire grass roots, and small donor campaigns--why I am glad Howard Dean is now DNC chair, a refreshing change from Terry McAuliffe. I was one of those turned off by the "money is all that matters and only professionals know how the game is played" attitude of certain national Democrats in the 1990s who ignored the grass roots.

(You may remember that when Dean ran for DNC chair, the Assoc. of State Democratic Chairs played a role in his election. There were people at the high levels of national politics who said "Who are these people? If we don't know them, they must not be important!". Except those of us who were involved in Democratic politics of the 1980s knew them to be an important group.

One of the "below the radar" stories of the last decade or so is that fight between 2 factions: the old, grass roots Democrats who value county and state parties, know volunteers have important institutional memory, and know there are lots of Democrats who might be able to contribute $10-$25 but no way could ever afford to contribute $100 to any campaign; and the more recent "professionals" who do the targeting based on data, "know" what jurisdictions can be won and which are "hopeless" and pay all their attention to the first as if there are no Democrats in the second, dismiss/demean anyone who questions their wisdom--gee, anyone who knows anything is on a political payroll, and if they aren't staffers, they don't know anything, high money donors are always more important than small donors, although of course there are more of the second.

That debate doesn't get a lot of publicity, but for over a decade there have been factions (more strongly than ideology or most issues) of grass roots folks vs. those who believe in consultants and "professionals". Some people who were active to the point of holding party office got fed up with being told only professional staffers knew anything, and found other ways to use their spare time.

Hillary got caught in this crosswind (to a lesser extent that may also have happened to the Novick campaign downstate).

There was a revolution earlier in this decade. Howard Dean's "you have the power, show up everywhere and contest everything" strategy not only inspired young people, it brought back people with decades of experience who had dropped out of politics--why bother if everything they knew was wrong? Also, the Oregon Bus Project did the same thing in Oregon.

Read the archives of BO and you will read lots of fights about this Democratic division which might be called "grass roots vs. consultants". I'm on the side of the grass roots--why would I have supported the candidate emphasizing big contributions, big states, high paid consultants? I didn't do it when there were male candidates running against each other, why do it just because it was a woman my age who an old friend had known in college?

Not only that, but there is the whole "you should vote for the woman" issue. There are those of us (whose mothers were the first generation to be born eligible to vote when they grew up)who didn't think women got the vote so they could be ordered to vote a certain way. Such rabble rousers we are---we think we have the right to decide for ourselves whether there is a male candidate who is more qualified than a female candidate for a specific office. I really admire the work of Cong. Peter DeFazio, who I believe is now the dean of the Oregon House delegation. In 1986, as a county comm., he ran in the primary against a female legislator named Margie Hendricksen. There were women back then (often women who couldn't vote in the 4th District because they lived in another district) saying things like "Anyone who doesn't support Margie doesn't support women!". Some of the pressure to support Hillary this year sounded a lot like that, as if women weren't allowed to read Obama's books and admire him when there was a woman running.

Finally, one other thing I have thought of this year. In 1980 there was a young man active on the Salem City Council who decided to run for State Rep. There was an equally wonderful, experienced man running against him. It was sad but true that someone had to lose. Sometimes with sadness in their voices, people would say "If he were running against anyone else, I would vote for him". That bright young man is now St. Sen. President Peter Courtney.

In politics we have to make choices. Some of them are really tough choices remembered for years. In 1982 I supported a friend for Congress over Mike Kopetski and Ruth McFarland. In 1990, one of my friends from the 1982 Kopetski campaign teased me about "finally supporting a winner".

It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Some of my political friends are people who were sometimes on the opposite sides of primaries or issues. It is a skill worthy of cultivating.

Hillary's speech tonight said one thing and one thing only. If you don't support Obama but supported Hillary you weren't a true supporter of Hillary in the first place. Hats off to her, hats off to the convention for how they presented her and get out the vote for Obama.

If you don't stand for Obama then you don't stand for anything Hillary stands for. Not a damned thing. A vote for McCain would be nothing more than a vote against your best interests and not voting at all is a vote against what Hillary stands for. That's what Hillary's speech tonight meant.

Hillary Clinton made my girlfriend cry (in the good way).

I was very happy to see her speak with such passion and grace. If she could have found that voice in January I think she would be the one speaking on Thursday night.

But as it is I'm very proud to have her as a leader in the Democratic party. She will be a Lion in Senate and if Obama wins something tells me he will have to check with her before he will get any legislation he wants.

But that is for a later date. For now please ship Hillary off to Ohio for the next 70 days.

Great speech and a great night.

That was the first time I have liked her in years. Excellent speech. Now, can she keep it up during the next two months? That, and only that, would show sincerity.

Congratulations to Hillary Clinton! She did the right thing. Not only is it utterly true that politics is not about personalities but about the common good, but her political standing and future in the party also depends on being able to articulate that to her own supporters and urge them to fully support the Obama candidacy.

Excellent speech. It surprised many people. One reason is that the media has chosen to portray her in extremely destructive ways. I heard her speak in Portland several months ago and found her to be just like last night. Even tho I supported her because of her long experience, passion for issues that I support, and strength, I had no idea that she was so good at inspiring. She was actually extremely personable and attractive - somehow the media and the main stream blogs only portray her in vicious ways. So now the dems have let the best candidate go. Too bad for us.

LT - not surprised at your non support of a fellow woman. Women never seem to keep each other's backs. Also, your uncritical praise of Howard Dean is something I don't share. Howard Dean has been trying to rid the demm party of the entire Clinton wing and that is not a good strategy. His 50 state strategy is a good long term goal and should have been blended with the traditional fund raising and allocation strategies. For it to really work, election reform needs to happen and the electoral college abolished. To do that more dems need to be elected and republicans brought on board too with that. Howard Dean has been highly divisive. GLBT parties are now suing the DNC for non inclusion. That is Donna Brazile's influence in the DNC.

I am most reluctant to vote Obama, will consider it since I have always voted dem. Hillary made a good case for voting for him. He seems a very weak candidate. I had hoped the ticket would be Clinton/Obama. That way he could have gained 8 years of actual experience and would have been ready for prime time. But his ambition got in the way - or maybe it was the DNC and do-nothing Pelosi/Reid who chose him.

Too bad the Obama campaign so negatively portrayed this great American women. She should've been the Presidential candidate. She is head, shoulders, and pantsuits above Obama. At a minimum, Obama should've selected her as VP. Oh, what could've been!

I don't think the Obama campaign "negatively portrayed this great American women" (Hillary is one woman, btw). Last night and all the other times she sounded like the very bright, outspoken Wellesley grad, she did well. When she demanded support as the person entitled to be nominee because she was inevitable, she did poorly. She was poorly served by her consultants who really didn't know everything--they just acted as if they did. The big state, big donor strategy failed.

With regard to the excellent speech last night to a packed crowd, I read this in the Oregonian:

Democrats packed the Pepsi Center for the speech, to the point that security officials locked down the arena shortly before her appearance. Some Obama delegates gave their credentials to Clinton supporters for the evening as a sign of respect

Glad to see that tradition lives on.

doretta,

You Obamacrats are so blinded by your own propaganda--his VP selection is so misguided he has proven that his inexperience and his ego negatively affect his ability to make rational judgements that benefit the electorate.

If Obama doesn't get elected, it's all on him and the DNC for anointing the wrong candidate. It's not on Hillary or her supporters. But, I don't expect you Obamacrats to assume responsibility for your actions.

But his ambition got in the way - or maybe it was the DNC and do-nothing Pelosi/Reid who chose him.

WTF is this? Obama was the anti establishment candidate. Hillary was the choice of the insiders. Are you deluded? She ran the big money corporate campaign while Barack ran a grass roots little guy campaign and pulled upset after upset. Do you need history lessons or did you just not pay attention to the last 18 months?

Garrett, yes I have been paying attention. You do realize that when Howard Dean was elected chair of the DNC a power struggle began in earnest. The DNC has been at odds with the DLC and the DCCC. Mostly about $ - 50 state strategy. But it was deeper than that. The DNC is the Dean/Brazile/Pelosi/Reid wing of the dem party (the neo-dem party emphasizing youth, yuppies, AAs) and the Clinton wing is DLC (the old dem party of working class, all minorities, women). There has been a push to redefine the very soul of the party. Brazile has laid it out clearly on CNN.

<h2>There is no one establishment in the dem party and in fact the establishments have been fighting. The DNC selected Obama and promoted him as their establishment candidate. The DLC (and DCCC) were the establishment behind Hillary. So, NO, Barack did not run a grass roots campaign - you may have experienced it as so, and all campaigns need foot soldiers, and now, apparently virtual grass roots. Axelrod is NOT a humble grass roots organizer. There have been many powerful forces behind Obama, and he has played them well.</h2>