Some of you may not be willing to vote for Obama -- that's fine.  I'm disappointed that you aren't willing to vote for a candidate I so highly admire, but that is your prerogative and I respect it.

Others here claim that they will vote for Obama, but they're still angry about the primaries -- THIS POST IS ADDRESSED TO YOU.  

So, see, it's Clinton who wants to change the rules once again.

Imo, this roll call issue seems to bring up the fundamental and long-standing problem between the battle of the sexes:  Women are sick of being ignored--not heard or listened to.  I don't think men realize how insulting it is to be ignored--as though our opinions have no value.  HRC's 18 million supporters, many of whom represent the Democratic base, deserve to have their voices heard.  Period.

Either he'll agree to the vote, but so late that it will be clear to many it was not out of genuineness or generosity or even just savvy politicking but because he 'had to'; or

He won't agree and look petty and like a sore winner.  And will feed the viral that he's afraid she'd win a floor vote.  (I don't think he's actually afraid of that, but it's a simple and somewhat powerful meme, perfect to shoot around the online/MSM world).

I'm not thick.  I understand the emotional investment HRC's supporters made.  But, I just think it's too much.  It's too much now.  the choice now is much more stark.

Which of Hillary's supporters wouild like to see Obama fail?  Which of them want John McCain, the guy who voted against equal pay for women, as President?  Which of them want their right to choose abrogated?  How many of them want to continue our current course in Iraq?  Is that what supporting Hillary means to you?  

Elections, primaries, they're zero-sum games.  Somebody wins, somebody goes home.  We can all waste our breath arguing over who was more ill-treated during the primary, whose candidacy was more historic...that can never be reconciled by any posting or committed plea.  But to continue the primary fight once it's been won, to give opportunity to McCain by failing to get behind the party and the principles of the party, it's just wrong.  

I think Hillary is 100 percent right about this. If these folks are allowed to cast their vote and have their say and make their point, it will be far, far easier for them (I'm talking the delegates here) to get on board with the nominee afterwards.

We don't cancel primaries or general elections because the polls show one or another candidate is sure to win, do we?

I know you are pushing for party unity, but I think you are misreading the desires of the Clinton supporters to have their votes counted.   After all this party has been through, we should be about counting votes, not discounting them.

The nominating convention is not a political infomercial...unless the party decides to make it one.   I just don't understand the reluctance of Obama to allow this woman's name to be put in nomination.  He is the winner and honoring her voters is not going to change that.  However, it will change how many of them feel about going forward.

I mean, is some undecided voter in Ohio going to tune into the Convention, see that there's a roll call vote with delegates voting for Hillary and then decide they're going to vote for McCain as a result?  Give me a break.  I think Obama doesn't want it because I heard somewhere that if Hillary had her delegates vote for her, it might give her control of some crucial committees.  That might be a good thing.  

Was Walter Mondale embarrassed because Gary Hart's supporters got acknowledged?

The arguments against this simply make no sense.  Acknowledging Hillary's support is a feel-good moment for her voters and - you'd do well to consider this - a historically significant moment.  There is no downside for Obama or anyone else.  It is simply a way of affirming the importance of Hillary's supporters and encouraging them to feel good about the Democratic Party and supporting the nominee in the fall.

Also, name one other constituency the Democratic Party would do this to.  Do you think they would've denied Jesse Jackson a roll call vote?  Heck, I don't believe they would've denied it to Obama for fear that African Americans would stay home.   How about the first latino whose a viable candidate?  Think he or she won't get the roll call?

For some reason the Democratic Party has decided that 1) Hillary Clinton's run was not historic, 2) the party must deny the existence of sexism (except for certain media figures and then only after Clinton's defeat), and 3) no matter how much crap it showers on women, they will support the party anyway.  

All those delegates casting votes for Hillary would be a historic moment, the sort of thing I might tape so my daughter can watch it when she gets older.  That's not something to be lightly put aside.

Do you want to set the precedent so that there ar NO roll call votes ever again?

It's hard not to see her as more than a little narcissistic as she continues to talk about her 18 million voters....it would show some graciousness and some dedication to idea of party unity if she agreed to forego a vote.

For those old enough to remember, there's a Peter Allen song called, 'Everything Old Is New Again,' and what do you know, Peter Allen was right.

I go away to the Middle East for a few weeks and come back to find:

Yet another drive-by commenter, telling us that Senator Clinton is narcissistic (anybody heard that one before?) and that she should graciously just get out of Senator Obama's way (anybody heard that one before?).

And, of course, good old reliable Andgarden, flourishing his facade of reasonableness, while endlessly, but politely, lecturing Clinton supporters on how infantile, stubborn and--especially--how disposable they are.  And before he leaps in to roar that he never used those words, let me say that it's not that hard to figure out what he means.  

It's never that hard to figure out what what posters mean when they're explaining to Clinton supporters how important it is for us to be quiet and get in line--for the sake, naturally, of party unity.  Andgarden is more courteous than OldCity, but, under the skin, they're siblings.

I'm sorry if the fact that half the party didn't vote for Obama is inconvenient for him, but trying to claim that Hillary is self centered by hoping to represent her supporters betrays some serious delusions.

Thinking on the Olympics -- ever notice that the most attractive winners are generous and gracious to their competitors?  When the race is over, they talk about what a tough field it was, or what an honor it was to win against so-and-so?  They talk up the talents of the losers?  And especially when second place is from the same d*mn team?

Or, her delegates can vote any way they like during the roll call, cast their votes for her even if she is not on the ballot, and their votes will be recorded as 'present' votes.

Because, as she said in the interview just after she suspended her campaign, it isn't about her. It's about us, her supporters.

It's about the way we were ignored and insulted and demonized as bitter old ignorant dried-up racists. The way we are now being told we aren't needed by the Democratic Party.

If that's the way the Democratic Party wants to leave it, by refusing to recognize the first woman who ever won 18 million votes in a primary, then they an count on losing a large part of their base.