It seems, in watching those three speeches last night (McCain's, Clinton's and Obama's) the American people were given a primer on what it means to have true grace.

McCain, bumbling through his poorly written speech, set against a backdrop emblazoned with his hackneyed, derivative new slogan "A Leader We Can Believe In", showed us what happens when a great man and maverick falls on his own sword. As I listened to him, I couldn't help but pity an old man who has lost his way at the end of his life; could anyone really believe it was the same candidate who even I (a hard-core progressive) considered as viable in 2000? Even his audience seemed flabbergasted by his speech!

Clinton, clearly exhausted, continued the same trope her campaign has followed for months: "I don't believe this is happening, and therefore will not acknowledge it is happening." The populist fire that had infected her rhetoric lately — some of it compelling — had cooled to a sickly ember. And I didn't feel excited; just choked by the thick smoke-screen she seemed insistent on using to obscure the reality of her loss.

Obama stepped forward and spent 5 minutes expounding on his rival's positive qualities to 35,000 of his supporters. More eloquently than Clinton has ever made her case, he praised her and - quite frankly - laid to rest months of rancor for his supporters. If ever you wondered why he was winning, all you had to do was watch that speech last night; it was a lesson in grace. Obama came forward and showed us all how you can elegantly, respectfully and completely set aside your competitor. Just wait until he does it to McCain in November — I'm sure he will be just as kind, and it will be just as final a dismissal.

You're quite right upsidedownpoint, McCain is an irrelevant old man and Obama will win this thing in a walk. Obama could afford to be gracious to Hillary; it was after all a funeral eulogy where form requires praise and gives latitude.

He has slain the Dragon-Lady and his next task is to stomp on the corpse (after it cools a bit). He needs to demonstrate his presumed leadership by taking control of the Democratic Party and letting everyone know that "Now is the time for all good men to kiss his skinny black ass". That He is the nominee and the next President. That in intra-party politics, he is Stalin, and she is Trotsky. That there is NO second prize in this game. That there are not 18 million Hillary supporters because there is no Hillary. That she will not go to Denver and give a speech where, in a fit of largesse she bestows the nomination and her blessing on "this nice young colored boy". That she should keep her day job as receptionist for her room-mate's cottage industry of influence-peddling. That he does not need or want her help (2016 - wink wink nudge nudge). That the menu is change!

Too bad he can't deliver.

"McCain is an irrelevant old man and Obama will win this thing in a walk."

If only that were true. I thought there was no way Bush would be a second-termer, given his constant deer-in-the-headlights look, the "Mission Accomplished" BS, his low approval ratings, and his administration's tendency to hold themselves above the law. And then suddenly a thing called gay marriage happened in Massachusetts and people freaked out, thinking that a Dem president was a mandate for sodomy. I wouldn't be surprised if a significant amount of people think that suddenly there's going to be an influx of malt liquor, gangbanging, and people with funny names if they vote for Obama. Saddened, but not surprised. People will consistently vote against their best interests to favor someone whom they think is a "true American." McCain's a veteran, he's white, no one has questioned his Christianity. For too many people, that's enough.

There is some truth in what you say, aristonice. but not enough. Or not enough votes, I should say. Sure, McCain will get the white supremacist vote, the navy fighter-pilot vote, etc. The important issues in national elections are marketing fundamentals: Hair line, skin conditon, age, clothes, associated persons, and other weighty matters.

George Bush with a comb-over would still be in Texas. Obama at 285 lbs would be an unknown.

On style points, Obama is a sure thing. And I say that fashion is far more important than any other "issue". I have often heard it said that the elder Bush lost in '92 because of a tax hike. Not so. He was an old fogey from WWII and their day had simply past. Dole in '96? Never a hope, for the same reason. A day after the election no one could have told you what the "issues" were. Kerry and Bush were more evenly matched (though Kerry's over-rich and over-age wife was a severe handicap). Kerry simply bungled the job. He never asked the killing question: "Why did the commander-in-chief duck for cover on Sept 11, and then have other people lie about it?" Maybe because he was in hiding with all the other leaders? Where was Hillary? Inquiring minds want to know.