Hillary Supporters Want Their Vote Before Boarding Unity Train

By Jeralyn, Section Democratic National Convention 2008
Posted on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:35:40 AM EST
Tags: Denver National Convention (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

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.

But for many Clinton delegates, it is about principle. Because they were chosen by her supporters in districts across the country, many say they won't feel that they have fulfilled their duty until they cast a vote for her — however futile that might be.

"I will come on board the unity train with a first-class ticket if, before doing so, I get the opportunity to vote for my candidate," said Daniel Kagan, a property developer and lawyer from Arapahoe County. "On Aug. 28, when Obama accepts the nomination, I will be there cheering along with the rest of them, but only if I have had the chance to vote first."

More...

Kagan is among a small group of people working to garner 300 signatures from national delegates to complete DNC rule requirements to put Clinton's name back on the ballot. Even if they get enough signatures, Clinton must agree to have her name placed on the ballot.

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

Allowing delegates to vote for their chosen candidate gives them an opportunity to celebrate that candidate and their work on the campaign, said former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, who ran for president in 1984 and 1988.

At the convention in 1984, Hart said, each of his 1,200 delegates voted for him "with no defections." "My people put on a massive demonstration. It went on for 10 or 15 minutes," Hart said. "They felt very good about it afterward."

He also says:

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 >

Poll

Votes: 151
Results	\|	Other Polls

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Hillary Supporters Want Their Vote Before Boarding Unity Train | 218 comments (218 topical)

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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?

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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?

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

: Changing the subject (none / 0) (#68)
by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:43:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

NO (2.66 / 3) (#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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

No, what I am saying is essentailly (5.00 / 1) (#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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

: 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.

[ Parent ]

'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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

: 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.

[ Parent ]

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?

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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?

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

: My contention from the get-go has been (4.50 / 6) (#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?

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

: 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.

[ Parent ]

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

those who will NEVER vote for Obama
those who will vote for Obama IF Hillary is the VP.
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?

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

Understood (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:40:48 AM EST

and that's what makes this so tricky.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

Chances of that happening: 0% (none / 0) (#75)
by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 11:47:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]

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?

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

: Maybe you're right (none / 0) (#123)
by andgarden on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:19:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]

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?

[ Parent ]

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!

[ Parent ]

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!

[ Parent ]

Obama has gained my respect (4.00 / 2) (#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.

[ Parent ]

: 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.

[ Parent ]
: 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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

: 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.

[ Parent ]
: 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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

: 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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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?

[ Parent ]

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?

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

: While nursing an injury. (5.00 / 1) (#214)
by oldpro on Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 01:53:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

: "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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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 ;)

[ Parent ]

: 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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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?

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

: 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.

[ Parent ]
: 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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

: 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).

[ Parent ]

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?

[ Parent ]

"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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

: 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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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?

[ Parent ]

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.

[ Parent ]

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 nominati

♦	Yes	94%
♦	No	5%