Hillary Supporters Want Their Vote Before Boarding Unity Train

The Denver Post interviewed Hillary supporters on why they believe it's so important to be able to vote for Hillary at the convention. It's not that they are in denial. It's that they want their voices heard. [More...]

Howard Dean says it's up to Hillary. Gary Hart adds some thoughtful comments based on his experience:

Hart thinks Clinton, a longtime party loyalist, will want to prevent protests and help Obama get elected. "She has a future in the party," Hart said. "She has very little interest, nor does her husband, in wrecking Obama's chances because it will be held against them very, very strongly. She has a lot of reasons to pull an oar, and I think she will."

So the two are not mutually exclusive. One can vote for Hillary and when the votes are counted and Obama wins, close the book and turn one's attention to getting Obama elected.

There's a poll on the site. Right now, 63% of Post readers say Hillary supporters should be able to vote for her at the convention, while 30% say no.

Let's take a poll here. What say you? I'll start it off with my vote that Hillary supporters should be able to vote for her. There's also an option for "It depends." If that's your choice, tell us what it depends on in the comments.

< Accountability Now | Bush and Cheney to Speak Opening Night at RNC >


Should Delegates Be Able to Cast a Vote For Hillary ?
Yes 94%
No 5%

Votes: 151
Results | Other Polls
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Why do they hate democracy? (5.00 / 14) (#2)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:49:09 AM EST
    Why on god's green earth would anyone think that it is acceptable not to allow people to vote for their chosen candidate? Not only is it bad "democracy" to refuse to allow people to be heard, it's bad politics. Does that 30% in the poll want to win in November or do they want to have someone to blame if they lose?

    The conceit that (1.50 / 4) (#3)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:53:10 AM EST
    the convention roll call is "democracy" is the fallacy underlying all of this ridiculousness.

    Call it whatever you want (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:00:19 AM EST
    but I think you underestimate the power of that roll call vote for the losing side. Some people, like myself, are not voting for Obama for many reasons that are unlikely to change by November. But Obama still has a chance to bring many Clinton supporters on board. They shouldn't throw that away.

    Honestly, I hope Obama and the DNC (2.66 / 3) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:01:47 AM EST
    do not listen to people ho promise not to vote for him.

    I think they have made it clear (5.00 / 11) (#13)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:07:50 AM EST
    that they do not care to reach out to the people at all.  If you don't already agree to vote for him with no conditions--no issues or policies that you care about, that you want to be a priority--then they don't care about you. That's the style of governing we've had for the last eight years and I'm tired of it.

    Reaching out is great (2.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:12:23 AM EST
    But people who insist that they're off the table should be ignored.

    People who are (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:20:20 AM EST
    "on the table", have been, are, and will also be ignored.  What's your point?

    Really? Ignored? (5.00 / 8) (#32)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:23:39 AM EST
    You want to ignore half the delegates? Or just me? Do I get a voice after the election? When do I count? Does my opinion not count because the combination of less policy experience, FISA, drilling, Sunstein, claws coming out, thin-skin, mental distress, and bogus Social Security fearmongering is enough to make me stay home in November?

    I often disagree with you, but usually find you to be sensible. I find your position on this issue, however, to be stunning.


    If you are already refusing to vote for Obama (1.00 / 2) (#45)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:31:14 AM EST
    then he would be stupid to waste and time, energy, or money on you. You shouldn't be recognized for  a "the food is terrible and the portions are too small" act here.

    Did you read what I wrote? (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:36:44 AM EST
    I'm not refusing to vote for Obama because I'm in a snit. He doesn't represent what I want in a President. Shouldn't candidates listen to what people want? If he is elected, is he going to ignore everyone who didn't actually vote for him? I don't think that's how a representative democracy is supposed to work. I understand that's how Bush-Cheney "democracy" works. Is that now the standard?

    Your reasons are frankly irrelevant (2.20 / 5) (#61)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:40:11 AM EST
    If you're refusing to vote for him, you should be ignored. Period.

    Oh andgarden (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:43:19 AM EST
    Haven't you figured out via the FISA vote that you'll be ignored either way?

    Voting for him or not voting for him, you'll be ignored.


    Changing the subject (none / 0) (#68)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:43:57 AM EST
    Stunning, just stunning. (5.00 / 7) (#71)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:45:51 AM EST
    If I do not agree to vote for this person, no matter what crazy-a$$ position he takes on issues of importance to me, then I have no right to be heard and the candidate should ignore me. That is your position. This is candidate-centric politics and it is a very wrong strategy, in my opinion.

    NO (1.50 / 2) (#74)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:46:55 AM EST
    but if you insist that there is no way you will vote for him, as you have, then there is not left to say to you.

    I fear we are talking past each other (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:53:16 AM EST
    There is no way that you can be saying that people who do not vote for the winning candidate have no right to be heard and that their opinions do not count. The country, the party, deserve more than fealty to a single candidate. I have to sign off to get back to work, so I will just hope that I have misinterpreted your message, because my interpretation is that you are being profoundly undemocratic, and I don't perceive you that way from your previous comments here.

    No, what I am saying is essentailly (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:56:42 AM EST
    democratic. If a candidate has reason to believe that certain voters are completely unavailable to him, then he should ignore them. That is all I am saying.

    Fine, but this is a convention (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by dk on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:06:54 PM EST
    of the Democratic party.  It is not a private meeting organized by Obama.  Sure, as he is the presumptive presidential nominee, there will be much celbrating of him, but at the end of the day this is about getting all Democrats together, even those who at this point in time have not expressed an intention of voting for Obama.  It is sad to see that anyone can be so mean spirited about this.

    remember, the Repugs get their convention (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:07:28 PM EST
    second.  Can you imagine just how much FUN they will have showing the voters that they don't tell dissenters in their party to sit down and shut up.  That they are having a convention for the delegates to represent the voters who sent them their and WANT to hear their voices.  they are looking forward to hearing voices raised for Romney and Huckabee.  They will declare that they are the inclusive party.  They will claim that they don't need to silence delegates in order to be unified.  That is what a convention is for.  They are having a convention for their party members, not a celebrity rock concert for the media.

    and, I forgot to add (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:09:21 PM EST
    that the repugs will probably use this to once again remind people that they didn't have to take delegates away from other candidates in Michigan and give them to McCain either.

    'completely unavailable' (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:29:53 PM EST
    are the actionable words.

    No Democrat is 'completely unavailable' to Obama when he is the Democratic nominee.

    That is the point.

    Argument comes full circle.

    Give it up, andgarden.


    As I said below (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Montague on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:35:05 PM EST
    A wise candidate doesn't just say "those people are unavailable to me."  A wise candidate says "how can I change their minds?"

    Obama is not going to have spare votes to waste.  He needs to pay attention to a lot more Democrats than he is right now.  I can tell you that the attitude among many, many long-term Democrats here in Iowa is that they are appalled by his behavior and strongly considering not voting for anyone for president.  And Iowa's still a swing state.


    no need to worry about Iowa (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:40:24 PM EST
    Obama has that all figured out.  The just bus in the college students from neighboring states to vote there.

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by Montague on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:53:58 PM EST
    It wouldn't work.  Caucuses are radically different from going to the ballot box.  The vast majority of Iowans never go to caucus but over 50% alway vote in the presidential elections, and students aren't a big subset of that group.

    Oh, OK (5.00 / 5) (#179)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:01:08 PM EST
    well then the DNC Roolz committee will put together an action plan to force McCain to give the electoral votes to Obama if McCain wins them.  That has worked for them before.  But, maybe they have to take Obama's name off the ballot first, I'm not sure.

    That's a really stupid thing to say. (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    Just because someone won't vote a particular way does not mean they are incapable of understanding the arguments of others.

    Arguments and the motivations of those making them are two different things. Arguments have validity or not independent of the person whose mouth they come out of.

    Condescending to people whose arguments you don't agree with without addressing those arguments is just a particularly pernicious strain of ad hominem attacks that has gotten all too popular this year.

    I won't vote for Obama, but I recite the arguments for voting for him perfectly well.  So if I put forth the arguments for voting for him, should people ignore me?


    still a lot of time (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 04:52:05 PM EST
    Normally, Andgarden, I agree with most of your comments. The matter of quickly concluding that Obama should "ignore" all those who may indicate concern or displeasure in July and August may be a bit premature. I say this because the important events of the convention process and the debates (among other issues that may or may not occur)can help switch positions. At this point--if someone is a longtime Democrat or Democrat-leaning-Independent, keep them in the mix and don't assume that they could not possibly grow into a different position in autumn. Since I've made all kinds of declarations to my friends about such matters over the years, at least and speaking for myself, I know that it is likely that most voters return to their voting habits come election day. That suggests that the sugar-rather-than vinegar approach may help ease that returen in November. More bluntly, if someone outrightly dismisses me now, I'm not likely to come back for whatever purpose. If someone leaves the door ajar and respects my position on a matter, it would be easier to walk slowly back with head held high.

    Myopic understanding (5.00 / 12) (#78)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:49:28 AM EST
    Some of the people who want to be able to vote for Clinton at the convention will not vote for Obama no matter what, that is true.

    But there are a lot more people who are undecided, who are Democrats but reluctant to move to Obama because of the bad taste in their mouths leftover from the primaries.  Obama can't undo any of that but he could ameliorate it.

    It's all pretty basic human psychology.  It's in his favor, but standing on ego and fear that people will see the man behind the curtain is getting in the way of seeing that.

    It's also the right thing to do.  Denying Clinton her  historic moment by acting in contradiction to tradition is shameful.  It just adds to the dismissive and sexist narratives flung around during the primaries, and could lose him support he might otherwise have.

    Finally, there's a reason why, even in politics, there are procedures.  We are a country whose political legitimacy rests largely on commonly accepted procedural rights to represent and enforce fairness.  Aren't Bush's imperialistic disregard for the Constitution, for the rule of law, and silencing of dissent the most terrifying and damaging aspects of the last 8 years?  Let's not be Republicans, eh?


    Well How George Bush Is That... (5.00 / 6) (#93)
    by TruthSayer on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:58:22 AM EST
    To ignore those Americans that don't fall in goose stepping lockstep with The One?

    Of course that is andgarden's view of America. A candidate or president should never reach out with an olive branch neither before or after being elected. And so far that is what Obama has done - Not Reach Out to many people. That must make you proud to be an American eh andgarden?

    If you only knew how small and foolish you sound as you insult others here.


    I'm sorry, but (5.00 / 8) (#95)
    by cmugirl on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:00:39 PM EST
    You know what this sounds like?  Something the Bush administration would say. "Support us or else."  Obama is running for President of the United States - not President of the people who voted for him.

    And if your feelings are the actual case, then it should work in reverse - we would be "stupid to waste time, energy,and money" on Obama and we shouldn't recognize him.

    Other posters here are correct - if you think it's going to hurt Obama's feelings and embarrass him, then it truly shows that he is not up to the job of being Leader of the Free World.

    He needs to get over it and quit being a baby.


    My contention from the get-go has been (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:15:10 PM EST
    that obama is the left's version of gwb.  And basically you are either for him or you are against him.  The votes are to be about issues, not a person.  If obama is truly part of the democratic party, why is is so loathe to let democracy play out?

    New Dem Roolz: You only get to vote if it's for BO (5.00 / 7) (#165)
    by Ellie on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:49:10 PM EST
    That way, he has 100% support just like all the popular world leaders in successful United One Party democracies.

    new dem roolz (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by addy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:10:27 PM EST
    Lord Ellie, this lurker just loves your posts. They truly make my day. Please let me know if you have a website.

    the Clinton supporters are of at least three camps (5.00 / 7) (#36)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:25:48 AM EST
    1. those who will NEVER vote for Obama
    2. those who will vote for Obama IF Hillary is the VP.
    3. those who may still be convinced to vote for Obama without Clinton as VP

    Ignoring group 1 also ignores group 2 and 3.

    Are you suggesting that reaching out to group 2 and 3 is not possible because it might LOOK like you were reaching out to group 1 too?


    Many Clinton supporters (me included) (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:35:41 AM EST
    will vote for Obama but would very much appreciate the symbolism and respect of a roll call vote with Hillary Clinton's name on the ballot.

    Understood (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:40:48 AM EST
    and that's what makes this so tricky.

    ISeems to me the only problem (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:45:55 AM EST
    is if those Super-Ds who committed to Obama by June don't remain committed on the first ballot.  

    Chances of that happening: 0% (none / 0) (#75)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:47:37 AM EST
    Then what's the problem with having (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:48:55 AM EST
    a roll call vote on the first ballot, which includes the names of Obama, Clinton, and whomever else received delegates?

    My opinion is that it will reveal (1.66 / 3) (#79)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:50:02 AM EST
    artifacts of disunity. It will make gaps in the party seem larger than they any longer are.

    Maybe I'm concentrating too much on (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:52:28 AM EST
    reading comments at Talk Left, but, it looks to me like the Democratic Party is not all walking in the same direction at this point.  Anything the DNC/Obama campaign can do to assist getting more people walking his direction the better.  

    andgarden, the party has had gaps before (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:55:27 AM EST
    This is not the first time. Having the first round be inclusive will allow Hillary's supporters to make that Obama vote on the second round.  It will unite the clans, not divide them.  Telling anyone to sit down and shut up has united no one and the "hidden" gaps will only grow as they do in all situations where the sit down and shut up solution is attempted to be applied.

    I know what you mean, but (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:16:02 PM EST
    I think those gaps will close a lot faster if they do the vote.

    The diehards have a legitimate case that there should be a vote. If they persist past that, they will not be taken seriously, even by people like me who currently sympathize with part of their viewpoint (I say part because I will vote for Obama).

    I think the Denver woman quoted in the RMN piece is exactly right, and I think most of Hillary's supporters would agree with her.


    Maybe you're right (none / 0) (#123)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:19:07 PM EST
    Those are your hopes. I wouldn't be (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:17:15 PM EST
    too sure if I were you....you don't want to discount that possibility.  My guess is the obama camp doesn't agree with you and that is why they are fighting the democratic process.  Why be afraid if you think your nomination is in the bag?

    I second that... (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by NYCDem11 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:59:27 AM EST
    The symbolic gesture is important. If you watch the video of Sen. Clinton addressing this among supporters, you can see that she understands how deviating from normal, historical practices will further inflame tensions. (Angering to watch the news pundits twist that and characterize Hillary as being somehow still in denial and in need of a catharsis.) Obama supporters seem to fear highlighting how close the primary election really was...but it's no secret. You can't just pretend that she didn't run a historically close race and garner huge support without truly offended many in the party. Show respect and give credit where credit's due!

    It's not Symbolism (5.00 / 8) (#126)
    by TruthSayer on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:21:30 PM EST
    Those delegate are duly elected 'representatives' of people who voted in a primary carried out in a democratic way. To refuse to let those democratic votes to be heard is an assault on democracy itself.

    What Obama is doing by not insisting that the Clinton delegates be heard is the same thing he did with Florida and Michigan. He refused to 'back' the democratic process in favor of his own narcistic reasons.

    I ask what is the point Mr. Obama to not insist that those voices be heard? You are going to win the nomination so it is not fear of loss that motivates you to once again ignore American voices. So what is it? Ego? Are you so fearful to have a close vote at the convention...

    As if people don't remember you barely won and only did so as you limped to the finish line on the backs of corrupt Super Delegates not even being able to win outright without them?

    Obama you make me sick. You say you stand for democracy and the people but yet you continuously thumb your nose at them - and will continue to do so. That is only one of the reasons I could never vote for you.

    I really don't understand the people on this blog who ignore what this guy has done and insist on voting for him. Do they not get that voting for him and voting for other Democrats of the same ilk is only voting to destroy the Democratic Party even more that it is now. And they are happy with that? Those people IMO are not Progressives. They may be registered Democrats but Progressives will to do the hard things to build the Progressive Movement in America - No!


    Obama has gained my respect (3.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:51:36 AM EST
    by going to Iraq and making his Iraq War intentions pretty darned clear.  I'll vote for him even though he shafted me on FISA.  I think he has been a little shocked by how chapped he made alot of his base and should be and he had better learn from that!  If he can be man enough to allow Hillary to have this symbolic respectfulness that has been granted to many others time and again in the past I can be woman enough and person enough and human enough and progressive enough to vote for him and I won't even consider writing Hillary in.

    And his dissing the soldiers had no (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:19:04 PM EST
    effect either?  I am sorry, but this guy is not
    presidential material imo.  Your choice is yours and those who disagree will just have to accept it.

    Re: "If he can be man enough" (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:53:56 AM EST
    MT, you have a fine way with words.  

    4. Currently support Obama but reluctantly and (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:53:50 AM EST
    failure to pick her as VP and/or to allow a roll call vote will move them back to undecided or even to the (R)s.

    This is where not allowing the voices (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:58:01 AM EST
    to be heard at convention will make the existing gaps largers and more defined and ever more bitter.  Doing the right thing has the ability to cleanse and healing can begin.

    That gets to a more interesting question (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:18:00 PM EST
    for a poll:

    How many Hillary voters would be convinced to vote for or against Obama based on whether Hillary's name is put into nomination?  You are one, but it appears clear that it would make no difference to many Hillary supporters here -- they are not going to vote for Hillary regardless.  I would really be interested in seeing the results of such a poll.  

    And for the record, I do think her name should be put into nomination.


    Governing wisely is not about (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by Montague on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:29:17 PM EST
    ignoring people, even though they disagree with you or don't like you.  A president is the president of everyone, regardless of party.  

    By the same token, a candidate who is running for public office would be stupid to consider any person of his own party "off the table."

    The wise candidate would reach out, show respect, listen to what those voters have to say... and then try to change their minds (again, in a respectful - not bullying - way).  If the Obama campaign did that, they might change some minds and find some people in their camp who previously claimed they'd never vote for Obama.

    We'll see how wise Axelrod and Obama are come November.


    But Clinton was not a wise candidate and neither (1.16 / 6) (#220)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 03:57:07 PM EST
    are many of her  continuing supporters. It doesn't seem to have crossed the minds here that what you want is a position that allows Clinton's historical event to be glorified but Obama's at least equally historic one not to be.That says something about her and you that she and you want to ignore, but do so at your peril, her peril and the peril of the party, assuming you still care about that.

     You've got a me-me-me meme going here which ignores the unpleasant fact that there are others in the party than you and that giving you everything you want will profoundly disrespect all the rest of them. Clinton intentionally and consciously kissed off the non-European voters except Latinos very early in the campaign, and you and she continue to pretend the kissed-off  are not a material factor here and that she could not be elected without them and doesn't have them and won't get them now and hereafter. And that this roll call etc drill you've got going is going to make all of that materially worse.  All the more so if you do one of these prancing around see-how-historic-we-are numbers at and around the convention, as if that was the only historic thing going on. Please think more carefully about all this, and think about people who are not just like you when you do it.  


    You're right (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:45:34 AM EST
    The delegate selection process this year was anything but democratic.

    are you serious? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Ford Prefect on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:48:32 PM EST
    You dont believe convention roll call is democracy? Please explain why it is not. We dont have a nominee and the nominee will be decided at the convention by the votes from the delegates. Those delegates can do just about anything they want to at the convention.

    NOw I happen to believe Obama will ultimately be the nominee, come what may. But that doesnt mean convention roll call is NOT democracy. There is nothing conceited about that.


    I am an Obama supporter who has read the comments (1.14 / 7) (#215)
    by geraldine4 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:07:52 PM EST
    here for a few months and I'm really disappointed in what I've read.  I can tell that many of you are upset and angry about what went down in the primaries.  I get it.  It was a close race that was muddied by novel circumstance in Florida and Michigan.  Many posters in this forum are still seething because of a primary season they see as rigged.  I don't agree with that assessment, but I empathize with the feelings many of you have expressed.

    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.  

    Obama is still running a campaign in 2008 -- not 1980 or 1984.  He is running against a media that is omnipresent (24 hour media channels, online newspapers, and blogs) and that constantly focuses on the horserace aspect of the campaign.  Fair or not, idealistic or not, a candidate must control his or her image in this day and age, and a party (including its elder members even if they just lost a hard fought campaign) must do all that it can to protect the image of the candidate.  A convention is one of the most high profile, flashy events that a candidate and the party has to cement this image in the mind of voters.  I understand the HRC supporters want to have a roll call vote and show their support for a historic candidate who ran a historic campaign.  But I do not understand why HRC would bring this idea up.  
    Even if you don't agree with my assessment, you have to agree that the MSM has always held the Clintons to a double standard and dices and slices everything that they say.  HRC is an incredibly smart lady; she knows that anything she does that even hints at disunity will be drummed up by the media and used against Obama.  I wonder why this is even an issue?  Why did HRC even make those poolside comments?  Can the most ardent HRC supporters admit that while it may feel very good to cast your vote, it may hurt Obama in terms of media coverage -- and that we, as Democrats, must do as much as we can to project a united front against so as to protect our candidate's image?  Does that make me Bush-lite or just pragmatic?


    No convention since 1964 (5.00 / 14) (#15)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:09:15 AM EST
    has gone on without a true roll call vote.

    What will hurt Obama is if the rules are changed to prevent Clinton from getting what is within the rules and traditions of our party.

    Am I the only one who can already see the headlines and RNC attack ads?

    CNN took care of that last night (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:28:07 AM EST
    they were making the claim that if Clinton gets a roll call vote, it will be the FIRST time a losing cadidate who endorsed and started campaigning for the winner so early was ever given a roll call vote.

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

    How does the media keep coming up with new ways to blame Clinton?


    Lord (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:38:17 AM EST
    Was CNN serious? Most candidates never endorse as early as Hillary did. She turned on a dime. That analogy is insane.

    To put it simply it would be the first dem convention since 1964 without a rollcall. Tapper had it right and no amount of CNN carrying Obama's water will change that.

    At least on Campbell Brown's show yesterday Begala pointed that out in no uncertain terms.


    Most RBIs by a swtich-hitter batting (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:38:25 AM EST
    fromo the right side of the plate against a left-handed pitcher in an away game played during daylight hours.

    While nursing an injury. (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:53:55 PM EST
    So in essence (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by Nadai on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:53:04 AM EST
    Hillary should have refused to endorse Obama or campaign for him.  Somehow, I don't think that's what CNN meant, but it works for me.

    they were grasping at straws (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:57:28 AM EST
    for anything they could come up with so that they wouldn't have to say it was Obama who wanted to change the way things have always been done.

    "Change" is not really what people want (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:34:27 PM EST
    unless it's change back to the status quo.

    And especially in uneasy times, people cling -- yes, cling -- to traditions and customs.  People want reassurance that their lives will not be in even more upheaval in even more uncharted territory.

    When you're a candidate already contending with presenting so much different to people -- unusual upbringing, race, age, etc. -- you would do well, Mr. Obama, to reassure them that you value their traditions and customs.  Starting with the Dem delegates and viewers who love the good ol' roll call.

    Otherwise, the question will be:  What goes next?  My God, my guns?  :-)

    Change back to what we were, yes.  Change to the unknown, no.  That's not the change for which people hope.  It's a basic tenet of public opinion formation.  Obama ought to study up on that.


    I've been making the case all along (5.00 / 12) (#16)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:12:07 AM EST
    that Hillary's supporters need to have their voices and votes validated before they can put closure on her campaign and move on. However, Obama wants "excitement and energy instead of catharsis". Whether the Clinton supporters get closure or not may decide what kind of energy and excitement Obama gets. Angarden, it's because the DNC hasn't been listening to us that many of us will not vote for Obama no matter what they decide to do or who Obama picks for VP. Whether they continue to refuse to listen or not will determine how big "us" is come November. "Us" isn't getting any smaller as the days go on.

    Why (5.00 / 15) (#20)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:14:08 AM EST
    is Hillary being held to a different standard than prior candidates? There's the real question IMHO.

    She has quickly and generously turned on a dime to support the nominee. Yet nothing she does appear to be enough (at least based on what you hear from the MSM).

    I see absolutely no harm coming from acknowledging her historic candidacy in this fashion. It can only make the party stronger by celebrating her instead of trying to make her disappear down the memory hole.

    For the simple reason (5.00 / 11) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:21:32 AM EST
    that Obama likes to run unopposed.  

    Historically, when he runs opposed by a viable candidate, he loses.


    McCain could have another commercial (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:25:32 AM EST
    speculating how Obama will get him off the ballot  and insert Ron Paul in his place ;)

    he could also put out an ad (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:30:34 AM EST
    warning that the DNC might be trying to come up with a way of taking electoral votes won by McCain and awarding them to Obama instead.

    Possibly (5.00 / 5) (#143)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:31:50 PM EST
    But I think it comes down to the fact that she's a woman. There's a deeply ingrained assumption in our society that women will forego ambition, put themselves second, support their man, concede on opinions, etc.

    Exactly, why the different standard? (5.00 / 11) (#41)
    by NJDem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:28:55 AM EST
    This primary season has been complex, to say the least, so please forgive me as I make an overly-simplistic analogy.  

    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.

    These excuses for why HRC should be treated differently (i.e. with less respect) than then other male candidates since 1964 who have come before her sounds a lot like a patronizing 'there, there, why don't you just go back to your knitting' kinda comment.  


    That's an interesting take (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:32:43 AM EST
    I hadn't thought of that angle, but maybe that is a reason why many female Clinton supporters feel so strongly about this. I guess I'd want to go back and read contemporaneous news stories about previous conventions to see how it was discussed then -- were the feelings this strong?

    I don't mean to be rude (5.00 / 10) (#77)
    by Nadai on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:49:18 AM EST
    but how in the name of every god that ever was could you miss that?

    This entire primary season has been one long diss of Clinton and her supporters, often phrased in the most misogynist manner the pundit/blogger/campaign surrogate/candidate can manage to think up.  Obama supporters have been shrieking since before Super Tuesday that she ought to quit, that she can't win, that she's only running to destroy Obama and the Democratic Party and quite possibly the planet Earth.  All of which amounts to saying that she has no right to run.  And Clinton's the entitled one?  What candidate before now has "deserved" to run unopposed?

    So, yeah.  One more time hearing that Clinton, unlike every losing male candidate in living memory, once again has a special obligation to sit down and STFU makes me a little testy.


    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#146)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:34:44 PM EST
    So, yeah.  One more time hearing that Clinton, unlike every losing male candidate in living memory, once again has a special obligation to sit down and STFU makes me a little testy.

    Sing it, sister! Unity means silencing the woman or in this case, circumscribing the nature of her participation.


    Simmer down! (3.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:05:36 PM EST
    I didn't miss the misogyny of the campaign and the way Hillary was treated, sheesh!  What I thought was interesting in the comment was the connection between the particular personal feeling and experience of being ignored (experienced by many women, including this one) and not being allowed to vote at the convention. I agree they've been telling her to STFU for a long time. I just hadn't thought of the roll call vote in connection to the way a lot of women are routinely talked over by men in a business meeting; or in a classroom, of sitting in the front row yet never being called on. That's all I meant.

    Previous conventions allowed the roll call vote (5.00 / 5) (#115)
    by catfish on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:16:46 PM EST
    that this is even in question for this convention is what gave rise to PUMA. Trust me. It is so insulting and continues to be insulting that we had to fight for standard operating procedure for the woman who got more votes than this guy.

    She's a woman, that's why (5.00 / 6) (#141)
    by SoCalLiberal on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:31:32 PM EST
    It's sad to realize how sexist the DNC can be.  

    But FIRST, he has to give back his MI delegates (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by goldberry on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:28:14 AM EST
    It's only fair.  He didn't earn them and some of them are hers.  
    Oh, and no strong armed tactics against the delegates or superdelegates.  
    No scripts either.  

    Goldberry....since when has obama been (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:24:43 PM EST
    about being fair?  The only time that applies is when it applies to him, otherwise he could give a flying donut.

    I'm a Hillary delegate (5.00 / 13) (#49)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:34:53 AM EST
    and will be voting for Hillary at the convention.  Delegates may vote for whomever they choose.  If a person has not actually been nominated at the convention, their vote is recorded as "present."  

    It is in the interest of the Obama campaign to have a roll call vote.  Let the Clinton supporters have their moment.  Either that, or there will be a significant "present" vote, which sends a worse message than any amount of Clinton enthusiasm would.

    It would be a real embarrassment (5.00 / 7) (#64)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:41:48 AM EST
    if "Present" won the nomination because enough delegates were angered by the absence of Clinton's name in nomination.

    Whoa! That's the best reason of all (5.00 / 6) (#65)
    by goldberry on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:42:42 AM EST
    There will be a $#&*load of present votes next to his slim margin of victory.  Man-o-man, if that doesn't send a big, fat, "We're not unified" message, I don't know what does. Even after his "win", he won't be able to live that down.  The Republicans will be all over it.  

    But we are unified (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:05:11 PM EST
    You are not unified. The Democratic party will be unified behind Obama once he is the nominee.

    So the Democratic Party (5.00 / 9) (#109)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:13:29 PM EST
    becomes only those who support Obama. Unity by shunning. Works for me. I left the party in June.

    There are many who are not unified then; (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:27:31 PM EST
    and many of them are those who don't feel obama
    is presidential material.  It is not all about Hillary and her supporters as some are wont to point out repeatedly (not saying you).  So please don't be surprised if that so-called unity doesn't magically appear after the convention, if obama is the nominee.

    And the rest of us (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:07:53 PM EST
    will become independents.

    Those that are left may be unified (5.00 / 5) (#192)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:13:04 PM EST
    but that's not the same as Party unity.

    Sure it is (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:16:30 PM EST
    it's just unity of a much smaller party.

    (And per Rasmussen, 2% of their Dem ratio have transferred to independent).


    Jeralyn, what is your view on the (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:25:54 PM EST
    question you pose in the poll?

    "present" (5.00 / 8) (#69)
    by NJDem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:44:38 AM EST
    ya gotta love the irony.  

    Now that the roll call issue has gone viral, I think there will be many more road-blocks to unity if HRC's delegates and supporters are told they do not count.  And this will probably only exacerbate the wounds of her not being chosen VP--assuming that happens.  IMO.    


    I can't speak for all of you (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:18:28 PM EST
    but my impression is that Clinton delegates would much rather be in the position of voting for Hillary as part of an overarching display of unity, than be in the position where if they vote for Hillary it's considered something of a troublemaking protest vote.

    I imagine if it comes down to that, and Obama and the party leaders pressure Hillary into asking her delegates to vote for Obama, most of them will comply and some of them will vote present or whatever as a protest.  But it's a loss for the party either way.  I cannot understand why they would feel so threatened by the mere prospect of a vote that has a predetermined outcome in their favor.


    I'm with you on this delegate vote thing (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by RalphB on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:28:42 PM EST
    I just can't see any real down side to it.  There is a potential upside though in bringing some Hillary supporters along.  Seems like a real no-brainer.

    Good for you (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by SoCalLiberal on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:32:57 PM EST
    I lost my delegate race by 4 measly votes and it stunk.  If I had made it though, I definitely would be voting for Hillary at the Convention.

    Yeah Baby! (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:46:08 AM EST
    And since when did someone not get to vote for who they supported the first ballot go around?

    THis who convention (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:37:16 PM EST
    controversy about roll call votes would go away if Obama announced Clitnon as the VP sooner rather than later.

    Could you imagine how (none / 0) (#168)
    by dk on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:51:24 PM EST
    great it would be to have Bill give one of his trademark brilliant speeches, and end it by introducing his wife as the vice-presidential nominee.  IMHO, it would be the most electrifying televised political theater in the history of this country.

    Let the woman have her votes (5.00 / 6) (#157)
    by SoCalLiberal on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:45:17 PM EST
    She earned them.  She deserves them and deserves a roll call vote.  It's sickening to me that the Obama camp would turn this into an issue and that the media is bashing her for this.  It's also bad campaign strategy, reminds people what a petty loser Obama is.  

    And by dragging it out, it just makes it look (4.60 / 5) (#177)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:57:46 PM EST
    worse for him.

    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).

    Who is it again who thought the winning strategy was to play footsie with Republicans while flipping off your own side?


    andgarden said (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by pukemoana on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:46:19 PM EST
    I don't understand why so many people have latched on to the roll call.

    because you see the roll call in its usual technical function, but it's become much more than that.  Now it seems to be a referendum on all those moments when Hillary's been seen to have been dismissed or harassed, and when her supporters have been seen to have been ignored or derided. Not to mention that it fits into all those moments, historical and present, when women's achievements have been undervalued or have gone un(der)recorded.

    btw, I latched onto andgarden's quote above because it usefully summarized a point of view, not because I want to diss andgarden.  I don't post much but I read this site a lot and value what andgarden has to say

    roll call, yet again (1.33 / 3) (#193)
    by OldCity on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:14:28 PM EST
    I'm with pukemoana, in a sense.  I started off writing that the roll call was potentially problematic.  Pukamoana more correctly states what I fear...that would be a referendum.  Remember Kennedy in 1980?  How'd that work out for everybody?

    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've been invoved in competition all of my life.  When the final score rings, the margin of victory doesn't matter.  The result does.  Many contests end with the better prepared or more deserving competitor on the downside.  The test of your character, regardless of how you might feel about your opponent, is how well you accept the loss.        


    What people like andgarden don't seem to get (5.00 / 8) (#166)
    by ChrisO on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:50:00 PM EST
    is that the bulk of Hillary's delegates are loyal Dem activists. They don't represent the ranks of the PUMA types. I know several Hillary delegates who are out right now campaigning for Obama.I truly believe that the vast majority of Hillary's delegates would like to vote for her, then will vote for Obama on the next ballot.

    The dynamic I see happening is that Obama's supporters aren't satisfied with Hillary losing. They want her to be totally humiliated. After all, that's what she deserves for running a "dirty' campaign and not stepping aside for Obama. They're parsing every word she and Bill say for any sign that she's less than enthusiastic about Obama. It's not enough for her to campaign for him, she has to love him. I really think a lot of these people won't be satisfied until Hillary admits that he was the better choice all along.

    They can't view any of these issues in simple terms of whether the roll call should happen. To them, it's all part of Hillary's scheme to sink Obama's candidacy. And nothing she says or does wil change that.

    What is confusing is that by having a nominating (5.00 / 3) (#196)
    by gtesta on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:16:07 PM EST
    roll call, it shouldn't even need to go to a second vote.  As I understand the parlimentary rules, all viable names are placed in nomination, that means Obama, Clinton, even Edwards.  The states are polled in alphabetical order and cummulative tallies are kept by the chair.  The "presumptive" nominee's home state is given the honor of going last, so that when it appears that the nominee is about to go over the top, the state that is next in the roll call yields to the home state...the nomination is achieved and then someone would stand and make a motion that the nomination be made unanimously...then everyone yells Yea!! and everyone screams like mad.  It really shouldn't even go to a second formal roll call vote.
    How anyone could possibly want to deny the Clinton delegates the opportunity to vote for their candidate is beyond me.
    What am I missing here?
    p.s.  1st time poster...be gentle...:>

    I think they are afraid (5.00 / 7) (#204)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:21:37 PM EST
    that when the person stands and makes the motion to make it unanimous, the motion won't pass.   LOL

    they may also be afraid of what will happen when they get to Michigan and those 4 delegates that took away from Clinton and gave to Obama.


    P.S. I think the option of saying that (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by gtesta on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:36:21 PM EST
    Hillary supporters can vote for her and that their votes will be tallied as "Present" is a ruse.  Election by acclimation means that there is only one candidate placed in nomination, therefore there is "no need" to hold an election and the candidate has won by acclimation.  In other words, there won't even by a roll call vote.  
    Surely that would be the most galling outcome for clinton delegates is to travel to Denver at their own expense only to be told by the chair, Thanks but we're not going to vote.  Thanks for playing, here's some lovely parting gifts...

    Is my memory correct (5.00 / 3) (#213)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:52:05 PM EST
    that all througout the primary the rallying cry of the Obama supporters was to let the "VOICE OF THE PEOPLE BE HEARD" ?

    Was that only applicable until the convention comes?

    take a long, hard look at the "new" (5.00 / 6) (#216)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:08:35 PM EST
    democratic party. if you don't walk lock step, out you go. you have no voice except what we say you can say. i wonder if hillary were to try this on the obama supporters just what they would be saying or yelling. yeah, that's right if the shoe is on the other foot that is another story. and that makes this assertion a joke. that's right a sad, pathetic joke on the american people.

    Here is what I think Hillary supporters should do. (5.00 / 3) (#217)
    by gtesta on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:10:37 PM EST
    They should gather the 300 signatures on a nominating petition and ask someone OTHER THAN Hillary, to have their name placed in nomination.  Someone who respects rules and process...Dennis Kucinich anyone?  If Dennis agrees to sign the petition and have his name placed in nomination, then it becomes a moot point on whether there will be a roll call vote.  Of course there will be a roll call, and Hillary won't have to take any heat for it.

    Then her supporters need to be ready with another petition just waiting for her signature so that the question really becomes, do you really want Hillary supporters voting "Present" rather than for her and then shouting NO! when a motion is made for making Obama's election unanimous.

    I think Hillary really wants a roll call vote, and her supporters should make that happen in such a way as to help cover her *ss...imo.

    A little clunky but Hillary's taken enough grief...

    Maybe she talks about her 18 million (4.88 / 9) (#24)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:17:41 AM EST
    because she promised us our voices would be heard. So far, Obama has done nothing to hear us nor made any attempt to connect with us. I think you're pegging the wrong candidate as narcissistic.

    oops! ^^ response to chrisvee (none / 0) (#25)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:19:12 AM EST
    OOPS! AGAIN! OldCity I mean (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:20:48 AM EST
    man, I need more coffee and some glasses!

    I think the thought of Rove reading your mail (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:01:42 PM EST
    yesterday threw you off permanently!  ;-)

    wow! (none / 0) (#219)
    by ccpup on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:25:26 PM EST
    is THAT why my keyboard clicks when I type?!?!

    Oh, he's a sneaky one, that Rove.


    Whoa! (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:15:14 PM EST
    I'm on the side of the angels here. ;-)

    "qualified" (1.80 / 5) (#128)
    by diogenes on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:23:50 PM EST
    Maybe if Bill Clinton could have brought himself to say that Barack Obama is in fact qualified to be president then this would look more like democracy and less like an effort to steal the show from Obama's convention (2012, anyone?)

    maybe if Obama (5.00 / 10) (#145)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:33:05 PM EST
    could have brought himself to "admit" that his campaign falsely charged the Clintons with playing "racial" politics, much of this wouldn't be happening now.

    What does Bill's opinon of Obama's qualifications (5.00 / 9) (#164)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:49:07 PM EST
    have to do with democracy? If any thing, in a democracy Bill has a right to his own opinion. Obama has painted himself into the corner over Bill Clinton. Either Bill is an honored former president whose opinion he values, or Bill is a race-baiter whose two terms as president faded into the Reagan-Bush years. It's not easy trying to have it both ways. Obama should have been more careful about how he made that bed.

    Bill's answer to that question (5.00 / 4) (#189)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:10:58 PM EST
    has become the new "as far as I know" axe to grind, I think.

    Yup. (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:16:48 PM EST
    g*d I'm tired of the Who Can Take a Quote Most Out of Context Game.

    If I say ok 'you win!' will people stop now?


    yep, compare and contrast (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:17:29 PM EST
    this is just another example of where we get to put words into Clinton's mouth that were not actually spoken.

    In the primary there was an instance where Bill said something about Hillary and something about McCain.  He said NOTHING about Obama.  Therefore, it meant he was talking trash about Obama.

    But, always remember, Obama never says anything unless you can provide a video clip of his saying those EXACT words and he hasn't yet made a public explanation of what he really meant.


    My perception is that if this weren't the issue, (1.75 / 8) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:48:44 AM EST
    there would be some other sticking point.

    I don't understand why so many people have latched on to the roll call. It is a non-substantive gesture that can only serve to embarrass Obama and weaken the ticket. And for what purpose? I'm more interested in movement on issues that were and are important, both to Hillary and to me. Being whiney about how the political infomercial goes down just strikes me as really stupid.

    Because (5.00 / 17) (#11)
    by Nadai on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:04:32 AM EST
    I'm sick to GD death of different rules for women.  Every other candidate has had to deal with a roll call vote including primary opponents.  It's not an embarrasment - it's the way things are done.  But not this time, oh no.  This time, poor delicate Obama can't handle what every other candidate has, and we all have to cater to him so he doesn't have a fit of the vapors.  Screw that.  He can suck it up like an adult.

    What could possibly be better (5.00 / 13) (#22)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:14:43 AM EST
    for Obama than to have this whole long drama culminate in a convention roll call vote in which he wins over Hillary by a wide margin? How on God's green earth does that hurt him?  It gives him far, far more legitimacy as the Democratic nominee than a Soviet-style nomination by acclamation in which those who prefer someone else don't even get a f***king voice.

    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?

    THese delegates were elected by us, by the voters, to go to the convention and vote the way we instructed them to.  They should be required to do that, not barred from doing it.


    Slight historical correction (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:19:24 PM EST
    Even Soviet citizens got to vote for their leaders.  Some elections (almost all of the more minor variety) were even contested, although all candidates were from the one party.

    The only group that I know of that chooses its leader by acclamation is the Catholic Church.  Let's not use them as the model, ok?


    well even (5.00 / 3) (#209)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:33:05 PM EST
    then Catholic church lets their delegates vote for Pope.  And, it usually takes several rounds of voting before they get a winner.

    Andgarden, (5.00 / 9) (#48)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:34:25 AM EST
    I think that this time you are being too harsh in your analysis.

    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.

    Just imagine if the positions were reversed. Imagine if Obama had won Florida and Michigan, but all the 'uncommitted' votes went to Hillary, plus some of his.  Imagine that she didn't have enough pledged delegates to get over the top, but that she got more superdelegates, including superdelegates who voted against the desires of their constituents (i.e. Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and many others).  Just think if Obama, a historic candidate in his own right, were denied the courtesy of having his name put in nomination.  I don't think that he or his supporters would be joyously mounting the unity pony.


    The number one reason why I take this position (1.20 / 5) (#54)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:37:46 AM EST
    is that I think many of the people advocating for the roll call are not actually interested in helping the ticket, and that they intend to use the process as a way to promote disunity.

    The difficulty is in separating the disunity artists from the genuine Clinton supports who actually want to follow her lead.


    if they don't put her name on the ballot (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:43:42 AM EST
    what do you think they are going to do when they announce the totals for Michigan?  That should be fun, don't you think.

    Do you think that Harriet Christian (5.00 / 11) (#81)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:51:11 AM EST
    flamed off at the RCM because Hillary lost delegates, or because she thought the meeting was handled in a corrupt and underhanded way? She's become a media darling all on her own and a heroine to the JSND movement. How many more "Harriets" do you think there will be if Hillary is not formally nominated and a roll call taken? This should be such a no-brainer for Obama and his supporters. If he messes this one up, he deserves to lose.

    Harriet Christian's (2.67 / 3) (#104)
    by Politalkix on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:08:39 PM EST
    behaviour was indefensible. Anyone who tries to rationalize such behaviour has also "lost it" in my book.

    We've seen a lot (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:24:53 PM EST
    of indefensible behavior in this campaign.

    Thanks for the reminder...


    I don't know about that (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:11:00 PM EST
    at all.  There are probably a few.  But I can guarantee that denying her a roll call vote will push some supporters over the line and into apathy for November.  Personally, although I have been stating all along that I will vote for the nominee, I could imagine that, if California is not in play, I might just leave the box for president blank.

    And I've never missed an election or failed to vote for the Democrat since....since... well, longer than I care to admit.


    With respect... (5.00 / 6) (#155)
    by huzzlewhat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:41:08 PM EST
    And I do honestly mean, with respect...

    In any situation, political or otherwise (but especially political), It's always going to be hard to winnow out what a fringe element hope to accomplish, and what the group as a whole desire. To silence the voices of the vast majority of a group because of what you suspect the motives of the fringe might be is... well, counterproductive, I think, and one of the best ways to turn that mild majority away from the center and toward the fringe that you're hoping to ignore.

    In a nutshell, I really think it would make more sense to think less about what you think the PUMAs want, and think more about what's the right thing to do.



    Really? (5.00 / 7) (#151)
    by SoCalLiberal on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:38:44 PM EST
    How does it weaken the candidate to have a roll call vote?  Hillary is entitled to the delegates she earned.  We have had roll call votes in the last 10 presidential elections.  Why are we changing just for Obama?  

    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.  

    On a last point, Hillary is the first woman to ever win a presidential primary nominating contest (New Hampshire) and came very close to winning the election.  Had it not been for caucuses and racist delegate allocations, she probably would have won quite handily.  So she deserves to have a roll call vote and have her votes recognized.  And all this anger from the Obama campaign and the Obamaniacs serves nothing more than to further anger Clinton supporters and gives them reason to not help him.  


    I can see the McCain ad now.... (5.00 / 5) (#161)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:48:14 PM EST
    Why are we changing just for Obama?

    Obama - the affirmative action candidate. Couldn't win the nomination without his party making sure he was the only one on the ballot.


    Huh? (4.95 / 20) (#9)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:02:34 AM EST
    How the heck does it embarrass Obama?

    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.

    You know what would embarrass Obama?  A bunch of media stories during convention week about how, according to anonymous insiders, he feels too threatened or insecure to let Hillary's delegates vote for her.


    Yep, Obama the FRAGILE Candidate (5.00 / 6) (#181)
    by MO Blue on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Great attribute for a president: Obama's standing as the nominee is so fragile that special care must be taken to protect him against the normal riggers of the political process.

    The Democratic Party has already promoted this meme too much IMO.


    Fragile and on vacation (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:08:16 PM EST

    If They Don't Put Her Name In Nomination (5.00 / 4) (#187)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:08:48 PM EST
    then no one will remember that this was such a close nominating contest decided by Super Delegates.  See, if they act like Obama was the clear winner, then he will be.  Forget the truth, the Village is all about truthiness.  Obama is a movement, he creates his own reality.  

    Yup, and it will carry him right through (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:25:56 PM EST
    Election Day.  Where he may get a shatteringly disappointing surprise.

    If it was just a simple roll call (1.33 / 3) (#31)
    by Politalkix on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:23:31 AM EST
    it would be one thing. However, a lot of HRC's  supporters do not care about issues at all or even a Democratic and Obama victory; they are so heavily interested in undermining Obama that they will create a scene once the roll call shows that Obama has won the nomination. Remember the irrational behaviour of supporters like Harriet Christian ? I had never seen anything like that in my life.

    Hm (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:25:35 AM EST
    So they won't create a scene if the roll call vote is squelched?

    Why even worry about what those people will do?  Worry about the millions of Clinton voters who will support the Democratic nominee but would appreciate the chance to see a tangible acknowledgment of her historic candidacy and what she accomplished.


    And it's more than that, I think. (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by dk on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:37:54 AM EST
    It's not only a symbol of how much Hillary (and by extension, women) can accomplish within the Democratic party, although that is extremely important especially given the misogyny expressed by the MSM, Obama campaign, A-list bloggers, DNC leadership, etc. during the primary.  It's also a symbol of the fact that Obama and DNC recognize that half of the party voted for Hillary, and care about the issues she cares about, and are closer on those issues to Hillary than they are to Obama, and that they are willing to incorporate those positions on issues substantively into the Democratic party platform.

    Look, I think that Obama was the worst candidate the Democrats could have nominated.  And the reality is that half or more of Democrats didn't want him.  It is not bad for him to recognize this, and show that he understands that, to truly unify the party, he will have to compromise with those within his own party who disagree with him, particularly when those people make up half or more of the party.  


    Basically some are saying it is okay to (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:35:07 PM EST
    undermine the democratic process...that is the
    crux of the matter.  It isn't even about Hillary or obama...it is crushing democracy, which many have forgotten about or no longer care to participate in, for fear of the wrong outcome.

    Wrong, Politalkix. (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:19:16 PM EST
    Really insulting to tell Hillary supporters what we do and do not care about.

    Back off...you're outta line.

    As for irrational behavior, heh, there are self-absorbed nuts everywhere and in every campaign.  For the Harriet Christian equal, visit www.leaveobamaalone or find those trips on U-Tube.  Those people either need more medication or to stop taking the drugs they're on.


    Well (5.00 / 5) (#156)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:44:26 PM EST
    those pesky women and their scenes. If only they could behave, then Hillary could have a roll call vote. What a shame that women can't control themselves in public.

    Actually most women (1.50 / 2) (#176)
    by Politalkix on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:57:42 PM EST
    (just like men) do control themselves in public. That is why Harriet Christian's behaviour looked so unusual and irrational. It is not a man Vs woman issue at all.

    When (5.00 / 6) (#200)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:18:24 PM EST
    you start talking about a woman acting irrationally in public and using that as an excuse not to allow a roll call for Hillary...expect responses like mine.  And if HC's behavior was so unusual, then we hardly need to use it as a reason to avoid a roll call vote.

    If HRC's and Obama's position (1.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Politalkix on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:26:39 PM EST
    were reversed and some of Obama's supporters had formed PUMA type organizations and indulged in Harriet Christian like behavior, I would not have recommended a roll call vote for Obama either!  

    Give me a break (5.00 / 7) (#208)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:27:52 PM EST
    Yes, women control themselves in public, FAR MORE than men do - because women's public faces are far more limited in what is acceptable. Anger, outrage, fury? That woman's out of control! She's being emotional in public! Smile, honey.

    If you doubt me, I've got a great example for you - when Hillary showed cool-headedness, she was dubbed an ice queen. When she showed the slightest hint of how much she cares, she was called "too emotional" - and therefore out of control. Out of WHOSE control, exactly?

    Harriet Christian looked "unusual and irrational" to you because she was acting like men act whenever they feel like it - without having to fear being called unusual and irrational.


    Simple, "Democrats divided" (1.00 / 3) (#12)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:06:21 AM EST
    I have no interest in feeding that story. None.

    Okay (5.00 / 18) (#19)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:13:07 AM EST
    I'm glad you want to deny my wife and daughter a historically significant moment because you erroneously think it would fuel a media narrative.  That's really awesome of you.

    The idea that the media will be less able to write "Democrats divided" stories if the roll call vote is unanimous is totally silly.  In fact, you're handing them the chance to write MORE stories, stories about people who are upset because they wanted their vote for Hillary to be acknowledged.  The media does not care about the stage management.


    thanks steve (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Little Fish on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:20:03 AM EST
    for making the case better than I can.  It's a historic moment, with the first viable woman candidate.  I don't know if I'll get to see that again (and I'm young, but you never know).  I say celebrate it.

    My guess is that the only reason (1.00 / 2) (#21)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:14:39 AM EST
    anyone would write about it is because some people are making a big fuss about it.

    Hillary got a lot of votes. She broke records. We already know that.


    Well (5.00 / 9) (#33)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:23:46 AM EST
    This morning I asked my wife how she would feel if there were a moment at the convention like I described.  It was clear that she would be very happy to watch that.

    I am really beside myself with anger at your dismissive attitude.  Do you not care how anyone else feels other than yourself?  Do you truly think the historic moment should just be thrown aside in hopes of influencing the media narrative?


    I want the moment (2.75 / 4) (#37)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:27:08 AM EST
    that will best help carry the ticket to victory. Far better, in my opinion, that Hillary actually be on that ticket. It seems to me that staging an essentially meaningless event like this won't help. But if it will, you're right and I'm wrong.

    It will definitely help (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:30:30 AM EST
    The only reason you would think it won't help is that you're simply not listening.

    Millions of Clinton supporters will be more enthused about supporting the nominee because of this feel-good, historic moment.  No one will be less enthused.  The only reason anyone would ever say no to it is that they simply aren't interested in processing how those Clinton supporters feel or why they care.


    Or if they're afraid that she's one (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:37:13 AM EST
    who will get the nomination. Please tell me, angarden, that you aren't worried about that.

    Of course not (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:39:26 AM EST
    No reasonable person thinks that's possible, but I think many of the PUMA people have fantasies of creating an embarrassing moment with the roll call. I want to deny them that.

    Ahhh... (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:13:36 PM EST
    now we have it.

    Denying the reality of PUMA by controlling the convention demonstrations for Hillary.

    That is pretty convoluted thinking.  Can't you see that any PUMA demonstration during a roll call vote for Hillary whould be drowned out by demonstrations FOR her?

    Denying those delegates an outlet of expression of THEIR political role (support of their candidate) will only produce what you want to avoid...and at a bad time, too...during OBAMA'S nomination and/or acceptance speech.

    Create a vacuum...it will be filled.


    Well (5.00 / 9) (#111)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:14:12 PM EST
    You should stop obsessing over the PUMAs, and start supporting doing what's right for the party and for good Democrats like my wife who would appreciate the historic moment.

    If the situations were reversed and Hillary were getting the nomination, I cannot conceive of being opposed to a similar recognition for Obama and his historic campaign.  Nor, I think, would Hillary even give it a second thought.  It would be a total and complete no-brainer.


    Then allow the roll call (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by catfish on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    so they can watch Obama get the nomination anyway. That's how you deny them that.

    The primary audience for the Convention (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:35:32 PM EST
    should be NOT those of us who watch every twitch and sigh, but at least some part of those whose memories of the primaries are largely based on impressions.

    Those are the people who have not drunk the Kool Aid but allowing a vote will either tip their support or consolidate it.

    With the polls so close, even moving a smallish number of people from tepid to somewhat better than tepid would be a help, and not really something he can afford to risk.


    So instead (5.00 / 12) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:23:12 AM EST
    you want to feed the story that for the first time in memory the Democrats don't have a roll call vote....

    and it's in the year when the first viable woman ran.

    Is that a better story for you?


    If it is "party divided" (5.00 / 6) (#205)
    by caseyOR on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:24:14 PM EST
    it is only so because Obama and Dean refused to say upfront that traditional convention procedures would, of course, be followed this year. Obama made this an issue, and Obama can stop the nonsense by stating forcefully and that Clinton's name will be put in nomination.

    Why should Hillary be treated as a lesser candidate than Democrats in the past?

    This is what is pi$$ing people off.


    Democracies ARE divided, everywhere, always (5.00 / 3) (#212)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:49:08 PM EST
    There'd be no point to having democracy -- or Democrats -- if the world worked according to your idea of unity.

    Head in sand, imo (4.75 / 12) (#18)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:12:26 AM EST
    What says "Democrats divided" more: a roll call vote with boisterous demonstration of support for both candidates during the roll call followed by a second vote for Obama by acclamation? Or a protest on the floor and outside the convention hall by plenty of PO-ed people?

    The party is divided.  Wishing it weren't so and ignoring it does not make it go away.


    Because if we ignore the fact that half the party (4.93 / 16) (#4)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:53:48 AM EST
    voted for the other gal, that fact will go away? Maybe it's only a gesture, but I think it is an important one for many Clinton supporters. I see no way that it weakens Obama. Refusing to let people vote, however, is a GOP commercial that writes itself, and it weakens the Democratic party.

    Because then you pretend 18 million (4.92 / 14) (#5)
    by rooge04 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:57:52 AM EST
    people did not vote. It may be symbolic.  But it means a whole hell of a lot. And if Hillary's voters make Obama appear weak, well then that's HIS problem isn't it?  He's been propped up left and right. She has to even drag him to the nomination?

    I say it pretends no such thing (1.00 / 3) (#6)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:59:35 AM EST
    and that it would be meaningless bordering on harmful.

    This is just like obsessing over the MoveOn censure resolution. Stupid, stupid, stupid.


    Oh please. (5.00 / 10) (#40)
    by rooge04 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:28:21 AM EST
    It "hurts" Obama the same way the media and his campaign tried to say Hillary even having the audacity to run against him hurts him.  Remember that? "Oh no she's got to drop out or else it hurts the party!!!" The man cannot win without getting his opponent to quit first? COME ON.

    whay (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:36:45 AM EST
    should it be any different this time than in previous years.  Did it hurt Kerry?

    I say NOT having it will give the media more fodder to talk about why it wasn't held.  They are already


    For all the CDS and Hillary-hate in the media (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by rooge04 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:50:31 AM EST
    they seem awful obsessed with everything she and Bill do!!!

    Meaningless to YOU (5.00 / 8) (#96)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:01:35 PM EST
    and 'bording on harmful' to whom?  To Obama?

    That is a pathetic level of confidence in The One.

    I have to wonder, andgarden, if Obama and Hillary's roles in this convention were reversed, if you would make the same case.

    Somehow, I doubt it.

    The ability to put ourselves in the shoes of another is one of the most basic skills for fighting prejudice and descrimination of all kinds.  Remember the blue-eyed/brown-eyed technique so beautifully taught by a teacher (whose name escapes me at the moment) in Iowa following the assasination of MLK...profiled beautifully, with variations, on several PBS programs over the years?

    Now might be a good time to revisit that lesson.


    If the roles (5.00 / 7) (#116)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:16:46 PM EST
    were reversed and Hillary even let it be breathed in the media that she was considering not allowing Obama's name to be put into nomination the screaming of racism and theats of street violence would be deafening.

    Symbolism and Respect (4.91 / 12) (#180)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton is the first woman to ever win a presidential primary. The first woman to ever win a presidential caucus.  And now, unlike every man in the last several decades, her name might not be placed in nomination?  The symbolic importance of putting her name in and having a record of the number of delegates she won is important.  Not to embarrass Obama, but because it's an important milestone for women.

    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.  

    No, this is important for more reasons than this nomination. It's important to get the Democratic Party to acknowledge women's roles in the party, supporting enhanced political participation by women at every level and for every office, and respect for its women voters.  


    And Tell Me What Obama Gains (5.00 / 6) (#184)
    by BDB on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:05:38 PM EST
    by not putting her name in nomination.  There seems to be some idea that if her name isn't called at the convention, all will be happy and light and unity will reign supreme.  As if everyone will simply forget the divisions.  

    Only the Democrats would come up with the idea that Unity is achieved by screwing the unhappy party over one more time.  Hey, Clinton supporters are still unhappy, hit them again.  Are they happy now?  No.  Hit them again.  How about now?

    If there are still a lot of Democrats unhappy with Obama, here's an idea - he could do something to try to win their vote.  So much more effective it seems to me than continuing to insult them.


    "The beatings will continue (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:15:45 PM EST
    until morale improves" I actually have a tee shirt that says that.

    well you forget (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:11:46 PM EST
    it is NOT women in general, it is just "THIS WOMAN".  Don't you recall that being the claim when their were calls of sexism in the primary?  It wasn't sexism. it wouldn't have happened to any other woman.  It's just because it is THIS WOMAN.

    You know that she is complete ego, she will do anything to win, she is evil incarnate.  If she gets a roll call vote, you can bet that she and Bill have hatched a diabolical scheme to somehow take a final shot at winning the nomination.

    That's what this is all about.

    The VP position is the same thing.  If she were named VP, you just know that she and Bill have another back-up plan to get rid of Obama so that she becomes president.


    Hillary Supporters (1.72 / 11) (#10)
    by OldCity on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:03:03 AM EST
    Potentially problematic...I don't disagree with Hart's premise that HRC is invested in Obama's victory.  However, her supporters aren't; at least that's the impression we constantly get.
    Really, it's puzzling.  On a policy basis, there's not much difference between HRC and Obama.  So, excepting the fact that, well, he's not her, what could the possible benefit be to holding the vote?  The entire primary was an opportunity for HRC supporters to show their support.  The fact that HRC's campaign employed a defective strategy (c'mon, be adults and dispense with the conspiracy theories) resulting in her loss shouldn't be held against the guy who won, especially since he's going to pursue many of the same issues as HRC wouuld have.  IMO, the vote won't do anything to shore up party unity, it will only further illuminate the resentment so many HRC supporters apparently feel toward Obama.  That will only drive more coverage of the "divided Democratic party".  Who wants that in the middle of the GE?
    Hillary's response, how she presents herself will be important if the vote is held.  It's hard not to see her as more than a little narcissistic as she continues to talk about her 18 million voters, as if the nominee won't pursue the party platform to the benefit of those same 18 million voters.  If she truly wants a Democrat in the White House, she must be explicit about it; it would show some graciousness and some dedication to idea of party unity if she agreed to forego a vote.

    Well (5.00 / 17) (#14)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:08:20 AM EST
    I think you should consider how it would feel to Clinton supporters, particularly those who feel strongly about having a woman as President, to at least see a tangible acknowledgment of their vote at the convention before we all join together in supporting the nominee.

    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.

    The media will write the same stories if the roll call vote is 100% for Obama, they will just be stories about how Obama attempted to squelch the appearance of division by not letting Clinton's delegates vote for her.


    Exactly (4.87 / 8) (#23)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:15:43 AM EST
    People have waited all of their lives for this moment. It's important and significant. We shouldn't be avoiding it out of fear about how the MSM will spin it - particularly since Obama's the media darling anyway.

    I think that Hillary understands (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:29:26 AM EST
    her supporters. If she wants them to support Obama in the GE, she needs to support them in allowing them to vote for her at the convention. If Obama insists that she "be gracious" and refuse to have her name entered into nomination after her delegates gather the necessary signatures to make it happen, the message we will receive, whether she means it or not, will be "Go get him, PUMAs! See you in 2012". Obama and the DNC must be tone deaf if they can't hear that.

    If he's the People's Choice... (5.00 / 8) (#47)
    by goldberry on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:32:44 AM EST
    ...he has nothing to fear from her nomination.  Period.  
    Every other excuse makes no sense.  He's either the one or he isn't.  I could say that he ran a flawed election strategy as well by not capturing CA, NJ, NY, FL, MI, PA, OH, TX etc, decisively in spite of the millions of dollars he spent.  That's why he's in this mess right now.  His team tried to game the system and get around all of the big states that he couldn't actually win.  
    So, let's see if he's really the People's Choice.  If he is, great!  The delegate count will reflect that.  If he's not, better to find out now before the election where he is in great danger of being creamed.  

    you would need to explain (5.00 / 7) (#62)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:40:14 AM EST
    why cancel it this time when it hasn't been done before?  Just because it is a WOMAN this time who doesn't deserve the respect?  Just because it was HILLARY and you would let another woman have her vote, just not THIS woman?  Just because it was so close?

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

    What makes this one any more dangerous than any other that has happened?


    The point is that Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:02:40 PM EST
    is just not any other candidate.  Like Obama, her candidacy and results are historic, and deserve to be honored, and not just because of how it affect her supporters.

    But will she do what is necessary to make it happen?  


    Everything old is new again.... (5.00 / 9) (#121)
    by Camorrista on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:18:33 PM EST
    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.

    To them, we are troublemakers, and, like Obama himself, and the leadership of his movement, all they want is for the troublemakers to disappear until Election Day, when we can emerge to vote, and then disappear again.


    all of these "controversies" (5.00 / 8) (#139)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:30:05 PM EST
    do nothing more than make Obama look WEAK.  Like he has to be coddled for fear he will break.

    not troublemakers... (1.87 / 8) (#152)
    by OldCity on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:40:00 PM EST
    per se.  Poor losers.  There's a difference.  
    My concern is party first, not personality.  The opportuinity cost of the endless pursuance of acknowledgement of Hillary's "achievement" is to prolong the divide of people who, we assume, see the alternative (McCain) as undesirable.  Sure, Hillary achieved.  She achieved what every second place candidate achieves, second place.

    I don't, despite your stereotyping, think that Hillary was in any way unqualified or that women shouldn't hold positions of power.  I do think, though, that the expectations should be the same for women when they lose, that they do it graciously, and then throw their support behind the elected standard bearer of the party.  
    Obviously, no one thinks Clinton supporters are disposable, otherwise there wouldn't be so much concern about their SUPPORT.  However, I think they should be Democratic supporters first, and Clinton supporters second.  Had Obama lost, I would have cheerfully thrown my weight behind Hillary, without batting an eye or begging recognition for HIS historic achievement.  
    That's what I cannot understand about the endless saw over Hillary.  Are you for the ideas she supports, truly, or are you just for her?  Because, like it or not, she and Obama aren't on different pages.  She and McCain, on the other hand...

    I'm a Democrat, I don't want a Republican in next time.  To that end, I'll support the person who wins the nomination.  In this case, it's Obama.  Next time, if she runs better, it could be Hillary, and I'll support her then.  


    She did that (5.00 / 10) (#167)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:51:03 PM EST
    I do think, though, that the expectations should be the same for women when they lose, that they do it graciously, and then throw their support behind the elected standard bearer of the party.  

    Now let's take the next obvious step and treat her the same way every other Democratic primary candidate has been treated at every other Democratic convention.


    sigh (5.00 / 7) (#170)
    by pukemoana on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:53:34 PM EST
    I do think, though, that the expectations should be the same for women when they lose,
    then give her the same process i.e. nomination and roll call, as that accorded the men who lost the democratic nomination in previous years

    that they do it graciously,

    I do believe she's campaigning for him today

    and then throw their support behind the elected standard bearer of the party.

    she's done so already, i.e. before he's 'elected', and has also done so earlier than the men in a comparable situation

    and the reality of the situation is (5.00 / 8) (#178)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:58:07 PM EST
    this would NOT be an issue if we followed tradition. But hey, let's just pin this crap on Clinton and ignore the freakin' OBVIOUS.

    Yes, but (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by Nadai on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    reality has a pro-Clinton bias.

    Old City, you just keep on assuming. (5.00 / 4) (#203)
    by DJ on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:19:48 PM EST
    You don't want a republican but someone who
    -supports Fisa
    -supports Death Penalty
    -does not support women on choice
    -opposes campaign finance
    -against separation of church and state
    -campaigns with leaders who "prayed" themselves out of homosexuality
    -votes for Cheney energy bill
    well THAT is all okay.

    hmmm..what exactly did you want now?


    No difference-you're not paying attention (5.00 / 9) (#140)
    by Bornagaindem on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:31:13 PM EST
    Excuse me but there are vast differences in Hillary's and Obama's positions/policies.  She does not support stripping our 4th amendment rights Obama does, She supports and would deliver universal healthcare, Obama does not.  She would not  eliminate the separation of church and state but Obama will by to expanding faith based initiatives. Those are just a few of the vast differences between them. They happen to be extremely important to me.

    Hillary knows that she pisses off her supporters if she does not support them in their fight to vote for her. She has asked them to support Obama and that is as far as she can go. Do think for one minute if the shoe were on the other foot that Obama supporters and delegates wouldn't be rioting?  Most likely they would be boycotting the convention altogether. But Hillary would have actually made sure there was unity by making Obama the VP a month ago. Obama thinks he can do this on his own. Well good luck without a substantial number of those 18 million Hillary supporters. The convention could be key. Make a mess of it as his campaign appears to be doing by denying the hillary delegates a chance to vote and he loses even more democrats. The sad thing is that this was our year and the DNC screwed it up .


    Bornagain....You are soooooo correct!! (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:40:15 PM EST
    obama has copied most of Hillary's stances, and that is why they look so similar!  Of course, we aren't supposed to bring those things up.  And he has flip-flopped on one of the most important issues of all...FISA.  Yet, many of his followers are hokey dokey with that....

    Hillary = narcissistic? (5.00 / 8) (#158)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:46:03 PM EST
    lolololol...excuse me while I try to breathe....

    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?

    That's what adults do, and it wins them a lot more admiration than dissing them.  It's only in high school that people think denigrating an opponent after you've won is wicked kewl.


    As an aside, (5.00 / 6) (#172)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:53:52 PM EST
    it also means that you are better if you sing the praises of those you beat. If your competition was mediocre, then what does that say about your win?

    If it depends on HIllary requesting a vote (none / 0) (#90)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:57:03 AM EST
    is there been any indication that she an interest in doing so?

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:03:38 PM EST
    It doesn't only depend on Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:15:09 PM EST
    There are other options. The 300 delegates who have reportedly signed a petition can get her into nomination as long as she agrees, which I cannot see her turning down.

    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.

    Which do you think would be more embarrassing to 'The One'?


    She is considering turning it down (none / 0) (#119)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:18:22 PM EST
    that is the decision Dean says is 'up to her'.

    I have yet to see (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:25:03 PM EST
    a reliable source say she is considering turning it down. Do you have a link to somethng more substantial than an unamed source?

    No evidence either way (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:48:09 PM EST
    (unless you consider the Daily News unnamed 'staffer' to be credible, lol).

    She'l do it for her supporters (5.00 / 8) (#142)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:31:40 PM EST
    not for herself. If she is allowed to.

    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.

    And yes, if there is no roll-call vote with her name in nomination, there are going to be LOTS of "present" votes to REALLY embarrass Obama.


    If she is allowed to. (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:53:41 PM EST
    That sure says it all. {sigh}

    She says she is still talking about it with Obama (none / 0) (#105)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:08:49 PM EST
    doesn't matter (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:12:47 PM EST
    if she doesn't request it (even of her own will), her supporters will interpret it as her being forced out by Obama.

    Probably right (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:22:01 PM EST
    It will be her being a good soldier, and plenty of us are tired of the woman always having to be the one to go along to get along.  I certainly understand that.

    I think there should be a vote,  but Hillary can't ask for one without Obama's blessing or she will be accused of trying to split the party.  That is the dilemma.  Obama is the one that has to be convinced it is a good idea. I think it is time for the party elders, like Hart, Kerry, etc. to have a talk with him.


    I agree, she can't ask (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by americanincanada on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:26:28 PM EST
    but a petition signed be the required number of delegates is not her asking. It is her supporters, her elected delegates, asking. In the name of respect and unity it would hard for her to turn that down and have it be seen as anything other than what it would be.

    Yes, this is how she can ask without (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:53:24 PM EST
    asking.  Her delegates are asking for her.

    And not just her supporters... (4.66 / 3) (#175)
    by huzzlewhat on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:57:21 PM EST
    In the reports I've seen about the petition, many of those who signed are Obama delegates, who didn't vote for her, won't vote for her, but firmly believe that it's right that those who did should get that chance.

    I suggest they take Steve M. along. (4.50 / 2) (#135)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:27:37 PM EST
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by chrisvee on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:48:53 PM EST
    He makes the case clearly and succintly. I'm so angry my hands are shaking. :-)

    Here's the rub....why does she have to (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:11:52 PM EST
    talk it over with obama?  More b.s. if you ask me...obama is trying to control anything he perceives as a threat to him, not the party, not the country....HIM.

    well you'd almost think (5.00 / 7) (#201)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:19:17 PM EST
    she wanted an abortion and needed to talk it over with a man first to get permission

    Comments are closed (none / 0) (#218)
    by waldenpond on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 02:11:09 PM EST
    as the post bogs down after 200 (we are at 214), additional comments will be deleted.  Thanks.