home

Nominations And Roll Call

If you are in to that sort of thing, it is on C-Span now. You can comment about it here.

Sooo, was it cathartic for you? Me, I hate the delegate system period. Never cared for the roll call. I want a popular vote contest.

< Obama's Worst Enemies: Clyburn Still Stirring The Pot | Wednesday Late Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Okay (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by litigatormom on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:48:07 PM EST
    Did they have to put the Republican on before the Democrats making nomination and seconding speeches?

    And the Democrats aren't doing so great either.

    Can't wait 'til Bill comes out.

    It does not (none / 0) (#5)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:50:48 PM EST
    like many people are there.

    Parent
    And *now* (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:58:15 PM EST
    It looks like there's been an organized effort to force the delegates to toe the party line.  You'll never convince me 100% of Arkansas' delegates wanted to vote for Obama.

    Parent
    Plus (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:01:50 PM EST
    Alice Germond is making me want to throw up.  Couldn't they have found someone not in on the RBC fix to do this?

    Parent
    Alice Germond plays second fiddle (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Desired User Name on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:14:32 PM EST

    Alice Germond is making me want to throw up.  Couldn't they have found someone not in on the RBC fix to do this?

    No, for see, Donna Brazile was 1st choice but she was too busy in the kitchen with her mama cooking up something for the PUMAS.

    Parent

    Its traditional (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:17:12 PM EST
    that the Party Secretary do the roll call.

    So I don't have a problem with her doing the roll call...I do have a problem with her acting like she wasn't in the forefront of the effort to screw Michigan and Florida voters.

    Parent

    Whereas (5.00 / 5) (#126)
    by BDB on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:20:52 PM EST
    I have a problem with her being the party secretary. ;-)

    Parent
    I thought she was the former Secretary? n/t (none / 0) (#143)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:25:23 PM EST
    I want to slap (none / 0) (#52)
    by DJ on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:05:36 PM EST
    that smile right off her  face.  But that wouldn't be very lady-like of me.  Oh well, still want to do it.

    Parent
    Alice Germond of the STFU and send money (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:09:58 PM EST
    email to Clinton supporters?

    Well, THAT doesn't send any signals, does it?

    Parent

    The republican (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:49:43 PM EST
    actually placed Obama's name into nomination.

    On that topic (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by nell on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:50:07 PM EST
    Hillary's speech last night didn't just make us cry, it made Rendell cry too and then when I read that Rendell cried, I cried even more:

    Rendell estimated somewhere around 10 or 12 Clinton delegates from his state weren't "going to be able to bring themselves to vote for anybody other than Senator Clinton." He insisted that's slight of Obama, rather a reflection of their hard work for Clinton and their deep admiration for her and her bid to become the first woman president.

    "Even though Hillary tells us not to spend any time thinking about what might have been," he said, pausing as tears welled in his eyes, "I'm sure all of us were thinking about what might have been last night."

    And then, of course Claire McCaskill had to open her big mouth and suggest that Clinton would be a failed leader if we didn't all get in line. Honestly, the Obama people are so tone deaf if they do not realize that McCaskill HURTS his campaign.

    Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, an Obama supporter, said Clinton's challenge in getting her delegates to come on board with Obama "may be the biggest test of her leadership."

    "If she's not a strong enough leader to get her followers to do what's right for America, then that would surprise me," McCaskill told the AP. "I think they are going to follow her lead, and her lead was very crystal clear last night."

    All from the same article:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/27/clinton-meets-delegates-ahead-of-roll-call/

    I didn't think McCaskill (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Iphie on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:00:27 PM EST
    could sink any lower in my estimation -- oh, but then look, there she goes!

    Parent
    I'm sorry (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:03:49 PM EST
    she's sunk so low I can barely see her anymore.

    Parent
    You know, when I saw that comment (5.00 / 6) (#146)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:27:12 PM EST
    all I could think was 'b*tch' and I never, never, never use that word to describe a woman except as a compliment.

    Except now.  I've changed.  Do you think that was the change they were hoping for?

    Parent

    McCaskill (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by litigatormom on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:08:20 PM EST
    Another certified moron.

    Parent
    I'll never understand... (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:51:33 PM EST
    ... why they were so reluctant to allow Hillary Clinton's hard-won delegates their full voice in the process. In the end her supporters will never get the satisfaction of seeing their candidate get the votes she earned. And they wonder why we're still angry? Are they that clueless?

    MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by litigatormom on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:06:52 PM EST
    is reporting that Hillary will come down to the floor when NY comes up and she will move to have Obama nominated by acclamation.

    Parent
    Of Course She Will (5.00 / 13) (#72)
    by BDB on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:09:31 PM EST
    because she's the only one in the party doing any work at trying to salvage this mess.  

    Parent
    Good for her. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:13:49 PM EST
    She's like the true mother in Solomon's judgment.

    And not to be harsh or anything, but why are you watching MSNBC? :)

    Parent

    Because I simply cannot stand (none / 0) (#115)
    by litigatormom on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:18:36 PM EST
    Wolf Blitzer.

    Yeah, KO is a tool, but he's been relatively well behaved this week.  I'll turn it off when Tweety comes on.

    Parent

    C-SPAN...no Wolf. (none / 0) (#130)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:21:25 PM EST
    Now the report is that a state (none / 0) (#157)
    by litigatormom on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:31:14 PM EST
    (I missed it) will yield to Illinois, and Illinois will yield to NY.

    Parent
    Oh, shoot (none / 0) (#166)
    by CCinNC on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:34:02 PM EST
    Really?  I wanted to see my state's delegation.

    Parent
    As mentioned elsewhere I'm old school (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Redshoes on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:52:17 PM EST
    putting the roll call on at 5:50 ET makes it all seem so perfunctory.

    Can't say that I'm into it (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Iphie on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:56:12 PM EST
    but I did check in to see what was going on. If anyone else is watching, am I mistaken or did people boo Denise Williams Harris when she introduced herself (seconding Hillary's nomination)? The moment after she said she was from New York, there was some reaction -- it gave her pause too. Someone please tell me that was something else and people are not booing delegates simply for supporting Clinton.

    My mom used to force me to play (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:57:53 PM EST
    with my sister. We always came together if left alone about it, but the pressure just made us dig in more. This truncating of the vote and forced attempts at unity remind me of that

    There are some boos (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:58:32 PM EST
    every time votes are cast for Hillary Clinton.

    Arkansas even got booed for mentioning her name.

    This is awful. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by chel2551 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:59:58 PM EST
    It really makes me sick to my stomach.

    Parent
    I keep thinking of that line from Star Wars (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:05:42 PM EST
    when the Senate votes for Palpatine:  "So this is how liberty dies.  With thunderous applause."

    Speaking for me only.

    Parent

    They aren't even smart enough to be (5.00 / 3) (#211)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:56:54 PM EST
    ashamed of that. Arkansas gave every delegate vote to Obama. So, rather than assume the following states might do the same, they just led with a boo for Hillary. Obviously they didn't listen to her last night, and they are h*ll bent to make sure that the divide be deepened with hatred.


    Parent
    Unity??? she is a (none / 0) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:59:27 PM EST
    you know what

    Parent
    Since Obama had the most delegates - (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:00:45 PM EST
    why couldn't the delegates vote for their candidates?
    Wouldn't Obama still win?
    Or was Pelosi afraid that some Obama delegates might switch to Hillary and mess up the whole Greek temple thingy tomorrow night.

    They should rename the convention... (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:01:09 PM EST
    ... the Congress of People's Deputies. It's about as democratic.

    I was thinking (none / 0) (#120)
    by litigatormom on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:19:11 PM EST
    it should be called The Supreme Soviet.

    Parent
    gawd.... (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:01:46 PM EST
    that's the loathesome Alice Germond of the RBC doing the roll call...

    Yep my feeling (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:02:39 PM EST
    Rules and Bylaws Committee. (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:10:31 PM EST
    They're the ones who met on May 31 and decided that Floridians count for only half a person, and that Michiganders actually meant to vote for Obama when they cast their ballots for Clinton. And also, that they too only count for half a person too.

    They may also have passed a resolution saying that residents of both states are ugly.

    Parent

    Thanks for making me laugh (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Redshoes on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:13:20 PM EST
    I'm getting way too old for this stuff.  

    Parent
    D'oh (none / 0) (#123)
    by litigatormom on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:20:02 PM EST
    I thought it was snark about her really being a Republican.  

    Oh, wait. It was!

    Parent

    And she is much too SMUG (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Desired User Name on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:07:31 PM EST
    everytime she gets to say something like "and 7 votes for Hillary Clinton"...she is repulsive :(

    I put this crap on PAUSE. I'll let my TiVo help me
    go through it more quickly so I don't IMPLODE with RAGE by watching it in its entirety.

    Thanks TiVo.

    Parent

    And she wants us to know that (5.00 / 9) (#68)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:09:03 PM EST
    "we're Democrats and we count all the votes."

    She's irony-proof.

    Parent

    Oh, They Count 'Em (5.00 / 12) (#78)
    by BDB on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:10:22 PM EST
    they just don't count 'em accurately and sometimes they reassign them.  

    Parent
    I guess every party (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by litigatormom on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:32:18 PM EST
    has to have a Katherine Harris.

    Parent
    blechhhh - can't watch because she sets my teeth (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by kempis on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:09:40 PM EST
    on edge. She's like someone doing a parody of herself.

    Parent
    Shades of Ms. Harris. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:15:41 PM EST
    And she'll pay. Just like Harris did n/t (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:21:41 PM EST
    She looks so much like (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Gabriele Droz on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:13:49 PM EST
    Katherine Harris, it's eerie.

    Parent
    I still treasure a page ripped (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by litigatormom on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:35:37 PM EST
    from the December 26, 2000 issue of Us Weekly, which has a feature called "Fashion Police."  Katherine Harris was wearing a strapless gown that revealed her, um, assets.

    I can't really repeat the reviewers' snarky comments, because they are so politically incorrect. But I can't throw it away, either.

    Parent

    Now that's just mean (none / 0) (#97)
    by DemForever on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:14:33 PM EST
    If you can't say something nice about someone (5.00 / 7) (#148)
    by magisterludi on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:27:28 PM EST
    come sit next to me.

    I love that line.

    Parent

    Thank You. (none / 0) (#110)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:17:52 PM EST
    What is the RBC? n/t (none / 0) (#57)
    by litigatormom on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:07:17 PM EST
    Rules and Bylaws Committee. (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by Iphie on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:11:47 PM EST
    aka the body that "reassigns" delegates from one candidate to another, aka stealing delegates.

    Parent
    FL: believes in one vote for each (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:04:45 PM EST
    person.

    Thank you Florida, and we're so happy you're here.


    Oh, Alice just tried to pull the knife out of (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:06:49 PM EST
    their back. How sweet!

    Parent
    there she goes again! We Democrats count (5.00 / 7) (#64)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:08:42 PM EST
    every vote. We even exchange them sometimes!

    Parent
    my state shames me (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:08:05 PM EST
    Florida should have cast all of their votes for Hillary. PERIOD. As should have Arkansas.

    Parent
    It seems to me that Democrats count votes (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Redshoes on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:08:35 PM EST
    like Republicans -- Diebold anyone?  Madame Secretary makes me wonder why I'm still a Democrat.

    Mood I'm in (5.00 / 8) (#88)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:13:00 PM EST
    I'm gonna hang around just for spite.  They'll be praying to be rid of the likes of me before much longer.


    Parent
    Thank you. (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Iphie on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:23:41 PM EST
    I'll be praying that you continue to display the characteristics of a true Democrat -- especially those embodied by the donkey. Dig in your heels and stay put!

    Parent
    Sham. (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:09:40 PM EST


    Guam cast as voted. Way to go, Guam! (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:10:23 PM EST


    I love it. (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:17:22 PM EST
    Could you please repeate that vote--didn't quite get it?

    Parent
    What part of 4 and 3 (none / 0) (#163)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:33:14 PM EST
    don't you get, Alice?

    Parent
    I don't blame Bill Clinton - (5.00 / 7) (#82)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:11:40 PM EST
    for getting out of Dodge as soon as he delivers his speech for Obama.

    This actually ticked me off (5.00 / 8) (#87)
    by TheRizzo on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:12:37 PM EST
    I had a feeling the roll call would be a mistake if they cut off the vote and did it like this.  I actually am very upset by it and more so than I figured I would be.  Especially after the Arkansas which she won by 70% gave all to him.

    Makes you laugh why we did the dog and pony show over MI and FL delegates.

    I am so disgusted right now.  She had no chance to win, and I was never under any illusion should would today but to do it like this has ticked me off good.

    Especially for Pelosi to say to Guam "we democrats make sure we count our votes right"   Give me a break

    Whatever (5.00 / 12) (#98)
    by nell on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:15:22 PM EST
    All of this crap just makes me more angry. I don't even care if I am just a "bitter deadender." What has happened is wrong, and I thought I was over it, but this sham of a process just makes me mad. My state Hillary delegates were not sent there to represent Obama in some show of sham Hillary. They are supposed to represent me, and people like me, and guess what, WE ARE NOT FOR OBAMA. I am so sick of this. All this does is make people more spiteful, feel more ignored and angry at the UNdemocratic process, and more likely to cast a protest vote in November. Everyday they seem to do something to move me closer. I don't even care about principle anymore....at least McCain is not Obama could become the rallying cry. I know I won't actually vote for McCain, but the fact that I feel this angry and this frustrated is a problem. Democrats better watch it. If people who are as liberal as I am are feeling so angry that we fantasize about casting a vote out of anger for McCain, Obama will be in trouble in November.

    No woman should ever vote for McCain (2.33 / 3) (#176)
    by elonepb on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:35:39 PM EST
    Republican OR Democrat.

    I'll never respect a man who not only never done anything to advance women's rights, but flat out said to his wife:

    "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c-nt."

    His wife who waited for him while he was a POW was in a bad car accident and gained some weight. He left her when he returned and married some blonde millionaire bimbo.

    Ugh he disgusts me. ANYTHING is better than him.


    Parent

    I like Cindy McCain (5.00 / 7) (#197)
    by nell on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:58:56 PM EST
    You know, I have serious problems with McCain in terms of policy, his conservative stance on women's rights issues among them. And really, that is why I said I know I won't vote for him, no matter how angry I am.

    But I really object to you calling Cindy McCain a bimbo. What kind of feminist are you? Do you know anything about Cindy McCain? What makes it okay for you to degrade her and call her a bimbo?

    As it happens, she is an impressive woman in her own right. You and I may not agree with her politics, or her husbands, but that does not mean that it is fair or right to call her a bimbo and demonize her as a human being. As it happens, she is one of only things I like about McCain.

    She plays a huge role in her family's company, which has obviously done quite well given that she owns many houses. So, I don't think she is a bimbo, she seems to be a smart businesswoman. She has made it her mission to conduct many charity trips overseas on behalf of Operation Smile and another organization that she started to bring doctors to places that need them. Not to mention that she has a big enough heart that she brought home a sick baby from Mother Teresa's Orphanage and loved her as her own.

    And don't even bring up the drug use. She got better, good for her. Everyone who has a drug problem should be offered treatment instead of being thrown in jail. While she might have gotten a break because of who she is, I am never going to hold it against someone that they were given a second chance - we should all be given those second chances. Now if McCain would adopt that stance into his policy platform, I might consider voting for him (he won't, I know).

    Not voting for McCain does not mean that you need to bad mouth his wife in sexist ways. And in any case, Cindy is no bimbo.

    And as for the trollop comment, I have yet to see proof that it happened. It was reported by one author and has made its way around...

    Parent

    I like Cindy McCain (none / 0) (#198)
    by nell on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:01:37 PM EST
    You know, I have serious problems with McCain in terms of policy, his conservative stance on women's rights issues among them. And really, that is why I said I know I won't vote for him, no matter how angry I am.

    But I really object to you calling Cindy McCain a bimbo. What kind of feminist are you? Do you know anything about Cindy McCain? What makes it okay for you to degrade her and call her a bimbo?

    As it happens, she is an impressive woman in her own right. You and I may not agree with her politics, or her husbands, but that does not mean that it is fair or right to call her a bimbo and demonize her as a human being. As it happens, she is one of only things I like about McCain.

    She plays a huge role in her family's company, which has obviously done quite well given that she owns many houses. So, I don't think she is a bimbo, she seems to be a smart businesswoman. She has made it her mission to conduct many charity trips overseas on behalf of Operation Smile and another organization that she started to bring doctors to places that need them. Not to mention that she has a big enough heart that she brought home a sick baby from Mother Teresa's Orphanage and loved her as her own.

    And don't even bring up the drug use. She got better, good for her. Everyone who has a drug problem should be offered treatment instead of being thrown in jail. While she might have gotten a break because of who she is, I am never going to hold it against someone that they were given a second chance - we should all be given those second chances. Now if McCain would adopt that stance into his policy platform, I might consider voting for him (he won't, I know).

    Not voting for McCain does not mean that you need to bad mouth his wife in sexist ways. And in any case, Cindy is no bimbo.

    And as for the trollop comment, I have yet to see proof that it happened. It was reported by one author and has made its way around...

    Parent

    Why is this so early? (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:15:32 PM EST
    That crowd is pathetic.

    The whole thing is pathetic (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Redshoes on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:18:38 PM EST
    and whomever upthread noted that these folks seem immune to their own irony.  Give that poster a 5!

    Parent
    That, too. (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:34:40 PM EST
    Glad to see Hillary is being recognized (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by elonepb on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:16:25 PM EST
    Obviously her call to unite is the reason why the states are giving 90% of the votes to Obama.

    Still would be nice to see this play out the way it ACTUALLY played out - with full delegates given how they were earned.

    Then again, that would just create a huge amount of controversy, and Clinton did ask them to unanimously vote for Obama.

    Nice to see they haven't completely obeyed her :)

    Yes, a little reality TV (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by suisser on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:18:26 PM EST
    would be nice about now...

    Parent
    Through Missouri.... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:31:51 PM EST
    Through Missouri, Clinton has gotten a little under 60% of her ELECTED delegates (i.e. assuming all the poltical hacks...um, superdelegates... voted for the DNC choice.

    Parent
    Hillary sent a pretty strong message (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by DemForever on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:17:01 PM EST
    to her supporters when she said that she had already cast her convention vote for Obama

    It is unfortunate (5.00 / 16) (#107)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:17:12 PM EST
    that they didn't just skip all the machinations and have the Obama delegates vote for Obama, while the Clinton delegates vote for Clinton.  Obama would have won, no one would have a complaint, and it would have been a nice unity moment.

    Instead, they've basically created a dynamic where you can vote for Hillary if you like, but it comes across as some kind of protest vote rather than a simply statement that hey, I'm here on behalf of all the people who voted for Hillary.

    I will never understand why they couldn't just let it play out.  There was no downside for anyone.  There is no way Clinton would have somehow emerged as the winner of the vote, despite what some of you say, and everyone involved in the process knew this.  So what was all the paranoia and negotiation about?  Dumb.

    This moment of closure an healing (5.00 / 8) (#122)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:19:44 PM EST
    seems to be having the opposite effect.  

    Parent
    They might have won the battle here, (5.00 / 5) (#128)
    by chel2551 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:21:01 PM EST
    but the war's outcome is definitely in doubt.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 6) (#145)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:27:04 PM EST
    There is the natural political urge to stage-manage every last detail, which sometimes winds up stepping on people's feelings a bit.

    It's not like holding a "real" roll call would have turned the convention into some kind of free-for-all.  I haven't heard a single hint of any Obama delegates rethinking their allegiance, nor would I expect to, and of course there are some former Clinton delegates who said they would switch and vote for Obama and that's fine.

    But you could either let it be a big happy moment or you could insist on having a tightly controlled moment that just revives tensions and frustrations that should have been history after last night.  I don't think people really thought this through, or more to the point, maybe they overthought it instead of considering the feelings of the people involved.

    Parent

    I'm anticipating some admonishments (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:29:11 PM EST
    quite soon, i.e., get over it.  

    Parent
    That letter Jeralyn posted... (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by kredwyn on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:02:20 PM EST
    pretty much lays it out.

    Should the nominee lose the GE, it's the fault of the voters...particularly the ones that didn't vote for the candidate...

    Parent

    Or They Deliberately (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by BDB on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:33:42 PM EST
    want to send a message to the Clinton wing that they have no say and will bend to the will of the party.  I'm getting a little bit tired of writing off every decision as incompetence.  At a certain point you have to presume that the outcome is what was intended.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:50:56 PM EST
    Either way, part of what makes it dumb is that people may interpret it as malicious.  So, yeah.

    Parent
    I hadn't thought of that (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by elonepb on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:21:03 PM EST
    That'd be much better.

    Obviously, that's not the way it's been done in years past, so I doubt they'd change it all.

    Then again, isn't this the campaign of change?

    Parent

    If They Had Let It Play Out (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by BDB on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:31:55 PM EST
    then people might have remembered that this was the closest nominating contest in history and Obama didn't really win among the voters but was put over the top by SDs.  

    Since they're doing it this way, everyone has totally forgotten!  

    Parent

    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:35:04 PM EST
    In all seriousness, it wouldn't have been like that.  Enough folks voluntarily chose to switch their votes from Clinton to Obama that the margin would have been clear, while still allowing recognition of the Hillary voters.

    I don't particularly care one way or the other, but I hate to see the party doing dumb, self-destructive stuff.  There's been a little too much of that this year.

    Parent

    I feel (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:18:49 PM EST
    that State's that she won by 10% or more should be giving more delegates to her. If they decide to heed her call for Unity then they should say so when they cast their votes as Arkansas did. every d*mn one of them.

    Agreed (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by elonepb on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:22:13 PM EST
    Say it's because she asked for it rather than pretending like Obama actually won there in the same percentage of delegate distribution.

    Parent
    We're seeing abstentions.... (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:19:06 PM EST
    or no shows..

    For instance, LA was 43 Obama, 9 Clinton but Louisiana has 67 delegates.

    Same with Alabam and others (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:23:03 PM EST
    This would have only been healing if delegates voted how they were elected to vote. There would have been no harm in that. But they wanted this 'show'.

    It's pathetic.

    Mass...Hillary won it HUGE...53-65...interesting.

    Parent

    Massachusetts refuses to (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:23:27 PM EST
    be railroaded.

    Disgusted (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by lovepolitics on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:24:20 PM EST
    Hillary deserves so much better than this.  I am sorry but I cannot vote for Obama and his hideous group of surrogates...Clyburn, Brazille, McCaskell...I am just sick about how the democratic party has treated the Clintons. I have never voted for a repub till now...but I think it is what I must do.

    Wow. Michigan sold out. Surprising. (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:24:30 PM EST


    They were grateful (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:27:27 PM EST
    wow...I am stunned.

    Parent
    Michigan (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:24:46 PM EST
    wow...talk about folding...

    This is no catharsis (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:27:31 PM EST
    If they stop this at NYC...and have no state...not even Arkansas or NY...cast all their votes for Hillary...this will be the biggest miscarriage of democracy and disenfranchisement of voters I have seen since 2000.

    I get that some of these delegations believe (5.00 / 7) (#165)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:33:44 PM EST
    they are heeding Hillary's call for unity and are casting their votes in that spirit.

    However...if the votes are cast in accordance with the results of the primaries and caucuses, and the superdelegates vote in accordance with previously stated commitment, Obama wins - so why not just let people vote and have the big rah-rah moment at the end, when Obama secures the votes needed?

    It makes me feel like we should call the party something other than "Democratic," but I haven't figured out what that would be.

    Sounds to me... (5.00 / 5) (#168)
    by DET103 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:34:26 PM EST
    ....like all the progress SHE made last night towards unity THEY had to go and screw up today. How is they can task her with unifying, clearly not a task that should be hers, while they are simultaneously doing everything they can to maintain the division THEY created?

    Were there really boos? Good grief.

    So...lets see (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:35:30 PM EST
    1.  gaming the caucuses.
    2.  Michigan and Florida.
    3.  Roll call: erases all the votes,

    What was the point of the primary, why not the closed smoked filled rooms?  We would save money and not have any delusions.

    Am I the only one looking at (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:35:51 PM EST
    Alice Germond and seeing an SNL skit?

    Ah, this is the new math (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Redshoes on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:37:07 PM EST
    they're teaching the youngin's.  Most of us old timers don't mind the loss -- I'm in that old pols' camp (politics is a contact sport) I've accepted HRC's loss (it's easier because I was initially an Edward's supporter) I just find the constant manipulation tiresome and more than a little insulting.

    New Hampshire did it right (5.00 / 4) (#182)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:38:19 PM EST
    State's should not be splitting votes. Either heed Hillary's call by saying it loud and proud and casting all your votes or cast as they were voted. Don't split this and make it look like he won more in voting than he did.

    Well, this is a lesson in how much primary votes (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by jawbone on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:38:36 PM EST
    count.

    Love all these states that don't honor their voters' wishes.

    Sheesh.

    And Hillary takes another one (5.00 / 4) (#190)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:49:14 PM EST
    for the team.

    Has she done enough yet?

    Putin couldn't have done it better... (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:51:05 PM EST
    congrats, Madame Speaker -- who needs Democracy in the Democratic Party?

    Magnanimous (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by Realleft on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:55:54 PM EST
    Heading to Sen. Clinton's site now to make a donation.  Twice in 24 hours she has shown her strong devotion to shared causes and Democratic leadership in Washington.  President Clinton can make it three times in just a few hours.  Then it's all up to the nominee to carry it forward from there.  He will have all of the support he ever could have hoped for, and must prove himself worthy to a majority of voting Americans.

    SHAM (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by glennmcgahee on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:58:25 PM EST
    Obviously, they've put the screws to the delegates.Fall in line or you will not be able to attend the AT&T cocktail party/$giveaway.

    I found myself (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:01:45 PM EST
    feeling almost gutted by that. Clearly my vote in Florida matter not. These people should be ashamed.

    They are tone deaf and either don't know it or don't care.

    I would love to know why California passed and how the resy of the states voted. Hillary did make a point of saying those votes will count but I doubt we will ever know how close the total would have been without the intimidation and bullying.

    Do they really think this helped unity?

    Travesty (5.00 / 4) (#204)
    by janarchy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:15:23 PM EST
    What is the point of voting in a primary of the delegates either don't get to vote or their votes are taken away from them. As a New Yorker, I wanted my primary vote to count to. Instead, it was just handed off for the sake of "unity". I'm sure that's why California and MA passed too. I at least thought there would be the age-old tradition of letting IL vote to put Obama over the top, but instead, New York got the 'honor'. It was like having to bow your neck to the 'victor' just for the sake of their ego.

    I am glad I'm out of the Democratic party now -- this just proves my primary vote didn't count. Why did we bother having a primary at all? Next time, just let the RBC pick their nominee in January and screw the rest of the party.

    I swear Nancy Pelosi was having an orgasm at the podium as she announced the 'win'. I sometimes wonder how these people sleep at night.

    Any good will from last night has been completely washed away (along with the comments from Clyburn, McCaskill et. al). No, it won't matter to most of the people I know who are all wetting themselves over Obama's shoo-in win in November. But it matters to me and mine.

    Parent

    AMEN! (5.00 / 0) (#205)
    by irishdem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:18:32 PM EST
    The first African American nominated president for the United States of America! Hallelujah! The DEMOCRATIC PARTY rightfully deserves to be proud!

    I have a headache. (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:20:12 PM EST
    Is this what catharsis is supposed to feel like: headache, sick to my stomach... what a sham. Could this have been any more insulting to our intelligence?

    Thank God for Unity!!! (5.00 / 0) (#209)
    by icebergslim on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:25:14 PM EST
    OBAMA/BIDEN '08

    CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN....

    No open and democratic convention (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:39:58 PM EST
    roll call, no unity.  It's that simple.  PUMA!

    You all need a lesson in graciousness (2.80 / 5) (#167)
    by steviez314 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:34:16 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton was gracious enough to release her delegates, and informed them she was voting for Obama.

    So many delegates followed HER lead and did likewise.

    They are willing to attempt unity.

    And yet, everyone here just seems to have such scorn for them.  Why should their decision to pursue that unity mean less than your decision to want more?

    Because many of us (5.00 / 4) (#180)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:37:14 PM EST
    feel that Senator Clinton's decision to voice her support for "unity" was made under duress.

    She simply realized there was no way to achieve a level playing field while the likes of Pelosi, Brazile and Dean control the Party.

    You can like that or dislike it.  But hundreds of thousands of us believe it, and it's not going to be swept under the rug any time soon.

    Parent

    I prefer to think that Hillary has amassed more (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:19:44 PM EST
    power now than she ever had prior to running for the Democratic nomination. Indeed, that she is the most powerful person in the Party.

    The fact that the Party needed her to propose the acclimation in a tightly orchestrated move demonstrates where the most influence resides.

    Last night, she stood before the entire convention. For the first time that night, I noticed no one spoke. Everyone turned their attention to Hillary. And, at first, I couldn't bear the humiliation of seeing her standing before these people and needing to declare her support for Obama. But then I realized something. The only reason she had to repeat ad nauseum that she was a "proud supporter" of Obama is because they are terrified of her. She willingly submitted to what I thought was humiliating because she was entirely above it. It didn't touch her.

    That's power.

    I don't want to think of Hillary as a person with so little character and power that she could ever be put under duress by politicians significantly less influential than she is. Dean, Brazile, Pelosi--they don't have anything on her.

    Everything she has done since suspending her campaign, and everything at this convention, has been her doing. Because she has that power to choose.

    Parent

    So, I believe Sen Clinton was sincere and (3.00 / 2) (#195)
    by steviez314 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:56:36 PM EST
    gracious, and you don't.

    So which of us is doing greater service to her ideals and legacy?

    Parent

    the (1.00 / 4) (#151)
    by pennypacker on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:28:28 PM EST
    delegates can vote for whoever they want to vote for. what is the problem...she lost fair and square. no matter what Obama does or does not do, he will be wrong in the eyes of most here.

    What of the voters (5.00 / 8) (#154)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:30:02 PM EST
    those delegates were elected to speak for?

    The sentiment that she lost what's the big deal? Is the reason there will be no unity.

    Parent

    Soviet leaders (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:34:41 PM EST
    were elected fair and square, too.  It's just that everyone voting knew they were going nowhere in their jobs, on the waiting list for housing, or have access to certain other amenities (like soap, for instance) if they didn't vote the right way.

    Parent
    We all KNOW (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by eric on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:35:13 PM EST
    that they can vote for whomever they want.  It just seems that, if they are going to go through with this charade, they should follow the actual results of the primaries in the states.  It turns the charade into a farce.

    Parent
    I am really not in the mood for (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:09:51 PM EST
    stupid comments

    Parent
    I am really not in the mood for (5.00 / 0) (#203)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:10:44 PM EST
    stupid comments

    Parent
    I don't know about fair and square (none / 0) (#184)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:38:43 PM EST
    But I do know elections aren't always fair.  See Gore vs. Bush.


    Parent
    I'm "into" this sort of thing. (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:50:14 PM EST
    How has the Obama campaign maipulated this event?  Ms. Germond says its according to the rules.  

    Hillary released her delegates (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:51:56 PM EST
    So there is not even a moral obligation.

    Parent
    I know. Still, isn't it fun to (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:54:28 PM EST
    hear each state chair describe that state's attributes?

    Parent
    I remember watching the roll call (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:12:25 PM EST
    as a child and I loved it.  It enchanted me - that democracy thing was pretty cool in my mind.

    Illinois just passed.  California already did.  I had completely forgotten the game of trying to be the state that puts the favored candidate over the top.

    Parent

    I used to also (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:36:41 PM EST
    with my parents.  

    It used to be in the evening though...I think

    It was a big cheering thing.  All the states used to call the delegate numbers with their little state speech. Many would vote for favorite son and then change later.  It was fun.  

    The place would be full, lots' of noise and loud cheering

    (sigh)

    I'm back to not voting for Obama

    (sigh)

    Parent

    NV because of the roll call? (none / 0) (#186)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:41:15 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    I dunno (none / 0) (#25)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:59:12 PM EST
    Hillary's still getting 30% of the delegates.  

    Parent
    Plus, word from the floor (none / 0) (#67)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:08:56 PM EST
    (I was at the Convention Center for Hillary's speech):  Many of the delegates feel as though the voters selected them to represent the voters' preference, which was Hillary (in the case of Hillary delegates).

    However, of course there's a lot of talk about "unity" and whatnot.  Some of the delegates are wearing "Clinton delegate for Obama" pins; but some others have small green lapel pins given out by the roll-call petition organizers (symbolizing a commitment to stay with HRC to the end).

    Parent

    they've been hassling the delegates for the (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:12:20 PM EST
    past week and a half.

    A lot of delegates are local party people who want to progress in the party, or at least not lose whatever power they have.

    Some delegates are more or less 'ordinary' folks, not party insiders whose jobs or standing is based on falling in line.  Most of those are voting for Hillary.

    Parent

    From Prof. Friedman (5.00 / 9) (#90)
    by trillian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:13:19 PM EST
    Warning: what you are about to see is not a real vote
    Denver, Democratic National Convention, August 24 - 3:30 Mountain Time

    In the previous post on this site, I discussed the private delegate sessions held during the day before today's Convention officially convened. Apparently, the delegates were required to sign ballot sheets in those sessions, and it seems that it is these ballot sheets that will be tallied in the next couple of hours during the official "roll call vote". In my previous post, I noted all the ways delegates themselves could, in principle, object to what happens on the floor, including basing an objection into being forced to participate in these private meetings under duress.

    But I doubt that will happen - not for lack of delegates who would want to do so - but because such tremendous acts of political courage in the face of oppression are exceedingly hard to muster.

    If delegates do muster the will to fight today on the Convention Floor for a democratic Democratic party, they will, I have no doubt be quashed by Speaker Pelosi who long ago gave up on democratic procedures and principles or even showing enough integrity to have her Party abide by its own Rules.

    Regardless of what people see on their televisions over the next hour or so, do not be fooled. No ritual that is preceded by private balloting can be understand to be a genuine or authentic vote. When Americans go to vote in the general election, for example, they will not be rounded up beforehand and asked to sign documents stating how they will vote before hand. If we were, the documents would not count as votes anyway. That is because, messy and imperfect as federal elections can be, the one thing the government does is at least try to do is to make the elections that occur on Election Day be genuine decision making making mechanisms, a chance for those eligible to vote to cast ballots according to a previously established procedure to use that procedure to decide the question at hand.

    Quite the opposite has occurred at the Democratic Party convention this year. Every effort has been made to ensure that today's televised proceedings NOT be the actual mechanism to decide the Democratic Party's nominee, to turn what could and should have been a vote into a "vote".
    What we are watching today more closely resembles closely Iranian parliamentary elections than U.S. federal elections.

    A "vote" is not a vote. It is a sham, a fake, a show.

    LINK

    Parent

    For what it's worth (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:18:22 PM EST
    You are quoting Prof. Feldman!

    She was the Torts professor when I was in law school.  Prof. Friedman taught Con Law, or maybe it was Evidence.

    Parent

    I haven't been over there (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by chel2551 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:26:36 PM EST
    to read her today.  I knew she was going to be furious.

    They, and I mean the democratic leadership, have just totally blown this.  Way to fracture the party, morons.

    Good luck in November.

    Parent

    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:28:24 PM EST
    you must have been there about the same time I was.

    I never had her but she was famous for being rather brilliant.

    Parent

    As I recall (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:33:00 PM EST
    she had graduated with a joint J.D. and Ph.D. and then was immediately hired by the law school as an instructor.  It's basically unheard of to get hired to teach law school when you're straight out of school yourself, so yeah, she must have had something special going.  I graduated in 1994 by the way.

    Parent
    Oops (none / 0) (#127)
    by trillian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:20:56 PM EST
    You are right.

    Blame the glass of wine plus my head exploding.

    Parent

    Bill at 9PM (none / 0) (#9)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:53:32 PM EST
    and Kerry @ 9:15?!

    So much for the good will (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by chel2551 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:55:38 PM EST
    that was generated last night.

    And I despise Claire McCaskill more than ever.  What an awful person.


    Parent

    What did she do? (none / 0) (#15)
    by DemForever on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:56:46 PM EST
    She refuses to be seen and not heard. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:01:21 PM EST
    Per AP: (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:58:20 PM EST
    Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, an Obama supporter, said Clinton's challenge in getting her delegates to come on board with Obama "may be the biggest test of her leadership."

    "If she's not a strong enough leader to get her followers to do what's right for America, then that would surprise me," McCaskill told the AP. "I think they are going to follow her lead, and her lead was very crystal clear last night."



    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:59:37 PM EST
    A bigger bunch of idiots would be hard to find.

    Parent
    since I rarely have a viable candidate to (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:04:09 PM EST
    support in TN, I will be sending money to any decent candidate who runs against her in a primary. Who would have thought that voting record would make one a net roots hero?

    Parent
    Can You Have a Brain Trust (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by BDB on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:07:31 PM EST
    if nobody in it has a brain?  Because that's where I think the Obama camp is right now.  They should just change the party's symbol from donkey to a scarecrow.

    Parent
    She can kiss my entire a$$ n/t (5.00 / 7) (#45)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:02:39 PM EST
    I hope you are very BOOTYLICIOUS (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Desired User Name on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:17:59 PM EST
    because I want her kissing your A$$ for a long A$$ time.

    Parent
    What a twerp (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:03:27 PM EST
    just wait and see, she is gonna get dumped if he wins.

    Parent
    As I told Ellen Malcom (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:08:38 PM EST
    Claire will be dumped by some of us for breaking the 'golden rule' of EL...you don't accept support from Emily's List and then endorse the opponent of another Emily-endorsed candidate in a primary.

    McCaskill is persona non grata.

    And she will be history.

    Parent

    Given that McCaskill's "leader" (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Iphie on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:09:05 PM EST
    isn't strong enough to get his followers in line (and I love this "follower" and "leader" language she uses -- it's so egalitarian and democratic!), I wonder how he's doing on his "biggest test." Or perhaps I'm mistaken, maybe booing when Clinton receives votes is an order that came straight from the top.

    Parent
    Heh. (none / 0) (#103)
    by chel2551 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:15:59 PM EST
    Which I guess means that Claire ought (5.00 / 5) (#125)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:20:14 PM EST
    to resign her Senate seat in favor of her child (chidren?), who convinced McCaskill that she had to back Obama or the child would never speak to her again.

    Yes sir, that's real leadership...no wonder the Congress sucks so bad.

    Parent

    Most are casting their votes for Obama (none / 0) (#12)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:56:09 PM EST
    even Arkansas

    Parent
    I assume Hillary Clinton requested (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:08:55 PM EST
    Arkansas do this.  

    Parent
    I have a feeling (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:10:53 PM EST
    just from the looks on their faces, that Arkansas was requested to vote that way not that they wanted to.

    This is showing me nothing more than it is carefully scripted and that there is still a very large fracture in the party.

    They should have made sure that Arkansas and NY voted for Hillary in total. She deserved at least that much.

    Parent

    CA passes?! (none / 0) (#17)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:57:26 PM EST
    California went for Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:59:16 PM EST
    I guess they don't want to give her too many votes so early in the roll call.

    Parent
    Then it's all just (none / 0) (#46)
    by suisser on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:03:21 PM EST
    a sham,imho

    Oh, here comes FL...

    Parent

    What does "passes" mean?? (none / 0) (#30)
    by CCinNC on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:59:43 PM EST
    Whatever, this is exciting, high-energy and fun, and I'm glad to be able to see it.

    Parent
    I assumed that it was so that Illiniois (none / 0) (#71)
    by DemForever on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:09:29 PM EST
    could put Obama over

    Parent
    I heard that Bill was speaking (none / 0) (#70)
    by litigatormom on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:09:22 PM EST
    for 30 minutes.  How can they give the last Dem president fifteen freaking minutes?

    This has to be wrong.

    Parent

    The Obama campaign (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:12:12 PM EST
    gave Bill 10 minutes.

    Parent
    Wouldn't Worry About It (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by BDB on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:15:45 PM EST
    What are they going to do bring up the orchestra if he runs over?  Bill will speak as long as he wants to speak.  I still say he'll make a better case for Obama than Obama.  It seems clear to me that part of the Clinton plan is to make the haters, including the paranoid DNC and Obama people, look stupid (not that it's all that hard at this point).  Best strategy, IMO.  Puts everything on Obama, which is the last place Obama wants it.

    Parent
    What could they do? (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:23:08 PM EST
    Turn off the teleprompters.

    That wouldn't even faze Bill Clinton!

    Turn off the microphones?

    Well...that would be foolish but I wouldn't put it past them.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#124)
    by Iphie on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:20:03 PM EST
    you do know how he goes on sometimes. ;>

    Parent
    Bill... (none / 0) (#118)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:19:05 PM EST
    ... is not famous for giving short speeches. His introduction for Michael Dukakis nearly sank his own political career. Well, not really, but it was a bad moment for him.

    Parent
    I remember that (none / 0) (#139)
    by litigatormom on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:24:21 PM EST
    The only applause line was "In conclusions...."

    Parent
    And then he joked about it (5.00 / 4) (#155)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:30:25 PM EST
    On Jay Leno or Johnny Carson, whoever was hosting the Tonight Show at the time. I remember that so vividly. The ability to laugh at himself -- in public -- for giving a bad speech was so refreshing.

    Parent
    It's about the visual (none / 0) (#14)
    by Redshoes on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:56:18 PM EST
    His name is in big font and his #s look like it was a landslide -- not the tight race that it was.  Ugh when you can't even be honest with yourself....?

    California "passes." At last, a little (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:56:58 PM EST
    suspense.  

    Why? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:58:07 PM EST
    My guess is that they already know (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:13:49 PM EST
    how many votes are being cast by each state for each candidate, and they've already decided which state will be the one to put Obama over the top - I'm guessing it will be Illinois.

    I hope the result is that all the delegations get to cast their votes, even if some of them have sprained arms from having them twisted.

    My respect for those who have held true to the will of the voters who sent them to the convention is enormous, because clearly, a lot of them sold out.

    Parent

    I don't mind... (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:15:44 PM EST
    ... the individual delegates who have voted for Obama, given that Hillary said it was okay for them to do so. I do admire the ones who stayed loyal.

    I have no end of contempt for the people who tried to not give them a chance at all.

    Parent

    They do know, there was some sort (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:31:06 PM EST
    of private vote tallying by delegation at the delegate's hotels last night.

    Parent
    I haven't a clue. (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:59:26 PM EST
    Well, they passed something (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:59:59 PM EST
    and it was not the budget.

    Parent
    Probably so that on the second round (none / 0) (#42)
    by Redshoes on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:01:53 PM EST
    it will Illinois to put him over the top.  Watch we're only on D but I bet Illinois will pass too.

    Parent
    Sometime they like to be last (none / 0) (#77)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:09:59 PM EST
    so they can claim they elected the next president whoever.

    Parent
    California Passes? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:57:42 PM EST


    Cali passed wow! (none / 0) (#24)
    by rottodamn on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:58:41 PM EST
    That was like a lot of votes!

    Votes for the "wrong" candidate (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:00:17 PM EST
    Why didn't they just do Illinois, maybe Hawaii (none / 0) (#34)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:00:20 PM EST
    and then New York? It's not like they are voting as elected.

    Did the Democrats abroad break (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:01:49 PM EST
    the rules?  Why the 1/2 votes?

    Dem Abroad Delegates ... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:07:30 PM EST
    only have half a vote each.

    Parent
    Arkansas (none / 0) (#50)
    by wasabi on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:04:29 PM EST
    Arkansas gave Clinton her highest margin at 70% in the primary, but all votes went to Obama.

    That's... (5.00 / 8) (#65)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:08:50 PM EST
    ... change we can believe in! Or the change we need! Or something!

    If the DNC was trying to drive away Clinton supporters, they could hardly do a better job. What was so wrong about letting us Clinton voters have our delegates? Why all the resistance to even having a roll call vote, or allowing the delegates to vote as they please?

    You get nothing from me. Not a penny. Nothing.

    Parent

    There is no excuse for (5.00 / 7) (#92)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:13:29 PM EST
    the delegate count mot being exactly as people voted. Voter's voices are being silence by this sham.

    Parent
    that was Hillary's doing.... (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:09:32 PM EST
    its clearly meant as a symbol of her support for Obama....

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#89)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:13:11 PM EST
    14 more states until NY (none / 0) (#112)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:18:00 PM EST


    What are you angry about? (none / 0) (#121)
    by elonepb on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:19:26 PM EST
    This is the normal process, and they are all giving her votes out of recognition for her campaign.

    It would be a huge distracting ordeal if they did it any other way, and the annoying bobbleheads at the TV stations would just take this issue way beyond where we need to go.

    In a perfect world, it'd be great to have all the votes cast as they were earned, but that would not be in the best interest of the Democratic party.

    Too democratic for them? (5.00 / 5) (#131)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:21:39 PM EST
    Scooby-moment (5.00 / 9) (#140)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:24:23 PM EST
    In a perfect world, it'd be great to have all the votes cast as they were earned, but that would not be in the best interest of the Democratic party.

    Wuh? Seriously? I give up. The party is doomed.

    Parent

    My Gawd (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:35:14 PM EST
    In a perfect world, it'd be great to have all the votes cast as they were earned, but that would not be in the best interest of the Democratic party.

    Do you read what you write?


    Parent

    Absurd nonsense. (5.00 / 5) (#185)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:40:59 PM EST
    Unless, of course, you mean a it's good for the Democratic Party to lose many of its long-suffering activist members.

    Parent
    I only say that (none / 0) (#158)
    by elonepb on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:31:21 PM EST
    Because then you would have tools like Olbermann and Blitzer and Faux News talking about how Clinton will try and sneak the election out of the hands of Obama and other pointless dribble.

    It would be the story all week, create divisiveness (more than there is now) in the party, and we'd be on our way to another 4 years of McBush.

    I think there was a MUCH better way of doing this, but maybe I'm just getting so annoyed at the TV bobbleheads spitting out the talking point of their corporate owners.

    Parent

    Democracy is messy (5.00 / 5) (#187)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:42:53 PM EST
    and we have a first amendment. Deal with it. The Republic would not have fallen if they'd allowed delegates to vote as they were elected to vote, without pressure from the "Democratic" party to change their votes.

    And why isn't the vote in prime time as it has been in the past? Hillary almost had me last night, I swear I was considering voting for him, but they are just a bunch of wimps.

    Parent

    I've figured it out... (none / 0) (#135)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:23:20 PM EST
    The same thing happened in the 2006 elections. We elected a bunch of Democrats to Congress, but someone a lot of them keep voting for Republican initiatives.

    Here she is (none / 0) (#188)
    by Redshoes on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:45:23 PM EST


    Here she is (none / 0) (#189)
    by Redshoes on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:48:07 PM EST
    she's just wonderful.  

    Misconceptions (none / 0) (#212)
    by zvs888 on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 09:52:25 AM EST
    Honestly guys pay attention.

    Hillary released her delegates.

    Obama did not.

    Hillary told her delegates in the morning that she was going to vote for Obama and that they could do as they wished.  Obviously the ones who booed her in the morning stuck by her and gave her 350 delegates before it was cut.

    Either way she told them to preserve the roll call vote even though they suspended the rules for acclamation so the votes will count.