A Response to Hillary's Speech...

Alright, everyone knows that politicians words and speeches are carefully crafted masterpieces of gooey feel good say nothing rhetoric. Still, with a little intuition and perhaps some professional body language analysis (thanks BillO), we can read between the lines, and between the smirks and half hearted congratulations to what they actually meant to say. Here are some excerpts of Hillary's speech tonight, (courtesy of our friends at http://www.msnbc.com) post Kentucky blow out of Obama. My response to Senator Clinton is in red.

"Tonight, we've achieved an important victory. It's not just Kentucky bluegrass that's music to my ears. It's the sound of your overwhelming vote of confidence, even in the face of some pretty tough odds."

- Actually, in the grand scheme of things it is not an important victory. The only reason it could conceivably be seen as important is the fact it gave Senator Obama a plurality of the pledged delegates up for grabs nationwide. So, yes, important for Senator Obama, not so much for you.

"Some have said your votes didn't matter, that this campaign was over, that allowing everyone to vote and every vote to count would somehow be a mistake. But that didn't stop you. You've never given up on me, because you know I'll never give up on you."

- Who said Kentucky's votes didn't matter? As I explained earlier, the great state of Kentucky has helped ensure Barack Obama will have the most pledged delegates at the end of this primary season. Who claimed allowing people to vote was a mistake? Oh wait, you did, when you said that caucus states were dominated by "party activists" and wouldn't vote Democratic in the fall. This statement more than anything the Obama camp has said is aimed at disenfranchising voters.

"This is one of the closest races for a party's nomination in modern history. We're winning the popular vote, and I'm more determined — more determined than ever to see that every vote is cast and every ballot counted."

- You're winning the popular vote? Really? When you have to rely on Karl "Turdblossom" Rove's math and objective analytical skills, I'd say it is about time to pack it in. I suppose you have a point though, Senator Clinton. If we don't count the millions of votes from those pesky caucus states, and only count the votes that you got in Florida and Michigan (which you yourself said would not count last year due to the state party's moving up their primary), then yes, you might be ahead. Congratulations.

"We are in this race because we believe it will take a commander in chief with the strength and knowledge to end the war in Iraq, safely and quickly, and a president with experience, representing the people of the United States in more than 80 countries, to restore our leadership and moral authority in the world."

- Strength and knowledge to end the war in Iraq? Of course you said nothing about the wisdom to not get our country into unnecessary wars to begin with. On a more personal note, I must admit I threw up a little in my own mouth hearing a Clinton discuss moral authority.

"Now, it's especially sweet tonight because Kentucky has a knack for picking presidents."

- As apparently so does West Virginia, Arkansas, New Jersey, and every other state you won.

"Neither Senator Obama nor I has won the 2,210 delegates required to secure the nomination. And because this race is so close, still separated by less than 200 delegates out of more than 4,400, neither Senator Obama nor I will have reached that magic number when the voting ends on June the 3rd."

- WRONG! It takes 2,026 delegates to secure the nomination. The Clinton campaign has moved the goal posts so many times and so far away that they're a mere small shadow off in the horizon.

Senator Clinton must know that she cannot secure the nomination. Superdelegates are not going to overturn the will of the Democratic voters. It just won't happen. Knowing this, one must ask themselves, what is Hillary's end game in all of this? What is she hoping to accomplish? Those sympathetic to the New York Senator might say she is simply wanting all of those millions of women who view her as a role model to see her finish out the campaign and not quit before all of the contests have been completed. Those a little more cynical to her motives might say she is trying to divide the party deeply enough to keep Senator Obama from winning in November, and thus paving the way for her to run again in 2012.

The truth is, nobody really knows what the answer is, what her motivations are for continuing this historic primary fight. What is clear, is that for the sake of the Democratic party, women, especially older women, are going to have to coalesce around Barack Obama in order for us to win the White House. As disappointed as they are that Senator Clinton will not win the nomination, they must not take out their frustrations on Obama at the ballot box, because it will ultimately only hurt their children down the road. Senator McCain has promised he will appoint "conservative" judges to the Supreme Court which will ultimately lead to the reversal of Roe V. Wade. He has also promised to continue the misguided foregin policy of George Bush, complete with the strong armed tough guy approach that has worked so wonderfully in Iraq and Iran.