Hillary Parade Permit Issued for DNC

Oh, come all ye faithful? The city and County of Denver yesterday issued a parade permit to a group of Hillary Clinton backers for Tuesday, August 26.

Hillary Clinton supporters will march through Denver during the Democratic National Convention to show appreciation for the New York senator's historic primary run and urge the party to place her name in nomination.

The city issued a permit Tuesday to Colorado Women Count/Women Vote for a parade on Aug. 26 - the 88th anniversary of women's suffrage and the date Clinton is rumored to be speaking at the DNC.

Also participating: "18 Million Voices, a national organization of Clinton supporters."

Hillary supporters, who will be arriving by buses from all over the country, have a place of their own to gather: [More...]

They are .... setting up a headquarters at The Broker restaurant downtown, where people can "check-in" when they arrive in town.

Will Hillary be there? They hope she will make an appearance but she is attending the Emily's List Gala with Nancy Pelosi and Michelle Obama Tuesday at 2pm.

As for putting Hillary's name on the ballot, here's why it won't happen.

[The candidate] must submit a request in writing to be nominated at the convention. According to published reports, Clinton has decided against doing so and has been urging her delegates to vote for Obama.

Parade organizers say they won't be criticizing Obama or supporting McCain:

"We're keeping it positive," she said. "It's a way of saying 'Thank you Hillary, we appreciate what you've done.' "

I hope Hillary does stop by so the world can hear her tell her supporters in no uncertain terms, it's time to back the party nominee and focus on winning back the White House in November.

< Guantanamo Detainee Found Guilty of Terrorism | New CBS Poll: Voters Do Care About the Veep Pick >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I hope her name will be on the ballot (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:39:53 AM EST
    It seems to me that it is a minimal courtesy to extend to her, after running a historic race and earning 18 million votes.   If she has to make a written request to have this happen, then she should by all means do so.  

    Give 'em hell.... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:42:59 AM EST
    I'm no Clinton fan...but I'm a big fan of people hitting the streets for a redress of grievances.

    Be heard and don't let the man fence you in!

    It's not a "redress of grievances" (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:00:00 PM EST
    They say they will not attack Obama, but will demonstrate love for HRC. Classy people. What's really interesting is Hillary allegedly saying she doesn't want to be nominated. Kills my hope...

    Fair enough.... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:21:21 PM EST
    make that an address of admiration.

    Why I'll never understand...but more power to 'em.


    The only published reports (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:43:25 AM EST
    of Hillary not wanting her name in nomination are from MSNBC. I would hardly call that proof.

    I am glad this permit was issued. Hillary deserves no less than to be honored and respected for her historic run. She got more registered dem votes than Obama and she actually deserves far more from her party and our illustrious nominee.

    Yes, for pity's sake, could people please stop (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:20:07 PM EST
    spreading that false information about Hillary?

    I'm at work so I don't have a link, but previous threads have given the link  multiple times for the a video of Hillary herself saying just the opposite and explaining why.

    The Daily News started this story, which, just like the AP story on the last day of the primaries which stated that Hillary intended to concede before the end of voting, went viral and now everyone's misinformed.


    Jeralyn, (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by dk on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:46:37 AM EST
    The world has already heard Clinton tell people in no uncertain terms to support Obama....or have you forgotten Unity, NH?

    Do you think that putting Hillary's name up for nomination has the effect of contradicting the idea that she will support whomever is ultimately nominated?  I certainly don't.

    Why I think it is called democracy....the (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:48:03 AM EST
    kind they quickly afforded to Kennedy, Brown and Jackson when they were running for president, but has been sadly lacking where Hillary is concerned...

    With all due respect to your post, Jeralyn, (5.00 / 12) (#5)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:57:23 AM EST
    Hillary's asking us to back the nominee is not going to change how those of us who are not voting for Obama vote. This isn't about her. We respect her as a candidate and are disappointed that she didn't win, but our votes are our own. We refuse to condone what that Democratic Party has done in this election. A vote for the Democratic nominee, who happens to be Barack Obama, sends the message that winning however you can, even if that means disenfranchising millions of voters, ignoring misogyny against a sitting senator and former First Lady, and running ripshod at the caucuses are part of the approved standards for the Democratic Party. That Obama is a flawed candidate makes it that much easier for us to to not vote for him. I'm glad that Hillary's supporters will have a way of showing their support for her from somewhere other than a cage, but it's a different issue from JSDN.

    I think this line in your comment (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:59:43 AM EST
    "This isn't about her" says it all. I find that unfortunate. If it's a parade in her honor, it should be about her.

    The parade is about her. (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:01:16 AM EST
    Not voting for Obama isn't.

    Jeralyn, (5.00 / 12) (#9)
    by dk on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:12:46 AM EST
    I think the issue that Samanthasmom is raising (and Samanthasmom, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that your post seems to indicate that your opinion is that Hillary should use a rally put together by her supporters as just an opportunity to campaign for Obama.

    First off, I really don't think that any of her supporters have some illusion that Hillary isn't backing Obama if he's the nominee.  Where's the confusion that the "world" needs to hear put to rest?  She's been very clear to everyone that she will support the nominee.  

    However, as the point of the convention is to actually nominate a nominee, what is the problem with actually going through an actual nomination?  Hillary is on video stating that a real live nomination procudure would be a healthy thing.  The reality is that the superdelegates decided the nomination.  Why is everyone so scared just to put that on record at the convention?  Is trying to foster some kind of temporary collective amnesia really the best way to support Obama?  Really?

    I agree with you that Hillary deserves a rally that simply honors her achievement, and that there is no need for the rally to bring up Obama or McCain.  But on the other hand, I don't see why it has to be turned into an Obama unity rally either.  There are plenty of those going on.


    I Wish She Would (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by flashman on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:21:20 AM EST
    rethink not requesting to have her name on the ballot.  If she truly supports Obama, then her supporters need some closure.  By not doing so, many, I think, will see this as some sort of "manufatured amnesia" and could come away feel as though their vioces were squashed once again.  Hillary said many times during the campaign that it was good for the party to have the process play out in a legitimate way.  The vote sould be fair, inclusive, and at the end of the day, the candidate should be nominated in the most legitimate way possible.  

    Clinton hasn't (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:25:22 PM EST
    said she doesn't want her name on the ballot, that is false information that unfortunately went viral.

    In fact, her statements last week at a fundraiser say just the opposite -- she argues just what you are saying, that the best path for unity is to play through the convention according to the traditional (and written DNC) procedures.  Then everyone gets a chance to cheer for their candidate and feel their voices were heard.  It's much more likely to turn delegates (at least) toward supporting Obama with some enthusiasm.

    For many folks, bell was already rung back in May if not earlier, and can't be unrung.  But convention delegates are party folks, for the most part, and are much more likely to be able to move to support Obama.


    Absolutely (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:26:30 AM EST
    And I also reject the idea that those of us who are refusing to ride the unity pony are just in some state of grief that we will get over. I am tickled beyond measure that Hillary's supporters are organizing a celebration of her candidacy. In fact, I hope to be there. But the PUMAs and the other Just Say No Deal groups are not going to change our minds because she has asked us to. We have already politely declined. It was the end line in Jeralyn's post about Hillary meeting with the paraders to ask them to support Obama that I was responding to. I hope she respects us too much to turn this into a unity event.

    On the contrary (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:39:30 AM EST

    I hope she respects us too much to turn this into a unity event.

    Respect for you?

    Of course Hillary will do her best to bring the party together behind the nominee. Hillary has too much respect for the goals of the Democratic Party to do otherwise. Hillary has never been about herself. She is about putting Dems in office and advancing the goals of the Dems over the GOP. A person that flutters away from the party because they didn't get their chosen candidate isn't the type person Hillary will ever be. Hillary (if I may steal a phrase) is a Big Tent Democrat.

    Enjoy the parade Jeralyn. I'm sure you will be there in support of both Hillary and the Democratic party.


    Excuse me, but those of us not supporting Obama (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by MsExPat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:49:30 AM EST
    have not "fluttered away from the party because they didn't choose our preferred candidate"

    As samanthasmom and others have made it clear, we are DEMOCRATS who strongly feel that our party and its values have been hijacked by the Obama cabal.


    if you think Obama has (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:00:16 PM EST
    hijacked the values of the Democratic Party, you are entitled to your opinion but I believe that to be demonstrably false. Thus, you now have the distinction of becoming the first pro-Hillary supporter to be designated a chatterer on this site (see the comment rules) and your comments on this topic are limited to four a day.

    It's one thing to oppose Barack Obama because you disagree with his policies, don't think he has the requisite experience, etc. If that was your position, I'd limit you to 10 comments a day. But to say he has hijacked Democratic values when his positions on issues are almost identical to Hillary's and are completely in sync with those of the party, is promoting a falsehood.

    If you can't support Obama this year, why not do something constructive, like get started on 2012, rather than provide an assist to Republicans? Of course, if you're not a Democrat, the answer's clear. Unfortunately, that also makes you a chatterer here.


    I'm having a hard time with (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:38:14 PM EST
    MsExpat being branded a 'chatterer' when her comment described the feelings of a group rather than argued the opinions of the group.

    Not to mention her description was to correct/defend against a characterization of the group as sore losers.

    I describe what I think are Republican opinions all the time -- including how they view Obama -- I dare say almost every commenter has made similar statements at one point or another -- yet that is not (as far I can tell) a chatterer offense.

    And back on point to the discussion -- even if what MsExPat said was 'demonstrably false', that does not logically lead to the conclusion that she/others are not 'real' Democrats OR sore losers.  At most it's evidence that MsExPat et al have a different conception of what a 'real' Democrat is and judge the performance of the Dem leadership in fulfilling Democratic party principles very differently than you do, or even most people who consider themselves Democrats.

    It's your site and obviously you can limit/delete anyone you want, including me for giving this opinion.  But this really bothered me.


    Thanks for that, Valhalla (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MsExPat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:05:59 PM EST
    I have to say, I also was taken aback by Jeralyn's unexpected and harsh reaction.  Nothing I said in my post is radically different from the opinions expressed, over and over, by many others here. (And I always strive to express myself in a calm, literate and gentlewomanly manner.) I would be happy to defend my position that the Obama Movement has placed the election of a single person above of the traditions and values of my party, but I don't really feel like doing it under the circumstances. As a "banned" poster, my voice has been shut down, and I don't like the feeling of having to post through a gag order.

    I've enjoyed the discussions here, and thank all of you for your lively opinions and discourse. Take care.


    that's to Miss Ex-Pat (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:05:13 PM EST
    MsExPat, if you please (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by MsExPat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:19:36 PM EST
    And I'm sorry to have offended you by simply stating what so many others here have also expressed: that the Obama movement has hijacked the Democratic party that I have been a part of since my childhood days of knocking on doors for McGovern. I'm pretty sure that history will show Obama's candidacy to have been a turning point in the history of the Democratic party--and not in a good way.

    That's it. I'm gone.


    But we didn't leave because (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:52:24 AM EST
    we didn't get our chosen candidate, which was my original comment. To continue shouting "sore loser" at us instead of listening is OK with me if that's what Obama's campaign and supporters want to do, but it isn't getting them anywhere. We respect Hillary and we're sorry she lost, but we've moved on - just not to supporting the DNC. Hillary's name on the ballot is important to us, not because we think the heavens will open and the SDs will give her the nomination, but because that is the way the convention has always been done. To refuse to have her name put in nomination would be just one more way that this primary election has been a fraud. If you want Obama to be a legitimate candidate, then have him get the nomination the way other candidates have through a nomination and roll call vote for all candidates who still have pledged delegates.

    The article says that (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:03:26 PM EST
    she can only be on the ballot if she makes the request in writing. The article points out she hasn't done so and she has said she won't. That's why I think it's futile.

    Thanks for your several comments explaining, I'm trying to understand the ballot issue.


    It's not sourced. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:07:28 PM EST
    The article points out she hasn't done so and she has said she won't.

    That's not definitive. I'm not buying it - I think it's wishful thinking.

    Until I hear it from her own lips I don't believe it.

    In fact she has said the opposite as recently as last week.


    Jeralyn, I'm an educator, (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:18:52 PM EST
    not an expert on the "Roolz", but this is my understanding. To have Hillary's name put into formal nomination at the convention, 300 delegates would have to sign a petition - like getting nomination papers was the way it was described to me. Then Hillary herself would have to sign the petition. If I'm wrong, maybe someone can correct me. Currently, the delegates are working on getting the signatures for the petitions. I don't know how well they're doing, but it seems to be going OK so far. Here is a video of Hillary herself talking about the process. It was last week in SF.

    300 petition is correct (none / 0) (#81)
    by CHDmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:18:35 PM EST
    300-600 delegates have to sign a petetion for Hillary to be on the ballot. Heid li from the Denver group has alot of the rules (the real rules, not Donna's Roolz) at their site.
     People are already working on the petition and according to people that were at the fundraiser last week (and the videos showing it )Hillary believes it is an important to actually bring unity to the party.
     I get a little annoyed that for decades this never was a big deal, people that had delegates, like Kennedy, Dean ect, had their names on the ballot and there was a real vote. So why all of a sudden is this a problem?

    We'e trying to keep our party ... (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:58:29 AM EST
    ... (and everything it stands for) out of the dumpster.

    Dems will go down in history as sexist (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:58:56 AM EST
    for changing rules and traditions yet again -- and only for the only woman (of 30-plus) ever to get this far for the presidency -- if she and we are not accorded the customary nomination and honorary convention balloting.

    It's just that simple and clear.  If the Dems really want me to teach that next spring and forever after, bring it on.  I'll even make it a final exam question:  "Which major party made history, but yet again on the wrong side of history in its treatment of women. . . ."


    I think I'd like to take your class. (none / 0) (#26)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:00:57 PM EST
    Do you teach it online?

    Awwww. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:24:16 PM EST
    I've been working toward that -- dozens of lectures, thousands of power points, etc.  But there are others online -- and your posts show that you're ready for a grad seminar, anyway.:-)

    And there are great websites.  For one, the National Women's History Museum -- a virtual museum put together by a lot of us as we wait to see whether Congress ever will act on bills before it for years now to create an actual museum on the mall.  And specific to the topic of this blog is the Center for American Women in Politics website by Rutgers.  And many, many more google up, so I won't take up bandwidth.  And for videos, I am fond of PBS' One Woman, One Vote and Not for Ourselves Alone on Anthony and Cady Stanton -- and its incredible Crusader for Justice on Ida B. Wells-Barnett.  (My students have been known to so like class excerpts from these that they check out the entire hours of video, invite mom and grandma and aunts, and pop the popcorn for historical chick flick nights.:-)

    But for a basic text on good ol' paper, I am fond of Born for Liberty by the great (and just retired) Sara Evans -- and again, specific to political progress, the classic Century of Struggle by the late, great Eleanor Flexner.    And the entire six volumes of Cady Stanton, Anthony, and others' History of Woman Suffrage -- the how-to manual they left us on how to win the country and change the Constitution again.  It keeps coming in darn handy.:-)


    I'll meet you in an open thread one day (none / 0) (#57)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:44:48 PM EST
    I'm an online curriculum designer. (science and math, but the principles of design are the same) You've let me pick your brain. I'll let you pick mine. 8^)

    When the Democratic party (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:35:17 PM EST
    starts showing respect to ALL its members(not just the ones who supported Obama) then it can talk to be about support. Not one single minute before.

    I am glad Hillary will get the respect she deserves from somewhere. Lord only knows she didn't get it from the DNC during the primary.


    Yes, it should be about her (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:15:30 AM EST
    and not about her campaigning for Obama.

    If it's about her (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:49:16 AM EST
    then why say that she has to say a darn thing about anyone else.

    Jeralyn, AFAIK, she has not released her delegates (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by goldberry on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:20:40 AM EST
    That is what the blurb you quoted is implying.  To me it sounds like she has told her delegates to vote for Obama.  I can assure in no uncertain terms that that would NOT go over well for those of us in states that voted decisively for Clinton and spent millions of dollars on primaries that will become null and void if she releases her delegates before they have a chance to vote for her.  
    I expect that there will be a nominating petition for her to sign, maybe more than one.  This whole movement has many moving parts and we can't keep track of them all.  At that point, she can decide whether to sign it.  If she signs it, her delegates will have an opportunity to vote for her as they should.  She has expressed a desire to see that the process for them to do so be carried out.  We have her on videotape saying so.  We also have her reasoning for insisting on such a process: there will be no party unity if her historic candidacy, voters and delegates are not honored.  
    SO, if I were you, I'd be a lot more skeptical of that blurb and others like it.  They fly in the face of the facts.

    Ok, but is the blurb wrong (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:06:58 PM EST
    that Hillary has to make the request in writing and so far she hasn't done so? Is there a time limit? Has she indicated she will make a written request?

    If the Rocky Mountain News is wrong, they should be told.


    She's negotiating (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:18:49 PM EST
    That's what she said in the video that was going around last Thursday/Friday. She has to negotiate with the Obama campaign and DNC about the vote. She was very clear that she wanted to be on the ballot. Basically, I think it will end up being a sham like the rules mtg. Negotiated so that there is no way she can win the nomination or there will be no vote.

    We will know the difference (none / 0) (#40)
    by goldberry on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:42:22 PM EST
    If it's sham, if she was pressured to give in, if the deck is stacked against her, we will make sure everyone knows it. I mean, everyone who doesn't already have a clue.  

    In the video (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:12:12 PM EST
    she was asked if she won the nom would she accept it. She said that wouldn't happen. Just the fact she has to negotiate p!sses me off more than I can say.

    Thanks, Jeralyn (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by goldberry on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:44:18 PM EST
    We have to remain on our toes.  Obama needs unity if he is to win but he can't get it without giving in on this.  Being a harda$$ will only solidify the resistance.  

    I corrected the numerous factual errors (none / 0) (#38)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:25:58 PM EST
    in this report in the comments at RMN.

    She did not concede, she suspended; she did not release her delegates; she said as recently as last week that she believes her delegates shoul dgeta chance to vote for her.


    6 p.m. the night before is the deadline (none / 0) (#39)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:32:20 PM EST
    and other procedural info also is at Heidi Li's blog.  For those of us who are process freeks, it's pretty interesting stuff . . . as I can see some ways that this could go down if delegates get ticked.  And some seem to be ticked, from links to them on Li's blog.

    Here, Also From CQ (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by daring grace on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:30:13 PM EST

    A link to a pdf of the DNC rules (P. 20 is the relevant page) and a collection of quotes from Clinton advocates giving some of their perspective on what's happening, including:

    "Toni Alves, a Clinton advocate, said she attended a Clinton fundraiser Thursday in Palo Alto, Calif., where the senator indicated she thought her nomination would be good for party unity. Alves told CQ Politics that Clinton said she wanted her supporters to have their voices heard and her delegates to have the chance to vote for her at the convention.

    Some Democratic activists are moving ahead with plans to finish gathering delegate signatures for a nominating petition for Clinton. Will Bower, co-founder of the pro-Clinton group PUMA ("Party Unity My A$$"), said the organization has 200 of the 300 delegate signatures necessary to qualify Clinton for the ballot. Party rules stipulate that Clinton would have to sign off on her own nomination.

    Bower said the Daily News report was an attempt by the media to quash the petition drive. "It's not true. She wants her name to be placed in nomination but she can't actively ask for delegates to do it because she has suspended her campaign and that would be campaigning. But we can make sure the petition is in place for her to sign if and when she needs to or wants to at the convention," he said.

    Bower also said PUMA is holding a closed conference Aug. 8-10 in Washington during which activists will meet to coordinate their strategy for the Democratic National Convention and also to try to secure the final 100 signatures necessary to get Clinton nominated.

    Heidi Li Feldman, a Georgetown University law professor, co-founded The Denver Group to push a roll call vote on Clinton's nomination. She says Clinton is in a tenuous political situation, caught between her desire not to undermine Obama's candidacy or Democratic efforts to win the White House, and giving voice to her supporters and delegates."


    And more from ABC News (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:47:31 PM EST
    I looked on the Dem. Nat. Convention (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:00:51 PM EST
    web site but couldn't find any information about how a name is placed in nomination at the convention and the prerequisites for doing so.  There is an e mail address to ask "Jerry" about convention procedures.  

    Good explanation here: (none / 0) (#46)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:14:41 PM EST
    From the link: (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:19:06 PM EST
    need minimum of 300 delegates plus written o.k. of nominee.  

    This is interesting in the rules (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:28:37 PM EST
    c. Delegates may vote for the candidate of their choice whether or not the name of such candidate was placed in nomination. Any vote cast other than a vote for a presidential candidate meeting the requirements of Article VI of this Call and Rule 12.K. of the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules shall be considered a vote for "Present."

    Would be ironic, no?


    Very. (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:40:19 PM EST
    I saw that at Li's link (none / 0) (#47)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:15:51 PM EST
    above, too, I thought, so is it not working for you?

    Heidi Li (none / 0) (#60)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:48:29 PM EST
    posted the DNC rules section regarding nomination procedures on her site recently (I don't have the link handy).

    Earlier this year I looked for a copy of the convention/nom rules but it wasn't easy to find.

    She has until the convention to decide.  Some of her delegates are organzing the petitions now (and having them notarized, in duplicate, and stored in a secure location).  Last I heard (last week) they were at about 200, but that is entirely internet info -- as valid or not as any other info you find on the internet.

    Gary Mouro, former chair of Clinton's campaign in Texas, gave an interview to Fox yesterday in which he argues for her name in nomination (no real info about the process specifically though).  But interesting in that he's a solid Dem operative making the name in nom argument.


    Yes, the article is wrong. n/t (none / 0) (#74)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:02:35 PM EST
    Hillary Parade (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:24:38 AM EST
    Sorry I can't be there to stand up for my choice!

    Not supporting Obama (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:47:15 PM EST
    does not equate to working to get McCain elected.  This attitude is tiring.  Parties have been divided and members of a party have refused to vote for a nominee for generations.  This is nothing new.

    I live in CA.  My vote doesn't matter as Obama will win CA.  Does that mean I'm working to get McCain elected?  uh yeah, right....

    so what does not supporting OBAMA support? (none / 0) (#63)
    by MrPope on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:12:15 PM EST

    Now I support Barr? (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:47:25 PM EST
    Make up my mind would you.

    Asked and answered (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:01:13 PM EST
    at least a few dozen times here.

    There are other options.

    1. Write-in
    2. Not voting
    3. Voting 3rd party
    4. Voting only down ticket races

    Amazing that someone with your obvious powers of imagination can't figure that out.

    Well... (none / 0) (#66)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:25:42 PM EST
    for me it might mean refraining from ca

    OOps (none / 0) (#67)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:27:19 PM EST
    refraining from casting a vote for the top of the ticket and voting only for downticket dems in my state, Florida.

    So, who amongst us will be in (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:06:47 AM EST
    the parade?  I'm curious.

    Me. (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:12:59 AM EST
    Yay! And I appreciate your offer (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:54:04 AM EST
    from 'way back to put me up in Denver, Echinopsia.  But the way it has gone down since then with the Dems, I'll be back home.

    I will march around my living room or yard or something with you, though, you bet -- you and 18 million others of us who made history by casting our ballots for Clinton . . .  the most votes ever for any candidate, woman or man, in any primary race.

    They can't take that away from us.  Or from Senator Clinton.


    Consider the invitation open. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:01:23 PM EST
    Anytime you're in Denver.

    Unless I have a paying guest for the convention, you still get first dibs on the spare bed in my office.

    I'm going to try to rent it out as the Cream City Honorary Bedroom.


    Please take your laptop and (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:13:20 PM EST
    camera and e mail Jeralyn to request permission to post a diary about your experience and observations.  Thanks.

    Camera, yes. Laptop, no. (none / 0) (#42)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:52:28 PM EST
    I will be sure to tell you all about it, if Jeralyn will allow it.

    I'm sorry Jeralyn will not be participating. This isn't about Obama or who anyone will vote for. This is about recognizing and celebrating Hillary and her accomplishments. I really don't see any conflict of interest.

    BTW, it should be clear (not that the article makes this point) that the parade is sponsored by Women Vote, Women Count, NOT PUMA.

    Anyone who appreciates Hillary should participate.


    And anybody who appreciates (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:20:37 PM EST
    Abigail Smith Adams, Lucretia Coffin Mott, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucy Stone, the Rev. Olympia Brown, Sojourner Truth, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, Carrie Lane Chapman Catt . . . Margaret Chase Smith, Shirley Chisholm, Patricia Schroeder. . . .

    Senator Clinton will be celebrating them and seeing this as appreciation of them, too -- bet on it.  She knows her -- our -- women's history so well.


    Jeralyn's call re whether to (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    participate I guess.  As I recall, her first choice was Edwards, then Clinton, now Obama.  

    I'll blog it and be there (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:42:35 PM EST
    just not in it.

    going to the parade (4.00 / 1) (#72)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:53:32 PM EST
    I'm planning to attend the Emily's List reception on the 26th as well.  So, I'll try to do both--the reception and part of the parade depending on the timing of the parade vis-a-vis the Emily's List event.  I believe that the numbers of women turning out to celebrate Hillary's historic run could send a very positive message.

    I sure hope it's televised (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:54:59 PM EST
    I still have my video of the hours and hours of the last Million Woman March on Washington, the March for Life.  Networks nearly ignored it but C-Span ran it in full -- and I had hoped to be there but couldn't get away at the last minute with a group of women family and friends.  So I just watched and watched and reveled in all 3+ hours.

    And I've edited the program to an excerpt usable in class -- and it moves my students every time, too.

    So I'm getting a blank tape ready for this -- and will just have to edit down my last week's lectures so students can see women marching en masse again.  Those who think that women last marched for women's issues in 1920 or 1970 -- and on that day of August 26 then, too -- are surprised to see that we're still, well, p*ssed.  

    But celebrating, too.  So you go, Colorado grrrlz.:-)  Students may be watching you months and years from now.  And learning from you.


    I'll be at the lunch and blog that too (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:43:19 PM EST
    I'll be watching it so I can blog (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:04:26 PM EST
    about it. On the sidelines, not in it.

    Good. (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:12:11 PM EST
    "Well-behaved women (none / 0) (#52)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:21:37 PM EST
    rarely make history" -- but it's useful to have some on the sidelines writing it down, too.

    I am going to try to make it (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:20:57 PM EST
    I live 60 miles south of Denver and some friends and I are organizing to get a group together to get up there.

    Update on the nomination plans (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:45:11 PM EST
    is here.

    If her name is not even on the ballot... (none / 0) (#82)
    by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:21:35 AM EST
    the D&#n Leadership is going to wish it were. That is not a threat of any kind. It's just common sense. We are divided. The only way we are going to be united -- and I have very little faith that it will happen -- is if BOTH candidates are able to bring us together somehow... and this is going to require a LOT of growth on Obama's part, growth that I have not yet set seen any sign of.