Hillary's Name to Be Placed In Nomination

Bump and Update: Joint Statement from Obama and Clinton Campaigns:
Statement from the Obama and Clinton Press Offices August 14, 2008

Since June, Senators Obama and Clinton have been working together to ensure a Democratic victory this November. They are both committed to winning back the White House and to to ensuring that the voices of all 35 million people who participated in this historic primary election are respected and heard in Denver. To honor and celebrate these voices and votes, both Senator Obama's and Senator Clinton's names will be placed in nomination.

“I am convinced that honoring Senator Clinton's historic campaign in this way will help us celebrate this defining moment in our history and bring the party together in a strong united fashion,” said Senator Barack Obama.

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.

“With every voice heard and the Party strongly united, we will elect Senator Obama President of the United States and put our nation on the path to peace and prosperity once again,” said Senator Hillary Clinton.

Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are looking forward to a convention unified behind Barack Obama as the Party’s nominee and to victory this fall for America

Earlier: Hillary's Name to Be Placed In Nomination

Update: the AP confirms.

Marc Ambinder reports a deal is close between the Obama and Hillary Clinton camps. The most likely scenario is that Hillary's name will be placed in nomination. She will then release and turn over her delegate votes to Obama.

Politico confirms:

A Clinton aide confirms Marc Ambinder's report that Hillary's name will be placed into nomination at the convention, giving her a larger procedural and symbolic role during the event, and offering a look backward at her near-miss primary.

Despite the occasional tensions both at the tops of the campaigns and among their supporters, the actual convention planning appears to be coming off without major controversies.

< "Europe And The U.S. Must Make Clear . . ." | Veep Stakes: Latest Tea Leaves >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Not clear from this report (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:50:20 AM EST
    whether her delegates will get to vote for her, and whether she'll get a nomination speech (wouldn't it be great if Bill or Chelsea got to do that)

    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.

    Of course, I expect that is exactly what she'll do -- turn over her delegates, but it's the opportunity for her delegates to vote for her and yell and shout (the whole catharsis thing) that this was all about.  So I'll be interested in the actual details.

    AS with Politico (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:53:16 AM EST
    Time says the Obama camps 'expects' that to happen but there seems to be no formal agreement.

    I am waiting to hear if she will be given the full treatment, nominations speeches and all.

    I wonder what would happen if he loses, I know it's unlikely, but I wonder. I heard that after changes over the last few months there are only roughly 59 delegates seperating them.


    What would happen if he 'loses?' (3.00 / 2) (#135)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:28:28 PM EST
    Think Watts '65.

    He won't lose.  The Party cannot afford to diss the AA vote...that's what we have wrought in the racebound primary.

    No matter what second thoughts or buyers' remorse any Obama delegates might be having, the Democrats are stuck with him now.

    And with whomever he chooses for VP.

    This agreement indicates there are some reality-based deciders in the Obama camp.  Maybe they'll wake up in time to name Hillary veep.

    Doubt it though.  Putting her name in nomination is probably as far as they will go.


    Stop with the "blood in the streets" (5.00 / 11) (#148)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:32:28 PM EST
    stuff a la unquote Donna Brazile.

    It is racist and not helpful to your candidate to suggest that any one candidate's supporters would, a la Watts, break the law or misbehave in any way.


    I second that (5.00 / 6) (#182)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:53:35 PM EST
    If running the convention as a democratic event causes riots, so be it. Donna Brazile used her threat to scare the people into falling in line behind her choice of candidate and this country needs to stop responding to everything out of fear for what might happen.

    'Your Candidate' (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:08:31 PM EST
    I agree with you wholeheartedly about knocking off the 'blood in the streets' scenario.

    But I think this writer is not an Obama supporter, if that's what you meant.


    If (5.00 / 6) (#179)
    by tek on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:51:36 PM EST
    the Party really thinks they can't nominate the most qualified person because the losers might riot in the streets, then the Democrats aren't worth crap.  Great way to choose a president, eh?

    If the media would just start telling the truth... (5.00 / 6) (#188)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:56:54 PM EST
    Both candidates are entering the convention without enough pledged delegates to gain the nomination.

    The SuperDelegates don't vote before the convention.

    We don't have a candidate until the SD's cast their votes.

    There is only one reason this convention is completely different than all that came before it, and I don't like that reason. It slaps democracy in the face.


    It is reported that Hillary (3.00 / 2) (#28)
    by JoeA on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:13:34 AM EST
    DIDN'T want, or ask for her name to be placed in nomination during early negotiations as she didn't want to be embarrassed by receiving fewer delegate votes than she had won in the contest (with delegates voting for the presumptive nominee, Obama).  

    The scenario seems to be that there is a roll call vote,  but Hillary is going to expressly release her delegates to vote for Obama.  i.e. They can obviously still choose to vote for her,  however if many/most of them vote for Obama in the roll call vote it can be shown to be the result of her releasing them rather than them abandoning her.

    i.e. Quote from Marc Ambinder's story,

    According to several people who have spoken with her, Clinton originally believed that if her name were included in the roll call on Wednesday, August 27, she would inevitably wind up with fewer delegates than the 1896.5 she earned from the primaries. That would look bad and could demoralize her supporters.

    None of that has been reported as fact. (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:16:54 AM EST
    The Atlantic actually said the Clinton camp initially worried about it but came to change their minds.

    It's clear she wanted her name in nomination.


    Well, I guess we will see if Hillary symbolically (2.00 / 1) (#48)
    by JoeA on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:24:18 AM EST
    releases her delegates.  I've no reason to doubt Ambinder's story as he is generally very reliable,  and he reports receiving the same information from multiple sources who have spoken directly with Hillary Clinton.

    I stopped believing unnamed sources (5.00 / 8) (#53)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:27:02 AM EST
    (esp. from people whose fame is largely online) years ago.

    When Clinton or someone authorized to speak for her says it, I will believe it.


    Demoralize her supporters? (5.00 / 9) (#120)
    by Prabhata on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:19:52 PM EST
    That's a bunch of bull.  That scenario only confirms that Obama went after Hillary's pledged delegates.

    I shudder at the plethora of false (5.00 / 4) (#195)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:59:10 PM EST
    reporting done on what Hillary Clinton thinks, does, wants, said, believes, and will do.

    Those reports cannot be trusted under the dark cloud of deceit this entire primary has existed.


    Screw the symbolism....would Ted (5.00 / 21) (#3)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:52:00 AM EST
    Kennedy, Jerry Brown or Jesse Jackson have stood for that?  NO!!  And now we have Nancy Pelosi chastising Clinton backers.  She is an embarrassment to the dem party and women, in general...she got where she wants to be now a pox on every other woman is how she feels imo...

    link (Second story down...)

    So Nancy Pelosi (5.00 / 23) (#10)
    by Nadai on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:00:18 AM EST
    is not happy with the PUMAs.  Poor little baby.  I don't think the PUMAs are the ones with the 9% favorability rating, Nance.  Y'all up in Congress might want to do something about that, if it's not too much trouble, I mean.

    What? and interrupt the (5.00 / 19) (#36)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:20:01 AM EST
    important work of renaming post offices? Those sternly worded letters don't write themselves you know. This Congress has been almost as much of a farce as the one preceeding it. It's hard to picture a worse Congress then the one who abdicates their responsibility to the American people and the Constitution.

    Cawaltz...remember the joy when dems (5.00 / 9) (#45)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:23:39 AM EST
    took back the majority in congress and we all thought everything would be hunky dory?  Boy, that didn't last long...

    I can't believe (5.00 / 7) (#57)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:29:59 AM EST
    that I spent my Saturdays stumping for this majority. When they aren't whining about not having a "super majority" they're busy srewing over Americans on issues like FISA. Disappointment is the understatement of the century.

    Cawaltz....I believe we have been hood- (5.00 / 7) (#73)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:43:17 AM EST
    winked, bamboozled and hokey doked!!

    and yet there are still those (5.00 / 10) (#89)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:57:50 AM EST
    who somehow believe that Obama will ride to victory on the coattails of the "strong" Democrat Brand.

    I've always believe 2006 was the Change Election and, in light of the astonishing ineptitude of the Democratic Majority in the House and Senate, people are A LOT less likely to vote for a candidate -- especially an inexperienced one -- just because he has a (D) after his name.

    Pelosi and Reid sure know how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, don't they?


    ccpup....well they are just so darn good (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:19:12 PM EST
    at losing.  You know how it is when you are good at something and you strive to do it even better....they are soaring to new heights in the dem party.  Hillary:  Take your 18 million supporters and start your own party!!

    Palomino...from your lips/fingertips to God's (4.20 / 5) (#134)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:28:26 PM EST
    ears.  I sincerely think Hillary is the lifeline America needs NOW....and this is based on her experience and record of getting things accomplished.  I wouldn't like it, but I could live with obama as VP, where he could actually garner some of that experience he so sorely needs.

    But Obama (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by nemo52 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:03:12 PM EST
    has spent a lot of time building the "Obama Brand," which supercedes the Democratic Brand.

    Amen! (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by tek on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:54:46 PM EST
    To use Obama's favorite jargon.  Faith Based Initiative my ....

    LOL (5.00 / 12) (#20)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:10:03 AM EST
    Nancy's always a day late and a dollar short isn't she?  She slammed the lid down on a drilling vote just as Obama was reversing himself on drilling.

    Now she's b*tching about PUMAs just as they're announcing Clinton's name in nomination.  I guess she's off the tpm list these days, huh?

    And if Nancy needs quite a few lessons in 'graciousness' before she can start giving out advice, esp. given the awesome 'graciousness' we saw from the MSM-Netrootz for Obama this campaign season.

    I mean, really, NOW she speaks up?

    Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, HuffPo, Mr. Bitter Knitter (forget his name) attack Clinton with relentless misogyny for months => Deafening Pelosi Silence.  She's not even sure sexism exists.

    Group of longtime Democrates say they won't vote for Obama =>  Oh Noes!  They're Ungracious!  boil them in oil!


    Bitter Knitter was "our" Rahm Emanuel. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:16:21 AM EST
    Thanks! (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:24:00 AM EST
    And for the record, I have no idea how I made that funny font in my previous comment.

    Does this mean (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by Nadai on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:52:33 AM EST
    her delegates can't vote for her?  Because if I were a delegate who'd paid my own way to Denver planning to vote for the first women ever in nomination, only to be told to vote for yet another man, I'd be just a bit peeved about it.

    The NY Times (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:57:09 AM EST
    says there will be a state-by-state vote and after it is tallied the Obama camp expects her to release her delegates to him for a second unnanimous vote.

    Well, that (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Nadai on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:01:25 AM EST
    I can live with.  That's the way it's been done in the past for the male candidates, IIRC.

    Releasing her delegates, etc (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by blogtopus on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:05:00 AM EST
    So what has to happen for Hillary to win?

    Look, I know it's a fairy tale, but let's have some fun imagining that the Rube-Goldberg-esque machinations that have to happen for her to become the candidate MIGHT happen. No harm in that, especially if Obama is going to be the real candidate.

    So, what has to happen?


    Well, it depends on the delegate counts, right? (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:12:37 AM EST
    If they restore MI and FL to full status (which has NOT been done yet), then supposedly Clinton is only 59 votes behind.  I haven't seen the math yet, though, so I'm not sure about that.

    I'm off to see if someone has the calculations...


    as opposed to that fake, (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by cpinva on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:23:55 AM EST
    "brand x" candidate?

    especially if Obama is going to be the real candidate.

    given the underwhelming surge national support sen. obama has enjoyed, since becoming the presumptive democratic nominee, it might behoove the SD's to reconsider their votes, with respect to sen. clinton.

    i know, not likely to happen, as the dems seem to enjoy self-immolation every 4 years.


    Superdelegates (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Emma on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:37:31 AM EST
    It's all about the superdelegates, isn't it?  It seems to me that whoever gets enough delegates on the first ballot wins.  If Obama does that, he wins, and the second ballot is only for a show of unanimity.

    If Clinton gets enough delegates on the first ballot, she wins.

    If neither gets enough, then, well, is that when the fun starts?


    how many of the super delegates (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:04:44 PM EST
    who originally supported Clinton, and switched to Obama in the last two days of the primary, like Maxine Waters, will now vote for Clinton on the first ballot?

    And we ALL need to remember that Donna Brazile promised to vote for Clinton to make everyone shut up about those 4 stolen delegates from Michigan.  She's on record on CNN making that promise.


    I promise you (none / 0) (#107)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:13:28 PM EST
    that Harold Ickes and Hillary herself have quietly been on the phone speaking with and consoling EXTREMELY worried SDs over the last month or so.

    They probably have internal polling that indicates how well she'd do in certain States and with certain groups should she be the Nominee, taking into account that group which may be angry if The One doesn't get it.

    And she's more than likely been quietly urging SDs to vote their guts and their hearts and not give in to pressure from the DNC or Pelosi and Reid (who, basically, have destroyed what was once a very powerful brand).  To vote what they think is right for the Country and the Party.

    In fact, I believe there are many, many SDs who have worked overtime to get back in her good graces as they've seen the walking, talking, mumbling, "um"ing and "uh"ing disaster that is The Obama Campaign.

    How funny would it be if a fully seated FL and MI -- which Obama has now fully supported and encouraged -- is what puts Hillary over the top and into the Nomination?


    that will only work (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:34:26 PM EST
    if they seat MI with the uncommitted votes and take them back away from Obama.

    Fun? (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:06:40 PM EST
    Oh man, that would be fantastic as the presumptive Nominee's team suddenly find themselves flat-footed having to get back SDs who have been unimpressed with Obama's campaign so far.  I doubt "no, trust us, we know what we're doing!" is going to fly in light of the last month or two.

    And Hillary, having laid the groundwork over the last few months, puts her plan into action (having earned both the ears and the trust of those SDs who were temporarily blinded by The One, but now see him as most of America does and have switched back to her) and secures the nomination to the wild screams and applause of the electrified crowd.

    Is it so hard to believe that the SDs MIGHT do what they're intended to do?  I find it impossible that every single one of them is so in love with The Precious that they can't see the gut-wrenching writing on the November wall.  

    And if this Candidate is taken down by a vacuous Celebrity Ad, how in the HECK is he going to handle the 527s while strengthening his already softening support?


    But, don't you remember.... (4.85 / 7) (#165)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:42:12 PM EST
    contrary to all the assumptions that Clinton supporters will make trouble at the convention, it was actually the Obama supporters who promised RIOTS IN THE STREETS of Denver if the super delegates didn't GIVE the nomination to the candidate who had the most pledged delegates, right?

    Ah the Irony (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by blogtopus on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:59:13 PM EST
    The big police crackdown condoned by the DNC will end up being used to hold angry supporters of Teh Greatest Man Evah...

    A group of PUMA delegates could . . . (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by wurman on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    . . . hijack the credentials & rules committes.  In credentials, they could "bust" the other early states (South Carolina, Florida, Michigan, Wyoming, and New Hampshire) & challenge their delegations.

    In rules, they could define the penalties as losing half their delegate votes.  That would leave Sen. Obama short of the total needed to clinch a first ballot nomination.

    Because of the manner in which each state selects & assigns delegates to the 3 permanent committees (bigger states that regularly vote Democratic Party get more slots than red states), it appears as if Sen. Clinton has the majority presence on all of them.  Notice how the Platform Committee really put her planks in force.

    This would create havoc.  The superdelegates would have to do something, but it would be very difficult because they are not a separate group.  All of them are seated with & caucus with their state delegations on the floor.  It would be impossible for the DNC executives to "whip" them as a group, & if they left their state caucuses to go meet somewhere, their influence would drop to zero in the delegation(s).

    Beer & pretzels, chablis & popcorn, scotch & paté, whatever, because it would be a very long night & following day.  Ohhhhhhh how quaint.


    to be honest these days when the (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:05:22 PM EST
    ny times writes something, i assume the opposite.

    Wouldn't it be funny if they refused? (none / 0) (#187)
    by tek on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    correct me if I'm wrong... (5.00 / 10) (#7)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:53:54 AM EST
    but while Clinton can 'release' her delegates, she can't 'turn them over' to Obama.  Each delegate operates independently of the campaign, and the candidate can't control their votes.

    That's the ticket (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by blogtopus on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:07:56 AM EST
    I noticed that too... If there is a second vote, doesn't that mean ALL delegates can vote as they like?

    They are all free to vote as they like (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by JoeA on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:20:15 AM EST
    on the 1st ballot, or any subsequent ballot.

    So We Voted For No Reason At All? (none / 0) (#49)
    by flashman on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:24:36 AM EST
    I'm not sure about that... (none / 0) (#59)
    by sj on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:34:24 AM EST
    ... for the first ballot.

    Four years ago I looked into running for delegate in CO and (okay, I'm counting on memory here...) I believe that part of the paperwork included a signed commitment to vote as pledged.  I thought that's what "pledged" meant.

    But that was four years ago, and I was Dean* supporter who wasn't committed to voting for Kerry.  Not to mention the fact that I had zero chance of actually getting elected to the delegation :)

    * This has really been a betrayal by Dean.  He completely forgot his whole "you have the power" thing when it went opposite to what he wanted.  Feet of clay.  It'll get you every time.


    I think that the DNC rules don't bind (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:38:14 AM EST
    pledged delegates on any ballot, but individual state parties do have varying requirements.  So your state might require a binding pledge while others do not.

    'Binding' pledges (none / 0) (#161)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:40:13 PM EST
    mean nothing unless there's a penalty for ignoring them.

    What's the penalty?

    There is none.

    Delegates, regular and super, are free to vote however they want in reality.  The pressures come within the staate delegations to 'hold their votes' as pledged.  Jobseekers stay in line.


    Future relations within the state party (5.00 / 6) (#221)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:11:39 PM EST
    First, some people actually consider signing a pledge to be binding, whether there's a penalty or not.  Yes, there are actually some Democrats left who retain a sense of personal honor, although you might not know it this year.

    Second, it's all about who has the real power in any state party organization, for people who want to retain or maximize their own power.  Just because there's no legal penalty doesn't mean there are no penalties.  If the head of the party says 'vote this way' and you don't, you may end up with the very short stick on money, volunteers and support the next time your own election rolls around, or without a chance at some juicy appointment.

    These are standard staples of any party, and certainly the bread that machine politicians live by.  Not to mention, simple social approval or disapproval motivates a lot of people; Obama has built an entire 'movement' on it.


    That's What I've Heard (none / 0) (#43)
    by flashman on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:22:28 AM EST
    On the other hand, what's the point in a second vote?  Once all the delegates and SD's vote on the first ballot, and the votes are tallied, Obama should have a majority, right?  So, what's all this "turning over" of delegates about anyway?

    that is correct THIS YEAR (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:07:32 PM EST
    but, there have been times in the past when there are more than two candidates names in nomination and none of them get the required number of votes onh the first round.

    You see, that's why it's called a NOMINATING convention.  the result isn't supposed to be guaranteed before the convention.


    All Just A Little Too Contrived (5.00 / 6) (#180)
    by flashman on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:52:42 PM EST
    and it all goes back to statements that were made that the restrictions of Fl and Mi will be lifted ONLY if they don't change the outcome of the race.  From where I stand, the whole nomination process was tampered with from end to end.  The only statement I wil find acceptable from the DNC is that both Hillary and Obama will have thier names put forth in nomination, WITHOUT the words, "symbolic" "release" "embarasse" or "unity" contained therein.  

    Correct, as I read it. (5.00 / 10) (#22)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:10:53 AM EST
    Really, it seems that "releasing" delegates is not quite apt here.  Most delegates are free to vote as they will after the first ballot, anyway.

    But symbolism matters.  Perhaps most to media, who seem to not be bothering to read the convention rules.  They need the cathartic release of hearing her release her delegates?  Fine.  Let Chris Mathews get that tingle up his leg again by hearing Clinton give up and give 'em over to the guy, officially.

    We know that she and we never will give up on what is most important -- which is all the issues that got us behind her in the first place, all the issues for us for which she continues to battle almost alone (bless Patti Murray), and all the issues that continue to give "the little woman" some of the greatest stature in the formerly Democratic Party.


    Seems more democratic (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    to have everyone follow the same rules. Every candidate or no candidate releases.

    I thought second ballot automatically allowed the delegates to change their vote, otherwise it would just be a repeat of the first ballot.

    I WANT to SD's to vote, and I want their vote to be one record. They need to live with the pride or the consequences of their own judgment.


    You are, of course correct (2.33 / 3) (#41)
    by JoeA on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:21:49 AM EST
    Hillary releasing her delegates is a symbolic gesture,  and a facesaving one in the likely event that she would get fewer delegates voting for her than she had won through the contest anyway.  By releasing the delegates then whatever total she receives would not be "embarrassing".

    Why do you assume (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:25:01 AM EST
    she needs to save face or that she will get less delegates than she won?

    because, (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:08:50 PM EST
    didn't the Obama camp already REPLACE some of Clinton's delegates with some who are loyal to him???

    and it's quite possible (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:15:36 PM EST
    that Clinton has quietly built a coalition of Delegates which makes anything Obama has done basically worthless.

    And with his short, error-ridden history as a Presumptive Nominee, it'd be hard to convince others that he is, in fact, the "right choice" and a "shoo-in".

    Maybe experience WILL win out in the end.


    I believe you are correct. (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by kimsaw on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:16:45 PM EST
    That (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by tek on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:00:08 PM EST
    was my first thought.  Maybe he's replaced all her delegates so he ready to agree to put her name in nomination.  Well, one way or another, you can bet the Party's going to be sure to get The One on the ballot so Kerry, Dasche and Durbin can rule the country.

    Huh? (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:23:18 PM EST
    If Hillary won 900 delegates in the contests (I have no clue what the real number is), and she only gets 800 votes, that's somehow supposed to be embarrassing?  What a bizarre theory.

    Be nice, Steve (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Nadai on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:27:03 PM EST
    You go with the theories you have, not the theories you want.

    Ok, sorry to double post, but much of (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:00:40 AM EST
    Ambinder's report directly contradicts the Clinton video where she speaks about the name in nomination video that I'm not sure the rest of what he says is trustworthy:

    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.

    Not that that's a bad thing per se (facesaving), if that's what it is, but it could also be just a bunch of typical msm-netrootz rumormongering.

    Assuming they treat her (5.00 / 23) (#23)
    by Nadai on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:11:28 AM EST
    the same as all the previous losing candidates - which is still an assumption - all I can think is that these guys really are complete idiots in dealing with other people.

    The very first time the issue of Clinton's name on the ballot was raised, Howard Dean and Obama both could have said, "Of course she'd going to be on it, that's how we do things in the Democratic Party," and the whole controversy, with all its attendant ill-will and fury, would have been over.  But no.  They drag this out until Clinton's supporters are ready to skin them alive, and then, at the last possible minute, they grudgingly say, "OK, fine, have your little nomination thing, see if I care."

    Pack of fools, the lot of them.


    they were likely AFRAID (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:10:47 PM EST
    if they had agreed upfront, that the Clinton supporters would have found a way with all that time to steal the nomination back from Obama.   LOL

    Absolutely (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by tek on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:01:51 PM EST
    right.  It's really hard to vote for these people when they've been so inept and don't even have a nominee yet.  

    errr, Ambinder's story and the recent (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by JoeA on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:19:31 AM EST
    Clinton video are completely uncontradictory, in fact Ambinder quotes Hillary from the same video.

    He says she "had resisted" these calls, and had "originally believed" she would wind up with fewer delegates.  Ambinder goes on to quote her from the same fundraiser that you mention, explicitly quoting her "that people want to feel like, O.K., it's a catharsis, we're here, we did it, and then everybody get behind Senator Obama. That is what most people believe is the best way to go."

    Marc Ambinder's reporting is completely consistent with Hillary's original opinion being changed over time from discussions with her supporters and fundraisers.  In fact that's what he reports explicitly,  and she implies in the video at the fundraiser.


    Marc Ambinder, if you (5.00 / 6) (#65)
    by dk on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:37:36 AM EST
    read him often, seems to have a lot of source material fed to him from highly placed sources in the Obama campaign, and usually just repeats what they tell him, with little analysis or skepticism.  I've never had the impression, and he really has never given the impression, that he has any good sources in the Clinton camp.

    He's a good location to find the latest Obama propaganda coming from inside their operation, but otherwise he's not good for much.  He's just repeating the Kabuki dance, but he's not a source for what is really happening.


    Well, it's a good thing (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:02:52 AM EST
    that the Democrats have decided to be the party of counting votes instead of squelching them.  

    'Bout time.

    No kidding (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:04:44 AM EST
    How sad is it that this was ever in doubt?

    Could the Democratic Convention... (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by mogal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:07:05 AM EST
     actually be DEMOCRATIC???

    so this not good enough for you?? (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by LatinoDC on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:08:36 AM EST
    It isn't a done deal YET. (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:22:08 AM EST
    Until I actually hear the roll call ......no it isn't good enough. Then again, I'm into more than just pretty words and want more than that to be placated.

    by mogal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:35:47 AM EST
    Delegate selection rules (none / 0) (#119)
    by DaveOinSF on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:19:33 PM EST
    are not democratic to begin with.

    That said, if a single pledged delegate (including the Edwards delegates) votes against the candidate to whom they were originally pledged, this thing will be a farce anyway.


    Will be a farce? (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by Emma on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:28:57 PM EST
    That train left the station at the end of May.

    God CNN is in the tank for Obama (5.00 / 8) (#21)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:10:26 AM EST
    Not only did they say this:

    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.

    They just can't let her have her moment, can they? And yet they expect me to get over it and get onboard the Obama train. it must have killed them to admit that The source adds that the Obama campaign "always knew it would probably have to happen."

    Wait until Jack Cafferty (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:14:09 AM EST
    finds out that Clinton's name will be placed in nomination!  He will have a stroke.

    Oh (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Nadai on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:24:41 AM EST
    I so hope that doesn't happen.

    Reminder to self (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:27:24 AM EST
    Do not watch TV pundits. It's bad enough to have a candidate that projects self absorption, listening to the blowhards pontificate about Clinton getting her vote(like every other candidate before her) will be torture.

    CNN et al (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:29:55 AM EST
    are Obama's worst enemies.  Really.

    Oh, I'm okay with that (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:43:42 AM EST
    because it's nice to see media doing historical research at last -- as maybe they and the public may realize that a woman running for president is hardly a new concept.  

    I would bet Clinton is okay with it, too, as she sure knows her women's history.  And I would bet that we may hear echoes of Chase Smith's marvelous acceptance speech, when she hailed the woman suffragists for making it all possible -- then and since.

    And there was quite a demonstration for Chase Smith then, and I hope we get to see one again.  The men were nonplussed by what they saw, they said. :-)


    the people at CNN (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:16:23 PM EST
    must be totally psychotic.  When they were discussing this issue two weeks ago in order to make the Clinton "demands" sound unreasonable, they made the claim that this would be the FIRST time any losing candidate's name was placed into nomination when they had already (so soon) endorsed and started campaigning for the presumptive nominee.

    Couldn't that also be interpreted to mean that Clinton is the FIRST candidate to EVER endorse and campaign for the other prior to the convention and be a way to describe her actions in a noble manner?

    Does there ALWAYS have to be some way to blame or diminish Clinton for the same actions everyone else has received in the past?


    As if it weren't part of the established rules (5.00 / 11) (#24)
    by sj on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:12:20 AM EST
    Please.  How gracious to comply with precedent and rules.

    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.

    But really, I guess I don't care about their spin.  I just want the Democratic leadership to do what's right.  It's what I've always wanted.  They can't undo what's done, but they can keep  from making worse.  If people like Nancy Pelosi can keep her mouth shut.

    Sigh (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:34:45 AM EST
    I almost believe the Democratic party is afraid of winning. There is no other excuse for what I see occuring in what should have been a slam dunk cycle. Personally, after watching this cycle I wouldn't put Dean and his cabal in charge of arranging my kid's birthday party, let alone expect him to engineer a win for the party. He's another disappointment, second only to Rep Pelosi and Senator Reid.

    Amazing. (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by tek on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    At one point, I actually decided we do just have one big party and the Democrats came up with Obama to make sure the Republicans win and the gravy train won't end.  Not sure yet that isn't the deal.

    I'm happy about this (5.00 / 8) (#61)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:35:31 AM EST
    if the details being reported are true.

    But it doesn't erase the fact that they tried to get away with not having her name in nomination.

    Actually, none of the MSM had any credibility with me.  Since February I checked the polls every day and then surveyed the various headlines of major outlets.  The picture painted was entirely contradictory; from polling (RCP) it was clear that the votes were at best split; from the media you wouldn't have known Clinton was even running except for when she was trying to spoil Obama's Grand Fantasy Tour.

    And before that, let's please not forget that the MSM was whoopingly for GWB's disastrous war; they only turned against him once the public began to reject the war and his presidency in massive numbers.


    ok, stop the cheering for a minute and (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:15:58 PM EST
    think. these are still the same folks who dissed clinton and made sure she didn't get the nomination. do we really think they'd propose this if they didn't believe it was just show. of course not! obama is not doing well, so let's run a little show for all those bitter clinton supportrs and then get their vote. wink/nod! i don't care for the show, folks. the damage has already been done. remember all the times we waited hoping the democrats would come through for us and they didn't. do you really believe they'll change now?

    I am happy with this (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:15:53 AM EST
    I always expected it would work out this way, frankly.  There is no downside.  It will be a special moment for my daughter to watch someday.

    yay! (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Little Fish on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:34:08 AM EST
    I'm happy about this, its the right thing to do. Hers was a historic candidacy and should be celebrated.

    Although if anyone can eff things up the dems can.

    If it's a real vote fine not more faux Party (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Salt on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:43:34 AM EST
    antics good for the Dems.

    i think the fix is in for obama (4.00 / 3) (#127)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:24:14 PM EST
    and that hasn't changed. this in my humble opinion is a faux vote. they must have some internal polling that is troubling. they hope to win us over this way sort of the way a husband who beats his wife brings roses and promises never again. how many times do we have to get kicked around before we know this is going to work.

    So there's NOTHING that can be done (4.00 / 3) (#190)
    by LatinoDC on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:57:08 PM EST
    to bring the party together, right? if Obama picks Clinton as VP it's only because he is so arrogant he doesn't want to lose....everything that happens is part of the Obama strategy, he is no real democrat......give me a break

    IMHO (5.00 / 3) (#216)
    by Nadai on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:07:40 PM EST
    the Democratic Party is as unified as it's going to get.  The Clinton voters who would have been happy enough with either candidate have already gone over to Obama.  Some went enthusiastically, some less so.  But it's been over two months since Clinton suspended her campaign.  Everyone's had a chance to look at Obama and decide.

    Love the statement (5.00 / 12) (#78)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:45:39 AM EST
    Of course he had to make it seem as though it was his and his campaign's idea to place her name in nomination. I can just hear it now...

    "No one's done more for Hillary to be nominated than I have."

    I find (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by indy in sc on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:49:48 AM EST
    this part of the joint statement interesting:

    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.

    (Emphasis mine)

    I'm not sure anyone is going to buy that...but o.k., I'm still glad it's happening.

    so now that they have the supers (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:07:10 PM EST
    under control and know that hillary won't win and might even have fewer delegate votes, it's ok. hokey dokey! they assume we are dumb enough to fall for this? the answer is no!

    We keep pushing (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:12:46 PM EST
    They push us, we push back. At the end of the day they may not like us but by darn it they will RESPECT us. First up, a legitimate opportunity for delegates to vote and a roll call to bring accountability. It's a start. It's just sad they had to be pushed to begin with.

    i am sorry to say that i don't think they (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:17:24 PM EST
    respect any of us including hillary. and i don't see them changing their mind. it is sad to admit that, but there it is.

    I've been scrapping (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:36:13 PM EST
    my whole life and I welcome this fight. I do believe that right now we are fighting for the soul of the Democratic party.

    They may agree to this going into thinking we are a bunch of rubes(I would be surprised if they didn't) however the proof will be in the pudding and it isn't like they have been good a kabuki so far so I think attempts to engineer this as political show will fall flat if that is what this is going to amount to.

    I do understand where you are coming from. It's hard to get your hopes up at at legitimate convention vote and then get them dashed to find out is kabuki like the RBC. Here's to crossing our fingers and screaming as loud as we can for a fair and legit process.


    best wishes cawaltz! get those (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:40:22 PM EST
    boxing gloves on and go for it. smile!

    I have to say that I am still (5.00 / 10) (#128)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:24:15 PM EST
    pretty much in disbelief that there was this much negotiation and high-level political diplomacy over something that should never have needed it;  unity is not something that can be decreed, or mandated, and attempting to do so by short-circuiting a long-standing and expected process has left more people less inclined to even want to unify.

    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 haven't made up my mind whether I want to watch the roll call - I just am not sure I can stomach the end result.

    It's not a bunch of favors... (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by mike in dc on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:26:34 PM EST
    ...but it is pretty much the list of stuff that diehard Clinton supporters demanded from the Obama campaign.  And they've gotten almost everything they've demanded.  It's unclear to me, aside from the veep selection, what substantive demands remain unmet.  Since I made no reference to gender, whining or age, I think you're reading more into my post than was there or intended/implied to be there.

    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?

    The primary campaign is over, and the general election campaign is about to start in earnest.  There's no room for party infighting between August 29th(post-convention) and November 4th(election day), in my view.  Before then, and after then, feel free to say and do whatever you want and remain a Democrat in good standing, in my eyes, for what it's worth.      

    I'm not "over" anything (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:40:12 PM EST
    Then again I'm one of those rural, uneducated folks. We're a stubborn lot.

    If the Obama camp thought THAT was a FULL list, they've got another think coming. We haven't even got started on ISSUES. Obama better start thinking some concessions on his health care. We're just getting started if he wants our vote.


    Looky what I found uin the NYT comments (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by goldberry on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:30:18 PM EST
    "As an Obama supporter, I'm letting out a sigh of relief. I mean, now PUMA can finally shut up. Finally...we Democrats can discuss the issues instead of finding new ways to self-implode the party.

    LOLOL!!!  Damn Obama people never could get the hang of that whole strategery thing.  

    LOL, well I'm not a Puma but..... (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:33:18 PM EST
    ...I still find it amusing that suddenly they are acknowledging that PUMA's have had an impact.

    they still want us to just shut up. there is (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:33:42 PM EST
    a message there.

    They obviously (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:09:07 PM EST
    still don't understand us if they think this sole gesture will shut us up. It's just the beginning of a laundry list, not the end.

    Yes, the message is (2.85 / 7) (#174)
    by cardcarryingmember on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:48:30 PM EST
    that you're helping to elect John McCain. Sure, Obama could probably be a stronger candidate, and I didn't really favor him all that strongly over Clinton (I'd have been happy with either HRC or him). But he truly needs support from all of us if he's going to win. Now it's ok if you really dig the idea of McCain as President, so why not just come out and say that you absolutely love the idea of John McCain in the White House? I mean, really, spare me all your rage about HRC. I like to deal with hard realities, and the hard reality is that I really really really really really really don't want a bitter, anti-choice, self-described conservative Republican like John McCain in the White House come Jan. 20th.

    Do you?


    Ok, Here's the deal: (4.76 / 13) (#222)
    by goldberry on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:11:43 PM EST
    1.) There is no choice between Obama and McCain yet.  Oh, the DNC and the Obama camp would like you to think that they have the whole thing sewn up but with less than 100 delegates separating them, they were fools if they thought that riolling over us would be anything but trouble.  
    2.) If Obama has put that image out there, it's because the superdelegates completely fell down on the job.  They were created to keep an inexperienced, charismatic candidate with a cult following from getting this far.  If you want to blame anyone for McCain possibly winning this fall, blame them and Howard Dean.
    3.) I own my vote.  I can give it to Obama or Hillary or a write in or a third party or McCain or no one at all.  That is my right and my power.  If you don't like the prospect of losing to another Republican in November, then it's YOUR responsibility to contact Howard Dean and your delegates to make sure they conduct the primaries and convention in an open fair and transparent manner with no symbolism, tricks or scripts.  
    I will not have the blame for this placed on my shoulders.  I can not vote against my conscience for an inexperienced, unscrupuous man with an undemocratic campaign organization behind him.  
    Now if the prospect of President McCain doesn't appeal to you, I advise you to do something about it instead of whining, "It's all your fault if we lose"  We do not have time for pouting.  

    considering how rude and inconsistent (none / 0) (#183)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:53:55 PM EST
    your post is, i am not going to waste my time with an answer.

    There You Go (5.00 / 5) (#192)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:57:55 PM EST
    Yeah, we Obama supporters (and non Obama supporters, but anti McCain Democrats) are ALL fixated on the diehard efforts of some Hillary Clinton supporters and this comment in the NY Times comments proves it.

    Sorry to disappoint you, but there are more of us out here who are most focused on ending this ugly backwards period of Republican rule. I'm an Obama supporter, but if HRC was the nominee I'd be supporting her. I've supported her name being put in nomination because it's the right thing to do and I've respected her strengths and talents as a candidate.

    There may be Obama supporters out there still focused on the slights/wounds/crimes of the campaign, but thankfully, like most Clinton supporters, they aren't the majority.

    We have a country to reclaim and to me that's what matters now.


    Where is the full-throated (dis)approval (5.00 / 9) (#172)
    by echinopsia on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:47:49 PM EST
    of all this site's Obama supporters who said this was a bad, bad idea? Now that The One has approved it, have you changed your minds? Is it just one more thing Obama's done a 180 on that you now accept because he does?

    I'm dying to hear.

    What's amazing to me (5.00 / 7) (#173)
    by Emma on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:48:20 PM EST
    is that anybody thinks any Clinton needs a "favor" from anybody.  Bill survived 8 years in the White House and did a pretty good job on a number of things without any "favors" from a Dem Congress that scuttled a number of his efforts, not to mention what they allowed the Repubs to do while they stood on the sidelines clucking about morals that none of them have.  Hillary did damn good winning the senatorial seat from NY and then winning the popular vote in the primaries without any "favors" from anybody.  

    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).

    The only question is where and how she will exercise that national stature and leadership.  Will it be as the loyal opposition to either McCain or Obama?   Or is Obama smart and principles driven enough to truly bring her on board not as a "favor" but because he, the Dems, and the country need what she brings to the table?  Or just because history has shown that the Clintons get stronger the more you stomp on them and he can't afford to have Hillary not on board.

    this is a point I have made before (5.00 / 4) (#184)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:54:14 PM EST
    Clinton came out of the primary as a stronger figure than she went into it.

    So, which do you think would be better for Obama?
    Have Clinton on his team as VP where she has to play for the team (after she has voiced her opinion)?  THis is exactly what she explained to people that she did with Bill on NAFTA.  Privately inside the admin while the matter was being decided, she voiced her opposition to it.  Once the decision was made though, she joined in to support the administration's position.


    Have Clinton as the strongest member of the senate working to push his agenda further to the left than he wants it to go?


    Not quite a Hobson's choice? (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by Emma on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:58:31 PM EST
    Better for Obama if she's in the administration.

    Better for us if she's not.  (And, I think, better for her but I'll trust her judgment on that if I ever come to learn what it is.)


    Very glad to see this. (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    No matter what has gone before, or what the motivations. It seems to have ended up where it needs to be.

    Strawman...general hysteria...over the top (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by OldCity on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:37:18 PM EST
    So, I'm not allowed to decide that someone I supported did something poorly?  That I'm not allowed to look at my own experiences with running projects and organizations and decide she did a substandard job?

    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.


    I haven't read all the comments (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:09:18 PM EST
    but I think I can clear one thing up.  Delegates--even pledged delegates--are free to vote for whomever they want on any ballot.  They almost always stick with the person they're pledged too, partly because that's the honorable thing to do, and partly because people who are delegates are usually the hard-core of the hard-core.

    Pelosi has been too busy buying delegates (5.00 / 5) (#227)
    by chopper on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 02:59:06 PM EST
    to look at polls.

    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.

    It seems Obama was just posing as a Washington outsider. But in reality--all the real Washington insiders Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy, Clyburn, Hoyer, and Kerry were on his team all along. Pelosi's Pac might be named PAC to the Future, but it took direct action to purposely undermine the first significant female candidate for the presidency in history. In so doing, she pushed women back decades.

    This is outrageous... (5.00 / 3) (#231)
    by Andy08 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:42:44 PM EST
    I am appalled at Marc Ambinder who was just now on NPR. He was reporting on "All Things Considered". He was on within the first 30 minutes of this afternoon's program and said:


    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.

    NPR said also that HRC as a Superdelegate herself will cast her vote for
    Obama and ask her supporters to do the same.

    If they screw up (4.82 / 17) (#1)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:48:08 AM EST
    and don't bother puitting her name in as they did for every other male before her then I will not vote for any of the Democrats(that includes Boucher). I'm done with lip service. If Democrats stand for democracy then they better well stand for it or they can kiss my support goodbye.

    We will not accept a "symbolic" vote (4.66 / 12) (#91)
    by goldberry on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:01:00 PM EST
    And what's with the notion that Obama magnanimously agreed to it?  We forced him into it.  He had no choice.  
    Now, Howard better tell Obama and his Chicago crew to back off and stop intimidating delegates.  We will know what they're doing.  We always find out.  And if the convention is not fair, transparent and open with no arm-twisting, Obama is going to lose big time in November.  

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:08:11 PM EST
    What goldberry said! I got your back. :)

    There's always arm-twisting. (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:09:44 PM EST
    This is politics.

    Then let both candidates twist (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by goldberry on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:24:01 PM EST
    I'm tired of seeing one candidate beating up on the other while the party leaders holds her down.
    Enough of that!  I call on Howard Dean to come out of his passive agressive mode and lead.  Otherwise, the failure to win the White House in November will fall on HIS head.  

    Here's his shot (none / 0) (#141)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:30:10 PM EST
    to be a true neutral and let democracy prevail. Let the candidates put their cases out and then let the superdelegates fall where they may. If both candidates are strong then there is no need for concern about having this brawl between the philosophies of the two candidates.

    What do you mean (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:46:57 PM EST
    fall where they may?  There is no way that Hillary Clinton could lock up the nomination now and win the White House.  Obama's coalition would be too mad and way too many would refuse to vote for her.  

    Obama is the only one now that can win...and he can do it through respecting Hillary and her supporters.  I think this is a good step.


    Bull (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:59:40 PM EST
    This nomination process wil be decided by the super delegates. Either candidate could feasibly win since superdelegates are not bound and neither candidate reached the threshold to clinch the campaign without superdelegates. The question right now is whether this is kabuki like the RBC or if this will be a genuine convention vote. Time will tell.

    Obama's coalition (5.00 / 6) (#212)
    by echinopsia on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    despite what Obama claimed ("I can get her supporters but she can't get mine") has been quite vocal in saying "If Hillary had won the primary I'd gladly vote for her."

    It's one of the things they say when they are trying (and failing) to get Hillary's supporters to "get over it."

    So it would be very interesting to see how many of them actually mean what they say. I'm betting it's most of them, in fact.

    And if not, well, what's to stop the DNC from saying, as they have been all along "we can win without you"?

    Because I think Hillary could, in fact, win handily without any die-hard Obama supporters who might refuse to vote for her.

    What people fail to understand (even though it's been explained over and over) is that what PUMAs are angry about is the DNC's corrupt behavior in the primary. The Obama supporters don't think there was corruption.


    Where Did I Hear That Threat Before? (none / 0) (#189)
    by flashman on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:57:07 PM EST
    Hmmmmmmm (5.00 / 5) (#204)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:02:49 PM EST
    it appears we have an impase then eh? His supporters won't vote for her and her supporters aren't voting for him. I guess we better have a legit convention to settle this. :)

    So, let's look at the checklist, shall we? (4.40 / 5) (#19)
    by mike in dc on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:08:41 AM EST
    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.

    That leaves just two items, one of which could be acknowledged in passing (sexism on the campaign trail), and the other which is unlikely to happen(HRC as VP pick).

    It seems like the diehard Clinton supporters are actually getting most of what they wanted.  She's probably not going to be on the ticket, but there's definitely an effort here to be conciliatory.

    I also wanted Donna Brazile..... (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:13:12 AM EST
    ...to be renounced and rejected. But I don't want to be under the bus with her. Maybe if we all come out from other she can be sent under the bus in our place to do a very, very long time out. Then I will be happy.

    Please do not put her under the bus (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:39:18 AM EST
    I am under. You do not want a catfight. Can't we just put her in time out or send her to bed without dessert instead? ;P

    I disagree (5.00 / 19) (#34)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:18:24 AM EST
    This is not an effort to be conciliatory; the decisions made are either meaningless or, had they gone the other way, would have been jaw-droppingly stupid.

    "Florida and Michigan seated." The damage on Florida and Michigan was already done. Seating them when it won't make a difference is hardly conciliatory.

    "Assistance with paying down campaign debt."  Standard operating procedure, and in the long-term financial interests of the Obama campaign. No conciliation or concession there.

    "Prominent speaking roles for all Clintons at convention." He's a wildly popular former president and she came in a very close second in the primaries -- do you really think that having them speak at their party's convention is some kind of grand conciliatory gesture?

    "Name placed in nomination, permitting supporters to voice their support for her." Standard operating procedure; no reason to change it so no grand conciliatory gesture there either. She earned the right to have her name placed in nomination; it was not 'given' to her by Senator Obama or the DNC.


    exactly! this is the same group who (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:29:23 PM EST
    gave hillary the heave out the door. don't expect it to be fair. it won't. i have waited too many times for the democrats especially congress to do something right. i am not waiting anymore.

    no. But that's the game I guess (5.00 / 17) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:20:03 AM EST
    On the issue being discussed here, it was a great offense to not do what has always been done.

    Choosing not to be offensive is a step in the right direction but it's not an effort to reach out either.


    Oops, your list is a bit premature (5.00 / 18) (#40)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:21:30 AM EST
    FL and MI haven't been restored yet.  The RBC, somewhat bizarrely, couldn't muster a quorum at their last meeting, so no vote on MI-FL.  All that has happened is that Obama sent a letter.

    Assistance paying down her debt -- ha ha, you're kidding, right?  What did Obama supporters contribute -- less than half a mil?

    Prominent speaking roles -- as of the latest news out of the DNC, it's not clear whether Hillary has a decent role or whether she'll be one of 10/12 speaking on 'Economic Night'.

    Name in nomination -- this was all about her delegates getting to vote for her, ie, a real nomination procedure for the person who got the votes of half the party.  We'll see what this actually means.

    Unfortunately for the DNC, nothing can undo the delegate-stealing and backroom dealmaking of the May 31 RBC meeting -- just as nothing can undo the travesty of the 2000 election that gave us Bush for 8 years.

    Sexism: Picking her as VP -- which many Clinton supporters don't want to see anyway -- does not erase the craven, deafening silence of the DNC and esp. Howard Dean during the primaries.  It's not a zero sum game.


    two ways to look at it (5.00 / 11) (#44)
    by sj on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:23:30 AM EST
    but there's definitely an effort here to be conciliatory.

    Or maybe it's that Senator Clinton is not easily bullied.


    Dean and his cabal (5.00 / 10) (#71)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:42:01 AM EST
    must be getting nervous. His wittle feelings are hurt because we didn't fall into line after he picked the nominee for us. What a bunch of ingrates we are. Hee hee.

    Obama and the party leadership (5.00 / 9) (#52)
    by dk on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:26:46 AM EST
    will not own up to their complicity and furtherance of sexism.  They should, but they won't.

    That is what is still keeping me from voting Democratic at the top of the ticket.  I know and respect that people have their own lines in the sand, but that one will probably be mine.


    acknowledged in passing? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by kredwyn on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:44:30 AM EST

    Like this:
    Oh...btw...there was prolly some sexism out there, but hey...we didn't mean it." ::shrug:: "Now please send me your money." ???


    I've got my third (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:53:06 AM EST
    Barack Obama send my campaign some money letter in a month. I'm holding onto them for now until I hear the VP. If they aggravate me too much I'm going to send them back postage paid with just say no deal magnets.

    3rd? (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by kredwyn on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:13:15 PM EST
    My house mate's been getting 2-3 a week for the past month or so. They've been sent back--empty or with comments.

    Mom and Dad are up from Fla for vacation. Her first statement to me when she saw one of the mailings was "Hillary got railroaded."

    Now that the Edwards news is out, she's even more pissed. And I honestly didn't think that could happen. My parents have voted Dem candidates ever since they cast their first votes for JFK.


    Mike in DC - I think what you said shows that the (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by mogal on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:50:56 AM EST
    Obama campaign is reading the polls.  I was polled three times last week and I let them know how angry I am with the DNC.

    Are you serious? (5.00 / 9) (#130)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:26:34 PM EST
    Giving Bill Clinton a speaking spot is supposed to be a favor... to Bill Clinton?!?  Does he need to be more famous or something?

    Gosh, it was sure nice of John Kerry to do that same favor for Bill in 2004.  And here I thought the point of having Bill speak was to help Kerry get elected, but now you've set me straight.


    Not a favor, true... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by mike in dc on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:27:25 PM EST
    ...but it was one of the things demanded/expected by Clinton supporters.  Non-trivial.

    Every two weeks (5.00 / 13) (#157)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:39:05 PM EST
    Every two weeks I demand that my employer give me a paycheck.  I'm happy that my employer complies with my demands, but I don't give him any kudos for so doing.

    That's what this sounds like to me.  Demanding what you have earned -- well, you shouldn't have to demand it, and the person giving it to you shouldn't get any brownie points for complying.


    The Dem Party is not (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:50:17 PM EST
    contractually or legally obliged to give Bill a speaking slot.  

    But politically they would be stupid not to offend either Clinton by denying them a PT slot that hopefully will be used to further party unity.


    Yeah, it's not always automatic (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:46:10 PM EST
    that a former Dem pres gets a primo speaking slot, or any at all.   See Carter, Jimmy, the 80s and 90s (iirc); also  Johnson, Lyndon, 1972 convo (not that he sought one of course).

    I'm fairly happy with the way the O Team is trying to bring the Clintons back into the tent at this O convention -- and I do not expect Hillary to pull a Ted Kennedy with some unfortunate petulant behavior while the cameras are rolling.  


    the part that is (5.00 / 4) (#191)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:57:20 PM EST
    making people unhappy is that it has taken SO LONG for the Obama camp to do this.  It has always been a "no-brainer".  What took so long?  Are they honestly that paranoid that somehow Clinton had a secret "plan" to steal the nomination back from him?

    I fully understand that there are people in "blog land" that believe the secret plot theory.  But, come on... actual real, thinking adults believe that?


    Hmm (5.00 / 4) (#202)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    Can we stipulate that Bill Clinton is a LITTLE more popular and will give Obama a LITTLE more of an electoral boost than someone like Carter in the 80s or LBJ in 1972?

    You can't be serious?! (5.00 / 6) (#214)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:06:52 PM EST
    O Team is trying to bring the Clintons back into the tent



    Hillbuzz sees another reason for this happening (4.33 / 6) (#6)
    by gabbyone on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:53:45 AM EST
    Crackerjack reporter Ben Smith over at Politico announced this morning that Hillary Clinton's name will be placed into nomination at the Convention in Denver, ending months of games played by the DNC and ObamaSoetoro campaign in which the two conspired to break 100 years of party history and deny the person with the most popular votes a place on the ballot at the nominating Convention. They also dodge a serious legal bullet by placing Clinton into nomination, since $50 million in federal funding is going to the DNC to defray the security costs of the nominating Convention.  Without Clinton being on the ballot, the 4-day event in Denver would, legally, be just a large ObamaSoetoro party -- and there is no federal mandate for such an event to receive $50 million in Homeland Security Funds.

    Come on guys, this is good (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by LatinoDC on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 10:58:34 AM EST
    this is what we wanted, right? there is some risk of weakening Obama, but it should be fine.  I just hope this helps the democratic party come together....

    there is no risk (5.00 / 21) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:12:39 AM EST
    that it weakens Obama.  What weakens Obama is everyone running around worrying about how something might weaken obama.

    It would have helped (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:36:51 AM EST
    if there wasn't such resistance to having that candidate vetted during the cycle instead of relying on his "rock star" status. That's the risk of picking an unknown quantity instead of a vetted one.

    If (3.57 / 7) (#223)
    by tek on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:21:29 PM EST
    Obama people could only understand that all this talk about uniting the party is too after the fact.  If the DNC and the Obama campaign wanted the party to be united, then they all should have behaved in a very different manner during the primaries.  

    You don't walk all over people, especially your own "family members" and then say just get over it and come together for the team.  Obama could have campaigned by promoting his own strengths instead of by focusing on destroying the Clintons, but his campaign manager wasn't smart enough to realize what would be the outcome of that.  Maybe because he isn't really a Democrat?  

    From the Obama camp, this whole campaign has been about scaring people into doing what he wants them to do.  Remember when Obama's people were threatening that if he wasn't the nominee they would riot in the streets?  Now they threaten that if things don't go their way at the convention they'll riot in the streets.  I'm not sure what that means.  They're going to get out and kill white Democrats if the whites don't comply?  That sounds like the kind of people we want running the country doesn't it?  So why should Hillary's people be expected to just go with the flow after the DNC and Obama did outrageously undemocratic, corrupt things to handpick a candidate instead of letting the people choose?  

    That's really the core of the grievance.  This whole thing is actually the difference in thinking between people who are democratic and people who aren't.  Hillary's people object to being disrespected in a large way and worry what the Party insiders are up to.  Obama's people just want things their way, they want to intimidate others to get their own way and then they want to force the people they've trashed to do what they want them to do because it's what they want.  Sounds like the same kind of juvenile tyranny I hated in George W. Bush.


    Anyone ever hear that record... (2.50 / 4) (#67)
    by OldCity on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:38:03 AM EST
    I do not want what I can not have?

    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.  

    The only thing I ask, is that the delegates remember the divisiveness of 1980, and what occurred when Kennedy refused to be gracious.  Regardless of your opinions, and that's what they are, just as mine is, about how the primary was run, how you lose matters.  Truly divisive behavior by HRC supporters at the convention will DESTROY any chance she might have for the nomination in the future, especially if Obama doesn't prevail in the GE.

    If Obama loses the GE (5.00 / 16) (#82)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:50:10 AM EST
    only KO and the netrootz will claim it was Hillary's fault.

    And they've lost a whole lot of credibility this season.

    The rest of the country will realize that that it's the Dems' fault for putting forth yet another weak candidate for president.  Even if that weren't true, their long history of picking losers works against them.

    And believe me, if the promised Gravy Train for SDs doesn't arrive, I expect a great many DNC members to suddenly find they never really supported Obama at all....the number of people who never backed a loser mushrooms after the event -- not just in politics.  I bet if you polled people today you'd find that somehow GWB won 2004 with 20% of the vote, lol.


    I Agree (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:04:01 PM EST
    If Obama loses it will be the fault of him as a candidate and an ineffective campaign that should prevail in this anti Repub year

    But if you think only KO and 'the netrootz' will blame the extended primary season and HRC...well, I'm hoping he wins so we won't find out how many people believe this. There are many more of them out there.


    Stop! (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Emma on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:17:20 PM EST
    But if you think only KO and 'the netrootz' will blame the extended primary season and HRC...well, I'm hoping he wins so we won't find out how many people believe this. There are many more of them out there.

    You are striking terror into my heart!  Oh noes!  Some people don't like Hillary Clinton?  I didn't realise.  


    Terror In Your Heart??? (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:30:39 PM EST
    Why would you imagine that I would think this idea would do that?

    I'm just saying, as someone who does not feel that way about HRC's role or the extended primary season, I talk to a lot of people (and hear them in the media) who hold this belief. A couple of them are even Clinton supporters and Republicans.

    It is not a rare opinion. Also, as I stated, it isn't mine.


    I am duly warned (5.00 / 6) (#156)
    by Emma on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:37:53 PM EST
    that the media doesn't like Hillary Clinton.  And it will be all Clinton's fault if Obama is unable to win in November.  I've never heard that before.  Thanks for the tip.

    when last seen the gravy train was (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:08:55 PM EST
    in for repairs and the conductor wasn't sure when and if it would leave the station. (snark)

    And the divisive behavior (5.00 / 14) (#85)
    by Nadai on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:52:10 AM EST
    of the Obama camp - attempting to deny Clinton what every other (male) candidate has been given - is just so freaking gracious, isn't it?  I'm sure Emily Post is swooning in her grave over just how gracious Obama/Dean/Pelosi/et al. have been.  Once again, IACF.

    Putting Clinton's name in nomination doesn't add legitimacy to her loss, whatever that means.  It adds legitimacy to the eventual Democratic Party nominee.  I have never understood the utter obtuseness of people who don't see that.


    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by pie on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:55:46 AM EST
    It adds legitimacy to the eventual Democratic Party nominee.

    I have to say that it's the first time I've seen the other suggestion about the legitimacy of her loss.


    perhps poorly written (3.00 / 2) (#110)
    by OldCity on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:15:39 PM EST
    But I fail to see the benefit of yelling, "We're number two!"  "We came in second better than anyone ever has!"  "Oh, by the way, we like her lots better than him!"

    You don't think anyone gets that by now?  I really don't care if her name is placed into nomination or not...it would be a nice thing.  But, still and all, that's what her delegates will sound like.  That's what they sound like now.  It's beginning to get a bit ludicrous..."recognize we ran a strong campaign (again) or we won't support you".  I mean, c'mon, the entire campaign the guy talked about how hard fought the race was, as if it wasn't apparent to the whole world, anyway.  

    Just because HRC lost doesn't mean she has the corner on gripes.  I'm sure the Obama folks have just as long a list of complaints.  That's the nature of contests.  But, once you win, you should be a good winner and conversely, she, and her supporters should be good losers.  

    I read a few days ago on this site a post that really encapsulated the arguments I keep reading about HRC and the lack of respect, etc, etc...the person wrote, (paraphrasing)..."it doesn't matter what the results say...HE is not HER and we'll never be satified."  

    Not a great long view.  It you are liberal, if you are a Democrat, more than anything you should want a Democrat as President.  the thought that someone who labels themselves as such would want to expose this country to the governance of John McCain is beyond me.  

    I'm with pie, above...I don't think you folks will ever be satisfied, and you're much happier dragging down the party to satisfy your pique.  Well, what happens afterwards?  Don't delude yourselves into thinking that gratitude will piled upon you for "teaching the party a lesson".  Don't even dream it.  Add up all of your vitriol, multiply it by five, and then re-direct it at yourselves, because that's what's going to happen.  Kennedy, you may recall, was done after Carter's loss in 1980.  


    Oh noes!! (5.00 / 9) (#118)
    by Emma on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:19:31 PM EST
    I'm not a Democrat!  How can I live?  I'm not a liberal!  How can I survive?  Is the only hope to pull the lever for Obama in November?  Only then can I reclaim my treasured status as a liberal Democrat.  Is there no other solution?  Obama.  The only hope for change in my life.

    "It would be a nice thing." (5.00 / 10) (#125)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:23:29 PM EST
    Stop your post there, Old City, and you might have done well.  The rest of your comment continues, like the rest of your comments here, to reveal a lot about you -- and about lessons in illogic and contradiction.

    Yeh, it would be a nice thing for the party to do the right thing by the rules and by all traditions accorded to candidates in pants, not pantsuits.


    You're not right... (3.66 / 3) (#186)
    by OldCity on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:55:17 PM EST
    a roll call is not an automatic thing.  I won't regurgitate TChris's, below.

    It's not terrifically honest of you to assume that my disagreement with your opinion is somehow sexist.

    I supported HRC and voted for her.  I didn't do so because she was a woman, but because she was smart and capable.  

    However, I am allowed to think that her miserable management of her campaign operation (that's right, HER) resulted in her blowing a sure thing.  It's that, more than anything else, that resulted in her loss.  So, is that sexist?  Nope.  Am I denying that there was sexist commentary in the media?  Nope.  but I don't think it was the root cause of her loss.  the argument just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  the media was so sexist she only garnered 18 million votes?  C'mon.  And, the whole rules Committee argument is a joke.  She signed what she signed, he signed what he signed.  Because she strategized poorly, suddenly THAT becomes the reason she lost?  Not that she blew it early?  That her campaign went broke?

    I'm just not buying it.  And that doesn't make me sexist or less of a fan of the Senator's ideas.  It does make me a critic of her management abilities.

    So, maybe allow for the fact that differences of opinion aren't gender based and that some of us consider party more important than personality.  

    My grandfather used to say about revenge...the screwing you do is rarely worth the screwing you get....  


    Applies to more than revenge (5.00 / 3) (#218)
    by sj on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:08:04 PM EST
    ...the screwing you do is rarely worth the screwing you get....
    You may want to listen to your grandfather.

    Oh, and the more you say this:

    I supported HRC and voted for her.  I didn't do so because she was a woman, but because she was smart and capable.

    followed by

    :: [assorted strawmen] :: or :: [general hysteria] :: or :: [over the top criticism] ::

    the less it rings true.  I used to take you at your word.


    can you explain (5.00 / 6) (#138)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:29:13 PM EST
    why every other candidate in the past has had their name put in nomination and it wasn't viewed as the delegates screaming out "we're number two"?

    Why do you only see danger in the process this year?  Was it dangerous for Keryy in 2004?  For Gore in 2000?  Did it hurt Bill Clinton in 1992?

    I think the only danger Obama and his supporters ever saw was the thought that the supers might change their minds and vote for Clinton.


    Ahem................ (5.00 / 6) (#145)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:31:26 PM EST
    But I fail to see the benefit of yelling, "We're number two!"  "We came in second better than anyone ever has!"  "Oh, by the way, we like her lots better than him!"

    You don't think anyone gets that by now?  I really don't care if her name is placed into nomination or not...it would be a nice thing.  But, still and all, that's what her delegates will sound like.

    That's what her delegates may sound like to you, but it might sound quite a bit different to a not insignificant number of people, me included. What I want to know is why is it so unbearable to let this come to pass?


    when the party treats us right, we'll do (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:31:51 PM EST
    right by them. and expecting us to shut up for the so called "greater good" is bull.

    After Carter's Loss in 1980 (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:33:27 PM EST
    America was 'done' as well for about 12 years of Reagan-Bush I.

    You know what? (5.00 / 5) (#159)
    by Nadai on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:39:23 PM EST
    But, once you win, you should be a good winner and conversely, she, and her supporters should be good losers.

    The winners can go first.  Get back to me when they do and I'll think about my end of the deal.

    And Kennedy was done?  He's still in the Senate, isn't he?  Has been since 1962?  Boy, he sure suffered a grievous blow.


    good losers? (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:44:54 PM EST
    You're kidding right? I have no intention of being a loser- good or otherwise. Where I come from when you take a beating you get right back up and back in the tussle. If obama wants to win- he better start practicing a better winner and start paying more attention to why Clinton supporters don't like him and his campaign. He better start paying attention or practice his "good loser" skills.

    Can you clarify this? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by TChris on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:20:00 PM EST
    You keep asserting that "the Obama camp" is "attempting to deny Clinton what every other (male) candidate has been given."  When has a candidate who endorsed the winning primary opponent last had his or her name put into nomination?  For the record:

    Such a move hasn't happened at either party's convention since 1992, when former California Gov. Jerry Brown had his name placed in nomination after losing the race to Bill Clinton in the primaries. ... Overall, between 1972 and 1992, 10 Democratic candidates who lost the nomination in the primaries went on to have their names formally placed in nomination at the convention. Significantly, however, none of them publicly endorsed their opponent months before the convention, as Clinton did in June.

    I support the decision to place Hillary's name in nomination, but I don't accept the argument, repeated frequently in this thread, that "precedent" requires it.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.


    What I'm saying (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Nadai on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:24:25 PM EST
    is that every previous candidate has been given the choice to put his name in nomination without this idiotic rigamarole.  That's the precedent.  Many of them in the past haven't taken the opportunity, but they've all had it.  Endorsing or not is beside the point.

    That's a strange argument (5.00 / 8) (#144)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:31:18 PM EST
    it's like you're saying, if Hillary hadn't endorsed Obama then maybe she'd be entitled to a roll call vote by virtue of precedent... but since she did the right thing and endorsed Obama, now she should be punished for it.

    There is no reason why the magnanimous act of endorsing the winner of the primaries ought to be discouraged by imposing adverse consequences.  If someone who doesn't endorse is entitled to a roll call vote, then of course someone who does endorse should also be so entitled.


    I'm not making an argument at all. (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by TChris on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:40:30 PM EST
    I'm trying to understand the "precedent" argument when the precedent since 1992 has been for candidates who haven't prevailed in the primaries to not have their names placed in nomination.  Nadai clarified the remark, which is all I was asking for.

    could it be that in this (5.00 / 8) (#175)
    by TimNCGuy on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:48:51 PM EST
    case, Clinton SUSPENDED her campaign but did not RELEASE her delegates.  Maybe in years past the losing candidates who ended their campaigns, also RELEASED their delegates.

    And, BTW, did Clinton have any choice BUT to endorse Obama as early as she did?  Wasn't she put through HELL by Obama supportes and the media for waiting almost a whole WEEK before endorsing?  Didn't they give her all kinds of grief for not endorsing him on the stage from her win in SD?


    Very True (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:55:35 AM EST
    To me, her candidacy erased the conventional MSM idea that here was a strong WOMAN candidate.

    HRC was a strong candidate, and a woman.


    Not to mention (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by Nadai on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:21:41 PM EST
    that Jimmy Carter was not a good President and would have lost with or without Ted Kennedy's run at him.  The Democrats might have been better off with Kennedy, in fact; at least it would have signalled to the voters that they had a grip on reality.

    'Jimmy Carter Was Not A Good President' (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:39:20 PM EST
    Yeah, eight years of Reagan turned out infinitely better than another 4 miserable years of Carter.

    Which is why (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Nadai on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:42:37 PM EST
    the Democrats might have been better off with a stronger candidate.  Carter would have lost no matter what.

    Dems likely would have lost (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by brodie on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:59:25 PM EST
    with or w/o Carter, since the economic #s were bad for us and then came the unfortunate Iran Hostage Crisis, which some not w/o good reason believe was manipulated by the Rs (illegally of course) in order to get Ronnie elected.

    The hostages hurt Teddy in that it occurred right about the time he was getting formally into the race, and people then responded by rallying around the President; but it hurt Jimmy in the fall since he'd bungled it in the spring then was seen as feckless in getting them released via negotiations.

    Whatever, there was never any excuse for Ted to act like such a Sore Loser on the stage at the convention.  We'll never know how things might have been different since we did see some considerable lib Dem dropoff for Carter in Nov as prog people either voted Anderson (e.g., Jackie Kennedy and Arthur Schlesinger, among other famous libs) or stayed home.


    Better Than Mine (none / 0) (#203)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:02:42 PM EST
    your answer. Regrettably, I went for the snarky reply.

    You spelled it out well.


    If Kennedy Was the Stronger Candidate (none / 0) (#200)
    by daring grace on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:00:47 PM EST
    then why wasn't he elected to be the nominee?

    actually, it was (none / 0) (#70)
    by OldCity on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:39:51 AM EST
    I do not want what I haven't got...same thing, basically.

    If Obama loses (5.00 / 9) (#79)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:46:45 AM EST
    don't pin it on me and my inability to be gracious. It';s about time the candidate and the party start stepping up to the plate. After the rigging that occurred to give Obama this election, I'll be darned if his loss will be placed on MY shoulders. The only thing that will placatre me will be Clinton on the ticket otherwise I'll be looking into a Nader vote(that way everyone can be accurate when they call me a Naderite after he loses.)

    I'm not sure how 'graciousness' became a part (5.00 / 24) (#93)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:04:10 PM EST
    of the conversation for criteria on which to exercise one's right to vote.

    When in history have men ever been castigated for not voting graciously?

    To paraphrase Obama, elections are not tea-parties.  Voting is an important right and responsibility of all the country's citizens.  This is the future of the country we're talking about, not whether Nancy Pelosi's feelings are bruised by my decision not to support her stern-letter imperiousness.  Although maybe her emphasis on politeness as a voting criteria explains why she's never met a Democratic principle she wouldn't cede to the Republicans on.

    Had early women's suffrage activists worried about graciousness, I still wouldn't have a right to vote.  


    Would that I could give this 100 5's (5.00 / 10) (#116)
    by Cream City on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:18:53 PM EST
    just to let you know how great your point is.

    Yeh, sure, Old City.  Men Behaving Graciously has been such a hallmark of politics in the history of this country.

    Well, actually, Republican men were very gracious about this almost half a century ago, when a woman's name was put into party nomination for the first time in the history of this country.

    Would that Dem men -- Obama, Dean, et al. -- and more than a few Dem women -- Pelosi, Brazile, et al. -- could have acted so "graciously" well before this.  Or maybe just followed the rules and abided by the traditions of the party.  That would have been enough etiquette for me.


    Do you people (5.00 / 8) (#83)
    by pie on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:50:21 AM EST
    know how to do anything else but lecture and threaten?

    Good grief.

    Enough already.


    Obama is doing Clinton a favor (2.20 / 10) (#152)
    by flowergirlovesobama on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:34:07 PM EST
    Senator Clinton ran a vigorous campaign but she failed to win the votes she needed to be the nominee.  I think that by letting her name be placed into the nomination, by her own idea, will give the Clinton backers a chance to be heard.

    Obama is truly trying to unite everyone by giving her this opportunity.  It's time we all got behind both candidates, because Clinton herself has said time and time again that Obama would be better than McCain.

    favor? PLEASE! (5.00 / 5) (#167)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:43:47 PM EST
    favor? PLEASE! (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by hellothere on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:44:11 PM EST
    LETTING??? (5.00 / 7) (#176)
    by michitucky on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:50:07 PM EST
    She EARNED the right......

    This is not a favor (5.00 / 4) (#181)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:53:00 PM EST
    This is how it has been done in every other convention. Not doing it would have been an insult.

    I don't suppose: (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by Nadai on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    Obama is truly trying to unite everyone by giving her this opportunity.

    you have a bridge for sale?  I'm looking for one in Brooklyn.


    Pssst! He also FAILED to win (5.00 / 7) (#205)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:02:52 PM EST
    the votes needed. He was selected, in case you've forgotten, and also given a helping hand from the RBC.

    She did manage to win the popular vote. And Obama?


    This is not an opportunity that is (5.00 / 11) (#211)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    Obama's to give; as long as she requests that her name be placed in nomination, and has the required number of signatures on a supporting petition, her name is rightly placed in nomination.

    As long as people persist in this attitude that, but for the grace and benevolence of Obama, Hillary would not have the honor of picking up the breadcrumbs thrown her way, or the opportunity to show her extreme gratitude for it, there will not be unity in this party.


    Do you really buy this? (5.00 / 6) (#215)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:07:11 PM EST
    If what you say then Obama's unity skills are not as good as advertised because he could have agreed to this a long, long time ago. Unless you believe that it was Hillary herself who kept refusing Obama's generous offer to place her name in nomination and she "ungraciously" took an inordinate amount of time to relent.

    Do you really buy this? (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 01:07:52 PM EST
    If what you say is factual then Obama's unity skills are not as good as advertised because he could have agreed to this a long, long time ago. Unless you believe that it was Hillary herself who kept refusing Obama's generous offer to place her name in nomination and she "ungraciously" took an inordinate amount of time to relent.

    He didn't have a choice (4.69 / 13) (#155)
    by goldberry on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:37:47 PM EST
    He's trying to spin this as a paternalistic gesture to mollify her supporters.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  She most likely had more than enough petition signatures to support a nomination with or without Obama's blessing.  
    Now, he's making it should like it's symbolic.  Sure, right, whatever floats your boat.  The DNC must be majorly pissed and nervous.  
    Take it up to 11, PUMAs!

    per ABC (none / 0) (#39)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:21:05 AM EST
    There will be a role-call vote. They say at some point she will release her delegates and I am betting it will be for a second ballot.

    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.


    They have not confirmed yet who will nominate her or how the announcement will be made today; whether jointly or seperately.

    This is a really good idea (none / 0) (#90)
    by eric on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 11:59:22 AM EST
    and I'm glad they are doing it.  Sure, it is purely symbolic, but it is one damn important thing to be symbolic about.

    This is a good development. (none / 0) (#100)
    by lilburro on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 12:08:34 PM EST
    The more the two camps agree upon publicly, the better.  It's a shame this took so long, but on the other hand perhaps Obama had to cement his role as the nominee in the minds of the nation.  Of course, he could've done that even more easily by choosing her as VP...

    I wonder if Hillary's role in a new administration will be expanded in Obama's speech, especially now that the Edwards family has come across hard times.  I hope so, and I hope there is a lot of focus on her in general.  

    Put the unfounded rumors to rest (none / 0) (#228)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:15:16 PM EST
    Obama and the DNC are not opposed to putting Hillary's name into nomination.

    Be careful what you wish for (none / 0) (#229)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:19:56 PM EST
    I predict the outcome of a floor vote will upset the notion that Hillary has enough support to challenge the nomination.  The motion will fall way short of what her wishful supporters expect.

    I believe I read somewhere today that Hillary herself, as a super delegate, will vote for Obama.

    So can she still win? I'm not clear on this news (none / 0) (#230)
    by Salt on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:26:25 PM EST

    Why not unity? (none / 0) (#232)
    by HonoraryClinton on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:57:20 PM EST
    EVERYWHERE I turn I see reports that Hillary is trying to hijack the convention. The word is that Hillary is divisive and bitter. Of course these are just variations on the words that have been used to smear her since day one. NOTHING Hillary is doing is about dividing the party. She is, in the face of a hard loss, trying to unite both sides of the party. But I can see that doesn't fit some people's narrative, so instead we hear more rumors and more whispers and more enlightenment from Maureen Dowd how the Clintons are scheming.

    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.

    Now I wish I would see my fellow posters doing the same.

    Why not unity? (none / 0) (#233)
    by OldCity on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:33:36 AM EST
    I'm in agreement.  I must admit that I've been utterly flummoxed by the HRC folks who continue to forego any assessment of the opportunity cost of divisive behavior.  

    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.  

    The HRC folks have the right to be as upset as they want that their candidate  wasn't successful.  But they're not prosecuting a winning case.  Except to themselves, they're not viewed as crusaders.  Even HRC acknowledges that.  So, they should cheer and stomp when her name is placed into nomination, and then get behind the nominee so a Democrat can be President.