How in hell did the Clintons become the "most powerful political family in America"? They're nothing of the sort. They have exactly one two-term president in the family, and one two term senator. Compare that to the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Byrd, or even the Gores.

Obama is now the nominee - woo hoo - I'm now "rich."

10:08,

I think you might be confusing ubiquity with power.

10:08, the Post article refers to the Clintons as "the most powerful family in Democratic politics." Hillary's defeat and the Kennedys notwithstanding, I'd say that's still a fair statement.

Obama gave one helluva speech last night.

That Texas tab is going to go up after the Section 1983 lawsuits start.

The comments aren't working (or aren't allowed) for the announcement of the ATL writer position, so here's my suggestion:

I think that ATL should hire Loyola 2L. Unless my chronology is warped, I believe he just graduated. He might still need a job and has already proven his ability to generate controversy. I also think it would add a more diverse perspective for hiring/benefits/etc related discussions.

Loyola 2L where are you?

Loyola 2L got a Biglaw job (shortly before he announced his "retirement" from blog commenting).

God damn America!

- BHO

That's fresh material, 11:30.

I think that many Democrats who voted for Obama are more in love with the idea of the candidate than the candidate himself.

Thus the “history being made” perspective, as if all of this boils down to a Jackie Robinson moment.

One thing for sure, if Obama was the “post racial” candidate that he originally represented himself to be then we would not even be having this conversation about “history”. Indeed, most of us know less now about what Obama stands for than when he started campaigning 16 months ago. Let’s see here, I remember now, “change”.

I am one of the 40% of HRC supporters that you read about that will NOT be voting for Obama.

And unlike most of the cable outlets, I do not fault Clinton for not expressly conceding last night.

You have your nomination, it serves no purpose to force Clinton to kneel like King Leonidas at the feet of Xerxes.

11:40, nice line: "You have your nomination, it serves no purpose to force Clinton to kneel like King Leonidas at the feet of Xerxes."

Obama says nothing better than anyone.

Suck it up, cupcakes.

11:40: Why do/did you support Hillary Clinton?

"11:40: Why do/did you support Hillary Clinton?"

I am a Democrat. Obama is too inexperienced and too liberal.

I pulled my hair out when the US Supreme Court took the election away from Al Gore and elected George Bush.

My main concern at the time (aside from out feeling that Al Gore won the election) was George W’s inexperience.

I listened to those that said, not to worry, he has “good people” behind him. And I thought after the Bush inauguration, maybe it will be OK, how much damage can a president do?

Well, it turns out, quite a lot. In fact, we are all very lucky that George W (and the “good people” behind him) did not cause WWIII. Not to mention the budget surplus which is now a huge deficit.

Now, the nation is poised to consider the candidacy of yet another potential president who has zero experience on the world stage, and little experience in life.

I have no doubt that Obama has good intentions, as did George W. Bush. But that his hardly the point.

I for one am not willing to go down that road again (except kicking and screaming), with an inexperienced president—however well intentioned.

The world is a far too dangerous place right now for a presidential internship--no matter how bright the intern.

In addition, I do not regard the fact that Obama guessed right on the war in Iraq by opposing it in a speech at a time when he was not in Congress and thus never had to receive the briefings and issue an up-or-down vote on the war authorization based on the same (dis)information that Clinton and others who voted “yea” had to evince some superior “judgment” that makes up for his lack of experience.

Finally, my sense was that Clinton would have been more likely to move toward balancing the budget.

11:40/1:45: You sound sane. I agree entirely with your later e-mail regarding Obama. I am very bummed HRC isn't the nominee because I think she's tougher, more experienced, and far more savvy than Obama (I also wanted to live to see the first female president - sue me). The press has been tiptoeing around Obama and his camp truly has no idea what it's in for. If y'all think HRC is ruthless, wait until you see the likes of McCain and his Republican cronies.

That said, I'll vote Obama in the fall and beg you, 11:40, to do the same. We cannot let McCain in office. The consequences are too far-reaching.

i can't understand how hillary supporters would actually vote against obama. nothing could be worse than four more years of bush policies, even if it's mcain's version of "bush-light." i sincerely hope that hillary supporters can get over their disappointment and vote out of concern for our country rather than spite.

p.s. hillary wasn't as experienced as she claimed to be. 8 years as first lady? so what?

Interesting. So basically you're concerned that Obama is too inexperienced, too liberal, and less likely to balance the budget? Let's tackle those issues one-by-one:

1. Inexperience. Your concern seems to be couched in the idea that Bush's errors were due to his inexperience. However, the push to war was led by Cheney and Rumsfeld, who had significant experience in international relations. Moreover, the war seems to have been less an issue of experience than policy. Bush and co. had an agenda against Iraq. There is no basis in the Bush example for the idea that Obama will suffer from a lack of experience. They are two very different people. Moreover, the fact that Obama appears to "guess" right a pretty high percentage of the time might lead you to believe that he does have good judgment. Take a look at the Democratic primary as an example. Hillary was the presumptive nominee, but by a nuanced understanding of the primary map and superior strategy, Obama overtook her. Hillary, despite superior experience, was not prepared for a long primary battle.

2. Too liberal. I concede that Obama's voting record is liberal. However, Obama and Hillary's policy platforms are very, very similar. The differences between the policy platforms of Obama/Hillary, on the one hand, and McCain, on the other, are stark. If you supported Hillary and her agenda, then you should support Obama and his. By either not voting or voting for McCain, you're supporting an agenda that is significantly different than your preferred candidate's.

3. Balancing the budget. Even if you think Hillary would have been better at balancing the budget than Obama, you have to believe that Obama will be significantly better at balancing the budget than McCain. McCain wants to make Bush's tax cuts permanent and will not be able to significantly reduce the size of the federal government. If you care about the budget, you should vote for Obama.

Bush's failure isn't for lack of experience, it's for surrounding himself with people who embraced the wrong ideologies.

I think many of the Democratic voters who chose Hillary clinton are more in love with the idea of the candidate than the candidate herself. Hence the "living history" perspective, as if this all boils down to a Dana Kirkpatrick moment. If she were really the "post-feminism" candidate that she claims to be, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

On the issues, they are 99% identical. Given that, Hillary's campaign was deplorably run. Obama's was commendably run with honor. Hillary represents the DLC, the establishment, and a continuation of 28 years of Bush/Clinton hegemony. Obama represents new voters and a fresh face.

How is this even a choice?

The point is--notwithstanding Team Obama's talking points @212 pm---that we need a president who has the experience to not be completely dependant on advisors for his world moves—as W was.

Second, anyone who has followed the McCain-Bush relationship (or, more accurately, the lack thereof) from 2000 onward knows there is no love lost there, and McCain is hardly a Bush clone.

Third, John McCain has lived for decades what Obama now espouses for political purposes.

Finally, regarding Obama's assertion that he will reject the partisan politics as usual, please read this Politico article posted today.

The Dem leadership (lead by Nancy Pelosi) are about to force a series of Congressional votes that will serve no purpose other than to embarrass Obama’s Republican opponent

See: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10822.html

Look, I am not trying to piss up a rope here--I am just saying how I am going to vote, telling you where I am going to contribute my $$.

2:45:

1. To what end? You're not arguing that he needs to be less dependent on his advisors for that sake. You're arguing that his inexperience will lead to bad results. But do you have any evidence that because of Obama's inexperience his results are bad? Name one thing that would have been better if he had more experience. Name one thing that has turned out badly because of his inexperience.

2. McCain isn't a Bush clone. But who is closer to Hillary's agenda, Obama or McCain? If you supported her, why would you support someone whose policy goals are less like hers than the alternative?

3. What does this refer to? Any specifics?

4. How are you going to tie what Pelosi is doing to Obama? Are you alleging that Obama controls Pelosi? Is McCain better about rejecting politics as usual than Obama? And besides, there are reasons to vote for Obama besides the point that he says he wants to reject politics as usual. See above.

1. We (obviousy) cannot point to bad results as president because he has not held that position. I can poijt to bad results attributable to W's inexperience;

2. Unfortunately, i am forced to compromise on some policy issues to protect my country.

3. I don't have time to give you a history lesson, but will cite three examples:

a. McCain went against his party and crossed the asile to support regulation of the tobacco industry;

b. McCain crossed the isle to co-author (with a Democrat) the most comprehensive campaign finance reform legisation in the history of our nation;

c. McCain also attacked pork barrel spending within Congress.

4. By waiting to see if Obama denounces these nakedly partisian political efforts to schedule Congressional votes to win the presidential election, and not to accomplish cross-party, legitimate, political objectives.

NICE TRY JAMAL, THANK YOU FOR PLAYING.

I would add to the above list the fact that McCain crossed party lines to support stem cell research.

3:32:

1. I didn't ask for examples as president. I asked for any example. Got any? Got any evidence at all for this besides George Bush? Obama's political experience is on par with Lincoln's (which is not to say that Obama will be Lincoln-esque, only to say that some decent presidents have had comparatively little experience).

2. Nice, bald, open-ended statement. No specifics. That's the easy way out. Are you afraid Obama will end up in a Middle East quagmire of his own? Have you listened to any of McCain's rhetoric on Iran?

3. I didn't ask for a history lesson. I couldn't understand your sentence. I understood you were attempting to draw a contrast between Obama and McCain, but couldn't understand the contrast you were trying to draw. From your truncated "history lesson," I take it that you're referring to a willingness to reach across the isle? But in order to cross the isle, you have to be on the other side of it. If you're a Democrat like you claim, then McCain has voted the other way on the vast majority of legislation over the course of his time in the Senate. Moreover, how do you think Hillary would have acted as President? Do you think she would have done a lot of reaching across the isle? To the party who loathes her and has trashed her for years until it began rooting for her to win because it believes that she is the weaker Democratic candidate? McCain has also taken two hard steps to the right since most of your examples.

4. Assuming Hillary had been the nominee, would she have rejected these tactics? Again, there are other reasons to vote for Obama over McCain even if he does not reject them.

Look, I know it's frustrating to have your preferred candidate lose a primary. But you should take some time to think this through rather than react viscerally. Both Hillary and Obama were good candidates. McCain is trouble.

If McCain is genuine, maybe he would like to reach across the isle and ask Hillary to be his VP?

This looks like a special olympics blog. Can anyone of you tard-olympiads: (1) defend Obama's readiness for being president without mentioning Bush; (2) identify one accomplishment by Obama

4:36: It's usually a good policy to read the thread before calling everyone tards and then challenging them not to do something they haven't done.

4:47 - thanks for the policy update - however, given that my challenge to "not do something they haven't done" (?) was directed only to the tard-olympiads (i.e., those that defend Obama by bashing Bush), I wasn't calling everyone a tard. But...if the term fits, by all means - you may want to consider a different event though.

You were only asking the people who were defending Obama by bashing Bush if they could defend Obama by not bashing Bush?

Everyone supporting Obama and bashing Bush was responding to 1:45, except for 1:59. Your use of "Anyone" led me to believe that you were challenging more than one person. Or are you saying that we should counter the argument that Obama will be bad because Bush was bad without referencing Bush? Why? Like I said, I think you should read the thread. Tard.

News flash: Obama is the nominee.

Whether this means something more than a Jackie Robinson moment will be born out in November.

I will hold my I-told-you-so's until then.

Someone please tell the Obamaniacs upthread that they are supposed to be reaching out to Hillary supporters now, not further alienating them.

Someone please tell... ah, I'll do it: 9:00, re-read the thread. There are people doing that.

I am also a HRC supporter who will not be voting for Obama...& I know of at least 15 more people who will not be voting.
He does not deserve to be the nominee. I the Blacks came out for Al G like they did for Obama, we wouldn't be in this mess we are in now with the country in a recession & at war in Iraq.