I've already heard a number of people say that it presaged her concession.

What think you folks? I'd like to think so, but I'm undecided.

It sounded like a goodbye.

It was an excellent response but it also sounded like she knows her campaign is essentially over.

Obama was very strong. He acted like the campaign isn't over, the main event is just getting ready to start.

Ahem, "Whatever happens, we're gonna be fine..." For a moment I thought John Edwards was back in the race. Talk about a Xerox moment.

It's too bad her answer was stolen from John Edwards.

As Ben Smith, who is a frequent contributor to TPM noted, here was Edwards at the December 13th debate saying almost exactly the same thing:
"What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine."

My take on Hillary's closer was that it was her last statement on the campaign, and not on the debate.

I think she went in there tonight with the plan that she would attack Obama (when finally given the opening) on the "plagiarism" claim, fighting the fight that her campaign wants her to fight. But when her Xerox line got booed, and Barack continued on through the debate keeping things polite and yet making his points, Hillary really didn't want to have to pull her Penn moves and get more boos.

Without being able to pull any more punches, she had no choice but to concede the evening by accepting that she has to concede the race. She closed the night echoing Edwards and her own husband, shaking hands with Barack, getting emotional, and gracefully giving up.

That's my hope, anyway.

As touching as it was, it made me squirm that both she and McCain could face these horribly wounded soldiers and not realize the role they played in sending them to such a predicament, to sacrifice so much, for no good reason other than lies and triangulation.

Hillary Clinton really did take that "the hits I've taken are nothing compared to.." line from Bill's 1992 campaign.

Normally, no big deal, but after the "Xerox" line, what gives here?

My one and only question is, exactly how many seconds after she finished her response did it take for her campaign to email the media bragging up what a great response it was? I'd put the over/under at 15 seconds, which gives you an idea of how "genuine" I think it was.

I always hear about how cynical reporters are supposed to be, but then they go for stuff like this hook, line, and sinker.

I heard it as a goodbye also - I was pretty amazed.

I do have to give her credit. I mean, some of her lines were obnoxious. Complaining your opponent is all about "speeches not solutions" and railroading over Campbell Brown to get in your line about "innovation nation" doesn't work, and the Xeroxing thing was just plain awful. But she also did try to portray herself as a human being, and she's at her best then, and I wish she'd done more of it in this campaign.

It seemed like you could see the two forces of her campaign at work--the Mark Penn scorched earth, and the Mandy Grunwald saving Hillary.

Again, though, the plagiarism thing was stupid and made her look petty. It seemed like she realized it, though.

Let's put it this way: someone's spouse said that this was the "fun" part. It would be for a politician. But HRC is clearly exhausted.

Here is my armchair take on the Clintons:

WJC is the true politician. He *loves* to campaign. This is absolutely required in a politician. Hell, he loves campaigning now!

HRC is someone who found a way to sort of end-run that process. She had a helluva political machine with key contacts in major Dem strongholds. She had a huge list of wealthy donors. Most of this was built upon or inherited from WJC rise to Governor and POTUS.

Am I saying that HRC didn't participate in that buildup?

No.

But just as every rock band needs a star upfront, who shines -- even when he feels like crap -- a politician is someone who, as Patton would say, "loves the sting of battle."

I think that HRC's advisors convinced themselves that other Dems would be too scared to run against her, or wouldn't have resources. She would then get the nomination and run a GE against an unpopular, incumbent party.

In short: despite claims to the contrary, she have never been truly vetted in campaign (Obama has far more experience here) and didn't think this campaign would be as difficult as it's become.

This explains the reasons why she wanted a front-loaded primary season, and hasn't thought long term down the road. She was fighting a Blitzkrieg type war.

Obama simply has been able to run the Marathon that HRC never trained for.

The irony is that Obama has truly been vetted as a politician, whereas HRC has not.

What a hypocrite!

Testy attacks, "xerox" remark.

Then at the end, copying Edwards! Ha!

"I thought it was gracious - the first sign (or second, after refusing a flat-out damaging attack earlier) to her supporters that it was OK to support O, now and in November."

I don't think it was gracious enough. Too little, too late. Especially after the Xerox remark.

Classic Hillary: When given the choice of following advisors who said to go negative, and others who said to hold back, she split the difference and did both.

"HRC is someone who found a way to sort of end-run that process. She had a helluva political machine with key contacts in major Dem strongholds. She had a huge list of wealthy donors. Most of this was built upon or inherited from WJC rise to Governor and POTUS."

HRC also never seemed like someone who enjoyed this. She dwells upon her "battle scars". She nurses her wounds, cultivates enemies, and recedes into her safe innercircle of trusted loyalists.

the only thing that's ungracious are all of the comments in this section. apparently, hillary supporters have all "cleared out" from TPM leaving it open for all the obamaites to treat themselves to lots of endzone dancing... let's not forget how many millions of us are having to face the prospect of holding our noses and crossing our fingers while voting for Obama in november...

Given that she made such a big deal about the alleged plagarism by Obama, I think the fact that she borrowed from Edwards and her husband, I think whatever benefit she initially derived from it will be lost when reporters start pointing it out (Obama won't do it).

Look, Hillary Clinton's biggest problems are that she's not gracious and doesn't show true feeling. This statement was both gracious and seemed to show true feeling, so I give her full credit. It was easily her best response in the debate. Much to my chagrin, Obama's last response was his worst of the debate--rambling and incoherent. And he had been doing so well. Ah well. I don't think it matters at this point. And it did seem like Hillary was accepting what appears to be inevitable.

Not only did she not congratulate Senator Obama on those victories, but she did not even thank those who voted for her in each of those states, and she is the person who threw a hissy fit about a perceived snub at the State of the Union. Look at how she has snubbed all those people who came out and voted for her in the past ten states!. She has no class.

Minor side point, and I may have missed this earlier, but does anyone know why Obama's notepad kept flapping up-- was there a fan trained in his direction or something?

Anyway, I agree with others-- she handled her final answer very well, with a truly *conciliatory* tone, thank goodness. Yet she sank to the silly/petty/lame level earlier esp. with the Xerox "xinger." That was just sad (it doesn't even make sense if you think about it...)

Of course, the pundits will play and replay this and her final moments since that is the easiest thing to do. Wonder how many will pick up on her "plagiarizing" Edwards/WJC phrasing?

We can debate whether it will "re-energize" her campaign, was pulled from Edwards, or it was a strategy to pull in some sympathy vote ... but I don't think it matters.

I think if anything, the voters have proven this cycle that they don't care anymore about the keeping score, horserace aspect of elections (at least this time). A good line here, an attack here, it's not changing the trajectory of this election ... and thank God. The point I make isn't about Obama or Clinton as candidates, it's about the style of campaigning. Obama has been consistent from the beginning and it's paying off. He hasn't relied on playing the media, instead he's obviously out-organized and out-campaigned Clinton among the voters.

Clinton is a fine person, and she had a fine close, but in this election, I don't think it changes the flow of the trajectory. She had a good moment, and the crowd rewarded her for it, but to think the entire electorate is going to pull a grinding about-face b/c of it disregards the overall progress of the campaign thus far.

..... drink a beer with Obama? Screw that I would rather visit Havana and Damascus and possibly talk to people that have been told are completely different than me.

I think it was sincere and genuine, but I think it was also planned. Maybe it was meant as a concession -- or, at least, a sort of resigned "whatever happens happens." But I also know that Hillary's support has always been strongest when she appears most vulnerable and so I wouldn't discount the notion that this was tactical move more than a rueful farewell. It may also strike a chord with people who aren't sold on Obama, but have been put off by Hillary's attacks and lack of graciousness. I don't think she's giving up, and I think it would be premature to write her obituary just yet.

We voters are not stupid, or are we?

Can we all not see that Hillary is for Hillary and that her motivation is for herself and not for the country?

Here is a candidate that first criticizes the use of only words as words and then gets anointed from the media by a closing speech that moves people due to words that are not even her own. See John Edwards’s speech. Did she give credit to Sen. Edwards for those words?

Here is a candidate that talks about the fate of the troops and the senseless of it all and she is the one who sent them there.

Here is a candidate that takes a stand and now backs down from it because of the political incorrectness of it all as view by opinion polls. If the war was popular by public opinion she would not be backing down of her vote then!

Here is a candidate who criticizes Obama for not holding debates and in the New York Senate race she would not agree to any debates once her lead was in double digits against her opponent.

The problem with Hillary is character and her inability to connect with the common person because she has never been the common person and is acting like she is.

Just look how she has handled her campaign and read tomorrow's New York Times article and you will see her in action. Just look what a disaster she had in health care in Bill's administration.

Here is a candidate that talks about Obama having substance and yet she has none of her own.

Lets bottom line it : She is a person that cannot be trusted!

It takes some gall to vote soldiers into war, marvel at their horrific and disfiguring injuries, and then say that one's only goal in life has been to insure that the less fortunate receive as many opportunities as I've been blessed to have had.

It was her finest moment, and it was the closest she has gotten to him rhetorically in a year.

She proved his point: words do matter.

Although I can't help but feel it was rehearsed, it was one of the strongest moments of her entire campaign (that's not saying too much). I think midway through the debate tonight (probably after the "Xerox" joke fell flat) she came to the realization that this thing isn't going to go her way. She has a long career as a public servant and influence-peddler ahead of her, why throw it all away tarnishing her own image in a losing cause? I don't think she ever really drank the punch that Penn and Wolfson were serving her, she's always seemed too smart and in charge for that. I think we'll begin to see the wind-down of the HRC campaign for the Democratic nominee for POTUS, and the first sign this hunch is correct is that her flegling 527's make a hasty retreat in Texas and Ohio.

Enough for what?

To win Texas and Ohio by 25pts, like she needs to?

No.

I thought Clinton's performance tonight was very mercurial, which suggests to me that she is physically and emotionally exhausted. Obama also seemed very tired and horse initially, but seemed to draw strength and energy from the debate, and was very strong in the second half.

Clinton started out very well, with a lot of positive energy and confidence, and then inexplicably decided to go with the crassly negative Xerox line which bombed with the crowd and put her back on her heels for most of the rest of the night, until her final remarks.

I'm afraid I do think the initial portion of that final speech was calculated and inauthentic. As soon as she began with, "people ask me how I do it," I immediately recognized that phrase as the famous question from the Portsmouth, New Hampshire moment where she "found her voice". Clinton then went into a series of sob stories which frankly seemed planned and designed to make herself well up. But she didn't seem completely engaged there with what she was doing. I think by this point she has so many conflicting ideas in her mind about what she is trying to do that she is unsure of herself. She's got Mandy Grunwald telling her one thing and Mark Penn another - and probably Bill a third thing.

But I do think the final moment where she took Obama's hand and said in effect that whatever happened to her, she would be fine and Democrats would go on to win in the fall, was sincere and effective, and that it was even a moment of genuine bonding between Clinton and Obama, even if it is true that some of the words she used were derivative.

And like many others, I interpreted those closing words as a swan song. While many might be moved by them, and soften toward Clinton as a result, I don't think it will really get her any votes, and might in fact lose votes, because it seemed like the beginning of a concession.

Clinton Summary... OK sorry .... but nothing appeared authentic... the snide looks -- I've had it... please will someone give her the necessary message -- that we have our candidate and it's not her... Sorry!

NOR as a VP candidate. For us to tackle the republican and media attack machine we need someone who is NOT a lightening rod to deflect from the strengths of our presidential 'candidate', that being Obama. Plus, we need a VP candidate that has the nuance to holdback from making The bad/feeble stident judgment calls trying to make dramatic hits that don't coincide with a 'real-time' free-flowing debate format...?

Some of her responses were just plain weird...

hoffmaid,

Commanders-in-Chief do sometimes order soldiers into battle. It's part of the position. A good Commander-in-Chief does this grudgingly and only for good cause. There's nothing contradictory about that and trying to make sure others have opportunities. Life doesn't always give easy and just decisions.

And many people don't seem to realize that a Commander-in-Chief has to use some sharp elbows sometimes on the world stage to get things done and to protect our interests. If that's the only tool in the toolkit, it's bad policy. But Hillary pushed for the White House to use diplomacy and verification and on-site inspections as the preferred step. And she had assurances from supposed wise, respected, honest voices in Washington, such as Colin Powell. If you recall, Bill Clinton used the military a number of places, but our military didn't suffer very many casualties. Use it, don't abuse it.

Of course the on-air pundits thought it was the highlight...they aren't deep thinkers now are they?

She may have meant some of the verbage, but she's walked herself into the iron queen tag through her past actions.

I believe she has real emotions. I also believe she is one heck of a pol and knows she's going to lose unless she changes the tide. She's trying putrid negative both air and mail, and believe it she'll try emotion.

She even might have been saying goodbye to a national audience...I'll believe it, and give her full credit for this when it happens, when I see her give up the race of her own free will.

Like she says, she has 35 years of very calculating experience. One two minute snippet is not going to change my mind.

Besides, the rest of the debate she looked wonky and rambling when side by side with Obama. He's just too smooth and quick for her.

Wonkette has both the Bill Clinton and Edwards quotes Hillary "lifted" meshed with Hillary's here. This whole plagiarism scandal was always beneath Hillary, but since she insisted on attempting to shame Obama in the debates and ensured all the newspapers the next day would headline with "Change we can xerox", she should accept being caught out herself.

http://wonkette.com/359517/hillary-plagiarizes-john-edwards-bill-clinton

I do not however think Hillary's use of other people's phrases or Obama's for that matter, is that big a deal. She does.

I do applaud Hillary however, for making a point in her final remarks to indirectly reassure Democrats that she is as or more concerned about the party's victory as she is about her own.

It seemed fake as hell, I mean c'mon seriously. Maybe I just know her too well to believe anything that comes out of her mouth, but her actions show she only cares about her political ambitions, she doesn't care about her party, or the voters (who don't vote for her), or the states (which don't vote for her), or the rules when they don't help her...she doesn't care about the people, give me a break.

And yes, she was a total hypocrite because in the process of being fake at the end she managed to steal lines directly from Edwards.

Nice, she apparently stole the "hits" line from Bill AND the "we're going to be okay" line from Edwards, very classy.

I think that this was clinton highlighting the end. She is out of money and really can't be competitive. Alter was saying after the debate that a smart move on her part would be to concede before more blowouts on 3/4 and he might be right. It might be a smart move and set up a future run.

It was really kind of sad, the clips that I saw. I stopped watching the whole debates about 10 debates ago. How many times can they say the same things over and over again. Boring.

The xerox statement reminded me of the kindergarten attack several months ago. She really didn't seem into it. It obviously was a scripted attack and she didn't want to do it. It's kind of funny doing an attack that someone told you to say when attacking someone on a bogus allegation of plagiarism. The fact that she really wasn't into it is a good reflection on her character, which leads up to the following quote, which is right on target:

It made me wonder how her campaign might have gone had she not been given (and accepted) so much bad advice. There were reports this week that Mark Penn wanted her to go even more negative than she has so far. That approach would have been catastrophic tonight. And it made me think of Bill Clinton's advice to John Kerry in 2004, that he come out in favor of those anti-gay state amendments in order to undercut the right. I wonder how many of her greatest mistakes, including her 2002 war vote and her subsequent refusal to acknowledge it was a mistake, came from men like Penn and her husband.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/who-won-tonights-debate_b_87916.html

If she just would have been herself and been honest, she really could have pulled this off. She has made mistakes forced upon her, which she accepted, for decades. That doesn't reflect well on her. She should have stood up in the senate on the iraq war vote. She should have tried to accomplish more. She should have stood up to mr. bill. Sadly, she didn't.

Anyway long post, but I think she has gotten a raw deal because of those around her. By the way, some people have talked about her being majority leader in the senate. No way. The dems in the senate would never put her there. There are too many bitter memories from the clintons first two terms. Sad.

If Hillary redeemed herself, great. More importantly, we effectively have a nominee. Time to move on. Re much of the post-debate "analysis", I agree with this sentiment from American Street ...

Think strategically, act locally

Let the partisans bleat. Obama doesn’t have to say a word and can remain more classy by leaving it alone. After all, ultimately, they’ll return to being allies when the primary season concludes.

What truly progressive partisans should be doing is pointing out the things I just noted about McCain in letters to local editors, all across the nation. Just because the Times and WaPo and blogs cover these things doesn’t mean it’s getting to the eyes of near enough voters. That kind of local action repeated by a few thousand can profoundly impact the presidential race. Commenters touting Obama and Clinton to each other has proven a terribly inefficient and annoying way for progressives to spend their time with the ripe target of McCain looking like a sitting duck.

Inevitably the GOP will try to turn around McCain’s campaign finance squeeze. They’ll say the Democratic Senate is blocking the quorum needed so the FEC can grant him a reprieve. But it’s not an easy argument for them to make because it suggests Bush’s appointees would issue a partisan decision favoring McCain.

The general election campaign hasn’t officially started and McCain is financially hamstrung with a fresh round of revelations to face that diminish his strength as an ethical reformer. What more could a Democratic nominee ask for?

Though I’m not a man of faith, there sure seems to be an overabundance of seemingly divine intervention going on. I just hope all the Obama and Clinton partisans and even more liberal progressives quit aiming at each other and use these gifts effectively by going local with their efforts. So much is falling in our laps and instead of gloating, we should be thinking strategically. It’s what winners do.

Hear, hear. The internecine battles have become tiresome, but we’re nearly there. At some point, I think most of us will figure out that the partisan vs bi/post-partisan argument we’ve been having amongst ourselves is actually much less critical than we’ve imagined it to be … once we have a nominee, it won’t really matter which side we took in that argument, since even nominally “post-partisan” Obama supporters like myself are committed to winning for our party in the GE.

For those who took umbrage at a perceived lack of partisan fervor on our part during the primary, well, guess what, good news my friends, that process is nearly over and you’re now free and welcome to unleash your partisan attacks on our shared opponent. Going forward, if you’ll pardon me while I make friendly overtures to non-Dem voters in the hopes of bringing them to the party, you can be assured that I’ll be cheering on all your efforts at undermining our opponents in less subtle ways.

That said, what remains annoying at the moment are those self-proclaimed fierce partisans who insist on sneering at our likely nominee during this 11th hour. But I suppose that too shall pass. If it does not, I’m not sure how they’ll defend any reluctance to engage on their party’s behalf, considering the enormous prior efforts they’ve made to convince all of us that the only good partisan is an obvious partisan. IOW, now that we’ve got our nominee, please, don’t mind me, and go be the kind of partisan you’ve told me I should be. If you balk at that, I’ve really got to wonder if all your partisan bluster wasn’t just a lot of talk about yourself and your own disappointment that events on the ground didn’t go according to *your* plan. If that’s what’s bothering you, please try to keep in mind that it’s about the process, not the person … we can all agree on that, can’t we? Your theory of partisan retribution and my theory of change can get along just fine and together get us to where we all want to be.

Yeah, classy Obama as always. From Shakesville:

Yes, for the record, "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal" is indeed a sexist dog whistle.

Once again, I'll note that the same person who is almost universally regarded as an orator of unrivaled competence, who is heralded as a linguistic maestro gifted with the talent for launching a political movement with the mere power of his well-chosen words, cannot believably claim to not have had the slightest inclination that "periodically feeling down" might be construed as having a double meaning as applied to a female opponent.

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/02/periodically-speaking.html

And presumably Obama's so clever about words that who would check his wife's stump speech for anything hugely embarrassing. A stump speech: "the first time as an adult I've been proud of America". Someone should be fired. But then they spun it and acted like she said this impromptu to reporters - of course there were at least 2 versions out there, one with "really", one without. Why did it take so long to to do damage control? Still don't know. But it doesn't matter, Michelle's not part of the campaign so isn't news, that's why ABC buried the story but praised the "clarification". Unlike Chelsea Clinton, who's "pimped out" and even dissed a cub reporter. Takes a detective to work out the trail.

Yes, all these things stick in your craw. After years of McCain as the last honest man, we've now got the 2nd. Especially when Obama fans think he's had a rough ride, taken as hard as it gets.

Isn't there another debate before March 5? Or do you think she'll cancel that one? She having conceded and all? All he has to do to win the nomination is beat her in Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania. If he wins just one of those states, he's the nominee. How hard can that be?

At the end, just before she says, "No matter what happens," she pauses and looks down, reading this off her notes. This was obviously a prepared moment, as was, likely, her reaching her hand across to Obama.

Passing the torch.

Surely she spoiled things, as others have said, by prior attacks, xerox remarks, but nevertheless, she needs a future... the electorate needs to heal here, and it will be important that her supporters also move to shaking Barack's hand and the hands of his supporters.

I think she will do a superb job in the Senate. Barack needs her help passing legislation.

Let us all set aside conflict here. And work for the good of the country.

No she finally sounds like the candidate I would have supported. I've been for Obama since early last Fall and everything her campaign has done since the new year just made me angry and disgusted (see Bill Clinton). I've always respected her and felt for her after Bill's picadillo with the intern. But I think Obama is the better leader to make things happen (see Change and Hope). I reallly wish she continues to be this gracious in the coming weeks and I can once again feel good about her again.

As a concession speech it was a "floater" if you can imagine a concession speech being a floater. Kidding aside, it was a concession of sorts. It is the same kind of message a coach may give when his 1-9 team goes up against a 9-1 team. "Just go out there and play your hearts out, have fun. It's the game that counts."

So she is saying if she loses it's not the end of her life, she is still a senator, and Chelsea is smart, and she and Bill are very rich. And despite the fact that she hates Obama she likes him.

But she will still fight, but with other tools. They are not trying as hard to win primary elections (they are LOW on money) as convince the DNC to seat ML/FL and to win over as many superdelegates as they can.

So my answer is yes, she is conceding she will lose the fight for committed delegates through the primaries, but she thinks she is going to win in Denver.

In other words, as of last night, Hillary's next firewall is Denver.

It's too naive to think Senator Clinton conceded last night.

Clintons don't like to loose and they'll say anything or do anything to win.That's not a myth. That's not an accident. It would be a utter mistake to underestimate Hillary Gladiator Clinton.

It's not done until it's done.

I agree with the posters who pointed out there's a bit of, um, inconsistency in trying to cash in politicall on the maimed troops when, were it not for her utter lack of principle and political ambition, might not have had their lives utterly destroyed in a senseless war.

Shorter Clinton: "Me and John McCain will do everything in our power to scare the American public into supporting more wars in service of the oil and defense industries, and then will try to capitalize politically by telling sob stories about how bad we feel about all of the carnage our cynicism has caused."

This is what Obama is talking about when he talks about "politics as usual." She disgusts me.

it's ironic that she couldn't say goodbye using her own words... especially with the stinking hissy fit her campaign's been throwing all week about "borrowed words"!

the writing's on the wall for some time, and hillary and bill are finally starting to comprehend what it says.

it's my sincere hope that hillary will take the important lessons engendered in this primary season to heart, take responsibility for her arrogance and plethora of mistakes, and come back some day to run again with a more appropriate level of preparedness and NO sense of entitlement. because these are the things, along with extremely poor judgement with regards to the virtue of smear and it's ramifications, which torpedoed her campaign. times have changed, the people of america have changed, and even the gop will find that their bag of dirty tricks won't work like they used to.

her first mistake was impatience, embodied in the act of throwing her hat in the ring this particular election cyle. it would have been MUCH wiser politically for her if she had let the bad taste of the first scandal ridden, polarized partisan politics clinton era - and her vote to approve the iraq war resolution - mellow and fade into a far more distant memory in the minds of voters before she ran.

Unfortunately, it doesn't sound concede-y to me at all. She chose to be gracious and, dare I say it, genuine, as opposed to snide and crappy. Had she sounded like this over the past couple months, I might actually have considered voting for her. But it's too little too late and I can't help but doubt her motivations. She sees that everything she's thrown at Barack has failed.

I think she sees graciousness as her last best hope.

Hillary is at her best when that guard comes down, and you see the raw emotional side of her. Thus, the last line (even if it was used by Bill and Edwards' before) was her best line - she seemed a genuine person.

Having said that, I thought the debate was a draw, neither she nor Barack won it. However, she HAD to have a knockout, and she tried, and failed, to throw Obama off his stride.

Hillary was showing a conciliatory side, a gracious side, and I think it is a very strong indicator of what is going to happen come March 5th.

Both campaigns have internal polls, and I'm betting she sees the writing clearly on the walls and is preparing for pulling out of the race. In the meantime, if course, she will do what is expected and try to win Texas and Ohio, but after she loses Texas, she is going to hang it up.

I want to start seeing more info on how Obama is going to go after McCain, and we saw a little of that when he looked into the camera and talked about McCain being wrong about wanting to stay in Iraq for another 100 years.

The economic message should be honed further as well. They need to press the McCain-Bush economic policies and hammer that home.

It feels like a ploy to me. Act uplifting and genuine while your 527s play the negative stuff.
No way this is over.

TPM! Where's the update?
Everyone is playing up the horrible Xerox
line, sometimes mentioning the boos and sometimes not, and at the same time championing HRC's final statement, without bothering to mention the obvious hypocrisy involved with the whole thing due to her borrowing lines from Bill Clinton and John Edwards.
Also, since when does someone score points for an obviously rehearsed speech and handshake. If she was so damned proud to be on stage with BO, then why didn't she acknowledge his victories the past two weeks during her concession speeches. Everyone seems to be ignoring this, in order to ramp up the horse race again, after Obama effectively put it to
bed. HRC will be right back on the stump spewing her same old lines today, but the media will not bother to report it in the context of her great
moment last night.

Gah'bless John McCain for his service to the country, but I think Barack's got the drop on him when it comes to Iraq. The "surge" is (slowly) being exposed for the fraud that it is, and Obama will have ample opportunities to make his case against McCain that this war never should have happened in the first place.

Then there's this:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/military-donors.html

Expected jingoism aside, I think he'll fare well in this arena against McCain. Any talk of a Wesley Clark-ish running mate?

About her closing speech, and how blatantly hypocritical it was given her attacks on Obama for plagiarism:

http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/27015007

She loaned $5M. People started to pour
more money.
One reportedly even said something along the line
of "Why didn't you tell me you needed money?"
$15M in 15 days ... nearly the same rate as
Obama's in January.

She supposedly said goodbye. More of her
supporters going to come out and vote.

Wasn't that the idea, hmm?

~ Jess

Wow. You guys (in the comment thread) are hopelessly captious and stingy. But maybe that's because Greg Sargent's question is based on a captious and stingy premise.

I guess you all missed the part at the end where Hillary got a standing ovation.

Therefore, judging the reaction of those who attended the event, the answer to the question "Was the closer enough?" is a resounding Yes. It's a question that needn't be asked.