The Politico report says she 'could' turn her delegates over to Obama, not that it's been agreed she will.  All that's been confirmed is the name in nomination.

Although Clinton had resisted pressure from donors, allies and supporters to accept demands to allow her name placed in nomination,

Well, no, Hillary clearly states that it's her belief that her name should be put in nomination for her delegates, emphasizing that it's far better for it to be planned ahead of time.

she and aides to Obama seemed to realize independently that doing so would be the best way to incorporate and welcome Clinton's supporters into Obama's general election campaign, both symbolically and practically.

So, is this why Dean said repeatedly and publicly that the whole nomination thing was 'all up to Clinton' (nothing to do with the DNC) and Obama said that he didn't think anyone wanted 'catharsis', directly addressing Clinton's statements on the issue?

I'm so sure that The Denver Group's ads and the lobbying from other quarters I can't name had nothing to do with it!  Or the reports leaking out from Denver, Georgia and Pennsylvania that delegates have been pressured to not even talk about Clinton's name in nomination.  I mean really, the Obama camp has been resisting this for weeks.

I was initially v. excited when I saw this post, but now I'm waiting to see it on official Convention schedule with details before I buy it.  The Ambinder piece sounds like a lot of face-saving spin.

CNN has confirmed that Barack Obama's campaign, in another bid to heal the wounds of the bitter primary season, has agreed that Senator Hillary Clinton's name will be placed into nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Which is maddening enough. But they also had to point out that:

If this happens, Clinton will not be the first woman to have her name placed in nomination for president at a major party convention. Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith was placed in nomination at the 1964 Republican convention, and New York Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm was placed in nomination at the 1972 Democratic convention.

But compare this in the Atlantic article

They heard back immediately: the Obama campaign had always been open to having her name placed in nomination alongside his.

to this from the AP

"I'm letting our respective teams work out details," he said. Asked if that meant he wouldn't object to her name being placed in nomination and a vote taken, Obama said: "I didn't say that. I said that they're working it out."

[Emphasis mine]

They tried to intimidate her and her supporters and now that it didn't work, they're shrugging and looking at their nails as if that was what they always wanted to happen.

Senator Obama's campaign encouraged Senator Clinton's name to be placed in nomination as a show of unity and in recognition of the historic race she ran and the fact that she was the first woman to compete in all of our nation's primary contests.

There was no reason not to follow the roll call process, no need to attribute sinister and negative motives to it, no need to protect the people from the democratic process.  With so many instances of voting irregularities in recent presidential elections, and concerted efforts on the part of the Bush administration to suppress the vote, there is something inherently wrong with engineering a convention where the voices of the people, as represented through their delegates, would not be heard.  And it ought to have been obvious that such maneuvers, on top of the Florida/Michigan debacle, do nothing but erode whatever credibility we have with respect to voting rights in general.

That all of that was ignored in an attempt to feed the egos of the nominee and those who anointed him, all for the glory of being nominated by acclamation, is pretty hard to take.  I guess it never occurred to these people that you can't mandate acclamation, either, even if the optics are super-special.

I wonder, though, about the many delegates who have already been replaced, or threatened with being replaced, for not swearing undying loyalty to Obama - I guess what's done is done, but that has to have left a very bad taste in people's mouths.

I would also note that Obama supporters have not exactly cornered the market this election cycle when it comes to "offensive tone".  As a conciliatory gesture here, I'm not going to recite the endless slights and insults directed towards Obama and/or his supporters by Clinton supporters, here and elsewhere.  I'm pretty much over that, water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned.  How about you?

I see no evidence that either Hillary or Bill are so diminished by anything that's happened in this primary season that they are in the position of having to accept crumbs from Obama's and the DNC's table.  Rather, I see that Hillary has come out of the primaries greatly enhanced as a leader of national stature with a Clinton wing of the Dem Party (as BTD termed it).

I disagree with you and don't accept the arguments you rely on.  That doesn't make an agrument a strawman.  It makes it an argument you don't agree with.  Look at the chronology and the money trail.  You cannot deny that she wasn't supposed to win and win huge.  She and her group screwed the pooch.  That's not exactly a term of art, but she was in financial trouble early and came around strategically too late.  

And, I'm allowed to think that the PUMA's and many other HRC supporters are over the top themselves.  I think they're not really considering the opportunity cost of their actions.

I mean, do you REALLY think that an Obama loss is going to "teach the DNC a lesson"?  Or do you think that a poor outcome will be spun HRC's way, and Bill's way?  Be realistic...the DNC is not going to "change"; they're going to objectify the people who (they will claim) were responsible for dissension.  And, they will win the volume war.  The loss will be not be characterized as Obama's, it will be  characterterized as the fault of HRC and her supporters.  You can yell all you want at me for writing that, but I think that I'm right, and I'll bet that others may think so too.  And, you must realize that those resentments die hard, and HRC will be finished as a presidential candidate.  That would be a shame.    

I've written before that I understand that people are quite invested in HRC.  I'm more invested in the party.  That's not an inconsistent, or hysterical view.  It is a pragmatic view, and there's a huge difference.

Pelosi gave money to the campaigns of thirty-eight members of congress, twenty-eight of these endorsed Obama; ten endorsed Clinton. Pelosi contributed to the campaigns of Obama endorsers almost three to one. Pelosi not only gave to a greater number of Obama supporters, she collectively gave them more money.

Pelosi gave $250,000 to the campaigns of superdelegates that endorsed Obama and only $80,000 to the campaigns of superdelegates that endorsed Clinton. Money talks, and Pelosi and her PAC spoke volumes....in shorthand. She may not have publicly endorsed a candidate, but the members of the House of Representatives knew she supported Obama.

Of the thirty-eight Members of Congress Pelosi gave money to, sixteen went against the grain for Obama. This means, their state voted for Hillary, their district voted for Hillary, yet they endorsed Obama. Why? Follow the money.

John Alder NJ $2500 from Pelosi Alder endorses Obama

Jason Altmire PA $10k from Pelosi Altmire endorses Obama

Andre Carson IN $10k from Pelosi Aarson endorses Obama

Joe Connelly IN $10k from Pelosi Donnnelly endorses Obama

Gabrielle Giffords AZ $10k from Pelosi Giffords endorses Obama

Baron Hill IN $10k from Pelosi Hill endorses Obama

Ron Klein FL $10k from Pelosi Klein endorses Obama

Nick Lampson TX $7500 from Pelosi Lampson endorses Obama

Tim Mahoney FL $10k from Pelosi Mahoney endorses Obama

Jerry McNerney CA $10k from Pelosi McNerney endorses Obama

Harry Mitchell AZ $10k from Pelosi Mitchell endorses Obama

Patrick Murphy  PA  $10k from Pelosi Murphy endorses Obama

Joe Sestak PA $10k from Pelosi Sestak endorses Obama

Carol Shea Porter NH $10k from Pelosi Shea Porter endorses Obama

Zachary Space OH $10k from Pelosi Space endorses Obama

Niki Tsongas MA $10k from Pelosi Tsongas endorses Obama

By endorsing Obama, all of these Members of Congress went against the will of their constituents, twice, at the state level and at the district level. Only two members who received money from Pelosi's PAC went against the grain and endorsed Hillary.

Is sixteen against the grain for Hillary and two against the grain for Obama a coincidence?

Pelosi's contributions to the campaigns of state representatives followed a similar pattern. Sixty-three percent of the state representatives to whom Pelosi gave money, endorsed Obama in a state won by Clinton.

Ten thousand dollars, PAC to the FUTURE's typical contribution, doesn't seem like a lot of money but besides getting money from PAC TO THE FUTURE, most of these members got contributions from other PACs.

These contributions were most likely orchestrated by Pelosi and company since the overlap is too startling. Congressman James Clyburn from South Carolina has BRIDGE PAC. BRIDGE PAC gave money to all but two of these same members of congress. Steny Hoyer from Maryland has AMERIPAC. AMERIPAC gave money to almost every single one of these same members of congress. Typical donations from both of these PAC'S were $10,000.

And then there is the NATIONAL LEADERSHIP PAC and the NEW DEMOCRAT COALITION, and of course there is the HOPE FUND owned by Barack Obama. All of these PACs donated an average of $10,000 to most of their campaigns. These young representatives got a lot of pressure to endorse Obama no matter which way their district or state voted. The voices of their constituents were irrelevant.

that it was HRC the one who was resisting having her name on nomination while Obama wanted her name there all along b/c he wanted unity..

This is a blatant LIE!!! Remeber HRC video in San Fransisco July 31, stating herself exactly the opposite?  And Robert Siegel(NPR) said NOTHING.

Someone has to call NPR on this: it is outrageous they have put forward this travesty of report.

1. Florida and Michigan counted/seated fully at convention. Check.
   
2. Assistance with paying down campaign debt. Check. ("Judas" apparently helped out by holding two fundraising events.)
   
3. Prominent speaking roles for all Clintons at convention.  Check.
   
4. Name placed in nomination, permitting supporters to voice their support for her.  Check.

As a former HRC supporter, I've got no problem with her name being placed in nomination.  I have a problem with deluded HRC supporters thinking that the roll call somehow adds more legitimacy to her loss.  

Great...scream, yell, etc.  After that though, acknowledge the reality that she was beaten, and support the nominee.  

I just can't see where striving for equality, as HRC has always done for women, means that she should hold herself out first as a woman, as some commenters have implied, and second as a candidate.  To me, it's a bit counterintuitive.  She ran for President, not for FEMALE President.  

they say it was a mutual agreement, not something Clinton was itching for in the beginng but that she came to understand it was important for her supporters.

LINK

Yes, no one is denying that this was a hard fought campaign that took a lot out of both sides. But this is certainly not the first time a primary battle was hard fought. Even if the campaigns have trouble getting over this fight doesn't mean that We the people have to remain divided. I really wanted Hillary, but I know she will be a strong leader in the Senate and work hard with President Obama to deliver on the agendas they both set forth during this campaign. I think the candidates are making peace, so what of us?

Look at what we have become. Look at the in fighting. Do we not all want healthcare? Do we not all want to protect a woman's right to choose? Do we not all believe the best way to protect America is to unite our allies behind us instead of 8 more years of isolation and saber rattling? Do we not want to end this war? Whether or not Hillary or Obama is the nominee we are still the Democratic Party and we can still unite. I believe Hillary is doing all she can to bridge this divide and I am pleased to see Obama's camp doing the same.

I've written before that HRC was smart and fought hard, but lost it early.  I keep reading about "strawman" arguments, because that analysis doesn't salve the resentment those folks feel.

But, we are all democrats.  We should look to our issues more than we look to the personalities.  HRC has conceded...not as elegantly as I would have hoped, but she has (and for God's sake, I'm entitled to think she could have done it better.  Doesn't make me a sexist or Obamanut or whatever else some of you seem to want to call me...).  So, I think her supporters ought to do what she is doing, try to get her party the Presidency.

Obama can't compel people with as deeply held feelings against HRC as you have for her to help retire her debt.  But he has given her more respect than many HRC supporters impute; it's time to decide what we really want as Democrats, and what results this seemingly endless, and fruitless effort to either get her the VP nod or to engender some kind of convention coup will have.