I really wish you hadn't put this sort of sarcastic bent on your article, Greg. A straight-up report of that would have made people look at this better.

Instead, you've put people onto the defensive regarding their views of Clinton's behavior during the primary season.

all due credit to her for coming around to reality.

all due derision on those who earn their megabucks by embarking upon pointless pontifications.

As long as we are giving credit in hindsight for Clinton's restraint, I notice that Ben Smith had a little piece about how Penn and Bill Clinton were urging Sen Clinton to launch a line of attack based on the idea that Sen Obama was not "American" enough. This would have been beneath contempt, and it is a credit to Sen Clinton that she thought as much and resisted the idea.

Giving credit to Hillary for supporting the nominee and her party's best interest is like giving credit to a husband for not beating his wife.

She divided this party in her own egotistical drive for power, and endorsed McCain over Obama.

I give her no credit, I only say "FINALLY".

Work of Mercy: Comfort Greg Sargent

To those who are disappointed that we couldn't go all of the way, especially the young people who put so much into this campaign, it would break my heart if, in falling short of my goal, I in any way discouraged any of you from pursuing yours. Always aim high, work hard, and care deeply about what you believe in. And, when you stumble, keep faith. And, when you're knocked down, get right back up and never listen to anyone who says you can't or shouldn't go on. So I want to say to my supporters, when you hear people saying – or think to yourself – "if only" or "what if," I say, "please don't go there." Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward. Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. We have to work together for what still can be. And that is why I will work my heart out to make sure that Senator Obama is our next President and I hope and pray that all of you will join me in that effort.

I tried to give Greg the benefit of the doubt during the primary. Heck, I think I even defended him from folks calling him in the tank for Hillary (I've been an Obama supporter since last summer). But it's becoming more and more obvious from the tone of his posts post-primary that he can't help himself from defending her, alomost-but-not-quite praising her and holding her up as the end-all-be-all of the Democratic Party. Sorry, Greg, but I gotta call 'em like I see 'em. Obama won. She did not. Move on.

Don't cry for Hillary Greg
Give money

why does our tax paying dollars go towards a convention that is of no point......

why have pledged delegates & super delegates vote at the convention if we already have the winner, who has already began a general election campaign...... its not like the delegates are going to change there minds between know and the convention......

the covention is a waist of tax payers dollars.

Thank god you posted this, Greg! I was starting to go through Clinton withdrawal - three whole Election Central posts without any Clinton content whatsoever!

Has she come out and declared in public that she is releasing all her delegates, and asked them all to vote for Senator Obama at the convention. Has she said in public that she will not put her name in nomination, at the convention. If she is calling her delegates, in private, and urging them to switch to Senator Obama, why does she not throw in all her cards, and ask them to do so, in public? It seems like that would have a much greater impact, and would deliver a powerful unity message to all Democrats.
Why is she not doing so?

Somewhat off topic, but if you have not seen today's This Modern World, you really ought to check it out.

Well, it's about time. But she's doing it.
Yes, I know of her sins against the party, but
it's time to go forward...A united party at the convention is what we need.

anyone have a comment on Eugene Robinson's column?

She had done all she could do to leave her supporters no wiggle room -- to give them no permission to dwell on incidents of sexism, to create no space for reservations about Obama, to eliminate any excuse for sitting out the fall campaign.

The money quote. I wish those people who say they are her pissed off supporters would read this.

And she was gracious. Robinson is right.

I don't know... while this is the right thing for Hillary to do, I admit I'm cynical. It seems more of a political expedient than altruism. What does she want?

Let's be clear.

SHE'S DOING THIS TO HOPE FOR OBAMA SUPPORTERS TO HELP BAIL OUT HER DEBT!

Why doesn't she do this publicly? B/c that would piss off her Clintonazi feminist hag supporters.

Would is be a little self-congratulatory for the people on record as practically begging Hillary not to exercise the nuclear option, and to stop tearing apart the party for her own minuscule chance of winning to now congratulate her for listening to them?

Should Olberman do a special comment on how, essentially, he was right, and isn't it great that Hillary, backed into a corner with nowhere to turn, is doing what he thought she should do for a long time. (be gracious, concede, stop attacking)

Basically I agree with the collective conscious that this post was rather frustrating.

I mean, while you're in the process of breaking the news (that she is, it seems, according to this report, now really doing what we hoped she would), how can you already expect there to be a parade in place?

Greg,

Here are things I never expected Hillary Clinton to do during the Democratic Primary:

1. Question whether Obama could be Commander-In-Chief.

She did.

2. Compare the Democratic primary contast to the election of 2000 being stolen.

She did.

3. Leave any doubt in voters' minds about whether Obama was a muslim ("as far as I know").

She did.

4. Say we must obey rules until the results are in. And then try to change those said rules.

She did.

5. Tell others that he "CAN'T" win the general election.

She did.

So, for these writers to have to address what you call "cartoonish expectations they set" would be completely ignoring what came before. It's not as though they pulled their predictions out of thin air, her previous actions and statements would leave quite a few people to believe she would take this all the way (and work to undermine Obama at the same time). The only thing that stopped her was her supporters who basically said either you get out or we stop supporting you publicly. That's what it took. Otherwise, if they had stayed with her, I sincerely believe these "cartoonish expectations" could have EASILY been carried out by Hillary Clinton.

She did a great thing on Saturday, but part of the reason she did that was because people told her: no more. Not because she necessarily wanted to quit.

I never hated her, in fact I had a mild crush in the 90's (lol). She's a dedicated, smart, classy woman. I simply believe she has no throttle setting between "win at all costs" and "quit". I disliked some of her tactics intensely. Her rabble-rousing near the end was especially short-sighted, and she may be coming to grips with the consequences now. We all may be.

That being said, I have no illusions that a Chicago politician wins with kisses and gumdrops. It's just very hard, even in retrospect, to pin down the crappy things he did (well, besides "likeable enough"). He's a natural politician, and very adept at framing a favorable narrative.

I think they both believe deeply that they are doing the right thing. One was just a little more careless about collateral damage.

In the end Greg, I am shocked, I am surprised and gratified.

We had all heard that one of the things she wanted was to have her name put up in nomination, where she would lose, but you would have the effect of a woman coming close in a delegate vote. Now, it looks like she's willing to surrender that for the sake of unified convention, which is speaks highly to her character and her loyalty to the party. (I also think that it also speaks well to her desire to be Veep, but she's doing this with no guarantees it'll happen.)

"wonder whether those who attacked her for months on end will have something to say about it now that she has not fulfilled the cartoonish expectations they set."

Greg - you're making matters worse by adding ANOTHER stupid remark.

By ALL accounts she was planning to fight and take it to the convention until the huge flap that followed her non-concession speech. It was made clear to her that her top supporters would not go along with tearing the party apart for her. She was essentially forced out. Understand?

She was indeed going to fulfill all our "cartoonish expectations" - until she was convinced it would harm her irreparably
within the party. I don't need to crucify her for that - but I don't need to eat your total bullshit either. This is not altruism on her part.

Praise her for doing the right thing NOW. But don't claim that means she was doing the right thing all along. This equation does not add up.

Greg,
You seem well intentioned, but if you desire party unity, which it seems you do, please stop these posts. Whatever good you do is easily undone by the vile ignorance displayed by the kool aid drinking Obama supporters. Everyone needs to move on. Obama extorted the nomination out of the superdelegates by using the threat of the African American community going ballistic if the superdelegates didn't hand Obama the nomination. Most candidates are required to earn a majority of all delegates to lay legitimate claim to the nomination, but not our friend Barack. All he needed to do was game the undemocratic caucuses and work to ensure two large swing states were excluded from the process by blocking revotes to ensure he could obtain more pledged delegates, and then have his friends in the press drive the narrative that if the superdelegates actually performed their intended function and exercised independent judgment that they would be stealing the election from him. The superdelegates had no choice but to choose Obama lest they risk upsetting the most loyal voting bloc in the Democratic Party. Now Obama will be able to extort the votes of the half of the party who have flatly rejected him by larger and larger margins as the primary unfolded because the Republicans are so evil and those voters are now stuck with him. Obama learned that Chicago style politics well, and now we are stuck with him. I am also afraid we are stuck with having to listen to his deranged and dispicable followers spread their vile posion, but there is no need for you to give them threads like this to do that.

I think she is calling them privately inorder to maybe gain a few bucks to pay off her debts. She gets some time with them and if they ask her "what can I do help to Hillary?"..she slips in a request for contributions...IMO

Greg-

With all due respect, in this instance, you don't sound too bright or objective to make intelligent or reasonable assesment.

Good luck trying to clean up Clinton's shit- no offense. Thank you Sen.Clinton for doing the right thing- but only an dim mind will think Clinton camp didn't explore ALL options.

Face it, they wanted to see if they could take the popular vote argument to the bank and found no traction.

Anyway, bottom line- you look desperate, cheap and inadequate to use the event in the second week of June as defense to actions prior. A lot has changed in the last week, don't you think?

I too have refrained from making negative comments about the other candidate. But Clinton fully represents about half (I say more, you say less) of the Democratic choice for nominee. Now that she has thrown her support to Obama, what has Obama done to include whatever it was that so appealed to her half the Democrats? Nothing. So you can take the "we won" attitude not to the bank but to the poorhouse. If Obama wants to win he'd better do something of substance to show inclusion of Hillary. mostly what I hear is lip service from him and his supporters. It will be a hollow nomination victory should McCain win the presidency. And should that happen you can wait another few generations before there is another black presidential candidate.

So what has Obama done for Clinton and her supporters to show "unity"?

ROE V WADE is now off the table

Pro-Choice Democrats and John McCain

A Commentary By Froma Harrop
Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Hillary Clinton's blessing notwithstanding, many of the New York senator's supporters will resist the handover to Barack Obama. The sexism that permeated the recent campaign still rankles, and John McCain is far from the standard-issue Republican they instinctively vote against.

A big sticking point for wavering Democrats will be McCain’s position on reproductive rights. Clinton's backers are overwhelmingly pro-choice, and they’ll want to know this: Would McCain stock the Supreme Court with foes of Roe v. Wade? The 1973 decision guarantees a right to abortion.

The answer is unclear but probably "no." While McCain has positioned himself as "pro-life" during this campaign, his statements over the years show considerable latitude on the issue.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/pro_choice_democrats_and_john_mccain

ROE V WADE is off the table as a reason not to support Mccain

Pro-Choice Democrats and John McCain

A Commentary By Froma Harrop
Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Hillary Clinton's blessing notwithstanding, many of the New York senator's supporters will resist the handover to Barack Obama. The sexism that permeated the recent campaign still rankles, and John McCain is far from the standard-issue Republican they instinctively vote against.

A big sticking point for wavering Democrats will be McCain’s position on reproductive rights. Clinton's backers are overwhelmingly pro-choice, and they’ll want to know this: Would McCain stock the Supreme Court with foes of Roe v. Wade? The 1973 decision guarantees a right to abortion.

The answer is unclear but probably "no." While McCain has positioned himself as "pro-life" during this campaign, his statements over the years show considerable latitude on the issue.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/pro_choice_democrats_and_john_mccain

I think those that predicted the "nuclear option" were wrong. My point is that perhaps those who said the worst about her should perhaps consider also weighing in on what she's doing now.

So I can congratulate her on her excellent concession speech and on being receptive to pressure from Rep Rangel and others in the NY delegation. But her exit wasn't her idea.

the post is rather naive

just because she "made nice" doesn't mean she is nice: she did what she had to do to salvage her political reputation and continue in the game

It is in Obama's interest that his campaign and supporters set about to salve any and ALL wounds in the party. That, however is not the journo's imperative.

Expectations set about Hillary's post-suspension behavior were not set by these columnists. As you refernce, Greg, her past behavior is the only legitimate way to judge her motives and set expectations. Columnists had nothing to do with it.

And as to why they have not praised her like they should, and like the Obama campaign, following its interests, has: being journalists not partisans, they want to tell the unvarnished truth as they see it, and they see it like many of us see it. With the ungracious Tuesday speech and four-day delay, she dominated the entire week, denying him an unambiguous moment of victory before being thrust into the harsh glare of the full-tilt general campaign. Granted, I'm looking at it from Obama's perspective, but his interests are now the party's interests. There will not be another opportunity like the one that was justlost to have the spotlight on him alone until the convention.

That's why they haven't rushed to her defense. She has you and Gene R. for that.

HILLARY STOP THAT!!