I felt the same way, Lauren. She clearly disregarded Clinton's entire speech. She actually said that Obama has 2 months to win her over. How could any woman, let alone a black woman, not be moved by Michelle Obama's speech? How could she not feel a closer connection with Michelle than with Hillary? How could you say that you won't vote, which effectively is a vote for the other party?

I think Hillary did a great job in her speech. I think what she could have done extra was to talk up womens' issues more. She could have said, "to those who said they would vote for McCain over Obama [who more likely than not are die hard feminists], think about pro-choice issues, children's issues, health care issues, insurance coverage of contraception issues. Where will he look out for your interests there?"

It is beyond me how that woman's train of thought runs. I was so beyond myself when I heard that. Malveau was fuming as she was interviewing that chick!

She did a great job! her speach reminded me why I couldn't decide who I was going to vote for when the primaries first started (before they got ugly). I was one of those people who in the beginning said I was happy if Clinton or Obama won but my mind changed sometime after the fighting got a little petty. Anyway, BRAVO for that speech last night. Also, a lot of the pundits this morning are still stirring the pot saying that she never said Obama was "ready to be commander in chief." Are we in first grade where every thing has to be spelled out for us to understand what was implied?

Clinton gave (in my opinion) the best speech so far at the convention. She was able to look like a graceful loser (the grace was lacking a few months ago during the primary season), while reminding everyone exactly what they are voting for.

I love her, and I love that she is throwing her weight behind Obama.

Destiny- when you wrote, "How could any woman, let alone a black woman, not be moved by Michelle Obama's speech? How could she not feel a closer connection with Michelle than with Hillary?" I was a little offended. Yes, the PUMAs are a little nuts, but who are you to interject your values as a woman onto someone else? In the end, there aren't enough of them to make any difference, and us talking about them is just fueling a retarded fire.

Also, Michelle Obama, while an accomplished, intellegent and amazing woman, is not a politician. She is the wife of someone running, and her speech was from that prospective. She was talking about the man, and not the political figure. You are making a comparison that does not neccesarily exist. We are far past the "us versus them" stage in the election.

Yolanda,

Unfortunately, yes. It absolutely has to be spelled out. And I don't know if I'm saying that because I am glued to every article documenting the Clinton-Obama rift (who knew a political season could be so juicy and catty…well, it is politics), but it has to be spelled out. She did a great job last night and I totally got "I support Obama," but what I didn't get was "Obama is the man for the job." And when there are ads running with you declaring that mccain is more experienced than Obama and you've spent over a year discrediting his experience, you have to spell out that not only do you support him, but he is ready to be commander in chief. I agree that that was missing from last night's speech. It's easy to get caught up in the momentum of Obama and the convention, but there are many people who are watching the speeches in a different way — not as supporters…yet. They have to be convinced.

Her reference to her sisterhood of the traveling pants came off as a little self serving to me. She appeared very presidential last night and I didn't expect anything less, but that direct communication with that specific group came off as if she was saying, "we're still in it. don't forget about me in 2012." The highlight of her speech was when she asked, "were you in it for me?" That was the turning point.

In terms of media coverage, unfortunately they're often more concerned about building and creating a story than simply reporting. Every article you read and story you watch is about how Hilary's supporters are not going to back Obama. I believe that, for the most part, her supporters are most likely going to vote for Obama before McCain and those who won't are an extreme minority, yet these stories are dominating the news cycle.

I think Hilary did great last night. I was actually a little misty eyed after watching the video and hearing the speech. I agree that anymore Obama talk would have seemed phony.

Did anyone see Warner's speech? That was sooo good.
Now about these PUMAs…I have an honest question. Can they be reached? Do they want to be? I was watching Larry King's interview with one of them and to be honest after all her ranting and raving the one question she never answered was the single direct question 'What can Barack Obama do to win your vote?'….if there is nothing he can do maybe he should consign them to that unwinnable pile right next to the 'hardworking blue collar Americans' so we can move on to the independents.

Look at Boston Globe from yesterday. One of the Hillary-stans quoted flat out said she didn't care what Hillary said or thought. People like that can't be reasoned with. Basically, if Hillary came door to door begging and pleading with them to support Obama, they wouldn't. If the situation were reversed, I think it'd be the same thing which says nothing about the candidates and a lot about certain Dems. It is one of many reasons why Republicans run several very blue cities and states except in this case, the Dem options are good. Keep f-ing yourselves and the rest of us over, a–holes.