Taryn .'s Bookmarks tagged hillary →  View Popular

Hillary's job at the Democratic National Convention was a big one. She had to make a strong and compelling case to any of her recalcitrant supporters for the election of Sen. Barack Obama.

She had to express her deep appreciation for all those who supported her in this campaign but not too much appreciation so that people would think she was trying to keep them to herself.

And finally she had to describe the stakes in this election and the choices we face, particularly for American families. But she had do it in a way that was not threatening to Obama but rather would be seen as amplifying his message.

Did you think this was all about me?

That is the winning line. That's the one that showed me that she genuinely did her best to actually convince her followers that they had to support Barack Obama. That's not a half-hearted effort. That's a line designed to win people over to her argument not over to her personally. Ironically, that's exactly what it did for me though. At the end of this long, contentious battle, Senator Clinton won me over when she was finally not trying to win me over.

So, let every commentator, writer and blogger who finds a crevice in which to slither forth and spew a doubting word on what Hillary said and meant, or should have done, last night finally be called by their proper name: sorcerers. Spiteful vipers who dare to find a toxic blend amidst an open heart and full throated generosity at a time when our country needed just a leader like Hillary to make a new path where the last footsteps have been taken down a road that has ended in the dirt.

Only Hillary Clinton could unite the party behind Barack Obama. She did it last night.

I don't see why standing by silently as Obama tries to remake the Democratic Party in General Electric's image makes any sense.

she did not -- repeat, NOT -- assuage those who have doubts about Obama's character or conviction. She did not bear witness to the ways that he fights for us. She did not reassure us of his experience or readiness to be president. She did not rebut McCain's claims that Obama is practically guilty of treason (preferring to lose a war than lose an election). Instead, in Clinton's telling, Obama is merely someone who bears a similar set of beliefs to some generic Democrat.

"Tonight, she was the party's standard bearer." Yes, exactly, and so she made the chasm between her supporters and his wider rather than narrower.

if her supporters believed in her, then that's what they were signing up for: An effort to expand health care, and weight economic policy towards the middle class, and refashion American foreign policy into something sane and recognizable. The candidate left in the race with a similar set of beliefs is Barack Obama.

The message has the virtue of being true.

How do we give this country back to them?

By following the example of a brave New Yorker , a woman who risked her life to bring slaves along the Underground Railroad.

On that path to freedom, Harriet Tubman had one piece of advice.

If you hear the dogs, keep going.

If you see the torches in the woods, keep going.

If they're shouting after you, keep going.

Don't ever stop. Keep going.

If you want a taste of freedom, keep going.

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 young boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

We need leaders once again who can tap into that special blend of American confidence and optimism that has enabled generations before us to meet our toughest challenges. Leaders who can help us show ourselves and the world that with our ingenuity, creativity and innovative spirit, there are no limits to what is possible in America.

Unfortunately, the campaign against misogyny hasn’t been equally successful.

By the way, it was during the heyday of the baby boom generation that crude racism became unacceptable. Mr. Obama, who has been dismissive of the boomers’ “psychodrama,” might want to give the generation that brought about this change, fought for civil rights and protested the Vietnam War a bit more credit.

Without racial division, the conservative message — which has long dominated the political scene — loses most of its effectiveness.

For a long time, Obama supporters have seen party unity as something that Hillary could provide by capitulating. It also requires the Democrats to acknowledge what she’s achieved. If that makes them feel like wimps, let them take it out on John McCain.

Clinton is very much a product of the generation that accepted a certain amount of humiliation as the price of progress. She wrote in her autobiography that when she ran for president of her high-school class against several boys, one of them told her she was “really stupid” if she thought a girl could be elected president. She lost, and later, the winner asked her to head a committee “which as far as I could tell was expected to do most of the work.” She swallowed hard, accepted and, she admitted, really liked organizing all the school parades and dances and pep rallies.

what are the Democrats for in this election?

That should be an easy question to answer. Democrats can justly portray themselves as the party of economic security, the party that created Social Security and Medicare and defended those programs against Republican attacks — and the party that can bring assured health coverage to all Americans.

They can also portray themselves as the party of prosperity: the contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover.

But the message that Democrats are ready to continue and build on a grand tradition doesn’t mesh well with claims to be bringing a “new politics” and rhetoric that places blame for our current state equally on both parties.