Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Oil! | Movie Night at Havana: The War... »

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Hillary Speaks.

posted by on August 26 at 19:36 PM

RSS icon Comments


"I don't know how it could have been better, Chris." Keith Olberman.

Original Monique: "Great speech I don't PC can saying anything bad now"

?? ...."bad now"??

Pls. edit.

Posted by PC | August 26, 2008 8:17 PM

Hillary said everything I could hope she would say. I look forward to Bill's speech tomorrow and I am less worried about what he'll say.

It makes up for the abysmal speech by Mark Warner.

Posted by elswinger | August 26, 2008 8:19 PM

I want an orange pantsuit.

Posted by Brucie | August 26, 2008 8:26 PM

It was a good speech, but was very much pro forma. Not inspirational, but properly dutiful. Will not gain additional converts. The fucking Dems gotta get out of the Kum Ba Ya mode.

Posted by Karlheinz Arschbomber | August 26, 2008 8:28 PM

Yes it's a pretty well known rule of politics that you ask people to vote for you. You don't berate them into it, generally.

Posted by PC | August 26, 2008 8:28 PM

V - it isn't egotistical to say that Obama needs to ask the Hillary voters for their vote. he has said that they don't have anywhere else to go. they are telling him that they can go elsewhere....why spend millions on dollars on voter outreach to NEW voters when you can have the OLD voters plus NEW voters and win the election? I have done and continue to do a lot of voter outreach and it is a very simple proposition for Obama. and I have passed these same sentiments to his campaign - back when Hillary stepped aside - and they still don't get it.

Posted by elva | August 26, 2008 8:30 PM

Sorry PC, was typing in a hurry. It should have read:

"Great speech I don't think PC can say anything bad now"

As Hillary said, what are you in this for? And I think, PC, this is a question you should ask yourself. Obama has never asked me for my vote. He has gained my vote by not only his actions, but with the sheer fact he is the Dem nominee. He ran a better campaign. That is it, and that is politics.

Posted by Original Monique | August 26, 2008 8:36 PM

Hilary was at her best - the room was hers and she delivered.

You could see the last two months of her campaign, polished, high energy, poised, connecting.

I feel very good about the end result of this convention.

Bill still has his love affair with the party, tomorrow will challenge him to go one better than Hillary. Could be an hour of rhetorical lightening.

Mark Warner was almost a bomb. last five minutes got better. Geez, what a bad choice.

Posted by John | August 26, 2008 8:39 PM

Wow! She was amazing!!! I feel very inspired and thinks she handled the speech with grace and conviction. I am totally behind Barrack Obama, but also have hope she too will be our president one day!

Posted by dawicksta | August 26, 2008 8:40 PM

@David Wright: I don't care if you are an "economist". I have a friend who has a bachelors in Internation Business and doesn't know dick.

Just sayin...

But here's a thought: If you go to a doctor and he says "do this and you'll be healthy" and everytime you see him, he says your x-rays look great, will you believe him???

Lenders are professionals that people rely on for their understanding of a complicated process. Many people were lured into thinking that everything was ok, and it wasn't. Also, with how the bank system had been lumping all the loans together and selling pieces of them to people, that was also a mistake.

The fact that they kept interest rates so low that money was more or less free (thanks for that greenspan!) that also attributed to this crisis. And Bush pushed it to increase the economy after 9/11 and keep it going through the Iraq war. It was horribly mis-managed.

And if you think that we shouldn't bail people out, then you don't remember the 1997 Asia crisis. The fact that we bailed out that hedge fund kept that crisis from crippling the global economy. That saved us, and was a good policy move.

You take people out of homes, then its even worse. Crime goes up, property of regular people goes down. People just start leaving their homes, etc.

So ok, Mr. Economist, I understand that people are just numbers to you, and you don't care. But people are HUMANS. And collapse of our economy isn't that great, and isn't going to be as good as you would hope. I guarentee it.

Posted by Original Monique | August 26, 2008 8:46 PM

Damnit, David. You made me go on a crazy PC style rant. Damnit.

Posted by Original Monique | August 26, 2008 8:50 PM

People who worship the free market are a hoot. They think they're so hard-headed but it takes some powerful magical thinking to talk about how good an economic disaster is, merely because the free market idols demand a bloody sacrifice. But they have no choice because their faith can't be questioned.

Posted by elenchos | August 26, 2008 8:54 PM

Your rant was rather impressive, Monique.

Loved the pantsuit, liked the speech.

And I hope PC had her fucking catharsis.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | August 26, 2008 9:01 PM

Needed a Mario Cuomo speech. This was a Jack-in-the-Box antenna-ball speech.

Posted by Karlheinz Arschbomber | August 26, 2008 9:10 PM

where do I go to re-see it? I can't find it on you tube just yet...I'm feeling like a moron because I know it's out there...


Posted by abomb | August 26, 2008 9:13 PM
Posted by stinkbug | August 26, 2008 9:41 PM


I also recommend watching the 5 min Kucinich speech from earlier in the day:

Posted by stinkbug | August 26, 2008 9:42 PM

thanks for the response. Hmmmm....
dont follow your logic at all aobut me saying "something bad" -- you mean like when I point out Obama's dropping so we better deal with it? -- not sure why good speech by HRC would trigger me saying "something bad" inf act it validates much of what I've been saying.

"As Hillary said, what are you in this for?"
Huh? why the passive rhetorical question masquerading the ever so mild antagonism?
If you have a specific concern do mention it. If not, then, um, there's not much to respond to in that kind of vague, passive, indirect conflict avoiding kind of remark.

Despite the rhetorical nature of your question, I shall assume it's a real question and answer:

a. To help D's win.
b. To express myself.
c. The joy of ratiocination. It's all one Academy discussion to me. Facts, history, etc. is "real" and teaches us something; it's our nature as humans, and it helps us bring about a better future.

Happy talk/Law of Attraction/groupthink does not.

For example, I get shit for noting that that Obama's been dropping lately -- and then after a few days the writers on Slog deign to notice it -- then there's this typical reaction of "ohthose damn stupid voters are dumb and racist" -- and I ask, um, is that how you're going to win them over? Where exactly does that thought lead you to? Proving you're superior to the poor working class slobs in Youngstown and Scranton?

This is "bad"? WTF?

The point is to win. And not lose. The way so many other D's have lost for being arrogant and unrealistic and basically not getting those swing voters at all, failing to connect with them, and leading to GOP rule for too many god damn decades of my life.

"Obama has never asked me for my vote."
Nor mine, O.M. If you recall I said HRC should concede several weeks before she did.....I have donated to Obama and worn his your point is?? I did make the observation that in general pols should ask people for their vote -- esp. people who are delegates at a convention -- it's pretty unrealistic to think one would change without being asked even --the view that somehow by winning Obama should get all delegates before a roll call and before HRC releases them is pretty unprecedented and is not typically what happens; so it's a pretty unrealisitc, and unfair, demand. It's no grounds for complaint. So the people complaining should just stop. The complaining is being sore winners.

"He has gained my vote by not only his actions, but with the sheer fact he is the Dem nominee." Um, me too. Your point is??
"He ran a better campaign." Um yes, he did. As I stated many times. Especially because he actually organized the caucus states while HRC failed to do so. But being the presumptive nominee doesn't mean the delegates do generally, do historically, or should, just all give up and throw in with him. "That is it, and that is politics." Yes if you actually knew more about it you would agree that my comments are accurate; delegates for a loser don't throw in with the winner till there's been a roll call vote, the loser releases them, etc.
If you have something to discuss, am happy to continue.

Ciao amiga - & unity,

Posted by PC | August 26, 2008 9:46 PM

Thanks, stinko@17. I watched this live. Kucinich IS the heart of the Dem. Party as I see it. What a great ending!

Posted by Karlheinz Arschbomber | August 26, 2008 9:51 PM

PC, you wore his togs? Really?

Well, I guess you being batshit crazy, and ending every post with a smarmy and insincere "unity" is acceptable then. I hope you're at least wearing the togs while you comment, though.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | August 26, 2008 9:55 PM

"thanks for the response. Hmmmm...." um, totally.

Posted by chickenfire | August 26, 2008 10:00 PM


Quite excellent rant, Monique.

I'd also like to add two things: First, to parrot Fnarf, David Wright's ideal economy has never worked in real life. If Socialists have to prove one example of their preferred system working (they can't), then so should free marketers (they also can't).

Second, politics being what they are, neither political party is going to allow the system to collapse on itself. So, we have a choice between the Democrats who will at least keep some regulations in place to keep the taxpayers from eating such a large shit sandwich, and the Republicans who will abolish all regulations and leave the taxpayers to pay for the inevitable mess. I know which I prefer.

Posted by keshmeshi | August 26, 2008 10:01 PM

I actually looked up "togs", because although I imagine PC is referring to buttons or something, I had never heard the word before. Apparently it's another word for swimsuit.

PC, I speak for everybody when I say that your Obama speedo is doing more harm than good. It's supposed to be an uppercase O.

Posted by Chris in Tampa | August 26, 2008 10:02 PM

Unless McCain starts kissing ass and begging for PUMA Votes, why would they tell Obama to do the same thing for them? Why give the GOP something they never cared about and would rather ignore?
If you vote GOP, that makes you GOP. Don't start acting like you actually belong with the Dems.
I'll be Dem till I die. And the whiner Dems who want perfection can go start their own damn party.
As any Tranny knows, "Nobody's Perfect."

Posted by constituent | August 26, 2008 10:16 PM


PC made the point that group think and the so yes yes yes --- neither dynamics opens the door to self reconstruct or better ideas.

I have enjoyed the comments from outsider PC.

AND MORE harm than good? That is just plain group think at its worst.

The best device in life to think well is someone who offers a robust challenge. To the point of friendly loud and personal.

PC makes this blog work better. Other, it is a stroke fest that wins no elections.

And after all is said and done, the sense is that it will be close AND not decided in Seattle - wish we could do that - but it will be decided in very hard fought battles in swing states - where attracting the middle and undecided is always the goal.

Go Obama. Remember the best reason to vote Obama - Mc Cain is a warmonger.

Posted by Adam | August 26, 2008 11:45 PM

I thought "togs" were clothing in general, not swimsuits in particular.

Posted by Sara | August 27, 2008 12:58 AM

Disunity stories have been treading on the Obama message, as the Clintons keep grumbling that, like a mafia clan, they are not being shown enough respect. What should be Barack's week is still filled with Bill and Hillary. (It was surely an error to give them two evenings - last night to her, tonight to him - rather than bundling them together and out of the way in a single session.) One poll this week found less than half of Hillary's former supporters in the primaries are ready to vote for Obama; one in four plan to vote for McCain.

Posted by Trevor | August 27, 2008 1:23 AM

togs = clothes
you are right

Posted by John | August 27, 2008 2:44 AM

When she mentioned "Sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits" I had a good laugh. I still like her, I really do. I hope others do too.

Posted by Non | August 27, 2008 7:19 AM

Yes, "Togs" is a general term for clothes. One could open a clothing and clogs store and call it "Togs 'n Clogs", and no one would raise an eyebrow (They may not visit your store, but they wouldn't raise an eyebrow)

And lest we forget: How many of Hillary's voters were participants in "Operation Chaos", the Rush Limbaugh plan to wreak havoc at the convention by getting people to switch parties and vote for Hillary? Everyone spoke of that at the time (how clever he was, what a major media force he is, etc) but no one talks about it now.

How much of that supposed "Hillary supporters" group are Republicans who had absolutely no intention of voting for any Democrat?

And let's not forget this, either: The GOP wanted desperately to have Hillary as the candidate, because they have an entire cottage industry built around hatred for the Clintons. It would have been so much easier for them.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay | August 27, 2008 7:26 AM

The first ten minutes sounded like she was hosting The Hillary Clinton Show on the Oxygen Network, but after that it improved greatly, IMO.

I liked that she really stuck it to her supporters - were you in this for me or for the country? Rachel Maddow was right - she needed to avoid seeming like the loser and instead paint herself as the old guard anointing the new generation ("If you trust me, believe me when I tell you that this is our guy.")

It was self-congratulatory, but so is everything at the convention, so I'm not torn up about that.

However, it was hard paying attention to the speech when they kept cutting to Bill. It was so obvious that watching her do this stuff is a huge turn-on.

Posted by MK | August 27, 2008 7:56 AM

@18 - "I did make the observation that in general pols should ask people for their vote". This line of thought is ludicrous but not out of the mainstream in this country. We're not phoning in our votes for the next American Idol here. Theoretically, we're supposed to be choosing the best person to lead the country. I'm not saying that's necessarily Obama, but right now he's the most politically feasible. WE should be the ones asking qualified candidates to serve--not voting for the candidate who kisses our asses the most.

This is why we have poor leadership. Good leaders don't want to have to suck up to us. Why would they? They'll go to the private sector where companies will compete for them. Until we change this idea of yours (and others) that candidates need to ASK you for the honor of representing you, we're going to continue to be stuck with the likes of people like Bush, Reid, Pelosi, etc. Good campaign fundraisers and horrible leaders.

Posted by sleestak | August 27, 2008 8:09 AM


Susan, you're using sock puppetry to agree with yourself. Do you realize what an ass that makes you?

Yesterday, it took Original Monique 2 seconds to figure out that PC = Adam. Yesterday, dumbfuck. Yet you're still at it.

Posted by elenchos | August 27, 2008 9:21 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.