Unbelievable.
As a fairly vocal Hillary detractor, let me be the 4 millionth to say it:
She gave an incredible speech last night.. In fact, I'd say that it was possibly the single best speech of her political career. and I'm not alone in that assessment. The Boston Globe called it "The Speech of her Life" , The Right-Leaning Us News and World Report Even gave a run down of the rave reviews the speech garnered from sources as varied as the Washington, LA, and New York Times
So with all this fulsome praise you'd think even AP "political analyst" right-wing shill Ron Fournier would have to recognize, right?
Nope. he just found a new way to attack her and keep the "divided party" story line alive- He called her a liar:
"She SAID all the right things", Fournier concedes but What if she didn't mean them?:
For one evening, their political world was perfect. Or so it seemed.
Standing before thousands of delegates, almost half of them her backers, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton declared it time "to unite as a single party with a single purpose" and urged her followers to help elect once-bitter rival Barack Obama. "We are on the same team," she said, after allowing the applause to build to a crescendo and linger, longer than usual — much like the Democratic primary race itself.
"Barack Obama is my candidate," she said. "And he must be our president."
But did she mean it? And would it matter?
The genius of this opening paragraph is that it then allows Fournier to focus not on last night's speech but on every attack she's ever made against him during the campaign
She had to both promote her political future and unify her party. Clinton had to somehow convince people that she honestly thought Obama was ready for the presidency. But something stood in her way: Her words.
_Dec. 3, 2007: "So you decide which makes more sense: Entrust our country to someone who is ready on Day One ... or to put America in the hands of someone with little national or international experience, who started running for president the day he arrived in the U.S. Senate."
_March 2008. "I know Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."
_Feb. 23, 2008: "Now, I could stand up here and say, 'Let's just get everybody together. Let's get unified.' The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect."
Now after doing all he could to blunt the imapct of her words he finally gives her some credit for making a very good speech:
By the time she was done, Sen. Clinton had delivered a strong, convincing affirmation of Obama and, just as importantly, a thumping of McCain.
But then immediately tried to take that away by suggesting she had an ulterior motive for her words:
She took the high road Tuesday night because it was also her best road politically; if Obama wins, she still emerges as a central voice in American liberalism, replacing the ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy. And if Obama loses, as Hillary said he would during the campaign, she is blameless and the party can turn back to her without guilt in four years.
See she SAID she was speaking to get Obama elected, according to his "analysis" but really she was just positioning herself for 2012. Does that match with what you saw/heard? How about this, was this the take-away you got from her speech?
In other words, Clinton seemed to say, even if Obama is everything she said during the campaign, he's still a better candidate than McCain. The speech was as much of an attack on McCain as it was an embrace of Obama. "We don't need four more years of the last eight years," she said.
did you come away from the speech feeling that Hillary was saying Obama was the lesser of the two evils? Does ANYTHING in this article by AP's "political analyst with 20 years experience" match, even vaguely what you saw and heard with your own eyes and ears?
Poltical analysis isn't supposed to be a synonym with "making stuff Up". Once again, folks, I think we need to let AP Know how much we appreciate their "insightful unbiased coverage" of Democrats