To a lot of voters the election is, at least in part, about CiC qualifications. If it weren't about that for a large number of voters then McCain wouldn't be featuring Hillary in his campaign ads the way he is.

I think that an outright straightforward unequivocal go-fuck-yourself-McCain assertion that Obama is ready to be CiC and will be an excellent CiC would have been great, and would have helped a lot. No need to phrase it as a retraction or anything else, just assert it plainly.

But Laura Jordan has an excellent point below in that the audience for that speech was Hillary's own supporters, and for them that statement would have missed the mark. It might have even been, as Laura says, off-putting. So as a speech to an audience of her supporters I agree, it was an excellent speech.

Some day I'd love to see an Obama ad featuring video of Hillary saying openly and plainly that Obama as Commander in Chief would show far, far better judgment in a crisis than McHothead. But as far as the convention speech goes, it was excellent.

You may be right. Democrats always think elections are about issues and Republicans think it is about emotion. Interesting. Always leaves democrats wondering what is wrong with the people and the republicans smirking. Bill Clinton was a master at making the intricacies of policy very personal and emotional. He felt your pain. And you felt his empathy. I think Obama operates on that level too, which is why he talks about hope.

I do think you missed my point about being personal. It was not, nor could it be Sen. Clinton's job to vouch for Obama credentials to be prez. Pres. Clinton could surely do that. He is one of only 4 people in the world who could. It just would have been interesting to hear what about him she likes. respects, admires, etc... Just a sincere and personal view. It would have been interesting, not necessarily important. After all she is a human being, not just a series of planks in a party platform.

Eggs Actly.

One way of winning the election is to re-frame the choice to your liking. That may be dangerous if the voters already have their own frame (and of course they do). Another way is to say, no matter how you frame it, my guys is better. This campaign is clearly showing that McCain is deeply dishonest and unprinicpled in his pursuit of personal ambition and power. The "I'm John McCain and I approve this message" on the new Iran ad that is patently false and misleading on a vital issue of national security should be a disqualifier for anyone who expects the president of the US to tell the truth to the people about matters of war and peace. Well see.

I agree this election is partly about the direction of the country,and that is a useful focus. But really you had better understand the frames that the voters have and figuring out how to speak to them.. Think about it some more.

btw, lot of fun metaphors with the straight talk express and going in the wrong direction.

You have an anger and a comprehension problem. I said it would be *interesting* to hear what she thinks of him as a person. I thought she gave a great speech and I never expected her to do anything less. Anyone who did doesn't understand politics or just loves the bloodsport.

The subject was vouching, and my comment was based on the fact that she was not in a position to vouch for him. Ususally you do not get ask for references from your fellow job applicants.

She could have said what she thought of him , but that's not vouching. It's just a personal reflection.

Only people who actually have been president have the ability to vouch for Obama's abilities, his personal capabilities and talents as recommending him as more than capable of doing a great job. Bill did exactly that because he recognizes so much of himself in Obama, and so much of his campaign in '92 with this campaign. Frankly, it was far far more interesting to hear it form Bill than Hillary.

Now I would suggest you learn to deal with your bitterness in any way you see fit and join the rest of us in trying to win this election. UNless you missed the hatchet has been buried.

I look forward to hearing how much you have contributed.

Oregon:

One of the prices that we have to pay, a small but gnawing one perhaps, is to read posts from people about how they now love the Clintons when we have read posts from the same folks saying the contrary for months. Hypocrisy? Of course. I will forgive but I will never forget that the Clintons and those of us who supported them were branded as racists, race-baiters, or racially insensitive at best. I measure folks by what they said during the campaign, and I measure them about the depth and quality of their contrition. If folks pretend to sweep things under the rug, folks like me have a very good memory of what posters wrote. The things that stung most don't go away. One long-time poster was singing praises about Hillary yesterday (after her speech), and I couldn't resist reminding him that he called Hillary a bitch during the primaries and that he also wrote that the fact that she has ovaries is not a reason to vote for her. His response was political ("I'm just proud of what she did in her speech"), and non-contrite, and he is exposed in my mind forever. People can admit their transgressions, or they don't have to. So be it.

But it's politics, and it's life, and notwithstanding the frustration I believe I'm sharing with you, I'd still take Senator Obama over Senator McCain any day, anywhere, anytime, etc. I know you would too; you're a real Democrat. And, ultimately, that's the bottom-line. It's not about us, it is about bigger things.

But keep bringing people back to reality, please. I love your posts.

Bruce

Fair enough. I didn't think about Hillary's role in the Roll Call and was pleasantly surprised by it obviously and although I thought Bill would do give a typically good speech from him; but I didn't think he would devote so much time to talking about Obama's specific readiness and explaining why.

All I can say is that I am terribly glad that I was wrong on this one.