(ed.note: If you missed it, see the speech here.)

From TPM Reader KW ...

For those who found Hillary's concession speech to be too much about her I would only say it was about those of us who supported her candidacy. Her speech was inspiring and gracious and spoke to the millions of Democrats, Republicans and Indpendents who worked for her campaign and voted for her. If there are those Democrats who still feel it is necessary to denigrate Senator Clinton and her run for the Presidency, I would ask them to think about the change they advocate and the no more politics as usual. The only way to say no to the Washington politics of the past 20 years is to stop hating and start moving forward. Senator Clinton delivered a message of hope and action that deserves praise rather than condemnation. As a woman of what the media pundits have chosen to call "a certain age", I am decidely saddened by her withdrawal, but I also understand that she has lost the contest for the nomination. That loss, however, does not give anyone who supports the candidacy of Senator Obama the right to laugh or express derision about Senator Clinton or her supporters. That loss does not give anyone the right to think any less of her and what she stands for as a Democrat, as a woman, and as a viable candidate for President of the United States. I fear that view will not be one shared by many supporters of Senator Obama. I have been disheartened by the level of incivility expressed by both sides during this race and would hope that the winning side will not now gloat and the losing pout. If there is to truly be change in this country, we do not have room or time for such behavior. A John McCain presidency would certainly be a disaster for the United States and for the rest of the world; we cannot hope to keep him from winning next November by discounting the views and votes of 18 million Americans.

From TPM Reader BC ...

I disagree with David's speculation that those of us who are not Clinton fans would think it was too much about her. I live in NY and voted against her in her last Senate primary and this year's Presidential primary.

I thought it was a fantastic speech. In fact, if her actions in the Senate had matched the rhetoric of that speech, she would be the consensus nominee going away. She dug herself a pretty deep hole with her actions over the past month capped off by her non-concession earlier in the week. Excused the mixed metaphor, but that speech cleared the slate as much as a speech possibly could have. Her support of Obama sounded utterly sincere and whole hearted.

Now, let's see if the actions live up to the words ...

From TPM Reader JS ...

She did so much "just right" and could have won it had she not had the rough treatment from the media. I sensed that you found it difficult to pay her a compliment even now.

As one of those loyal supporters who are feeling let down by the process, let me say that I will likely come around to voting for Obama-absolutely never for McCain.

You like to put it all on her. Obama is the victor, now let's see what he does. The burden is on him as it should be. We knew she would deliver. Listen to her speech and focus on her words about taking it all and going on with grace. She always has and will continue to do so. Yes, I'm one of the women who looks to her for strength and example. She picks herself up and goes on and you all keep delivering the vicious, over the top negatives and there she is back in view with grace.

She did it for us and will continue to be our spokeswoman. She has more than earned it. We know she gets it and has done so much for women and children around the world.

Now let's see if Obama can deliver. He has much to do and undo. Yes, his unfortunate comments "Hillary, you are likeable enough" spoke volumes. He was some work to do.

Thanks for inviting comments.

TPM Reader EM ...

I thought Hillary's speech was a little schizophrenic, maybe like her campaign. It obviously had cobbled together sections, and I thought it was clear that her heart was most in the parts about her and her supporters. This came across in several ways:

1) She continued with that insistent use of the word I rather than a more inclusive our or this when talking about the campaign. There was also that odd, ambiguous little moment near the beginning of the speech when she said something about having wanted to regain the White House.

2) Technically, Obama has a name with a built-in charge. In poetic terms, it's a strong iamb for his first name, strong amphibrach for the last. It's a name that's all but designed for creating a rhetorical point. Hillary made it uneventful and conversational, quiet, a little sing-songy, as if it were all she could do even to say it.

3) She kept that dazzling smile she's shown off in this campaign entirely away from the endorsement parts.

4) While she used some of Obama's campaign language effectively, she didn't come up with anything soaring about what it means to her that there's an African-American nominee for president; she didn't really say that there'd been two mirroring paths to the nomination, both about inclusion and equality of opportunity, and that now those paths need to join as one single road to the White House.

All that said, as a concession speech and a rallying of the troups, I think it was all that the Obama camp could have wanted given how recently the campaign ended, and how deeply invested Hillary was in her desire to be president. I felt it was Hillary at her best, but I feel that best, in spite of all her gifts, lacks a certain empathetic core and magnanimity of spirit, which is probably why she could make the bruising mistakes in her campaign that probably cost her the nomination.

TPM Reader MS ...

For all the talk of whether Clinton's concession speech was sufficient to bring her most ardent supporters into the Obama fold, I think the speech accomplished something else, at least for me, a strong Obama supporter: it softened my opinion of Clinton at a time when I had become absolutely fed up with her escalating nonsense over the last few weeks. While I still don't think an Obama/Clinton ticket is ideal for purely political reasons (there are better possibilities), I now would not be as opposed to such a ticket on a purely visceral, personal level. I couldn't have said that yesterday. If one of Clinton's goals today was to begin repairing the division between herself and those voters who didn't support her, I believe she succeeded.

TPM Reader DG ...

Senator Hillary Clinton made me so very proud to be a woman and a Democrat today. As an Obama supporter, I was very concerned. Turns out I needn't have been concerned. Hillary proved herself to be a classy, loyal, smart woman, and her speech was an example of how great this country can be!!!!

TPM Reader NG ...

Hillary's concession and endorsement speech was near perfect. She drew her audience gently up to the moment when she brought up Obama, endorsed him and offered words that I briefly thought might well have come from him (as you pointed out), and then just as gently led her folks out the open door with her. Masterful.

At the same time, to those who think this was a great indication that she should be VP, I have this thought: Speaking the way she has today I believe she can be much MORE effective a surrogate in the general specifically if she is NOT on the ballot (with an obvious personal stake in the outcome).

There are plenty of places for her to go, plenty of people for her to persuade, and she should not be hampered by being on the ticket.

TPM Reader MM ...

DK asked for a "thought," so here's mine. After her much criticized speech earlier this week, I dug through my record collection to find my vinyl copy of Ted Kennedy's 'concession' speeech from the 1980 Democratic Convention. (Yep--they released one and I bought it 27+ yrs ago). It was, from beginning to end Ted Kennedy's acceptance speech. It contained one sentence, in the final paragraph, acknowledging Carter's nomination. (I congratulate President Carter on his victory). Other than that, he essentially claimed the nomination that the voters had given to Carter months before. Standing at the podium of the Convention itself, Kennedy let the nation know he believed he deserved the nomination.

That speech reminded me all over again of the legitimacy of the charge that Kennedy tore the party apart over his failed ambition.

Compared to that speech, and even in its own right, Hillary's speech was a model of grace and reconciliation. Once the speech is published, it will be easy to nibble away at the sentences where she held on to this or that difference with Sen Obama. But those who expected Hillary to give Obama a pinched and begrudging support need to admit that they were very wrong. Who gives a damn if it took her a couple of extra days to do it?

TPM Reader VM ...

I have to agree with David and Greg that Hillary Clinton's concession was one of the best political speeches ever given.

I'm from Illinois, so I was an early and enthusiastic Obama supporter. Throughout the campaign, I kept trying hard to take the high road, insisting that I would support Hillary if she were the nominee. At times in this highly competitive campaign, it was hard. Very hard.

As I listened to Hillary's speech, the thought that kept running through my mind was how gracious and she was. I'd like to think that if my candidate were in her shoes, he would be equally magnimous. Most importantly, I'd like to think that I would accept the words of my candidate in the spirit intended.

The speech would ring hollow if she did not refer to the historic nature of her candidacy, and to its successes. As an Obama supporter, I'm fine with her taking a victory lap; she deserves it.

I hope that other Obama supporters acknowledge our friends who supported Clinton. Clinton ran a great campaign, and it was historic. Our friends should be congratulated.

And as for the times that I may have been negative towards Clinton during this primary -- well, that's what happens during an extremely competitive campaign. I'm glad that my candidate won, but I'm also glad that Hillary is still around. Had Obama lost, I would certainly expect him to remain visible and active in national politics. For the same reasons, I hope Hillary remains in the spotlight.

We'll have the video of Hillary's concession speech posted shortly. As you're watching, look where she adopted and embraced some of Obama's best lines and themes. That was the most effective rhetorical device in her speech -- and rang truer as an endorsement than merely saying, I support Obama.

Greg Sargent makes a similar observation at TPM Election Central.

Late Update: Here's the video:

The only thing harder than delivering a concession speech must be writing one. But Hillary's speech is striking all the right notes, while still letting her hit her familiar campaign themes in a way that makes the speech sincere and authentic, without seeming to be forced. If you're not a Hillary fan, you'll probably think the speech was too much about her and not enough about Obama. But I didn't get the sense that it was a begrudging endorsement. Judged against other concession speeches, I think she did it just right. Your thoughts?

Hillary will make her concession/endorsement speech momentarily in D.C., setting off what the McCain camp claims will be an aggressive bid to woo her former supporters.

It's our most popular episode of TPMtv since we started the show in April 2007. And I've probably watched it myself maybe 30 times. John McCain gives a speech that's so awful it turns the Fox News commentators into honest men for one evening ...

TPM Reader CG does some Joe-ology ...

Lieberman is in a very delicate political position. His value to Republicans, and his popularity with them, is that he is a Democrat who criticizes Democrats mercilessly. If he were to become a Republican he would quickly become just another RINO (Republican in Name Only) Senator from New England. His policy positions are, except for his intense support of any military action in the middle east, pretty middle of the road for New England and thus are well to the left of the Republican party. He would be just another Jim Jeffords or Lincoln Chaffee - and they both felt very uncomfortable in the Bush era Republican Party. And this is why he has continued to caucus with the Democrats.

But this has meant that Joe has had to walk a tightrope - he criticizes the Democrats enough to keep his popularity up with the Republicans, but doesn't go so far as to have the Democrats dump him from the caucus. He's played the thin 51-49 majority for all it is worth.

His recent actions, however, may indicate that Joe realizes he can't walk this tightrope forever. His popularity in CT is down near Bush territory, and with the Democrats likely to have a larger majority in the Senate come November, his leverage will be gone. My guess is that he realizes this is his last term in the Senate, and his last year with any leverage, so he's placing an all-or-nothing bet on a McCain victory. Joe is angling for either the VP slot or a high position in the McCain cabinet.

A bogus rumor about Michelle Obama that is making the rounds bears a striking resemblance to a fictional episode in a recent political novel.

Disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is hired as an assistant to a special master in a patent case in Texas.

As everybody's seen, Sen. Joe Lieberman's antics have escalated pretty dramatically over the last few weeks and appear set to keep escalating over the course of what promises to be a vicious election season. But what happens after November?

At the moment, because of the Democrats' razor thin margin in the senate, Lieberman has it within his power to turn the senate upside down. If Lieberman switched to the Republican caucus, it wouldn't automatically switch the leadership. The parliamentary ins and outs are complicated. But basically the current organization lasts for the whole Congress unless they decide to reorganize. And since the Dems control the body the Dems would have to agree to do that, which seems unlikely. But Republicans would start pushing for it at every turn. And they'd have the precedent of 2001, which is not an exact parallel but close enough.

In any case, after November.

Five months is a long time in politics. But there's a very strong consensus that Democrats will pick up seats in the senate -- the question is how many. But any pick up would take away almost all of Lieberman's remaining leverage, though he might have some thin remaining leverage on cloture. But whatever. Then, if Obama beats McCain, there's also a Democratic president who's really not favorably inclined toward Joe.

So if you're getting more and more pissed at Lieberman's antics, just a wait a few months.

Jared Bernstein, on today's new employment numbers, including the largest one month jump in unemployment since the mid-80s.

TPM Reader KB may be on to something:

The McCain campaign knows it can't beat Obama in the optics of crowd size and enthusiasm. So they are going to try to use a kind of "silent majority" argument to make the case that Obama is not carrying the day with key voter groups.

To do this they will make contact with supposedly "disillusioned" former "Dems" and "Hillary supporters." They will find ones who can speak well and are comfortable on camera and they will use them to shoot ads, get quoted in the media, get on Luntz-style cable TV focus groups, and most importantly insert them into any town-hall style events that Obama attends (with or without McCain).

They will be organized and made media-ready in a very savvy way that will function like Hamburger-helper to over stretched producers and editors.

The McCain camp will use any "moments" created by these sleepers to reinforce narratives about a "women problem," or a "working class problem," or a "jewish problem," or a "catholic problem," etc.

Remember back in 2000 when a New Hampshire woman named Katherine Prudhomme confronted Al Gore about Kathleen Willey and it generated days of coverage? That's the sort of thing the McCain camp will be looking for in an attempt to push back on the larger sense of an Obama movement. But the media should put them in context.

Statistically speaking, these sleepers will be relatively meaningless. But the temptation to use them (rather than actual polling data) as dramatic pegs in coverage will be huge.

Ruth Rosen, on the post 9/11 editorial restraints that kept even a liberal paper from telling the whole truth about the lies and deception that led to America's most catastrophic foreign policy disaster.

How much longer is former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) going to be John McCain's top economics advisor? He's already brought his ties to the mortgage crisis into McCain's campaign. But this latest development could prove considerably more damaging.

Gramm is Vice Chairman of UBS Securities, the investment banking division of the Swiss uber-bank UBS. And UBS private banking arm is now the target of a major and wide-ranging criminal investigation into the bank's efforts to help "high net worth individuals" evade hundreds of millions of dollars of US taxes. As the Times puts it, "The case could turn into an embarrassment for Marcel Rohner, the chief executive of UBS and the former head of its private bank, as well as for Phil Gramm, the former Republican senator from Texas who is now the vice chairman of UBS Securities, the Swiss bank's investment banking arm."

Political damage always depends heavily on whether the problems play to type. In this case, Gramm -- renowned for his embrace of trickle-down economics and tax cutting for the wealthiest Americans -- I think you could say that finding ways to help wealthy Americans finding illegal tax dodges fits the bill.

The key is just how closely tied into UBS Gramm's work got him. He's Vice Chairman of the investment bank part of UBS. And he also separately lobbied for UBS on the mortgage crisis front, though I think he no longer does. Our impression is that the Vice Chairman gig was not some fancy title just doled out to a political heavyweight -- that he was really pretty deeply involved in the company's affairs, though we're still looking into that. Separately, there's the question of the overlap between the company's two divisions -- private banking and investment banking. We're continuing to look into it. Would appreciate insights from folks in the industry.

Noted Israeli charlatan Benjamin Netanyahu is considering hiring Karl Rove to plan strategy for his bid for a second stint as Prime Minister of Israel.

There's a certain "didn't we know all this already?" quality to the Phase II report. But if you take a half a step back, the Administration's brazen misuse of Iraq intelligence for its own political ends remains a remarkable episode, one which we'll be peeling back the layers on for years to come.

Some people seem to think torture and violations of the Geneva Conventions are a big deal. But not Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). Apparently, it's just the sort of stuff they did at frat parties back when he was in college. Putting panties on guys' heads seems to be a particular favorite with him. We take a look in today's episode of TPMtv ...

High-res version at Veracifier.com.

To demonstrate strong leadership amidst campaign turmoil, John McCain has forced all senior members of his campaign team to adopt his creepily awkward speaking style and Web -3.4 mentality ...

(No foolin': this is a real McCain campaign video.)

After McCain's Tuesday night prebuttal speech trainwreck I was afraid he might keep going with no discernible message and just a lot of imagery and themes stressing age, being part of yesterday and generally being completely out of touch. But boy was I wrong. Here's a screen capture of the front page of McCain's website as of 3:55 PM this afternoon with the four tabs across the top apparently signaling McCain's top four agenda items ...

Late Update: Many of you have noted, as the Hotline Blog shows here, that McCain's new logo appears to be literally ripped off from Obama's logo -- much as his new slogan is. I think this is actually part of McCain's new plan to demonstrate leadership and demonize Obama by appropriating all his campaign iconography and slogans.

It's hard when politicians stonewall reporters. So I need to ask for your help.

But first a little background.

Former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R) is running for senate in Colorado. Schaffer left the House in 2003 and tried to run for Senate in 2004 but lost in the Republican primary. But soon after he left the House he joined the board of directors of an outfit called the National Alternative Fuels Foundation, an outfit run by a guy named Bill Orr and put together with the help of a Colorado political operative named Scott Shires, who's also been Schaffer's political handler in Colorado.

Nothing too out of the ordinary there except that it turned out that the NAFF was actually a scam funded with a $3.6 million congressional earmark. Last week, a federal court in Colorado convicted Orr of 22 counts all tied to basically using bogus science to bilk the US government out of $2 million bucks disbursed under that earmark. Shires had already pled guilty to charges tied to his role in the operation -- he was treasurer -- and is awaiting sentencing next month.

Now, it's bad enough that Schaffer was serving on the board of the NAFF while it was in the process of scamming the federal government. But the fat earmark that funded the whole scheme suggests another question. Was it Schaffer that got the earmark that funded Orr's phony-baloney operation?

It's possible for an earmark like that to get funded without any member of Congress championing them. But it doesn't happen often. In most cases, someone has to push for it. Given Schaffer's close connection to Shires and the fact that he joined the board of directors right after leaving Congress, he's a logical suspect. But there's no direct proof.

So TPMmuckraker reporter Andrew Tilghman put together the list of every member of the Colorado congressional delegation circa 2000 and just started putting in calls. It took a little work. When Tilghman finally tracked down retired Rep. Joel Hefley at his home in Oklahoma, he had to leave a message for a callback with Hefley's wife because Hefley was out in the barn. But of the eight members of the delegation, we managed to put the question to seven of them. And while they each phrased it a bit differently, each said they were either sure they had nothing to do with it or had no recollection of having anything to do with it (it was eight years ago). Except one. Bob Schaffer. The guy will not take our calls. He's not willing to deny a role with the earmark.

So what do we do? The Colorado press won't touch it. But we really want to know if Schaffer was more deeply involved in this than he's letting on. We have no proof he was responsible for the earmark, just circumstantial evidence that suggests his involvement. It's also possible that someone outside of the Colorado delegation made this happen. But I don't think that's likely. And I'm pretty sure someone out there knows what happened. So if you do, we want to hear from you. And if you're not that person, if you can just get Schaffer to answer the question, that would do nice too. We're just looking for the mystery earmarker.