After being forty-five minutes late, Hillary made the speech we all knew she was going to make. She officially suspended her campaign and threw her support behind Barack Obama.

Hillary Rodham Clinton ended her historic campaign for the presidency on Saturday and told supporters to unite behind rival Barack Obama, closing out a race that was as grueling as it was groundbreaking.

The former first lady, who as recently as Tuesday declared herself the strongest candidate, gave Obama an unqualified endorsement and pivoted from her role as determined foe to absolute ally.

“The way to continue our fight now to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States,” she said in a speech before cheering supporters packed into the ornate National Building Museum, not far from the White House she longed to govern from.

“Today as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary campaign he has won. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him and I ask of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me,” the New York senator said in her 28-minute address.

With that and 13 other mentions of his name, Clinton placed herself solidly behind her Senate colleague from Illinois, a political sensation and the first black to secure a presidential nomination.

For Clinton and her supporters, it was a poignant moment, the end of an extraordinary run that began with an air of inevitability and certain victory. About 18 million people voted for her; it was the closest a woman has come to capturing a nomination.

“Although we weren’t able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it has about 18 million cracks in it and the light is shining through like never before,” she said.

Indeed, her speech repeatedly returned to the milestone her candidacy represented for women. She also acknowledged the unprecedented success of Obama’s candidacy.

“Children today will grow up taking for granted that an African-American or a woman can, yes, become the president of the United States,” she said.

First of all, let’s be clear about everything here. Yes, Barack Obama is the nominee. However, Hillary didn’t actually concede. I don’t know what the point of that move is, as we all know that Obama’s the nominee, but I guess she’s hanging on to one tiny thread of hope that she might still get it.

Here’s some of her speech; the full transcript is here.

This is just Hillary trying to salvage her political career. She realizes that the Presidency can still be hers in 2012, and that she needs to do a little ass-kissing if she’s going to have any hope of saving her chances.

Of course, there was the expected GIRL POWER! angle. Just because she didn’t win the nomination didn’t mean she’s stopped being Hillary; she’s still just as arrogant and elitist as she was before. This speech wasn’t about being humble or gracious. It had nothing to do with Barack Obama; it was all about Hillary. It was reminding us all that she was a history-maker, too, that she’s a pioneer and a groundbreaker, just like he is. Gay Patriot noted that she didn’t offer any kind of advice or encouragement about dealing with McCain, which was interesting. And again, that’s because this speech was all about her — not Obama, not Democratic party unity, but her.

She also got going on the healthcare issue, like with this troubling quote:

We all want a health care system that is universal, high-quality and affordable so that parents don’t have to choose between care for themselves or their children or be stuck in dead-end jobs simply to keep their insurance.

This isn’t just an issue for me. It is a passion and a cause, and it is a fight I will continue until every single American is insured, no exceptions and no excuses.

No exceptions and no excuses? Do we have any choice in the matter, or under Hillarycare are we forced to participate in government healthcare? Maybe she’s just taking a page out of John Edward’s playbook.

Anyway, since we all know now for sure that Barack Obama is going to be the nominee, conservatives and Republicans need to brace themselves, along with anyone else voting for McCain: independents, Hillary supporters, moderates, disenfranchised Democrats, etc. When Barack was announced as the nominee, the world media started hyperventilating about how “historic” this is, and how ground-breaking and unbelievable his clinching the nomination is, and so on and so forth. So ready yourself, because we’ve got one hell of a battle ahead of us.

Every ad aired against Obama will be deemed racist. Condemnation of any of his policies will make you a racist. Questioning any of Obama’s voting records, past remarks, “charitable” donations and earmarks, and associations will make you a racist. You’ll be accused of being too small-minded and racist to be willing to support a black man for President. It will be all about Obama and the fact that he’s half black, all the time, and we will get smeared and attacked every day that we fight to try to defeat him. The very fact that we will try to keep him from being elected will get us labeled as racists.

When McCain and Obama debate, McCain will likely be attacked and excoriated for criticizing Obama in any way, shape, or fashion. He’ll be called a bully and will be accused of using questionable and unethical tactics (like swift-boating!). Instead of being lauded in the press for being a “maverick”, he’ll be excommunicated as just another cog in the Republican hate-filled racism machine.

Here’s what’s especially troubling. If Barack Obama loses, it will make Bush Derangement Syndrome look like a Bush lovefest. The media will erupt in indignation, angrily shouting about how racists stole the election, how McCain is a racist for riding the backs of racist Americans to victory, and how America is still filled with racism for not electing a half-black man President.

See, with liberals, it’s never about policies. It’s always about superficialities.

The whole point of bringing this up is to be able to arm yourself. Be prepared, because we all know that this is what is coming, and we need to be ready for the assault. No matter how civil we try to make this fight, no matter how careful we are, this is what we will be accused of, and we can’t let it scare us. The media will try to intimidate voters into supporting Obama, and we’ve got to be prepared to stand up to it.

We’ve seen poll after poll telling us that Hillary’s supporters would vote for John McCain, and not Obama, if she doesn’t get the nomination. Well, that prediction is already starting to come true.

First, from Hot Air, is a new ad the RNC is running showing prominent Democrats making statements against Obama:

There’s more meat to that story here.

What’s much more fun to see happen is how the GOP Convention office is
getting calls from Hillary supporters asking how they can help with his campaign.

Matt Burns, the spokesman for the GOP convention in St. Paul e-mails to say that the RNC’s convention office in St. Paul has received numerous telephone calls in the last few hours from people who identify themselves as Clinton supporters asking how they can help Sen. McCain.

Will Hillary supporters really come out in full force for McCain and against Obama? It’s certainly a possibility… if Hillary concedes. I know Barack Obama is saying that he is now officially the nomineee, but the super delegates are free to change their minds, and if this Michelle Obama “whitey” tape pops up, it might be just the push some of them need to switch to Hillary.

Or so the AP is reporting.

Damn it. I was really hoping that these two would battle on until the convention.

All I can say is, hold on Hillary! Don’t give up! You are entitled to the Presidency, and the super delegates can wipe away Obama’s victory anyway. So, it’s not over for you yet. Don’t give up!!

My favorite feminism site, Feministing, has gotten their panties all in a bunch again. They’re whining because Alex Castellanos, a (often controversial) GOP consultant, said on CNN that sometimes it’s accurate to call a woman a bitch. This was during a discussion about Hillary Clinton’s whining about sexism.

Here’s the video:

So according to GOP consultant Alex Castellanos, Clinton shouldn’t bring up in sexism in the election coverage because sometimes women really are bitches. Huh. Good one, asshole.

Where to begin.

First of all, I think it’s incredibly childish to call Hillary Clinton a “white bitch”, which someone — not Alex Castellanos — apparently did. The point Castellanos seemed to be making was that she can come across as, well, a bitch sometimes, and that the problem with her campaign wasn’t sexism, it was Hillary. Which is true.

Of course, this opinion of Castellanos’ makes it perfectly acceptable for Jessica at Feministing to call him an asshole.

What’s interesting to me is how it’s OK to call a man an asshole, but it’s not OK to call a woman a bitch. Why is that? I remember having this conversation with a female friend of mine. She swore, very seriously and very passionately, that it was never OK to call a woman a bitch. I asked her why. “Because,” she said, “That’s a word you just don’t use. It’s just wrong.” I asked, “Even if she’s acting like a bitch?” Jackie responded, “Yeah. It doesn’t matter how bitchy she may be. You don’t call a woman a bitch. You just don’t do it.” My response was to ask her if was acceptable to call a man an asshole. “Yeah!” she replied. “It has a completely different meaning.”

Um… what?!

So, it’s OK to call a guy an asshole, which has pretty much the same meaning as bitch, but calling a woman the B-word is off-limits?

News flash to the feminazis out there who think its misogyny to call a woman anything negative, regardless of the reasons: sometimes it is accurate to call a woman a bitch. Women often act in ways that make them come across as one. I know I have, and a lot of women I know have. It doesn’t make them or me horrible, bad people. Sometimes you’re having a bad day and your temper is short, and so you’re being a bitch. Sometimes, your head hurts, everything’s going wrong for you that day, you’re tired, and you just snap. Sometimes, it’s a certain time of the month, and you’re apt to be more emotional and hormonal, which leads to… well… bitchiness.

The thing is, when someone is getting a shitty attitude with you, it isn’t always a bad idea to call them on it. My female friends and I will. I’ll tell you right now that if I were to be a bitch to one of my close friends, she’d probably stop me short right there and say, “Cassy, you’re being a bitch right now, and you need to cut it out. Like, NOW.” Hearing that usually makes you take a step back, because you usually don’t realize how it is that you’re coming across. If a woman is indeed acting like a bitch, calling her on it is not necessarily a bad thing.

Now, this doesn’t mean that people should run around calling women bitches all the time, because that is demeaning and wrong. No one should be putting women down or insulting them as a means of intimidation or harassment. I’m simply saying that it isn’t exactly rocket science to understand that yes, sometimes women can be bitchy. WOW.

And as for Hillary, hell yeah, she comes across like a bitch! Is she actually one? I can’t really say, I don’t know the woman personally. But her personality, her mannerisms, the things she says and does, the way she treats people — these all certainly make her look like one. We should certainly aim to be above that kind of name-calling though. And dislike her politics or not, Hillary is a United States Senator, so I’m going to give her some degree of respect, simply because of the office she’s occupying. It’s just the right thing to do, in my opinion. I didn’t run around making personal insults against Bill Clinton when he was President. Let’s be adults here, hmm?

Anyways, back to whether or not it’s OK to call a woman a bitch.

If someone was calling me a bitch, I wouldn’t get all offended and huffy, and fight against the “sexism” of that statement. I’d try to find out what I’d been doing to make me come across that way, because it’s usually not my — or anyone’s — intention.

Of course, accepting that a woman can — gasp!! — be wrong, bitchy, not good at something, less intelligent, less athletic, etc. is not exactly feminism’s strong suit, unless of course, that woman is a conservative. Then you can insult her until the sun falls out of the sky.

UPDATE: Allah at Hot Air chimes in:

I went back and forth with a friend last night about where “bitch” ranks in the hierarchy of slurs, since some would never be used in polite company towards a candidate whereas this one occasionally gets deployed, even on air, towards Hillary. The closest male analog is “prick”: Both mean roughly the same thing and each applies (traditionally) only to one gender, but the threshold for the P-bomb seems higher than it is for the B-list. A “prick” is usually guilty of some sort of bad behavior apart from his aggressiveness, like a boss who screams at you in front of the entire office; a “bitch,” it seems to me, can end up getting tagged through aggressiveness alone, like a boss who screams at you behind closed doors. Given that lower threshold, I can understand women being angry/jittery at seeing one of their own slapped with the label while she tries for the ultimate alpha male job. Even so, Castellanos’s larger point that not every insult aimed at Clinton is aimed at the Eternal Feminine (even when it references other women, as Obama’s Annie Oakley dig did) is well taken. It’s not the crime of Being Aggressive While Female that got her this ugly little label; it happened long before this, like when she sneered at stay-at-home moms for baking cookies or started trying to destroy her political opponents. Dare I say it, that sort of behavior in a man would warrant the ceremonial dropping of the P-bomb. I’d like to think that’s what Castellanos meant, but by defining the term explicitly in terms of her aggressiveness he added rather more nuance than he should have. (Or, rather, rather less.) Bottom line: Don’t use it.

I agree that Castellanos shouldn’t have called her a bitch — let’s be adults here! — but just because you shouldn’t say it on national television to describe a presidential candidate, that doesn’t mean it’s never applicable.

Shocker.

Hillary Clinton won the Kentucky Democratic primary Tuesday, slowing Barack Obama’s seemingly inexorable march toward the presidential nomination.

Exit polls indicate that the New York senator is winning by at least 2-to-1. She is capturing almost every demographic group, doing particularly well among the large group of white, working-class voters in the state.

The win comes one week after Clinton trounced Obama by 41 percent in West Virginia, exposing Obama’s weaknesses among certain voters.

“Tonight we achieved an important victory,” Clinton told an enthusiastic crowd at her victory rally in Louisville, Ky. “It’s not just Kentucky bluegrass that’s music to my ears, it’s the sound of your overwhelming vote of confidence.”

Votes are still being counted in Oregon, which also is holding its primary, and early returns are not expected until later in the night.

Here’s the exit poll. As expected, she’s done especially well with white voters, although she looked to have about the same number of support with men and women. Obama won blacks, while Hillary won whites. 86% of whites who felt that race was important voted for Hillary.

The exit polls point to three reasons: Her support among white voters, her support among rural voters, and Barack Obama’s controversial formal pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Among whites in Kentucky, who made up 9 in 10 voters, Clinton won 71 percent of the vote while Obama only won 22 percent.

Rural voters also voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. Those voters made up 45 percent of the electorate and nearly 80 percent of them went for Clinton. Among suburban voters, who made up 30 percent of the vote, Clinton won by a narrower 18 point margin. Meanwhile Obama carried urban voters by 18 points, but those voters only made up a little more than 10 percent of the electorate.

There is also evidence Obama’s former pastor continues to haunt him. Nearly 55 percent of Democratic voters said Obama shares the most controversial views of Wright and those voters went for Clinton 84 percent to 9 percent over Obama. Among the 44 percent of Kentucky voters who said Obama does not share Wright’s views, 51 percent voted for the Illinois senator while 43 percent went for Clinton.

I’m not sure what kind of analysis to make of this — racism? sexism? — but the meaning behind such attitudes really is irrelevant. The results are still the same. What will this mean if Obama wins the nomination?

It’ll be interesting to see what the results in Oregon are. If she wins there as well, how much will this reinvigorate her chances of winning?

I’ll keep you updated.

UPDATE:
Obama wins Oregon — no surprise there. Here are the exit polls. He won almost every demographic.

What are these conflicting polls telling us? Any ideas? Discuss.

They just endorsed Barack Obama, leaving a lot of Hillary supporters and NARAL supporters furious. They’re already feeling the backlash:

With the clock running down on a long-fought primary, NARAL Pro-Choice America leaders sent state affiliates reeling this week by endorsing Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. It was seen as a gratuitous slap in the face to a longtime ally, and it sparked a fear even closer to home: that the move will alienate donors loyal to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Many on this week’s conference call were stunned on learning the news, making urgent pleas for the group to remain neutral until after the June 3 Democratic primaries.

“It’s created a firestorm,” said NARAL Pro-Choice New York President Kelli Conlin, who was on the conference call. “Everyone was mystified … saying, ‘What is the upside for the organization? And, frankly, [there was] a lot of concern about the donor base. … There was real concern there would be a backlash.”
There was a backlash, and it was swift, starting with NARAL’s own website. At last count, there were more than 3,300 comments in an electronic chat about the endorsement, the overwhelming majority of them negative. “Shame shame shame!” read one, with many correspondents threatening never to support NARAL financially again. “No more donations from me!!!” wrote another.

In Washington, two dozen women members of Congress who support Clinton held a quickly organized press conference to tout her abortion-rights record Wednesday night. Ellen Malcolm, founder of the abortion-rights women’s fundraising group EMILY’s List, sharply rebuked NARAL for its endorsement. Two former members of Congress (and Clinton supporters) — Geraldine Ferraro and Pat Schroeder — jabbed at NARAL for endorsing before the general election. “Looks like some higher ups at NARAL are trying to get jobs in the new administration … nothing else makes sense to us,” they wrote in a joint letter.

Whoopsie.

Now, I’m not going to cry any tears over anyone disassociating themselves with NARAL, regardless of the reason. Hey, I support you wholeheartedly. But I can’t really understand what they thought they’d accomplish by endorsing Obama. It seems like Hillary is the one who has lobbied tirelessly for NARAL, and as she is the one who needs the boost, why didn’t they endorse her? It isn’t like endorsing a candidate who doesn’t get the nomination puts a scarlet letter on you for the rest of the election, or that you won’t have a voice in the administration of whoever wins. I just don’t see what they thought they’d gain from it.

Ed had an idea:

NARAL picked the worst time to make an endorsement. Instead of picking someone early, they chose Obama with just three weeks left to go before the end of the primaries. Did they think they could help him in Puerto Rico, or believe him in danger of losing the nomination? What practical effect would their endorsement have on his ability to collect votes in the handful of contests remaining?

Not much, but obviously that wasn’t their motivation. They wanted to send a message to Hillary to get out of the race now, rather than ride out the short string of primaries left. NARAL wants to show some muscle in the party’s operations, and doesn’t mind throwing Hillary under the bus to do so. Instead, they have enraged their base of women who have seen Hillary as their champion both in this race and on the mission of NARAL itself — and see her opponent as an Obama-come-lately, an ally but certainly not someone who has done the trench work that Hillary has done over a long period of years.

Apparently, sticking by the person who has worked so hard for you for years now isn’t all that important to NARAL.

But hey, who cares what their motives are? This is great for me! Let the chaos continue. Anything that can further Hillary’s chances for winning the nomination is fantastic. Way to go, NARAL!

Hat Tip: Hot Air

They are so noble, so much better than Republicans, that they don’t need to stoop to dirty tricks like race-baiting or smears.

Right?

Um… I guess not. Michelle Malkin has an ad the DCCC ran smearing a Republican, Greg Davis, in the Mississippi congressional race, linking him to the founder of the KKK. Check out the ad:

Only problem? The, uh, DCCC got their facts wrong.

[T]he DCCC says “Greg Davis wanted to honor the founder of the KKK with a statue in Southaven” and also said the statue was of “the first Grand Wizard.” But in reality, the statue was of Jefferson Davis who was not the founder and never in the KKK. In fact, another place that has a statue of Jefferson Davis is the United States Capitol Building. Jefferson Davis is one of the two statues representing Mississippi, along with James Z. George. Furthermore, Senator Thad Cochran uses the desk of Jefferson Davis in the Capitol, one of two “heritage desks” (the other goes to Massachusetts Senior Senator and belonged to Daniel Webster).

ROM further notes that the “founder of the KKK statue” (Nathan Bedford Forrest) was wanted by the Mayor of Horn Lake.

So the DCCC has attacked the wrong mayor for the wrong statue.

Who cares though? There’s a margin of error for this congressional seat to eliminate. Besides, liberals can stoop as low as they want.

I always love when Democrats pull out the KKK card, anyways… considering Robert Byrd’s illustrious history with the Klan and all. How do they really have any room to talk? They don’t seem to mind his direct involvement with the Klan, but they’d lie about Greg Davis, linking him to the KKK, just to win an election?

And they claim that they’re the ones fighting for minorities. Go figure.

In presidential election news, Hillary is expected to win has won West Virginia. Moonbattery points out how democrats, of course, are throwing a hissy fit. Because if you don’t vote for the Obamamessiah, you’re a racist, and don’t you forget it.

The whole piece whines about how white voters are racist for leaning towards Clinton, and how the Obamamessiah is the bigger man for not getting involved in such petty identity politics. Like, um, the kind that this writer is engaging in.

So, tonight the polls will close and Mrs. Clinton will have easily collected 99 percent of the white vote in West Virginia. She will crow about her electability in a smug but meaningless victory speech on a stage featuring dozens of “hard-working Americans, white Americans” standing behind her waving flags.

Bill and Chelsea will grimace through it all, knowing that the jig is up and that the dream of the next phase of the Clinton dynasty has come to an ignoble end.

While no Confederate battle flags will be visible, they will feel it in the air. Mrs. Clinton’s greatest victory will be a triumph of the kind of identity politics that makes a nation smaller.

Still, she will resist the urge to dip Skoal and spit juice into a coffee can on live television.

There will be plenty of time for that kind of nonsense when she campaigns in Kentucky. There, everyone expects her to continue her total dominance of the rural white working-class vote while perfecting the accent she used to sport back in Little Rock.

Funny how this guy can whine about the Clintons’ identity politics in an article like this, that is so completely focused on race and nothing else. And of course, the fact that the majority of black voters support Obama isn’t racist, because voting for him means you’re above race. Or something hypocritical like that.

And anyways, why does someone’s race matter? It’s the color of their skin. It doesn’t affect their brain or how they think. It doesn’t affect their policies or politics. And those are the things that concern me when it comes to who will be running this country.

So the whiny race-baiters out there can rest assured that most Americans who don’t vote for Obama aren’t voting for him because they’re racist… they aren’t voting for him because they can’t stand his politics.

I guess the Dems just can’t grasp the concept of white Americans who aren’t racist.

Try not to giggle and/or snort mockingly as you watch this video. A five-year-old could figure out how to work those coffee machines. You… hit a button. WOW.

Hat Tip: E.M. Zanotti

Ashley Alexandra Dupre, best know as former New York Governor Spitzer’s favorite call girl, is suing Girls Gone Wild. She says she was “too drunk” to give consent… snort.

Ashley Alexandra Dupré claims in the lawsuit that she was only 17 years old at the time the GGW crew took topless video of her. She says that the crew got her drunk before asking her to flash her boobs. Her main arguments are that she was a) too young to consent to being videotaped b) too drunk to give consent.

…

Ashley Alexandra Dupré is suing for $10 million.

I kind of have to wonder how this lawsuit will have any credibility. I mean, if the girl ended up being a prostitute before she was 22, then it isn’t that surprising that she was perfectly comfortable flashing her boobs for some guys at 17. And how will she prove her case anyways? How can she possibly prove that the crew got her drunk unless Girls Gone Wild has it on video? And if I remember correctly, Joe Francis debunked her “too young” theory, too, saying that at 17 it was legal as long as she wasn’t actually performing any sexual acts. In any case, he says he has video of her signing a consent form and giving them ID. And she did, after all, spend an entire week on board the Girls Gone Wild bus.

Francis said in March that Dupre spent a week on a “Girls Gone Wild” bus and made seven full-length tapes after signing release papers. He also said he bought her a bus ticket home to North Carolina.

Francis said he was surprised by the lawsuit.

“It is incomprehensible that Ms. Dupre could claim she did not give her consent to be filmed by Girls Gone Wild, when in fact we have videotape of her giving consent, while showing her identification,” Francis said in a statement.

He said the photos were taken “in front of a room full of people, including two newspapers and multiple crews we had in the room.” Francis also said he would be happy to discuss the $1 million offer with her again.

Seven tapes? A week on the Girls Gone Wild bus? I think she knew what she was doing. For her offer to stick, she would have to claim that they kidnapped her! Otherwise, how could she explain the week-long filming?

Someone should explain to this girl that, believe it or not, you are actually responsible for your own actions.

And finally, guess who she’s supporting for the Presidency? You guessed it: Hillary.

Wonder how Hillary feels having landed Spitzer’s prostitute?

Hat Tip: The Jawa Report

Creepiest. Photo. EVER.