Hillary is giving one of the oddest speeches I've ever heard. She seems simultaneously to be continuing her run for the nomination while tacitly acknowledging that Obama has won. Does she think she'll be able to campaign for him without acknowledging his victory? Is she trying create the appearance that she is directing the show from behind the scenes? This is a truly bizarre moment.

There are a few diaries up on DailyKos now. I've put out a request for links and will post them here when I find them.

Another brilliant speech alright, Abbas was just thrilled by Obama's call for a unified Jerusalem.

This statement is totally rejected," Abbas told reporters. "The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state." Abbas Slams Obama

Obama hasn't even been officially nominated and he's already creating international incidents.

What was brilliant about it? Wasn't it just another US politician's standard speech geared to placate the overwhelmingly powerful Jewish lobby?

I got gradually more and more depressed the longer it went on.

Given all the incredible money the US gives in aid to Israel for defense, given its reality as the only nuclear power in the region, why on earth if another country starts muttering insane threats to obliterate it, does the US have to threaten retaliation - it can retaliate for itself - it's a nuclear power, has chem and bio WMD - and that is, after all, why it gets about a third of the total US foreign aid budget, whilst it represents something like .001% of the world's population and is the 16th wealthiest country in the world.

What was most depressing was when he said twice that Iran poses a `grave threat`. I was stunned. This is the same man who I watched at a rally only a week or so ago (when he was attempting to defend all the attacks on his proposal to deal directly with Iran's leaders) that Iran does NOT constitute much of a threat. I remember it vividly - McCain then leapt all over it.

This man's making up foreign policy as he goes along!

I imagine most people remember the famous debate when he first introduced his concept of meeting with leaders of rogue states.

QUESTION: "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?"

OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this: The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them, and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them."

Clinton leapt all over him saying that you don't throw the weight of the presidency behind talks with hostile leaders without preconditions. He pooh poohed that, so after the debate his foreign policy advisers clearly clued him in, so then he started tying himself up in knots (along with all the rest of us who were trying to make sense of his varying positions) trying to make a distinction between conditions and preparation.

Then, just before AIPAC, we learn from the polls that he seemed to have got more Americans onside with him than not - unlike McCain they're on board with the Obama talks line - and so what does he do?

Goes to AIPAC and says "if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States."

That is the polar opposite of what he was saying before: that it was in the US's interests to talk in order to find areas...

Barack Obama's learning on the job. This is bloody wonderful isn't it?