Support NeoGAF

[vitaflo]

Good lord Tucker is just running a hit job now:lol :lol

"These slack-jawed starbucks baristas sitting there going there's a god!"

I've heard many times that republicans in Washington hit up Starbucks as much if not more than Dems. So I always love when they crack on the latte drinkers when they're guzzling them by the gallon.

 

[Sharp]

If they didn't have a gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving you around. Do you want that? Huh? Do you?

You don't really need an assault rifle to deal with that though.

 

[JayDubya]

JayDub and I differ big on this. I'm far more concerned with the civil liberties side and Obama will be far more respectful of the constitution. He will also be far more fiscally conservative than the spendthrift Bush and his endless spending . . . largely on pointless wars.

Fiscally conservative? ORLY?

How much does he want for his healthcare plan again? How much more foreign aid does he want for global poverty? Is he withdrawing from Iraq immediately upon taking office? Is he still in favor of peacekeeping in Darfur?

As for civil liberties... How is he on so-called "hate crimes?" Freedom of association? Property rights? The right to keep and bear arms? How about the issue of flag burning?

These are rhetorical questions. I know the answers, and they're fairly typical of Democrats.

Not that Neocon Republicans are much better. Again, Republocrats are fail.

 

[Diablos]

Twenty years ago, Jesse Jackson ran for President. In a very real sense, he paved the way for what happened tonight. Let the man enjoy the fruits of his labor.

He came damn close, too. Lost to Dukakis in '88.

 

[Nicodimas]

The fuck do you need an assault weapon for? You you really need toassault one of those paper targets or better yet a deer? Tell me what's your stance on violent especially against police officers?

I am not doing your research for you. Read up on it I expressed my opinion. If you want to live your life in fear of something like this so be it. Police really do not care because they assume the criminal is armed well because of this persons nature. I am a civilian and my basic rights say that I can have this.

 

[Illuminati]

You don't really need an assault rifle to deal with that though.

When the British tax our tea and do not give us representation you will wish you had that assault rifle. This scenario happened on an episode of Sliders, the threat is all but real.

 

[WickedAngel]

Fiscally conservative? ORLY?

How much does he want for his healthcare plan again? How much more foreign aid does he want for global poverty? Is he withdrawing from Iraq immediately upon taking office? Is he still in favor of peacekeeping in Darfur?

As for civil liberties... How is he on so-called "hate crimes?" Freedom of association? Property rights? The right to keep and bear arms? How about the issue of flag burning?

These are rhetorical questions. I know the answers, and they're fairly typical of Democrats.

Not that Neocon Republicans are much better. Again, Republocrats are fail.

Raising taxes and spending them on things that matter is not fiscal irresponsibility.

 

[reilo]

:lol Colbert

"Next tip. Lower your expectations. Instead of going after glamorous summer jobs such as grocery bagger or fry cook, be willing to settle for jobs that are not in such high demand. Chimney sweep, or Clinton campaign staffer."

 

[scorcho]

ie: i have no justification for my innate desire for big, loud weapons. p.s. to haters: FU.

 

[sangreal]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2008/06/no_shame_no_gain.html

The lead story tonight - my "lede," as we spell it here - should have been about the remarkable fact that a black man has been nominated by a major party to lead a developed Western nation for the first time in the history of the world. A man - in whose lifetime people with his shade of skin were denied the right to vote and to use public accommodations - who is now on the cusp of the presidency. It says something good about America, and I would like to have been able to dwell on it.

But no. Once again, it's all about Hillary Clinton, who delivered the most abrasive, self-absorbed, selfish, delusional, emasculating and extortionate political speech I've heard in a long time. And I've left out some adjectives, just to be polite.

Here's an interesting point for you. Barack Obama's speech, which featured a long and gracious nod to Clinton toward the beginning, was posted on various websites as early as 8:10pm East coast time. That means that Clinton - who didn't start speaking until 9:31pm, noticeably missing her introductory cue - and her staff had more than an hour to read Obama's speech and see that he was going to be more than kind to her.

But Clinton, who did not post her speech in advance, gave Obama a much briefer and more perfunctory nod. She congratulated him on his well-run campaign, but not on his victory, which is historic and assured. She told her crowd that, though she is now defeated, she "will be making no decisions tonight." She urged her voters - naturally nudged up to 18 million, which exaggerates the matter by about a half a million votes - to visit her website and send her messages, a piece of demagoguery that merely ensures that a week hence, if she wants to, she'll be able to say, "more than 10 million of my supporters have written to encourage me to go on to Denver". And speaking of the convention city, when her audience began chanting its name, she did not of course try to stop them and say that a convention fight was not in the interest of party unity.

What's her game? It's this, I think. It's not merely to be vice president. Although apparently it is that. I take it she and Bill have decided that being Obama's vice-president for eight years is the most plausible path to the presidency. But she did not on Tuesday night merely try to make a case for herself as a good vice-presidential candidate. She held a rhetorical knife to Obama's throat and said, in not so many words: I'm still calling some shots, buddy. You offer me the vice-presidency, or I walk away. But she has also forced Obama into a situation whereby if he chooses her now, he looks weak. So that's the choice she is hoping to impose on the nominee: don't choose me, and Bill and I will subtly work to see that you lose; choose me, and look like a weakling who can't lead the party without the Clintons after all. Now that's putting the interests of the party first, isn't it?

Democrats had better understand what this means, and they'd better not kid themselves. With any person other than a Clinton, this whole thing would have been over in late February - that is, any other candidate who lost 11 primaries in a row and ran out of money would have been shamed out of the race at that point. Or if not then, after May 6 (North Carolina and Indiana), when it became obvious that she could not come within 100 delegates of Obama, no matter what happened with Florida and Michigan.

But the Clintons know no shame, and more importantly, there has been no referee who could end this game, no one who could say to a Clinton, "Enough now." Well, Democrats have to say it. Now. Enough.

I really wanted to write a happy piece tonight. I wanted to write about Obama's amazing victory and about Clinton's tenacity being finally tempered by an acceptance of reality - reality that she'd lost and reality that, while there are indeed good arguments for her being on the ticket, the person who won the nominee has the right to choose the running mate.

Obama, after a slowish start, ended up giving a good, fiery speech aimed at John McCain. And McCain's speech, though flat in delivery, laid out his themes reasonably well. A race between these two men will be a race between two people who - whatever you think of their politics - are presenting substantive cases to the country and asking the people to choose. That's going to be a good show. But someone has to send that sore loser on the sidelines off to the showers once and for all.

I think I like this guy.

 

[Marvie_3]

If they didn't have a gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving you around. Do you want that? Huh? Do you?

:lol :lol

 

[Stinkles]

You don't really need an assault rifle to deal with that though.

I beg to differ.

 

[JayDubya]

Raising taxes and spending them on things that matter is not fiscal irresponsibility.

Which things that matter are we talking about? Not seeing any. Nothing worth raising taxes for, certainly.

 

[DrForester]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2008/06/no_shame_no_gain.html


I think I like this guy.

^

Clinton never said the word "defeated" if I remember right though. Even if she had admitted that she lost it would have been something.

 

[Tamanon]

Which things that matter are we talking about? Not seeing any.

To be fair it is still much better than the current method of spending on stuff that you don't care about and then not taxing to pay for them.

 

[Trakdown]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2008/06/no_shame_no_gain.html


I think I like this guy.

Hopefully we'll get some stateside echoing of this.

 

[JayDubya]

To be fair it is still much better than the current method of spending on stuff that you don't care about and then not taxing to pay for them.

Hrm, not so sure, though it certainly isn't a good thing.

But you've got to bring down taxation levels to tackle the size and scope of government. If your only goal is to run the government in the black, that could be accomplished by taxation increases, which would invariably increase the size and scope of government.

 

[reilo]

Holy shit. Reading this thread then watching Colbert make fun of conservative and to an extent libertarian values while at the same time poking fun at the idea of free market is hilarious.

It's like he's reading JayDubya's posts and just saying "HAHAHAHAHA".

"The free market to me, is like Christian science. Keep everything except switch out God with money. And you'll be fine if you just have faith in it."

 

[sangreal]

Fiscally conservative? ORLY?

How much does he want for his healthcare plan again? How much more foreign aid does he want for global poverty? Is he withdrawing from Iraq immediately upon taking office? Is he still in favor of peacekeeping in Darfur?

As for civil liberties... How is he on so-called "hate crimes?" Freedom of association? Property rights? The right to keep and bear arms? How about the issue of flag burning?

These are rhetorical questions. I know the answers, and they're fairly typical of Democrats.

Not that Neocon Republicans are much better. Again, Republocrats are fail.

Flag Burning:

"I cannot imagine anything more abhorrent to a veteran than seeing the flag they fought for being burned to make a political point. I too have great pride in our flag. I share outrage at the thought of it being disrespected. And though I have never seen anyone burn a flag, if I did, it would take every ounce of restraint I had not to haul off and hit them.

"But we live in a country of laws. Laws are what stop people from resorting to physical violence to settle disagreements, and laws are what protect free speech. And when I became a Senator, I swore an oath to protect the Constitution. Under that oath, my first allegiance is not to a political party, or to an ideology, or to a president, or even to popular opinion, but to the Constitution and to the rule of law.

"The Framers made it difficult to amend the Constitution because our founding document should not be changed just because of political concerns or temporary problems. And even the strongest supporters of this amendment are hard-pressed to find more than a few instances of flag burning each year. Those problems were left to be solved through legislation, and I support legislation introduced by Senator Durbin that makes it illegal to burn the flag without changing the Constitution. The Constitution has only been amended 27 times. These amendments include guarantees of our most basic freedoms, the freedom of religion, the right to a trial by jury, the protection against cruel punishment.

"Today, there are hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops risking their lives for their country, looking to us to come up with a plan to win the peace so they can come home. Across America, there are millions who are looking for us to do something about health care, about education, about energy. The Senate will likely be in session for about 50 more days for the rest of this year. To spend the precious time we have left battling an epidemic of flag burning that does not exist is a disservice to our country.

"As Richard Savage of Bloomington, Illinois wrote to me, "I am a Vietnam veteran and Republican. . . . Those who would burn the flag destroy the symbol of freedom, but amending the Constitution would destroy part of freedom itself." Mr. Savage is right, which is why I will vote against this amendment. Senator Durbin's amendment is a way forward to balance our respect for the flag with reverence for the Constitution."

Keep and Bear Arms: Obama (correctly) believes the 2nd amendment refers to individuals. However he believes all of the enumerated rights are subject to restrictions and doesn't believe all guns need to be legal

Hate Crimes: Supports harsher penalties for hate crimes

Property Rights: I don't think he has a sweeping position ala Ron Paul so it would depend on the issue I gugess

Freedom of Association: Considering his associations that keep causing controversy, I don't think he has any issue with this. I'm assuming you mean matters like KKK membership?

I don't really think they are typical of all democrats as you assert. Many democrats, for example, believe the 2nd amendment only refers to state-run militias. There are also a lot of other areas you didn't list like censorship. Obama is in favor of empowering parents rather than censoring

edit: I know you know, but I don't know so I'm posting this to further discussion on these matters to expand my own knowledge of his positions

 

[Guts Of Thor]

This is the last thing we need and what makes me go ugh when I think of the public's perception of Obama. Do they not understand that this guy isn't even his pastor (btw he's actually a minister and he got suspended), and Obama has nothing to do with him?

It's no use for me to explain it to them, they have passed the point of no return. I just spoke to my friend who said that Obama has not accomplished anything in his life. I mean wow......just.......wow.

 

[Tamanon]

It's no use for me to explain it to them, they have passed the point of no return. I just spoke to my friend who said that Obama has not accomplished anything in his life. I mean wow......just.......wow.

Now you can say, well he's accomplished becoming the Democratic nominee for president, something only a few dozen people at most have ever accomplished.

 

[DrForester]

Bill Clinton is 100% correct, the media has been very very wrong about Clinton and has lied about her at every turn.

Those lying bastards keep saying she's going to bow out gracefully, and give a conciliatory speech to unite the party. Those lying, deceiving bastards.

 

[sangreal]

btw, I'm not advocating Obama's positions above. I think he definitely has the flag burning issue backwards. If you want to outlaw it (I don't), it needs to be an amendment, in my opinion. I just wanted more discussion on them

 

[Timedog]

Holy shit. Reading this thread then watching Colbert make fun of conservative and to an extent libertarian values while at the same time poking fun at the idea of free market is hilarious.

It's like he's reading JayDubya's posts and just saying "HAHAHAHAHA".

"The free market to me, is like Christian science. Keep everything except switch out God with money. And you'll be fine if you just have faith in it."

:lol

 

[GhaleonEB]

btw, I'm not advocating Obama's positions above. I think he definitely has the flag burning issue backwards. If you want to outlaw it (I don't), it needs to be an amendment, in my opinion. I just wanted more discussion on them

You know. I've always thought this "issue" was unmitigated bullshit aimed at stirring up votes. I haven't heard, read or thought about it in a couple years, not since the Republicans tried to shove that bill through congress right before they got booted from the majority in the last cycle.

It just boggles my mind that people even take the time to write about the "flag burring issue". On a list of issues that warrant discussion, it lands at or near the bottom of all of them.

[/rant]

Can't seem to find Obama's speech online. His site's stream is borked. Is is up in full anywhere?

Edit: found it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtL-1V3OZ0c&eurl=http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

 

[Mandark]

Hrm, not so sure, though it certainly isn't a good thing.

But you've got to bring down taxation levels to tackle the size and scope of government. If your only goal is to run the government in the black, that could be accomplished by taxation increases, which would invariably increase the size and scope of government.

Dude, a tax cut without a spending cut isn't really a tax cut, because you're borrowing money that has to be repaid through tax revenue later. It's a tax shift.

Milton Friedman was the most prominent person to speak out for this idea so you're pretty much obligated to believe it.

 

[Bowser]

You know. I've always thought this "issue" was unmitigated bullshit aimed at stirring up votes. I haven't heard, read or thought about it in a couple years, not since the Republicans tried to shove that bill through congress right before they got booted from the majority in the last cycle.

It just boggles my mind that people even take the time to write about the "flag burring issue". On a list of issues that warrant discussion, it lands at or near the bottom of all of them.

[/rant]

Can't seem to find Obama's speech online. His site's stream is borked. Is is up in full anywhere?

Edit: found it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtL-1V3OZ0c&eurl=http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Here's Obama's actual web site's video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Xxa0ihsoiYI

 

[masud]

I am not doing your research for you. Read up on it I expressed my opinion. If you want to live your life in fear of something like this so be it. Police really do not care because they assume the criminal is armed well because of this persons nature. I am a civilian and my basic rights say that I can have this.

I don't live in fear of anything you little shit, I live in the inner city people i know have died due to assault weapons. And police don't care about being out gunned by criminals? But you still haven't answered my question, the fuck do you need a working assault weapon for?

 

[JayDubya]

Dude, a tax cut without a spending cut isn't really a tax cut, because you're borrowing money that has to be repaid through tax revenue later. It's a tax shift.

Milton Friedman was the most prominent person to speak out for this idea so you're pretty much obligated to believe it.

I've angrily ranted about our current president's fiscal policies quite a few times.

Paul frequently refers to the deficit spending as the "inflation tax."

So, no shit.

But let's not mischaracterize the argument by suggesting Friedman would approve of high tax rates. We're talking about a chicken / egg issue, and something's gotta go first. Of course, tax decreases won't bite the way they need to without something like a balanced budget amendment.

But you still haven't answered my question, the fuck do you need a working assault weapon for?

Need? Well, you probably don't need a lot of things. Generally, one wants a gun, hoping not to have to need it, but may find target shooting or whatever else at a safe and secure and private location to be entertaining.

Of course, he doesn't have to justify his "assault" weapon to you, which is a good thing.

 

[Nicodimas]

the fuck do you need a working assault weapon for?

They are cool. You know if you took this comment to just about anything besides shelter,air and food you could eliminate need. That would make for a boring world. Yes you do live in fear..

What I really need is a 50 cal.

police don't care about being out gunned by criminals

Police came to this conclusion that they already are outgunned. So they send a ton of people at them.

 

[Mandark]

Chicken and the egg my tailfeather.

You want to cut spending, you cut spending. You can totally write and pass a bill that specifically does that.

It won't happen because libertarians are a tiny minority in this country, but that's a tangent.

 

[Triumph]

I like guns and own a couple. But when the 2nd Amendment was written, guns fired once every minute or so. Today? Not so much.

"Banning" guns is never gonna happen in America and it's stupid to pretend it will. Restricting the access of the general public to high powered assault weapons is a good idea imo. Also, Blackwater shouldn't be able to buy planes and armored vehicles and shit. Go buy your own island in Dubai if you want that shit.

 

[perfectchaos007]

These three women arguing over the candidates on Larry King is like watching the View talking politics.

 

[Odrion]

As a child I always dreamed of using a bazooka during deer season.

 

[JayDubya]

Chicken and the egg my tailfeather.

You want to cut spending, you cut spending. You can totally write and pass a bill that specifically does that.

It won't happen because libertarians are a tiny minority in this country, but that's a tangent.

I'm saying both need to come down. One alone isn't enough. So you do one, and you try to do the other, but as you say, you make a bill that specifically and exclusively does x (which never happens in today's Congress anyway), and it may or may not pass, and then you do another, which may or may not pass, but you push for reduction in both spending and taxation.

 

[masud]

They are cool. You know if you took this comment to just about anything besides shelter,air and food you could eliminate need. That would make for a boring world. Yes you do live in fear..

What I really need is a 50 cal.



Police came to this conclusion that they already are outgunned. So they send a ton of people at them.

That's all I was waiting for you to say. Look, if you guys wanna bastardize the intentions of a constitutional amendment, and make it easier for criminals to obtain guns specifically designed for murder just because you're having fun with your toys more power to you. But could you nuts be a little clearer about your motivations rather than hiding behind hunting and culture? It would make it easier for us to laugh you out of the conversation.

Need? Well, you probably don't need a lot of things. Generally, one wants a gun, hoping not to have to need it, but may find target shooting or whatever else at a safe and secure and private location to be entertaining.

Of course, he doesn't have to justify his "assault" weapon to you, which is a good thing.

Ok, so couldn't you just get a non working replica of the assault weapon for collection purposes and use rental assault weapons in designated areas for your targetlust?

 

[Tideas]

Me no understand?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Just got done watching Obama's speech, and parts of McCain's; couldn't stomach the entire thing.

I'm delighted. McCain and the GOP have known for at least a couple of months that they would be facing Obama in the general election, so they had all the time they needed to craft a way to define him and try to construct a narrative. They've utterly failed, and in the meantime, while Obama has been fending off both Clinton and McCain simultaneously, Obama is the one who defined McCain; he's now stuck trying to push back on running for "Bush's 3rd term", already on the defensive. And he's not very convincing.

And it's clear tonight that after all this time, McCain still has no idea what he's dealing with in Obama. If anything tonight just reassured me that Obama is going to land this thing. McCain is way, way outclassed here.

 

[Tamanon]

 

[mj1108]

 

[GoldenEye 007]

That's all I was waiting for you to say. Look, if you guys wanna bastardize the intentions of a constitutional amendment, and make it easier for criminals to obtain guns specifically designed for murder just because you're having fun with your toys more power to you. But could you nuts be a little clearer about your motivations rather than hiding behind hunting and culture? It would make it easier for us to laugh you out of the conversation.


Ok, so couldn't you just get a non working replica of the assault weapon for collection purposes and use rental assault weapons in designated areas for your targetlust?

What? The point we're trying to make is what will banning do. Criminals already have it easy in obtaining weapons because they, for the most part, get them illegally anyway -- and that is obviously something that needs to be addressed. No legislation/Constitutional changes will stop that. See: Prohibition(which gave rise to organized crime in America -- that ban sure worked out great), War on Drugs, etc.

With all due respect, it isn't your business to know why I want to have certain things. I don't answer to you. I use my "assault" rifle for sport, for target practice, for collectible purposes, and God forbid, for self-defense. Simply put, I'm not going to support a repeal of basic rights -- I'm never going to vote to take away a given right.

I mean, it is unfortunate that people use guns as a tool for crime and despicable acts, but outright bans will not solve anything. You're doing nothing more than treating a symptom rather than any actual cause. I am not opposed to more stringent background checks and other measures that help to ensure legal purchasers of guns are of sound mind though. Either way, no system will ever be perfect.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

She has a "That's how you show whitey" look all over her face. On a side bar I'm thinking about what they are claiming she said about whitey. They seem oblivious to the fact that Obama is mixed and would be sensitive to any ideas of racism.

 

[Nicodimas]

I mean, it is unfortunate that people use guns as a tool for crime and despicable acts, but outright bans will not solve anything. You're doing nothing more than treating a symptom rather than any actual cause. I am not opposed to more stringent background checks and other measures that help to ensure legal purchasers of guns are of sound mind though. Either way, no system will ever be perfect.

This and adding to it.

I would much rather put the countless billions of dollars that would go into these gun bans into something more important like our educational system. You would however have us squander these precious resources to give yourself a false blanket of security.

Disagree:
No more added rules strip it down to the pre-brady laws. People use to buy guns at a gas station and no NICS background check.

 

[camineet]

They look really cute together in that shot

 

[Kitschkraft]

She has a "That's how you show whitey" look all over her face. On a side bar I'm thinking about what they are claiming she said about whitey. They seem oblivious to the fact that Obama is mixed and would be sensitive to any ideas of racism.

The whitey statement BS is just a dumb rumor....the whole thing sounds too fucking stereotypically perfect for republicans to be true. Her standing on a stage next to Farakhan saying "Whitey"??? Give me a break.

I did read some excerpts from her college thesis paper though, and have no reason to believe it's fake. She's definitely not some shuckin and jivin type, she is a strong woman and it's a shame that people are trying to use her to ruin Obama.

BTW, I LOVED this.

 

[LizardKing]

What? The point we're trying to make is what will banning do. Criminals already have it easy in obtaining weapons because they, for the most part, get them illegally anyway -- and that is obviously something that needs to be addressed. No legislation/Constitutional changes will stop that. See: Prohibition(which gave rise to organized crime in America -- that ban sure worked out great), War on Drugs, etc.

With all due respect, it isn't your business to know why I want to have certain things. I don't answer to you. I use my "assault" rifle for sport, for target practice, for collectible purposes, and God forbid, for self-defense. Simply put, I'm not going to support a repeal of basic rights -- I'm never going to vote to take away a given right.

I mean, it is unfortunate that people use guns as a tool for crime and despicable acts, but outright bans will not solve anything. You're doing nothing more than treating a symptom rather than any actual cause. I am not opposed to more stringent background checks and other measures that help to ensure legal purchasers of guns are of sound mind though. Either way, no system will ever be perfect.

wow pretty much exactly how i feel took the words i was about to type right out of my mouth really.

I have guns and use them to hunt/target practice and there is really many good things that come out of gun ownership that people who have never touched a gun don't seem to understand. I have been shooting guns since i was a kid and for as long as i can remember. I shot my first deer at 12 when I was with my dad. It was and still is a good bonding experience that we have together. As a young person it taught me responsibility in that what i wielded was a dangerous weapon and it shouldn't be toyed with. And when i used it to take the life of an animal it taught me about life and death and showed me first hand where our food comes from and what every animal we eat must go through. And the time spent in nature and logistics of the hunt gave me much respect for nature and the environment. I think that many who don't know what this is like make these assumptions that "well why do you need to kill your own food you can buy it from the store" and "it's cruel." They don't really understand these benefits of hunting.

 

[mj1108]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/03/AR2008060303568.html?hpid=topnews

A few entertaining tidbits from this Washington Post article on the speeches from tonight.

In Defeat, Clinton Graciously Pretends to Win
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, June 4, 2008; Page A03

NEW YORK "What does Hillary want?"

Hillary Clinton put the question to her supporters here Tuesday night, moments after her opponent, Barack Obama, clinched the Democratic presidential nomination.

What Hillary did not want to do was to concede defeat. "I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard," she told her fans, who answered with cheers of "Denver! Denver!" and "Yes she will!"

The campaign was over, and Obama had locked up the nomination after a flood of more than 40 superdelegates announced their support for him throughout the day. But in the Baruch College gymnasium here (the "Bearcat Den"), Clinton spoke as if she were the victor.

She and her husband and daughter took the stage, smiling, clapping and bopping to the beat. She said nothing about losing the nomination, instead thanking South Dakota for giving her a victory in Tuesday's balloting: "You had the last word in this primary season!" This, she said, confirmed that she had won "more votes than any primary candidate in history."

Clinton congratulated Obama -- not for winning the nomination, but for running an "extraordinary race." She recognized Obama and his supporters "for all they accomplished."

It was an extraordinary performance by a woman who had been counted out of the race even when she still had a legitimate chance. Now she had been mathematically eliminated -- and she spoke as if she had won.

Though some might think her remarks self-delusional, Clinton wasn't kidding herself; earlier in the day, Clinton had told lawmakers privately that the race was over and she would consider being Obama's vice president. Her public defiance reflected a shift in the balance of power that came with Obama's victory. Now that he had won the race, he would need to woo Clinton if he wanted to prevail in November.
ad_icon

"Obama has work to do," the outspoken Clinton adviser Lanny Davis told reporters in the hallway outside the gymnasium here. "Senator Clinton can't do it for him."

Obama's aides had done their best throughout the day to build excitement for his clinching of the nomination. "Obama needs 41 delegates to secure the Democratic nomination," Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer announced in an e-mail he sent out at 6:56 a.m.

It was the beginning of a day-long water torture for Clinton, as Obama aimed, by day's end, to reach the 2,118 delegates needed to clinch the nomination.

For Obama, however, it wasn't a pretty way to clinch. He had won only six of the last 14 contests, and Tuesday night he lost South Dakota, too, where he had been heavily favored. Now that the party had partially accepted results from the Florida and Michigan primaries, Clinton could claim with some justification that she had received more votes than Obama.

And so the limping nominee needed to be carried across the finish line by the superdelegates whose support Pfeiffer announced throughout the day: a Michigan congresswoman, a Massachusetts superdelegate, one from Mississippi, two from Michigan, one from the District of Columbia, two from California, one from Florida, three from Delaware. "Twelve delegates from the nomination," Pfeiffer announced. Then 11, then 10.

The rush of the opportunistic superdelegates toward the inevitable nominee only worsened what was certain to be an unhappy day for the Clintons, who had arrived at their Westchester home at about 3 a.m. after an awkward last day of campaigning in South Dakota. Bill Clinton had flown into a rage and called a reporter a "scumbag." At her last event in South Dakota, Hillary had lost her voice in a coughing fit. Somebody had seen fit to play an inappropriate John Fogerty tune before she took the stage: "It ain't me, it ain't me. I ain't no fortunate one."

On Tuesday evening, the crowd began to assemble at Baruch College in Manhattan for Clinton's non-concession speech. The scene was made to look festive: The Clinton campaign ordered 70 boxes of Domino's pizza for the press corps, and set up a cash bar for its fundraisers, or "honored guests." The honored guests were not in a partying mood, however. One older woman pointed at a reporter accusingly and said: "He is the one who destroyed our heroine!"

A crew from "The Daily Show" joined the party, and, hoping to keep Clinton in the race, struck up a cheer of "Four more months!"

Such an outlandish thing seemed almost plausible among the Clinton backers in the hermetically sealed Baruch gym. Below ground level, there was no cellphone or BlackBerry reception, and there was no television playing in the room. That meant that they could not see the network projections showing that, while Clinton had won South Dakota, Obama had won enough delegates to clinch the nomination. Instead, they listened to Tom Petty's "Won't Back Down."

Just before Obama officially clinched, the Clinton campaign issued a press release as if it were still in the middle of a nominating battle. "Wyoming Automatic Delegate Backs Hillary," the e-mail said. It didn't include the name of the brave superdelegate.

Terry McAuliffe, the campaign chairman, took the stage and read the full list of Clinton's victories, from American Samoa to Massachusetts. Introducing Clinton, he asked: "Are you ready for the next president of the United States?"

This brought laughter from the reporters in the back of the room, but Clinton induced the crowd to boo the "pundits and naysayers" who would have run her from the race. "I am so proud we stayed the course together," she told her backers, who interjected cries of "We believe in you!" and "Yes, we will!"

Only obliquely did Clinton refer to the fact that she had, in fact, lost the nomination. "The question is: Where do we go from here?" she said. She would figure that out "in the coming days," she said, but "I will be making no decisions tonight." The crowd in the Bearcat Den erupted in a sustained cheer. She referred her supporters to her Web site, as she had after many a primary night victory.

For a candidate who had just lost the nomination, she seemed very much in charge.

That must be what Hillary wants.

 

[Mumei]

As for civil liberties... How is he on so-called "hate crimes?" Freedom of association? Property rights? The right to keep and bear arms? How about the issue of flag burning?

As long as I have been marginally politically aware (which is, admittedly, not long; it has only been around five years), I've viewed hate crimes as perfectly valid category, and I can't imagine that, say, requiring registration would necessarily hurt anyone (but who knows; I'm not a gun owner), but I am confused by what you are talking about when you say property rights and the issue of flag burning. What is it that you dislike about the typical Democrat's position on those issues; I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[domokunrox]

I don't live in fear of anything you little shit, I live in the inner city people i know have died due to assault weapons. And police don't care about being out gunned by criminals? But you still haven't answered my question, the fuck do you need a working assault weapon for?

Some people do shoot guns as a hobby or sport, you know. I want to own an AK47, but I live in CA so I can't.

 

[Trakdown]

Just got done watching Obama's speech, and parts of McCain's; couldn't stomach the entire thing.

I'm delighted. McCain and the GOP have known for at least a couple of months that they would be facing Obama in the general election, so they had all the time they needed to craft a way to define him and try to construct a narrative. They've utterly failed, and in the meantime, while Obama has been fending off both Clinton and McCain simultaneously, Obama is the one who defined McCain; he's now stuck trying to push back on running for "Bush's 3rd term", already on the defensive. And he's not very convincing.

And it's clear tonight that after all this time, McCain still has no idea what he's dealing with in Obama. If anything tonight just reassured me that Obama is going to land this thing. McCain is way, way outclassed here.

McCain is not ready to run for office. The problem is that for the GOP to even have a chance, they would have to have a VERY strong candidate, strong enough to override even part of the toxic platform Bush left him with.

The GOP is going to be f'n miserable this November.