There is certainly no law requiring a concession speech, especially when an acknowledgment of defeat might damage a candidate's ongoing campaign. I think you can fault the Clintons for a great  deal in South Carolina, but this omission isn't one of them.

Are you kidding?  Hillary took her ball and ran away to Tennessee and, as far as I heard, didn't even acknowledge that S.C. happened.  Of course nobody aired her whole speech because it was long and basically unlistenable, so I can't say for sure.  Her avoidance of the subject was classless, and classic Clinton.

You're going to need to find a better example if you want to suggest the media has applied a double standard here.  Because there's no need to give a concession speech if you can plausibly say you won, which is what Obama was saying after Nevada.  Hillary has no claim whatsoever to victory in South Carolina.

(That said, I agree that concession speeches are kind of a silly formailty.)

I don't  see a double standard here either. The media simply wanted Hillary to comment on the colossal route that she suffered. If Obama had gotten blasted out of the water like this in Nevada or New Hampshire, journalists would have wanted him to discuss the loss as well. In short, Clinton didn't want to participate in an autopsy of her embarrassing loss, and I don't think Obama would have either. They both need all the momentum that they can muster between and now and Super Tuesday.

The people of South Carolina spoke, and they overwhelmingly chose Barack Obama, it was a blowout a "rout" in the words of the Associated Press.

But Hillary Clinton quite obviously doesn't respect that, she refuses to read the writing on the wall, she'd rather try to distract the attention of the press and public by trying to steal delegates from Michigan and Florida.  Hillary sent her husband out to play almost every underhanded political tactic in the book, including race baiting and she still failed, she failed because she's trying to fool people into voting for her, while putting on this fake façade of being a straight talker and a populist.

The Clintons are destroying their own credibility, and they're giving away the election to Barack Obama because they don't believe in the American people, they think the American people have to be fooled into doing what's in our best interest. Sounds a lot like another administration we've all come to know and love, I wonder why Hillary Clinton is taking her cues from the Bush administration.

Not only is she a loser, she's a sore ungracious loser who sees the American people as nothing more than a means to an ends.  She, like many politicians of the last century, has forgotten who they work for.  Hillary Clinton is applying for the job of president and lying on the application.  Then she turns around and blames her potential employer (the American people) for not properly appreciating what she has to offer.  Senator Clinton needs a lesson in humility and honesty, and if she doesn't learn some real quick, she's going to talk herself out of the job.

I don't think it was wrong of her to skip making a concession speech, and she shouldn't be criticized for that in itself, but she missed an opportunity. If she had been gracious and admitted misstepping, etc., it would have been harder for voters to paint her as pat of the status quo.

Obama was very effective in his NH concession speech. It made him still feel somewhat in the game. Hillary had an opportunity to show that the cynical view of her was at least an oversimplification, and she chose not to take it.

Concession speeches are catnip for cable news channels.  Without them they are stuck running talking heads interviews with Pat Buchanan and Bill Bennett.  Long newsworthy concession speeches should be mandatory.

Was Senator Obama's South Carolina victory any more pivotal than Senator Clinton's win in Nevada?  I think maybe so, nevertheless, concession speeches are what?  A show of humility, good sportsmanship?  No big deal in either case.  No one has any sort of commanding lead in the delegate count thus far.  February 5 may very well prove pivotal.  I look forward to John Edwards' role as this thing plays out.

Look, I don't really want a HRC concession speech, in fact by foregoing the opportunity to speak she lost a national 'voice'.  Ok with me.  Basically, she got her ass whopped, and left the state with her tail between her legs, but I give her credit for moving on.  So what?  Just keep moving on Hil, ok with this Obaman...

Bukharin is correct in defining a concession speech as a sign of humility and good sportsman/womanship.  The Clintons lost an opportunity to balance their image of dirty fighters by saying - as the Giants or the Patriots will do soon - 'good game.'

Kids are taught no to be sore losers for a reason.  It's bad manners, and ultimately bad morals.

A concession speech is also the opportunity to give a chance to those who didn't vote for you a second look, to reassess their vote.  By forgoing the concession speech, the Clintons ignored those who didn't vote for them, writing them off.   Again, bad show.

I feel compelled to point out that if Obama had behaved the same way as Hillary did last night, the Hillary people would be full blast this morning calling him amateurish, unstatesmanlike, and clearly not ready to lead this country.  But since Hillary did it, they're on here today asking "what's the point of a concession speech anyway?"  Oh sure.  It depends on your definition of "is" and all that.  Whatever, Hillary people.

If you don't concede, does that mean you didn't lose.  If Al Gore hadn't finally conceded, could he and W have been roommates for eight years?

And, P.S., for the Clintons or the Rodham's to show bad breeding is hardly an anomaly.  

In fact, it is the only issue on which Bill and Hillary have each been consistent throughout their too-long public lives.

George Bush at least brought decent manners and graciousness back to the White House.  Something for which the media (totally lacking in either, so how would they know) has not given him credit for.

"George Bush at least brought decent manners and graciousness back to the White House.  Something for which the media (totally lacking in either, so how would they know) has not given him credit for."

That's funny.  I don't think changing the china does all that, however.

bcbaird, it ain't just about the table settings.  It's about respecting the office and the White House itself as a critical historical repository of American identity.  It's about not renting the Lincoln Bedroom to the highest bidder.  And not taking blow jobs in a closet of the Oval Office.  If I must put too fine a point on it.

By the way, Pat Buchanan's analysis of South Carolina was that the Clinton are following an explicit strategy and pulled it off perfectly.   The strategy, to paint Obama as the "black candidate" and to have him win overwhelmingly with black voters but not with whites.

If that's the case, the Clintons did reap their intent spectacularly.  Except one little thingy.  Mrs. Clinton won big with white women.  But, white men voted for Obama.

On to Super Tuesday.  

Obama's saying that he won in Nevada when he lost by 6% is disingenuous. But Hillary has even been accused of not conceding last night when she in fact did, as fully or more than Obama did after New Hampshire. Both did it with a single line at the beginning of their speeches. Hillary called Obama last night to congratulate him. Wanna bet Obama didn't call Hillary after Nevada? Obama not only doesn't make a concession speech in Nevada--he disappears from sight--no speech--and has his staff float the idea that he "won." No one says a thing. But there must be some way of spinning this now so that he can say he was just defending himself from an unfair claim of victory in Nevada by divisive and demonizing and ageing opponents.

"It's about respecting the office and the White House itself as a critical historical repository of American identity."

You're right.  It's not about deleting thousands upon thousands of e-mails that are legally protected.  It's not about firing competent prosecutors because of their political affiliation.  And it's certainly not about ignoring reality and lying to the American public to force a war, if I must put too fine of a point on it.

You're talking about politics, bcbaird.  I'm talking about comportment.  

Granted, the worst tyrant on the planet could conceiveably have good manners.  Though, I can't recall immediately where that has been the case.

But, ever occupant of the White House will have bitter political opponents who will accuse him of every kind of political crime.  So let it be with George Bush.

All that said, the President of the United States still owes to the American people proper comportment and respect for the office and its historic environs.  That's a separate issue from the political.  And one that al Americans, whatever their political attitudes, ought to be able to agree upon.

A modicum of nobility is not too much to ask from a president.  We will never get it from a Rodham-Clinton.

Mr. Obama, with whom I share not an iota of agreement on political issues or philosophy, doe evidence natural decency and nobility.  I respect and value that.  I despise the Rodhman-Clintons for lacking it.

pccostello, I'd say on the technical point, that Obama won Nevada as surely as G. Bush won the 2000 election.  That is, he lost the popular vote, but he got more delegates.

Delegtes/electors are what count both at the conventions and in the national election.  This isn't ancient Athens.  The popular vote doesn't decide it.  The electoral one does.

Ever four years, an unschooled population of voters has to relearn this basic American civics lesson.

chanrobt--the delegates in nevada won't even be chosen for four months. state democratoic chaoir said she didn't know what obama was talking about. drink less koolaid. read the headlines after nevada to see how everyone but obama's campaign understand a 6 point loss in the vote.

"You're talking about politics, bcbaird.  I'm talking about comportment."

Actually, I'm talking about performance, not politics.  You're talking about style and composure, something I don't really care about outside of actors and royalty.  Talking about comportment when the president is breaking laws and making stupid, stupid decisions (as well as politically poor decisions) is, um, how do I put this lightly... retarded.

In the United States, the president is much more than a figurehead.  They are responsible for managing the executive branch of the government.  You know, the "get things done" branch.

I don't care if the president uses the wrong fork.   I don't care if he screws his mistress doggy-style over an original of the US Constitution while soliciting campaign contributions from orphanages.  I want someone who is competent, makes good, informed decisions, and more importantly, doesn't willfully break countless laws designed to keep the power of the executive branch in check.

I mean, get your priorities straight!

Well, pccostello, I'm sure I drink various flavors of KoolAid, but not Mr. Obama's.

I read the headlines and the body text, and in my papers they wrote that the irony was that Obama took home more delegates than Hillary.

Your information may be better than mine-- it has authentic sounding detail.  But, all I know is what I read in the NYT, LAT, and the WSJ.  And, they never lie.

bcbaird, George Bush will be shown, like certain once-reviled presidents who preceded him, to have gotten the big stuff right.  And that his steadfastness under continuous and withering fire from his lessors was correct.

Truman left office despised.  Lincolnd, came within a whisker of being thrown out of office in 1864-- only just in time battlefield victories saved him.

Bill Clinton was never tested by any great difficulty except the self-created ones.  He inherited an economy that was swinging back as he entered office.  And continued to be propelled forward by an unprecdented technology surge.

That same economy was on its way downward into recession in the last half year Clinton was in office.  Bush then inherited and got blamed for it.  And was then staggered by the 11 September events, which he handled with courage, and yes, comportment.

Bill Clinton was a lucky peacetime president who got the benefit of what two previous Republican presidents had done in both international affairs and with the economy.  He also had the crucial help of Ross Perot in even winning the office.

George Bush has had the great failure of being poor in articulation.  He has also been wrong on illegal immigration, though every Democrat agrees with him on that issue.

And he has spent money on non-defense projects that should not have been spent.

But on the big thing, the overriding issue of his presidency, he faced down Jihad and went after Jihad aggressively.  Something a Clinton never would have done.  And didn't do when he could.

It is you, bcbaird, who is in love with atmospherics.  And, if you believe that behavior doesn't matter in a president, only "effectiveness," then what you really want running the country is a Mafia.

More should be said of Hillary ignoring Florida, per Democratic Party rules, until she got the beat down in SC.

Is there any record of her arguing last year that the voices of Florida's voters should be heard by the DNC?

If the DNC reverses its earlier ruling, will the Michigan and Florida delegates be seated before or after the official nominee is chosen?

Nice comeback, ChanRobt.  If only it had anything to do with what I actually said.  Nice dodge, but sorry, you lose.

I don't care about "atmospherics", except when it involves the actual atmosphere... you know, gases around the planet?  Well, it's there, whether you can see it or not.  No, clouds aren't angels... *sigh*  Idiots.

uh, bcbaird, where is my "dodge"?

You said, "II'm talking about performance, not politics.  You're talking about style and composure..."

I responded by citing how this president was performing correctly in being steadfast on the big, tough issues for which he has absorbed years of attacks.  Attacks people like the Clintons would have backed down in the face of, no matter whether principles or even our national survival were at stake.

You respond by saying I am somehow ducking your issue.  And that "atmospherics," a word I used as a synonym for behavior, discretion, civility, comportment, was somehow brought in from out of nowhere.

Either we're not both speaking the same first language, or it is you who is dodging the debate.

"I responded by citing how this president was performing correctly in being steadfast on the big, tough issues for which he has absorbed years of attacks."

Uh, no.  Actually, you went off on some rant involving Lincoln and Truman, which had both of them spinning in their graves.  Then you said something about Clinton, and then Clinton and the economy... it was straight Rush Limbaugh idiocy so I blocked most of it out.

You say Bush is performing correctly... it's obvious, as far as the important things are concerned, that he is not.  It is not correct for a president to knowingly lie to the public regarding an international threat.  It is not correct for a president to allow gross abuses of power to occur under their watch.  It is certainly NOT CORRECT to be steadfast on "big, tough issues" even after you've been proven wrong time and time again.

"Either we're not both speaking the same first language, or it is you who is dodging the debate."

I don't speak Crazy, so that might be it.

I've been wondering how Nevada can be called a Clinton win when more delegates went to Obama. The popular vote - for better or worse - isn't what counts at the convention. Delegates do. So, I wish the media would set a standard in pronouncing winners based on delegates won during the primaries.

on a side note: ChanRobt, I don't see continuing to read to children after hearing about a disaster, the willingness to market a tragedy (along with the catchy little phrase 9-1-1) so that you can launch a unprovoked war, and using caricaturish phrases like "dead or alive" as having any comportment.

When is the question of whether a candidate believes the US should ever engage in pre-emptive war again, going to become a campaign issue? I would like to know if anyone believes that we have committed any crimes against humanity in our invasion of Iraq?

bcbaird, when you can't follow an argument based on some historical analogs, I guess the last refuge of scoundrels is to call it a "rant".

Bush, like Lincoln and Truman before him, stood fast through a very difficult war (though in historical terms, a low casualty war)-- he stood fast through such a war, even when the public and press turned against him.

Exactly the same experience was Lincoln's and Truman's.  Both have been historically vindicated by respectively a United States intact, and a South Korea prosperous and strong in stark contrast to the North Korea which Truman resisted.

You and the other poster keep repeating this riff of how Bush lied us into the war.  But, there was no lie.  And the Democrats in the SEnate, who had access to the same information, voted for the war and for the invasion.  Including your still leading candidate for president.

Meanwhile, nor was the war unprovoked.  Sadaam Hussein was not sitting there innocently after the First Gulf War.  He borke the terms of the armistice he signed with us repeatedly.  And, on and on, we won't recapitulate it all.

The bottom line, now that were winning in Iraq, none of your beloved Democratic candidates or representatives bring it up much anymore.  Even the beloved Obama.  (Who I will concede readily, appears to be an honorable man.)

P.S.  It is also the refuge of a poor debater with no argument to yell out "Limbaugh" when cornered.  Should I call you a "Frankel"?

Obama is the only candidate in either party who can address the kind of problem this thread demonstrates. Perfectly good, well-educated Americans are being encouraged to talk past each other on matters of vital importance because of partisan language coding that causes us to see each other as morally deficient enemies rather than political opponents. Hillary's lame attempt to label Obama an apostate Reagan-lover because he noted the obvious and crucial starting point for any effective Democrat self-evaluation--that Republicans have had a lot of ideas over the last few decades; moreover, ideas that resonated very effectively with the "demos"  lefties love to depict as witless dupes.

"P.S.  It is also the refuge of a poor debater with no argument to yell out "Limbaugh" when cornered.  Should I call you a "Frankel"?"

No, it's the refuge of a poor debater with no argument to yell "Hitler."  This is the internetz, dood.