home

Will She or Won't She: Latest on Hillary's Name in Nomination

ABC News has the latest on whether Hillary Clinton will put her name in nomination alongside Barack Obama at the Democratic Convention.

Answer: It's not clear.

Friday, the New York Daily News said she was not going to submit a request.

...."She is not going to submit the signed request," the [Clinton] insider told the Daily News. "People are still circulating petitions on her behalf, but this is a done deal."

Party rules stipulate that Clinton must ask in writing to be nominated herself and also submit a petition signed by 300 to 600 delegates. Without her signed request, petitions of support are meaningless.

Today's update: [More...]

"No decisions have been made," Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand said.

"Sen. Clinton is 100 percent committed to helping Barack Obama become the next president of the United States," Strand added. "She is very appreciative of the continued commitment of her supporters and understands there are passionate feelings around the convention. While no decisions have been made at this time, they will be made collaboratively with Sen. Clinton and her staff, the DNC and Sen. Obama's campaign and released at the appropriate time."

Hillary will hold a webchat tomorrow with suporters. More details could be forthcoming then.

But the very fact that details of her convention role remain unresolved less than three weeks before the Democrats descend upon Denver is a fresh sign of the difficulties the party will face at a convention when nearly half the delegates were chosen because of their support for a candidate who will not be the nominee.

Lanny Davis, longtime Clinton supporter, calls the idea of putting her name in nomination "idiotic." But he understands why her supporters want her to do it.

"It's a reflection of genuine frustration by Hillary Clinton supporters that Sen. Obama seems to have forgotten about 18 million voters," Davis said. "My concern about Sen. Obama is he doesn't recognize that the outreach to the Clinton grass roots has to be more visible, more overt, as well as more symbolic."

How about making Hillary the keynote speaker at the convention?

Still, some Clinton loyalists have complained that Obama hasn't done enough to help Clinton pay off the debt she amassed during the primaries.

Davis said that if Obama won't name Clinton as his running mate, he could at least designate her the convention's keynote speaker. Clinton will get a choice prime-time slot Tuesday night, but no decisions have been announced regarding the keynote address.

Hillary's supporters want her name in play at the convention.

Clinton is facing pressure from some of her die-hard supporters to request that her name to be placed into nomination.

Several groups of Clinton supporters are organizing marches and demonstrations in Denver. Major events are being planned for Aug. 26, the date Clinton is slated to speak at the convention -- which happens to be the 88th anniversary of the ratification of the constitutional amendment guaranteeing women's suffrage.

One Clinton delegate from Oregon is already collecting signatures:

Castner said she and many other Clinton supporters will only feel as if their voices are being heard if they are allowed to vote for Clinton on a first ballot.

"It's been a tradition since the late 1800s -- it's a nominating convention, you vote, you nominate someone, and you come out unified. I don't see how alienating 1,800 delegates gives you party unity when we walk out of the stadium," she said. "Hillary delegates feel like we're not welcome, needed, or valued."

"I cannot believe that Sen. Clinton, after putting in that much time, energy and effort, would just say, ' Nah, take my name out,' " Castner said.

So will she or won't she? Tune in to Hillary's live chat tomorrow and see if she provides any answers.

< Admission Plan Announced For Obama Speech at Invesco Field | Obama v. McCain on Military Tribunals >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Good -- glad you saw this (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:56:54 PM EST
    and sorry if linking to it was o/t or blogclogging.:-)

    All that is clear to me is that some media are making up stuff.

    I've been watching both Hillary the past (5.00 / 14) (#18)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:23:07 PM EST
    few weeks AND the efforts to get the delegate signatures on the nominating petition, and the repetitive mischaracterizations and false reports are driving me insane.

    From above (not Jeralyn, but the quoted text):

    Clinton is facing pressure from some of her die-hard supporters to request that her name to be placed into nomination.

    No, Clinton is not facing pressure from her die-hard supporters.  The DNC, and especially Howard Dean, is facing pressure from her 'die-hard' supporters to stop resisting her name in nomination.  All the efforts have been aimed not at Clinton, but at the Party.

    The fact that this is even a subject of negotiation, when every convention in the past 100 years has put the non-lead candidates names in (except for the 1996 Clinton reelection convention), is ridiculous.  Clinton, as she notes in the video, conceded sooner than any other competitor-candidate in recent history and has been out campaigning sooner and harder for Obama than any other candidate-competitor.

    How long did it take Howard Dean to 'get over it' and hit the trail for Kerry?  Did he even campaign for Kerry at all?

    Parent

    Howard Dean was a great surrogate for Kerry in '04 (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by beachmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:45:43 PM EST
    He also urged his delegates to vote for Kerry at the 2004 convention.

    Here are the results of the delegate vote at the 2004 convention:

    Democratic National Convention presidential vote, 2004[9]
    Candidate     Votes     Percentage
    John Kerry     4,253     98.40%
    Dennis Kucinich     43     0.99%
    Abstain     26     0.60%
    Totals     4,322     100.00%


    Parent
    And what percentage of delegates did Dean (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:50:29 PM EST
    have? Almost 50%?

    Parent
    Yeah. (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:54:03 PM EST
    beachmom is prolly an Aravois surrogate.

    :)

    Parent

    Aravosis. (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:55:58 PM EST
    Weird and unbelievable hatred from them.

    Parent
    Actually, no. I am not a regular reader of (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by beachmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:00:10 PM EST
    the AmericaBlog.  I just read TalkLeft, and comment once in a while.

    Parent
    You're kidding, right? Where have I showed (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by beachmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:03:47 PM EST
    hatred?  I am just pointing out some facts, and offering my opinion.  I don't think this is good news today at all.  I am showing that Dean, who at one point was the overwhelming front runner for the 2004 presidential nomination race gave up his delegates in support of unity.  True, he did poorly during the primaries, but he did have a passionate group of supporters, and he urged them to vote for Kerry at the convention.

    Parent
    That is true. Don't pick on her because she (5.00 / 9) (#83)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:28:31 PM EST
    doesn't agree with you.  We don't want this blog turning into DK.

    Howard Dean did come around and put the party first in an admirable way, but the circumstances were much different. He didn't go all through the primaries and win the popular vote, be stiffed with regard to his wins in two major states and then be forced to drop out before the convention by the Democratic Party itself for no other reason than they wanted a different candidate to win.  If that had happened, I imagine the legions of Howard Dean voters (I was one) would have had exactly the same response that Hillary voters are having today --the only difference would be that Kos and other so-called Leftist blogs would be screaming louder than everyone else about the outrage.

    Parent

    Yes, (5.00 / 6) (#97)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:38:34 PM EST
    derridog, what you say is true.

    But for some reason, Hillary, who did far better than Dean, is not afforded respect by her party, respect that was given to others in past conventions.

    I'm not apologizing, btw, to beachmom.  

    I don't expect any apology from her.

    Politics is what it is.

    Parent

    exactamundo! (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by nulee on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:29:17 PM EST
    For the Record (5.00 / 11) (#87)
    by The Maven on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:31:53 PM EST
    Dean didn't formally release his delegates and urge that they vote for Kerry on the first ballot until July 26, 2004, the first day of the convention itself.  So if we want to compare apples to apples, let the facts be the facts.  I'm just sayin'.

    Parent
    Ha! (5.00 / 9) (#92)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:36:34 PM EST
    He was much more generous with himself than he's been to Hillary's supporters.

    Parent
    Honestly, does anyone ever remember, (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:39:12 PM EST
    prior to this convention, hearing about any candidate having to ask to be put on the ballot for a vote?  Seriously, I don't ever recall anything like that...

    And, even obama supporters should want this entire thing played out democratically and along the lines of what the democratic platform stands for.  That is, unless they are afraid.

    Parent

    It may be just a formality. (none / 0) (#183)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:53:41 PM EST
    That's probably why we've never heard of it before. I don't know.

    Parent
    He had delegates. And he didn't want them, (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by beachmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:58:52 PM EST
    because he knew who the nominee was.  

    Parent
    He only had a little over 100 delegates (5.00 / 13) (#54)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:03:46 PM EST
    and he still got the choice, the decision was given him as it has been for every candidate in the last 100 years. For the love of God Kucinich got a roll call vote!!

    the only reason not to give Hillary the same consideration is if he is afraid to lose and if he is then we have bigger problems.

    Parent

    To be clear, it is Hillary's choice. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by beachmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:04:48 PM EST
    SHE decides.  Those are the rules.  

    Parent
    Since when did the DNC start following the RULZ? (5.00 / 8) (#63)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:08:09 PM EST
    Good point. Had they followed their rules (3.00 / 2) (#65)
    by beachmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:11:58 PM EST
    as set out by Terry McAuliffe formerly head of the DNC, MI & FL would have ZERO delegates seated.  Those were the rules.


    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 7) (#75)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:20:25 PM EST
    We've been over this again and again.

    It's your interpretation that is in question.

    Look, it's pretty cut and dried.

    Neither candidate, which includes Obama, has enought votes to clinch it.

    Parent

    Actually, they would have been seated at 50%. (5.00 / 8) (#76)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:22:07 PM EST
    But that is another argument that has been beat to death, so please don't reply.  Thanks.

    Parent
    Please, that is not correct or accurate (5.00 / 9) (#77)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:22:39 PM EST
    information, and the entire issue was discussed, dissected, hashed and rehashed here at TL preceding the May 31 RCB meeting and after.  You can read through the archives to find discussions.

    And I think you might have the wrong tpm, Obama supporters usually accuse Howard Ickes of being the person causing MI/FL to be all Hillary's fault.

    Parent

    False (5.00 / 13) (#78)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:23:05 PM EST
    Why do people still have to repeat these well-documented falsehoods??

    THE PRIMARY IS OVER.  YOU CAN STOP LYING NOW.

    Parent

    Why? (5.00 / 6) (#98)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:38:46 PM EST
    Because repetition = truth is sadly a winning strategy among some people.  We have always been at war with Eastasia.

    Parent
    It's been what, nine months? (5.00 / 6) (#109)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:50:09 PM EST
    Jesus Christ, this blows my mind.  The same old lies.

    Parent
    Dean didn't hae 300 delegates (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by dianem on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:09:43 PM EST
    He didn't have enough delegates to count at the convention, anyway. Don't you need 300 to sign a petition saying they want you on the ballot?

    Parent
    Yes, we can see (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:47:36 PM EST
    how well Governor Dean's surrogate powers helped President, er, I mean, (on his way out) Senator Kerry.

    Parent
    It is my sincere hope that Hillary will be (5.00 / 17) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:59:31 PM EST
    on the ballot for nomination.  It is the way things are done, for the men, at least.  There is NO way she should not be on it...C'mon DNC can't you pretzelize the rulz to help out Hillary...pretty please :)

    No begging allowed. The DNC SHOULD/MUST (5.00 / 14) (#13)
    by Shainzona on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:12:40 PM EST
    put her name into nomination...she got over 1800 bloody delegates and over 18,000,000 votes.

    Men with far far far far far less than that got their names nominated.

    End.  Of.  Subject.

    Parent

    If it doesn't, it's slapping 18 million faces (5.00 / 9) (#135)
    by lmv on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:09:37 PM EST
    Every other candidate has been in nomination.  Is this the Democratic Party or the Obama Party?

    Gary Mauro, a close friend of the Clintons since their organizing days in Texas during law school, told FoxNews he was voting for Hillary at the convention.  

    I consider him a Hillary surrogate.  If he said it, it has to mean something.  I guess we'll see tomorrow.

    Parent

    It's Garry, not Gary. But you can be positive (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:14:55 PM EST
    that if he was on FoxNews then Hillary knows.  They are extremely close.  This was coordinated.

    Parent
    Oh, for the love of God. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by beachmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:55:18 PM EST
    "For the men"?  

    The 2004 delegate convention vote:

    Democratic National Convention presidential vote, 2004[9]
    Candidate     Votes     Percentage
    John Kerry     4,253     98.40%
    Dennis Kucinich     43     0.99%
    Abstain     26     0.60%
    Totals     4,322     100.00%

    So other than Kuccinich, there were no "men" running in the 2004 primaries?

    Parent

    What's your point? (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:56:50 PM EST
    Wtf are you saying, anyway? (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:57:23 PM EST
    She's baaaaaack.  

    Parent
    Yeah. (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:09:03 PM EST
    Obama...mama?

    Definitely.

    Parent

    I never could stand O'M"s taste in (none / 0) (#66)
    by MarkL on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:12:36 PM EST
    home decor. So gawdy. No wonder her neighbors didn't like her.

    Parent
    I haven't got the foggiest clue.... (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Shainzona on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:07:18 PM EST
    what you're talking about.

    I guess you're trying to suggest that my use of "men" was sexiest.  It wasn't.  It's just fact.

    Parent

    Obviously, there were but they conceded (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:15:49 PM EST
    early on since they obtained only a small number of delegates.

    Parent
    I know Kucinich looks like a Munchkin, but (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:32:03 PM EST
    the last I heard, he's a man. He was on the ballot and he got votes, which is all we are asking for for Hillary.  Hmmmmm.....exactly how does this prove your point that he didn't?

    Parent
    It is HRC's decision to be on the ballot or not... (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by LatinoDC on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:18:51 PM EST
    that's what it's going to come down to.  The reason why she is having doubts (and why the DNC might not want her to be on the ballot) is because she might get some votes, probably a pretty decent percentage, IDK, 10%?20%? and that is def not good for the democratic nominee (i guess it shows some weakness).  However, like it or not, at the end it will be HER decision.

    Parent
    Oh I'm sure they are pressuring her with (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:23:19 PM EST
    a big stick aimed at her kneecaps to NOT DO IT!  But, of course, she could decide to go ahead anyway.

    Parent
    your point is.. (none / 0) (#156)
    by LatinoDC on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:28:25 PM EST
    It's called irony. (none / 0) (#162)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:32:10 PM EST
    and the point of your irony is... (none / 0) (#163)
    by LatinoDC on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:33:23 PM EST
    If she is not included (5.00 / 7) (#82)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:28:15 PM EST
    the whole thing could become chaos. No, this election is the Dem's to win or lose, and creating anger and frustration would not be the answer.

    Parent
    Yeh, if h*ll hath no fury (5.00 / 13) (#94)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:36:54 PM EST
    like a woman scorned -- imagine the h*llish impact of millions of women scorned.  And many men, too.

    And it will not be Donna Brazile's "blood in the streets" that she threatened if her guy didn't get all the roolz broken to boost him past the preference of the majority of primary voters.

    Nope, it will be a cold, cold anger.  Those who know me know that when I'm heated in reply, I'm still persuadable.  But once the anger goes cold, all that's left is ashes of any hope of winning me.

    An opinion pollster just heard that from me.  Polling for the Dems here.  When he asked if I was going to vote Dem and got my reply, he said "you're really angry too."  (I found the "too" interesting.)

    Yep, I said.  I will vote for some Dems -- but not because they're Dem.  Not anymore.  They've got to give me a lot more than the fact that they're affiliated with the party that puts up candidates that don't uphold its platform, the party that breaks its very charter along with its rules.

    Parent

    A Question of Grim (5.00 / 12) (#114)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:51:53 PM EST
    Here's a quote from The Heraclitan Fire that got some circulation back in May, which I thought at the time perfectly described my reaction to many aspects of the campaign, and applies here as well:

    I know that most of the professional political corps pooh-poohs this as fire-breathing partisan hype but I have witnessed a level of fury about this that is absolutely unprecedented in all my political experience. This is not hot-blooded, blowhard posturing, this is cold, hard, grim resolve - and I'm seeing it from all quarters - it's very, very real. And it means that Obama doesn't have a snowball's chance of winning in the fall, the Republicans have not even begun to train their howitzers on him and he's such an easy target.

    I'm of the shouting/heated = ok but cold, silent and grim = watch out school, myself.

    Parent

    Cold hard (5.00 / 11) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:07:27 PM EST
    resolve is dead on. And Obama helps voters make the decision not to vote for him easier every day.

    Parent
    Perfect description. (5.00 / 10) (#155)
    by Mari on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:28:23 PM EST
    I've tried to see the point of view of BTD and Jeralyn, but Obama keeps reinforcing my negative impressions of him. I have such a visceral reaction to him whenever I see his ads. The phoney pretentiousness, the courting of rightwing voters, especially the conservative evangelicals, the presumptiousness of acting as if he has already won, the fake folksy accent all bring back his despicable, undemocratic primary behavior. Yeah, it's a cold, hard anger because whatever the result of the election, it feels as if the country continues to fall backwards.

    Parent
    Revenge (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:06:59 PM EST
    is something best served cold.

    Parent
    Good Grief (5.00 / 14) (#3)
    by flashman on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:59:55 PM EST
    Way can't the Democrats do ONE dang thing without making a quagmire out of it?  Just have the vote without manipulation.  Why is that so hard?

    because the Dems (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:59:46 PM EST
    want to prove the R's and their supporters that they can't run their own party much less the country.

    too many damn chiefs and not enough Indians!

    Parent

    Or (5.00 / 5) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:09:00 PM EST
    they're just as totalitarian as the GOP. Right wing fundamentalism now has a twin with left wing fundamentalism.

    Parent
    they are not...democrats are democrats.. (none / 0) (#145)
    by LatinoDC on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:20:09 PM EST
    if HRC decides to put her name on the ballot that will be the case...

    Parent
    No. (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:34:45 PM EST
    Democrats at not lockstep.

    Since Hillary and Obama pretty much split the primary vote, however, there needsto be acceptable resolution.

    I can think of one way to do that.

    Parent

    whether it helps winning on November or not, I (none / 0) (#179)
    by LatinoDC on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:50:22 PM EST
    would love to see an BO/HRC ticket...I will still vote for Obama anyways though...and yes, I was a HRC supporter in the primary..

    Parent
    Andrea Mitchell was on Joe last night (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by kredwyn on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:00:29 PM EST
    discussing the fact that she thought that it would be impossible for her to be on the ticket with her "loose cannon.....errrr...former president" husband who can't seem to find anything nice to say about the candidate.

    That's about the time I turned off the radio.

    Andrea Mitchell (5.00 / 12) (#8)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:06:19 PM EST
    should keep her mouth shut.

    She's married to Alan "don't worry; be happy" Greenspan.

    Grrrrrrrr.

    Parent

    now now now... (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by kredwyn on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:08:48 PM EST
    it's only a small economic slump.

    Parent
    Greenspan? Gotta read this.... (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by nulee on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:46:35 PM EST
    WOW (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:51:57 PM EST
    I would be asking him for the 30 million RIGHT now!!  Unbelievable!!  Great link btw!   Like a big sticka buttah!!

    Parent
    Because we heard Hillary (5.00 / 18) (#5)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:02:42 PM EST
    say herself that she believes that party unity would be better served if her name is placed in nomination, we will know that it was Obama and the DNC who forced her to forgo it no matter what she says to us tomorrow. If that's the way this shakes out, for party unity it will be a case of "nail meet coffin".

    It is her decision to put her name on the ballot.. (none / 0) (#148)
    by LatinoDC on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:21:25 PM EST
    For some reason, (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:04:25 PM EST
    I'm thinking of the Beatles' "Revolution."

    We need another (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:21:49 PM EST
    REAL revoloution when someone who uses the same excuses Bush uses for the Iraq invasion is considered our last, great, "liberal" hope.

    Parent
    Well, Anthony and Cady Stanton's (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:47:31 PM EST
    newspaper was The Revolution.  Sounds like a good name for a third-party blog now.

    Parent
    Actually that song was anti-revolution. (none / 0) (#102)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:43:04 PM EST
    You say you want a revolution
    Well, you know, we all want to change the world...

    And then,

    Everything is going to be... alright.

    In other words, just go on with your lives and get over it. ...not a very helpful sentiment for me right now.

    Parent

    Um... (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:50:38 PM EST
    Well, you know, we all want to change the world...
    And then,

    Everything is going to be... alright.

    Yes.  I think it fits here.

    Parent

    The full lyrics are (none / 0) (#205)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:12:44 PM EST
    here. Enjoy.

    Parent
    Let's skip all the awkwardness entirely (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by HonoraryClinton on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:05:35 PM EST
    and just named her VP!

    Problem solved.

    Now I'm gonna go eat a cookie.

    its called a NOMINATING convention (5.00 / 12) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:06:26 PM EST
    anybody who think there wont be a roll call vote is going to have a problem

    Garry Mauro is absolutely correct in that we need (5.00 / 11) (#14)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:14:43 PM EST
    to have the roll call vote.  It's the process.  Obama's people are afraid something is going to happen.....

    Parent
    It absolutely will (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:24:12 PM EST
    if they don't allow the roll call vote to take place. Are they really so insecure, or is it that they have to disrespect her and her supporters one more time while they still have the chance?

    Parent
    Obama will win the nomination.... (2.00 / 1) (#154)
    by LatinoDC on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:24:31 PM EST
    the problem is that if Hillary is on the ballot and gets 10% or 20% of the delegates, that could actually hurt Obama in the general election...that is why all these negotiations are taking place...at the end it is and will be HRC's decision, I see nothing wrong with negotiations...

    Parent
    I'm confused (5.00 / 10) (#160)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:30:48 PM EST
    Who the heck is going to refuse to vote for Obama because he only got 90% of the delegate votes at the convention?

    Hillary keeps saying that a roll call vote is the way the party gets to unity and achieves closure, not the reverse.  Some people just aren't listening.

    Parent

    Link to HILLARY's actual comments on the (5.00 / 8) (#12)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:09:57 PM EST
    issue:

    HERE.

    Also, here's Gary Mauro, head of Clinton's TX campaign, making the case for putting her name into nomination:

    HERE

    I have transcribed Hillary's comments on the nomination issue, but they are not on this computer.  I will post them later if this thread isn't closed out by the time I can get to them.

    I guarantee Obama will lose if these two things (5.00 / 13) (#15)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:18:30 PM EST
    happen:

    #1:  No roll call vote at the convention.  Even if Hillary says it is okay.

    #2:  Hillary is not the VP nominee.

    he's gonna lose anyway (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:54:03 PM EST
    HRC getting or not getting a vote won't be the deal that does him in, it will be the fiasco at Invesco:   the celebrity meme will be signed, sealed and delivered to the GOP headquarters.

     

    Parent

    Will John McCain be the only name (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:20:40 PM EST
    in nomination for the Republicans? And have we ever only had one name on the "ballot"?

    Not if he's smart. The best thing he could do (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:47:16 PM EST
    would be to make the Democrats look undemocratic. After all,  Huckabee isn't going to win and there is no reason for McCain to be threatened by letting him get his roll call vote.

    Parent
    and Romney (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:56:39 PM EST
    imagine how that would look. Oh, and Ron Paul!

    Parent
    Hey , I'd love to see McCain being magnanimous to (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:07:11 PM EST
    Ron Paul. Worth the price of admission.

    Parent
    In '04, only Kuccinich's name appeared. (none / 0) (#30)
    by beachmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:47:54 PM EST
    Or if other names appeared, nobody voted for them.


    Parent
    And your point is... (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:50:12 PM EST
    Kerry was also on the ballot. (none / 0) (#52)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:01:46 PM EST
    If Obama's got this thing in the bag, (5.00 / 13) (#20)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:27:00 PM EST
    not only is there nothing to be lost by putting her name in, but he has everything to gain - really, no one has ever lost stature or points by being a big enough person to allow an honorable action, even if it turns out to be only a symbolic one.

    Is he afraid he could lose?  Well, gee - if that's the case, his refusing to allow it, or her being bullied into not putting her name in, should be a big warning sign to anyone who really cares about the democratic process - which should be all of us.  

    Maybe we could all take up a collection and buy Obama some manners.

    They Want To Create The Illusion (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by flashman on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:56:43 PM EST
    that the party is united behind Barak.  They ( the DNC and Obama ) think that Hillary's supporters' vocal excitement will suggest the party is still divided.  It's just more smoke and mirrors.

    Parent
    It is an illusion. (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:58:42 PM EST
    Illusion. (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:00:59 PM EST
    Perfect description of Obama.  

    Parent
    And ... (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by camellia on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:15:18 PM EST
    "They ( the DNC and Obama ) think that Hillary's supporters' vocal excitement will suggest the party is still divided."  ....... it's not?

    Parent
    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by flashman on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:20:17 PM EST
    but any division has nothing to do with Hillarys vocal supporters.  It's all about creating perception, not reality.

    Parent
    Reality? (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:29:31 PM EST
    Let's see about that Wednesday, November 5th.  Reality will come to haunt Pelosi, Dean, Brazile, Kerry AND Obama that day.

    Maybe it will come quicker for Kerry.  After all, a sizeable contigent of HRC supportets got a primary candidate to face him.  One can only hope.

    Parent

    If Not (none / 0) (#180)
    by flashman on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:51:18 PM EST
    Than what?

    Parent
    Then we know (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:57:41 PM EST
    that the voters have allowed the media to manipulate them to the point where they are voting for a president in much the same way those who voted for Sanjaya or Ruben Studdard.

    While 7th runner up Jennifer Hudson wins Academy Awards and other runners up like Chris Daughtry continue to sell millions of records.

    It's the American Idolization of politics:  the winner is the loser and the loser goes on to be successful!

    Parent

    Yeah. They think that no one notices that we're (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:50:38 PM EST
    here, even though the party division is constantly in the news and being discussed.

    I think they don't want to emphasis the fact that Obama can't win without the Superdelegates.  Golly gee, Donna Brazille would have to quit the party if the primary was decided by the Superdelegates.  That would be sad.

    Parent

    he got more pledge delegates too.... (none / 0) (#185)
    by LatinoDC on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:55:58 PM EST
    and if you are thinking of talking about the pop vote....Obama needed only 29.66% in Michigan to tie HRC, that without counting how write-ins (not taken into account in the official percentages)...I'm not saying Obama won the pop vote, I'm saying we can't really know who won it

    Parent
    erase "how" (none / 0) (#187)
    by LatinoDC on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:56:37 PM EST
    'Uncommitted' sh'd be Nov's Pres protest write-in (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Ellie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:29:21 PM EST
    That way, the Dem Letter of the Roolz Society and the lame candidate they rode in on can claim those votes were The One's ... and see how it plays on Planet Earth.

    My husband and I are voting "Present" (5.00 / 10) (#27)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:41:00 PM EST
    That's a great answer (5.00 / 5) (#215)
    by blogtopus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:49:41 PM EST
    When I'm asked about the GE by Obama supporting friends, I can say I plan to vote present. When they whine and say I might as well vote for McCain, then I can ask why don't they feel the same way about all the 'present' votes that Obama made... does that mean I can consider all those present votes as being against the usual dem stance in the Senate? After all, he's one of 100... where I'm one of 300 million... which one carries more weight / responsibility?

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:49:12 PM EST
    this a new development.

    I just got an email from PFAW:

    There are lots of rumors swirling around in political circles and online about potential running mate picks for Barack Obama. He will probably announce his pick any day now, and as progressives, we need to make our voices heard and let him know that he should pick someone who shares our values.

    Sign our petition to Barack Obama right now urging him to pick a progressive as his candidate for vice president!

    When you sign you can also include who you think Obama's VP pick should be.

    I will not be responding, however.  Of couse, this isn't quite like MoveOn's poll.

    Worst thing they could have done.  It demonstrates that they had no sense of voters in this country.  


    She has to make that call herself but we know she (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Salt on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:52:50 PM EST
    dose not lack the courage needed to act in her interest.  Her op ed today in the WSJ is interesting in the context of this question I think we all could agree a comparison of Obama to Truman is unlikely.  Funny today I also saw an announcement that Pelosi and Reid are going to be hosting a fund raisers to retire her debt of course after the convention, hmmm a little late.  Do you suppose they have finally figured out that Bill Clinton is not the only voter not ready to make nice and still disgusted with the choice by Party Leadership to swift boat he and Hillary as racist effigies, oppressors of Obama because of his difference and not his real attributes for the Office of President, hope so but I doubt it.

    The DNC has major reasons for fear. (5.00 / 9) (#42)
    by wurman on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:55:59 PM EST
    The 3 committees (Rules, Platform, Credentials) are increased from the 25 DNC appointed members to 186 members by adding 161 delegates from the state caucuses on the convention floor.
    David Paul Kuhn, Politico, Apr 2, 2008 (link)
    When the 14 combined votes of Florida and Michigan are counted, the Credentials Committee consists of 186 members who cast 183 votes. Four of those members are allocated to American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands and Democrats Abroad, with each casting a .25 vote.
     Politico goes on to "guess" that the Obama campaign may have a majority on the credentials committee, although possibly NOT if the FL & MI delegates are seated!!!

    The tiger in the room is that Sen. Clinton may end up with a majority on each of the committees, and none of the "experts" wants to deal with this.

    Because the Clinton delegates mostly come from large states with "bonus" delegates for voting the Democratic party, the state caucuses where her delegates are both in charge and in the majority will be able to put more people on the standing committees when they are brought to full strength at the convention.  Each state assigns delegates to the 3 committees in exact ratio to their total delegate strength as per the DNC formula times the 161 added members.

    Many of the small, red states that Sen. Obama won will only be able to place one delegate on each of the 3 standing committees.  States that vote GOP consistently don't get Democratic bonus delegates.

    By making certain that Sen. Clinton is not nominated, the DNC & Sen. Obama ensure that the Clinton delegates cannot organize & implement a coup de main (or PUMA putsch) that would severely split the party & generate a public relations nightmare.

    Among the various state delegations, there may be several parliamentarians who are aware of this possibility.

    It actually could heal the Party IMO not much else (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Salt on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:01:41 PM EST
    could and if the grey whites and women over 35 go anti Dem as it appears the projected quarter expansion in AA turnout is net loss.

    Parent
    rather than a PR nightmare (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:07:14 PM EST
    I can seriously see where a great majority of the Democratic Base would heave a huge sigh of relief if Clinton were to be the Nominee at the end of it all.

    Obama the Actual Candidate is nowhere near as Hopey and Changey and Chantey and Fainty as Obama the Hype.

    In fact, he's a walking, talking, would-you-just-shut-up-already nightmare.  And nearly 50% of Americans are sick of seeing him already (according to the new Pew Poll).

    Parent

    This is what I was thinking (5.00 / 7) (#86)
    by cmugirl on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:31:05 PM EST
    When I saw this - somebody's internal polling shows there is a chance that she could take this from Obama and that scares the heck out them. The powers that be don't want any surprises, although wouldn't that be fantastic news (for so many reasons).  

    If there was a floor fight or an out and out takeover by HRC on votes, the media would virtually ignore McCain and the Republican convention the next week - they would still be talking about the Democratic convention.  That would be the media buzz for weeks and McCain could never recover.

    But, I realize these are the Dems we are talking about - people who are not interested in winning, just making sure the Clintons go gently into the night.

    Parent

    I thought that Obama stacked the Florida and (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:53:08 PM EST
    Michigan delegations with his own people. I thought maybe that's why he suddenly wants them all seated, in case the scenario you describe occurs.

    Parent
    It seems Sen. Clinton is on-board. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by wurman on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:02:56 PM EST
    However, the problem is that any astute state chair could organize a battle from the floor & in the committees without her support.

    Anyone, repeat anyone, can be placed on the standing committees by each state delegaton.  The person(s) need not be (a) delegate(s).

    Ya' betcha' buddy.  This is outta' sight scary stuff to total control freaks, ayeh.

    If you want to hurt your brain, take a look at the "Call" to Convention here (link), especially the allocations of delegates to the committees on page 38 and / or "alternate" page 38 (FL & MI have zero, here).

    Parent

    if for some strange reason HRC gets the nomination (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by LatinoDC on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:07:29 PM EST
    , do you think she would beat McCain?is it easier for Obama supporters to vote for HRC after all these months than for HRC supporters to vote for Obama?...unfortunately, I think that if HRC gets nominated, she'd lose.

    Parent
    Polls consistently show Hillary beating McCain. (5.00 / 0) (#202)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:10:38 PM EST
    Now, why don't you go do a little research before replying to my comment.  No arguments, please.  

    Parent
    For Gawds sake (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Faust on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:02:53 PM EST
    Just make her the VP and lets get this show on the road!

    Hillary is going to be in Las Vegas (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:03:48 PM EST
    to stump for you know who.  I very much want to see her, but it would break my heart to hear her advocating voting for someone who has no business running for prez.  And, I just know I would end up getting thrown out, so guess I will stay home :)

    He coming back to the forferont (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:07:00 PM EST
    is going to show everyone what we are missing. Especially while Obama himself is on vacation.

    Parent
    Hillary's Latest Video (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:14:27 PM EST
    Did you see it? (here)

    It was going really swimmingly right up until she said "as we work together to elect Barack Obama as..." and then I just had to sigh and roll my eyes.

    Parent

    You should go! (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:28:40 PM EST
    I missed a chance to see her here in Boston and am kicking myself for it.  She will certainly talk about the problems facing the country and what we need to do about them.  I have yet to see her try to  puff up Obama as a way to appeal to people, she consistently appeals to people's sense that without a Democratic win in Nov. we are doomed.

    I know you don't agree (I don't either), but don't let the thought of Obama keep you from getting to see her, that would be a great shame.

    Ok, end plea.

    Parent

    Ditto (5.00 / 7) (#95)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:37:02 PM EST
    There's nothing like watching Hillary LIVE in-person and hearing her speak so effortlessly about the issues.

    I'm guessing that 4 out of 5 people there that day will be Hillary supporters who voted for her and delivered Nevada into her tally. So, in all likelihood, you'll be in good company.

    Maybe, when she launches into her "electing Barack Obama" portion of her talk, a good number of you can stick your fingers in your ears and go "La-la-la la-la-la" :) That should bring a smile on her face and send her (and the media folks present) that we mean business.

    Parent

    You should go see Hillary. She is fabulous in (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:40:23 PM EST
    person.  You will regret it if you don't....

    Parent
    He has every right to be President. (2.00 / 1) (#73)
    by beachmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:16:15 PM EST
    I suppose they said that about Lincoln way back, too.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 8) (#120)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:54:50 PM EST
    And they probably called George Washington too skinny, too, so don't forget that argument.

    On the other hand, the McCain campaign would like to point out that Thomas Jefferson was also accused of having an illegitimate black baby.  So everyone can cite to precedent.

    Parent

    ROTFLMAO! (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:17:59 PM EST
    Yeah, that's right. McCain is now Thomas Jefferson by the same standards!

    Parent
    only if properly nominated (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:21:45 PM EST
    and elected... and neither have happened yet.

    Parent
    What are the Vegas dates? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:19:49 PM EST
    She will be here this Friday.... (5.00 / 5) (#115)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:52:46 PM EST
    And at the urging of my fellow Hillary supporters, I will try to get a ticket...will keep you apprised.

    Parent
    I see (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:19:23 PM EST
    her speeches as lowest common denominator. She's advocating for Democrats in general and Obama by default. I mean, is she not going to mention him at all?

    Parent
    Lanny Davis (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:06:41 PM EST
    Lanny Davis, a longtime friend and supporter of the Clintons, called the idea of putting Clinton's name into nomination a "completely idiotic idea that leads to nothing but party disharmony."

    I'm having a hard time believing that Lanny Davis actually said that, and it actually is a misquote and a misrepresentation of what he actually said.

    Lanny was one of the few ardent and vocal Hillary supporters who were allowed on national television/cable news shows to speak on behalf of her and her supporters.

    He even wrote several op-eds in national newspapers like the Wall Street Journal and LA Times on a variety of issues, e.g. the Dream-ticker, concerns about Obama's electability and horrible media coverage of Hillary and her campaign.

    Actually, he did say something very (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:33:04 PM EST
    similar to that on the group-that-shall-not-be-named's radio show.  He did not say 'idiotic' or 'nothing but party disharmony' but he does not believe the name in nomination thing will lead to unity.

    On the other hand, he is a strong advocate of the idea that Hillary as VP is really the only way to unify the party or to guarantee a win for Dems in Nov.

    Whatever.  He is entitled to his opinion, like everyone else.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:21:05 PM EST
    he might be right. After all putting her name into nomination may not bring unity but leaving her name off only seeds more discord.

    Parent
    I see this as another attempt by Obama to game (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:25:11 PM EST
    the system.  As it now stands the nomination is up in the air.  Neither candidate has enough locked-in delegates to win.  Anything can happen at the convention.  The only way Obama can be assured a victory is if Hillary's name is not put forth in nomination.  

    I think she should submit her name. (5.00 / 12) (#85)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:29:14 PM EST
    How typical of the achieving woman to not step up and take the credit she deserves, to not get her part of the limelight.  Nobody here is stupid - Obama and Clinton got almost the exact same number of votes.  Somehow not acknowledging that is going to help party unity?

    It would be more mature to acknowledge their great feats in energizing 36 million of our countrymen and women to vote.  And then stand behind Obama.

    This history for heaven's sake.

    I could see the convention getting ugly (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:37:17 PM EST
    regardless of whether or not Hillary's name is put forth in nomination.  If it isn't there will be some angry people, and if it is there's a possibility of a coup by Hillary.  Either way there could be a big floor fight.  

    There won't be a coup (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by dianem on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:51:28 PM EST
    Clinton would have to be a fool to try to upstage Obama at this point, and she is no fool. There is no way that she could win the Presidency without the support of Obama's supporter's. The fight here is to have the votes recognized... to have her "historic" achievement recognized. There should be no question of counting the votes, and I don't understand why there is.

    Parent
    dead freaking wrong (5.00 / 6) (#134)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:09:06 PM EST
    Hillary could pull it off without the whole of Obama's support.  many republicans and independents LIKED what they saw as the DNC and the media dragged Obama across the finishing line.  

    Hillary isn't superficial.  She comes across as authoritative and grasps the issues.  She's a grown up.  I hardly doubt Senator Clinton would be in Europe on a "lovefest" tour to show she has foreign policy credentials.

    Hillary's name must be included in the vote.  If that's the case, just crown Obama already and the "rules" and the "process" be damned:  but be forewarned...you may make Donna Brazile and her momma mad!

    p.s.  FDR must be spinning in his grave right now at the Democratic party.  you know, the one where he won the nom on the FOURTH vote?!?!?!  The party survived, and we got out of the depression.


    Parent

    I don't think there will be either, just saying (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:11:30 PM EST
    it is a possibility.  

    Parent
    Coup? (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:23:49 PM EST
    "Coup" is a really loaded word.

    I don't think the majority of people arguing for her name to be put into nomination are fostering any illusions that she has a snowball's chance of taking the nomination. It's a respect thing, a recognition of the historical nature of her campaign, and how much it matters to a whole bunch of people. It's a way of allowing people their voice, rather than ignoring them and pretending everyone's on board and happy -- so that they can then get on board. Pretending people aren't happy isn't going to magically make them happy -- but acknowledging their opinions and allowing them their input does make a difference.

    However. If, in the extremely unlikely event that the Clinton delegates stuck with her through the various ballots, and enough Obama delegates changed their minds on the second ballot or enough superdelegates changed their minds and by some lightning-strike combination of factors, she got enough votes to win the nomination, it still wouldn't be a coup. Because that's the way the process works, and the nominee isn't official until the nomination is finalized at the convention.

    Parent

    Exactly. An internal coup would be (5.00 / 10) (#165)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:36:18 PM EST
    by a candidate who has the rules rigged and blocks the traditional processes at the convention, such as nominations made if only for honorary and historic reasons and to achieve a unified party.

    Oh.

    Parent

    Hee hee. (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:44:06 PM EST
    It could be a loaded word, or just the right way (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:42:33 PM EST
    to express an unexpected action that ends up being successful, which is the way I intended it to be used.  Like I've said before, anything can happen.  

    Parent
    Big floor fight (5.00 / 0) (#166)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:36:22 PM EST
    Actually, I think a big floor fight might save Obama's bacon, at this point.

    He never did so well as when he was head-to-head against Clinton in the primaries.  Rasmussen has him up by 1 today, after 2 days trailing by 1, and Gallup has him up by a rather anemic 2 pts.  He's behind in FL even with McCain spending no money there yet.  

    People watch, say, the Olympics because of the competition. And they get more excited when it's close than when it's a lopsided thing.  People are bored by orchestrated events, and events where the outcome is known ahead of time.  I think the ratings would be HUGE.

    I'm not advocating a floor fight, just pointing out that aside from the anger of Clinton supporters to contend with, the DNC has to contend with the 'foregone conclusion' effect during the last week of August.  If the European Rainbow Tour was any indication, the big rally thing doesn't produce long-lasting increase in the polls.

    Parent

    The petition is nearing the needed 300 (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:39:50 PM EST
    Dem delegates, per another blog.

    Repeat, Dem delegates.  Not PUMA's.

    Get off your PUMA fixation.

    You know (5.00 / 9) (#116)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:53:07 PM EST
    It is pretty amazing how many Obama supporters on the blogs want to dictate to the women exactly where they can stand.

    I mean, maybe there will be a vote, or maybe there won't, or whatever.  People other than you and me will work these things out.  But it's these supporters who want to assume an air of authority, and say "you'll get your vote only under these conditions," or "Hillary can campaign for the ticket, but she'll have to say this this and this"... it's like, who do these guys think they are?  Such textbook controlling behavior.

    Parent

    sadly, as a woman (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by angie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:47:44 PM EST
    it's not the first time I've been met with this type of condensation.

    Parent
    Angie...I think you meant condescension (5.00 / 6) (#200)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:07:34 PM EST
    Cream (5.00 / 7) (#168)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:37:28 PM EST
    Don't discount what some PUMA's are doing.  When I showed up at Chet Edward's office in Waco two weeks ago with about 20 people, I told them that we were once Dems that have dropped our affiliation.  We then told his representative that we were going to work hard for his opposition because of his support for BHO.

    I got a call from the man himself three days later asking that we re-consider our actions and to let the convention play itself out. He was VERY cordial and listened to what I had to say.  And it's hard for me as a former Dem to act like this, but I feel that it's essential that the person who has gotten the most primary votes ever in a Democratic primary have a roll call vote at her own party convention.  Pesky as it may seem.

    Yes, Obama is the presumed nominee.  But that doesn't mean as free citizens, we can exercise our right of free speech to get Hillary on the ballot.   I hope that there is a surprise at the convention.  And that surprise being that Democracy actually working for once...not some pre-conceived outcome that the majority is against.

    Parent

    I do not discount them. But (5.00 / 3) (#208)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:15:45 PM EST
    I do not confuse them, as MKS keeps wanting to do, with those who simply want traditions followed for their candidate and them to be honored as every major Dem candidate (male) has had done.

    Parent
    Where is the petition being promoted? n/t (none / 0) (#112)
    by independent voter on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:51:18 PM EST
    Various sites and efforts (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:59:44 PM EST
    You should Google for it, because most of the ones I know about I can't link to here.  The efforts though are mostly being made within the delegates themselves (they all have their own blogs/sites/talk sites).

    According to what I've seen (again, almost entirely internet reports, not verified), several Obama delegates have signed as well, bc they think the regular procedures of the party should be followed.

    Parent

    whatever she does (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Turkana on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:40:01 PM EST
    will be completely coordinated with obama's campaign. she's a team player. period.

    Well, also, she said on the video that she didn't (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:57:48 PM EST
    "have complete control over this" or something like that.  I felt she was saying that there was a lot of pressure against it.

    Parent
    I think she was referring to the people (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:18:31 PM EST
    driving the petition signatures, meaning she wasn't driving the signatures herself.

    She addressed the negotiations with Obama and the DNC earlier in her response, and was maddeningly unrevealing about them.

    Parent

    10AM on a Monday (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:48:52 PM EST
    when most of her supporters are going to be at work and she'll get little media attention?

    Yeah, that will make everyone feel like it was a fair deal. Not. And then there's that all important anniversary the next day. What a freakin' joke.

    Although how funny would it be (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:21:38 PM EST
    if business across the country slowed to a crawl because 18 million people stayed home from work to watch?

    Parent
    I hope she does (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by dianem on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:49:17 PM EST
    Obama should be asking her to do it. He should be demanding that she get the recognition she deserves for achieving the success she did. It would mean so much to all of us who voted for her - and it would show that he is a bigger man than I've given him credit for. Not necessarily big enough for me to vote for him, but it would probably make a difference to at least some fence sitters.

    I think the Gracious Boat has sailed n/t (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:23:24 PM EST
    I'm talking (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:53:51 PM EST
    about the GE, darling.

    The dems better let this play out.

    Here's what I THINK (5.00 / 6) (#121)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:55:38 PM EST
    would be fabulous:  Since the media, you know, the ones who brought us Bush43, the Iraq War, Bush again and now Barack, would get the biggest b1tch slap down IF the Dems were SMART enought to have Clinton to be the nominee.

    It would shorten the amount of time that the GOP would have to really throw everything at Clinton.  But they know that they would lose ANYWAY because they know, unbridled, the Clintons can have them for breakfast.

    Barack is WAY lucky he's another Dem. Whatever the GOP has in store for BHO in the fall is something that the Clintons more than likely already know about.

    And as a PUMA, no way no how would Clinton being his VP would make me vote for BHO.

    I agree and won't vote for him under any (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:01:46 PM EST
    circumstances either.

    Parent
    Wrongo. (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:01:20 PM EST
    No need to put it on during Prime Time...Doing so does not make the process more fair than doing it in the morning...

    That's what makes it exciting.

    Look, y'all have a problem with this, and I know what it is.

    Read it again for meaning (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:12:38 PM EST
    Hillary is a woman. Many (by no means all) of her supporters are women.

    Now go find something that says all Hillary supporters are women or that all Obama supporters are men in the post you're responding to.

    Here, let me speed things up: it isn't there.

    And against Michigan state law (5.00 / 4) (#204)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:12:43 PM EST
    he also was given delegates for write-in votes there.

    That one really blew me away -- the Dems' "Rules" committee going against state law to get him any possible delegates.  

    Now now (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:15:45 PM EST
    Dean went on ABC's This Week to clarify things:

    Stephanopolous:  "Where in the rules does it say what you did in Michigan is okay?"

    Dean:  "We did what Michigan wanted us to do."

    Earth to McCain:  get Romney to be your running mate.  He would carry MI for you.  Then Dean and the cabal can still run around saying, "DUH, we did what Michigan wanted us to...DUYUH!"

    Parent

    HEY! My name wasn't (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:13:15 PM EST
    on the Michigan ballot, where are my stinkin' delegates?!?!?


    No (5.00 / 4) (#209)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:15:55 PM EST
    I personally don't care how it makes Obama look. If he's all that and a bag of chips, having her name prominently featured in a prominently timed roll-call vote should not affect how he looks in the slightest.

    Remember - no one can make you feel inferior without your permission.

    I said "fair deal". (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:20:42 PM EST
    and it's NOT about Obama and looking good/bad. It's about a FAIR OPEN DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

    and then there is that little issue of treating a woman different than a man.

    *sigh* (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by Avedon on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:46:00 PM EST
    Just sayin'.

    :(

    I would love to see Hillary as the VP (2.00 / 0) (#89)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:32:25 PM EST
    But how would they respond to the first questions which would be about her implying that Obama isn't ready?  

    Obama/ Hillary 08 (they will be the best looking Prez and VP candidate we have had in years)

    VP is on another thread, Sam. This one is about (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:34:25 PM EST
    the convention nomination process.  

    Parent
    She said Obama needed (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:06:39 PM EST
    to bring his credentials to the table. Which is perfect. He didn't respond too well, but basically, if she didn't say it the GOP was going to. It also gave him notice that he needed to deal with the issue. She can only do so much for him . . .   ;)

    Parent
    Hmmm...... (none / 0) (#104)
    by michitucky on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:45:42 PM EST
    The same way they respond to the his insinuation that she's a racist, perhaps???

    Parent
    Opps (none / 0) (#105)
    by michitucky on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:46:37 PM EST
    ......to his......

    Parent
    Think about it this way (none / 0) (#123)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:56:47 PM EST
    She is going to get asked those questions whether she is the VP nominee or just a high-profile surrogate.

    If she couldn't finesse them, she probably wouldn't be a politician!

    Parent

    To all you "feminist" PUMAs (1.00 / 5) (#217)
    by caseynm on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:56:36 PM EST
    And I use scare quotes VERY consciously.

    At one very deep (but unwilling) level, I freaking hope you GET your McCain presidency, and that abortion is outlawed and the glass ceiling is turned into cement and that women lose their suffrage, JUST SO YOU CAN WHINE LOUDLY AND PASSIONATELY ABOUT HOW THAT DAMNED BLACK MAN STOLE THE NOMINATION FROM HILLARY.

    Are you REALLY that childish and trite?  

    You would actually VOTE for McCAIN (or at least won't vote to stop him) who HATES WOMEN'S EQUALITY?  What the heck is wrong with you?

    You will then get to see in 10 or so years how your approach to "feminism" undid everything that was gained from 1919 until now, and how you screwed up MY adolescent daughter's life as a female equal; I hope SHE doesn't turn into a whiner like the PUMA crowd.

    This is what PUMA is wishing on their daughters and (heaven forbid you should be cursed with one of them) sons.

    My name for you?

    FeMA

    Feminists MY ASS.  

    Get OVER yourselves.

    You care more about your immediate personal agendas than you do about feminism (feminism being equality, NOT entitlement or superiority).

    PUMAs:  GROW UP!!!!

    Likely, as usual, the PC "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA" "plug my ears I'm not listening" Talk Left crowd will hide this comment.  But you know I'm right.

    It called... (none / 0) (#21)
    by bocajeff on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:28:29 PM EST
    Controlling the message. While Sen. Clinton may well deserve everything, anything that puts the convention in a dark light (like arguing, marches, protests, etc...) can have a damaging effect on the process. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but look at the Dems in 1968, 1972, and 1980 and the Repubs in 1976 and 1992.

    A bit late for Dems to worry about Looking Bad (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by Ellie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:34:23 PM EST
    Just like we had the worst admin ever and the worst Pres/VP team ever, this has to be hands down the worst opposition party ever.

    I became independent because it got to the point where wearing a bag over my head, AND a bucket, AND holding my nose AND hearing about yet more shame-inducing crap on a weekly basis got to be too much.

    Parent

    Circumventing the "process" (5.00 / 9) (#24)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:35:00 PM EST
    is not damaging the process?  Please.  Follow the process the way it has always been done.  We should care more about doing what is right than controlling some message.  The DNC does not own the degetates' votes.  Well, maybe they do "own" the superdelegates' votes, but not regular delegates.  

    If we had followed the process during the primaries, especially with regard to the superdelegate issues and the fiascos regarding FL and MI, we would probably be in a different place today.  (I know, I know.  The RULZ.)

    Parent

    Huh (5.00 / 10) (#25)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:36:21 PM EST
    What does controlling the message have to do with not allowing her name to be placed in nomination at the convention?  

    She's onboard with him as the nominee.  What more do you people want?

    If it doesn't happen, it's unprecedented, and I promise you, Obama will suffer.

    Parent

    Unfortunately for Obama (5.00 / 8) (#26)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:38:08 PM EST
    the message that will be sent if Clinton is not put into nomination is that he's afraid she might win. There will be no "party unity" spin that will come out of all of the delegates voting for Obama on the first ballot, and the balloons coming down. There is no way that the voting public will believe that the party has magically united in the next couple of weeks. However, a contested floor vote on the first ballot, and then a nomination by acclamation with everyone cheering and waving their signs might just do it enough for a positive move toward unity message at the end of the convention.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by americanincanada on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:49:27 PM EST
    Even Dean had his name in nomination.

    Parent
    It's called "depends if he wants votes." (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:49:13 PM EST
    If they allowed a sitting President (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:24:12 PM EST
    to be challenged, then they can allow a Senator to be challenged by another Senator who also happens to own the other half of the primary votes.

    Parent
    Dean got zero delegates in the '04 convention (none / 0) (#36)
    by beachmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:51:07 PM EST
    even though he was awarded delegates during the primary contest.  Howard Dean I'm sure was devastated when he lost, but he had the grace and decency to make sure his delegates did not embarrass the nominee.  I am assuming this will all be cleared up soon.


    He had all of 201 and didn't release them (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:53:19 PM EST
    until July 27 long after the nomination was a done deal.

    Parent
    That's the day Kerry was nominated BTW. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:05:50 PM EST
    Very decent and graceful as you say.

    Parent
    Maybe that is how it will be this time, too. nt (none / 0) (#67)
    by beachmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:12:57 PM EST
    Actually, I don't think she'll let them nominate (none / 0) (#72)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:16:05 PM EST
    her. I think she should be nominated as a show of respect for the millions of people who worked and voted for her but she is a party person to the end. She will release them, I think.

    Parent
    Plus he ASKED them to vote for Kerry (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:42:52 PM EST
    but recognized that they would each have to make their own decisions.

    Not even close to 'heal already!' and 'get over it'!, eh?

    Parent

    Obama has a lot more to be embarassed about... (5.00 / 8) (#174)
    by lambert on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:46:17 PM EST
    ... then putting into nomination the name of the candidate who actually got more Democratic votes than he did (sayeth Fineman). At the Democratic National Convention, it would seem appropriate.

    He could start by being embarassed about gutting the Fourth Amendment, and he could go on being embarassed about the gross misogyny of his campaign, and ....

    Aw, what's the use. What do I know. I'm a racist.

    Parent

    and don't forget (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:04:09 PM EST
    ur also low-info,drink Keystone Light,  uneducated, live off of a minimum wage, don't know how to use an iPhone......

    Parent
    Brazile's a woman, (none / 0) (#190)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:59:34 PM EST
    right?

    Here is ABC reporting on Clinton's comments (none / 0) (#195)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:05:51 PM EST
    in the video mentioned elsewhere about having her name in nomination.

    link

    (also ABC has a link to the video)

    weltec, I read the lyrics. (none / 0) (#212)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:21:23 PM EST
    I still say it will end up fitting here.

    Threats.

    The NY Daily (none / 0) (#216)
    by Andy08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:08:05 PM EST
    article was debunked by HRC herself by last Friday...  Not worth quoting imo.

    Here is Hillary Clinton on the ballot (herself)

    This is the video of her meeting w/supporters at the end of the San Fransisco event last Friday.

    "Only her hairdresser knows for sure..." (none / 0) (#218)
    by lambert on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:29:53 AM EST
    I hate to pound this into the ground, but it we translated that innocuous old-time riff into a context that made any reference to race at all, we'd be hearing about it for weeks from the OFB. Gad.