Clinton to be put in nomination, campaigns strive for ‘peace in the kingdom’
Hillary Clinton’s recent talk about “catharsis” was in large part about having her name being placed in nomination during the Democratic National Convention. It’s largely a symbolic move, but it appears that’s precisely what’s going to happen.
The decision was reached this week, according to Democratic officials, and will be announced later today. It comes after long negotiations on both sides, with many backers of Mrs. Clinton vigorously pushing for her candidacy to be validated by giving her delegates the chance to support her through a roll call vote.
For Democrats inside the convention center in Denver, as well as the television audience at home, it could create some interesting moments. After the state-by-state roll is tallied, Mrs. Clinton is expected to turn over her cache of delegates to Senator Barack Obama.
So how will Mrs. Clinton, who is a superdelegate herself, vote? Associates say she will throw her lot behind Mr. Obama and ask her supporters to follow suit. To see if it unfolds as the Obama campaign hopes — free of acrimony — tune in on Wednesday, Aug. 27.
According to the various reports, this wasn’t exactly the result of a “negotiation,” per se, but was simply the move both camps saw as the right way to go. A Democratic Party operative familiar with convention plans told CNN that the Obama campaign hopes the move will bring “peace in the kingdom.”
Does this have any substantive significance? Well, no. But there was a genuine (and legitimate) fear that if Clinton’s name was not placed in nomination, her most enthusiastic supporters would have perceived it as a disrespectful “snub,” and the likelihood of intra-party strife at the convention would have been considerably greater.
A party source told Greg Sargent, “This will recognize the historic nature of the primaries, honor the voices of everyone who participated, and help with party unity.”
In the broader context, it’s worth keeping in mind that things seem to be coming together pretty well in advance of the convention. Ben Smith noted
, “Despite the occasional tensions both at the tops of the campaigns and among their supporters, the actual convention planning appears to be coming off without major controversies.”
What’s more, Marc Ambinder notes that today’s announcement came together even easier than expected, and the rumored acrimony hasn’t materialized.
Reports of strife between negotiators for Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are exaggerated and the two sides are nearing an agreement on how Clinton’s delegates will participate in the formal nominating process at the Democratic National Convention, according to advisers to both Democrats.
Although Clinton had resisted pressure from donors, allies and supporters to accept demands to allow her name placed in nomination, she and aides to Obama seemed to realize independently that doing so would be the best way to incorporate and welcome Clinton’s supporters into Obama’s general election campaign, both symbolically and practically.
According to several people who have spoken with her, Clinton originally believed that if her name were included in the roll call on Wednesday, August 27, she would inevitably wind up with fewer delegates than the 1896.5 she earned from the primaries. That would look bad and could demoralize her supporters.
In negotiations this summer with Obama’s campaign, Clinton’s team did not ask for Clinton’s name to be submitted.
But within the past week, Clinton advisers informed the Obama team that many of Clinton’s staunchest supporters felt strongly that something had to be done, and that Clinton had concluded that, in part for the sake of unity, their wishes ought to be respected. They heard back immediately: the Obama campaign had always been open to having her name placed in nomination alongside his.
I suppose I should note that, in theory, by having her name placed in nomination, Hillary Clinton could actually become the Democratic presidential nominee. In reality, however, that’s not going to happen, and would be dependent entirely on Obama delegates switching their support to Clinton.
I mention this because there’s bound to be at least some kind of effort, on the part of Clinton’s most ardent and enthusiastic backers, to try to make this happen. It won’t.
jen f
says:No, it won’t happen, but it is smart on Obama’s side to encourage Clinton to participate in the nomination and recognize her supporters. It sends the right message.
libra
says:Bleh. I still think castor oil would have done a better job of getting bad humours out of one’s system, than catharsis will. But, whatever.
Until a few years ago, I didn’t pay much attention to the minutiae of American politics, so I have a question. Is such a move — putting the name of someone, who lost in the primaries, into the hat — a common practice at Dem Conventions? Or is releasing one’s delegates to the winner, pre-Convention, more “traditional”?
jhm
says:If they were going to vote for Hon. Sen. Clinton, they’d probably do so anyway, so why give the issue the air of controversy?
SadOldVet
says:Why is the h*ll is it always about the f*cking Clintons? I am still waiting to be convinced that Billary is not subverting Obama so that she can run in 2012.
If Clinton was in Obama’s position, does any rational person believe that the Clintons’ would be putting up with this crap?
The democrapic nomination process was over after Feb. 19th, for all practical purposes. Since then, the Clinton campaign engaged in a deceitful deceiving propaganda effort to convince the amerikan public that there was still a close race going on.
With the full assistance of the corporate media echo chamber, Billary created enough confusion to convince her PUMAs that the nomination was ‘stolen’ from her. With the full assistance of the corporate media echo chamber, unjustified anger was aroused among her strongest supporters – crying sexism because a female was not selected.
If the RR can pray for floods in Denver, I can pray as well.
Oh Lord,
May the dryed up wicked witch of the least disappear from the american political landscape. May the husband of the witch disappear from the memory of the american public. May the evil of Clintonitis be erased forever. For this I pray, in the name of the father, the son, and the holy Pat Robertson.
Amen
Franklin
says:I am perfectly fine with this. Let the people be heard. Disagreements are encouraged in a democracy. And maybe, just maybe, a few people will accept the facts once they see the delegate votes physically counted and honored.
Harold in Buffalo
says:By consenting to this, Obama is courting the risk that Hillary and Bill will steal the nomination from him. In allowing a vote on Hillary at the convention, Obama is showing that he may not be smart enough to be president after all.
Chris
says:…there’s bound to be at least some kind of effort, on the part of Clinton’s most ardent and enthusiastic backers, to try to make this happen. It won’t.
CB is right that Obama will still get the nomination, but the fact that the possibility even exists for Clinton to still get it, no matter how negligible, gives the media the crack in the door that they need to milk this for all it’s worth. Hillary Clinton is good for ratings, and she’ll, no doubt, play the good guy while letting her supporters continue to fight for the nomination. This will give her more opportunities to bask in the media glory while undermining Obama’s chances in November.
I was confident that Obama “closed the deal” when he won Wisconsin back in February because at that point, it was nearly impossible for Clinton to get the nomination. But simple arithmetic didn’t stop the media from doing their part to play up and exacerbate the divisions. This is a bad thing.
At the end of the first act of Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible”, John Proctor said: “Now Hell and Heaven grapple on our backs and all our old pretenses ripped away! Aye! And God’s icy wind will blow.” Exactly.
UncaPaul
says:I think it could make for some interesting stagecraft.
The states post their votes by alphabetical order. When it comes to NY, they asked to go at the end. When they come around to NY again, they move to be polled by individual delegates.
After two votes for Hillary (the first delegate to vote being Bill) and two votes for Obama, Hillary steps up, casts her vote for Obama, and then releases her deligates and requests Obama be nominated by unanimous consent.
Nice and pretty.
Prup (aka Jim Benton)
says:I hope that you and Franklin are right, and am about 90% sure you are, but there’s still that 10% that And that part does have evidence, in Hillary’s refusal to condemn the PUMA sites publicly for their absurd lies. Btw, has she ever flat out said “I was wrong when I said that John McCain would be ready to assume the Presidency, or when I said he was qualified for the job.”
I really do expect things will work out right, but I’m going to be verrrrry nervous during their speches.
Prup (aka Jim Benton)
says:whoops, missed a close again. Sorry about that.
Racer X
says:Clinton knows she won’t win, and that seeing her lose again will only rip open the old wound. Yet she must have been the one who decided her name would be on the ballot. If she said no, it wouldn’t be there. So she wants this. She wants her die-hard followers to express their distaste for the Democratic nominee on national TV one more time. She deliberately created an opportunity for her followers to fuck with Obama.
Is this her way of helping the party?
Democrats need this only slightly less than we need Lieberman’s bullshit.
Bernard HP Gilroy
says:Harold in Buffalo @ 6:
Or he may be showing that he has the mettle after all. The Obama campaign has been pretty smart all along, and they’ve made plays others called silly only to be vindicated. Maybe he knows exactly what he’s doing.
If, somehow, Clinton “stole” the nomination, she’d lose in the general election. She’d have to reconstitute her entire operation with only a handful of weeks; she’d have to raise money (and from whom?); and of course, many Democrats would stay home. Hilary Clinton isn’t stupid; she understands as well as anyone why taking the nomination this year is no longer a possibility, barring unforeseeable wackiness.
DebbyeOh
says:I don’t like it, but if it does the trick, so be it. I really just would like to never hear about Hill and Bill again after the convention.
Diogenes
says:Bleh. Neither Hillary nor Bill should be remembered as progressive heroes. I’m not saying Obama will be either. But I really am tired of this dynastic, royalist B.S. that Bill and Hillary insist on wrapping themselves up in. And #8, even if Hillary swore, on all that was sacred and good, that she wanted her PUMA supporters to support Obama, they’d still swear that she was pushed out of the way.
Maria
says:But there was a genuine (and legitimate) fear that if Clinton’s name was not placed in nomination, her most enthusiastic supporters would have perceived it as a disrespectful “snub,”
Her craziest backers (I don’t think “most enthusiastic” is quite right, as only a few of her most enthusiastic supporters are refusing to join reality and rationality) have now shifted their seething, throbbing fury to the huge “snub” of Clinton not keynoting Tuesday night. (Never mind that Clinton’s camp says she didn’t want to keynote; the PUMAs know better than she what she wants.)
In other words, nothing Obama and the DNC can do will pacify the worst of that bunch. However, I still think this is the right move to make for the benefit of all who aren’t certifiable.
NonyNony
says:Guys you’re all sounding like a bunch of paranoid Clinton-haters. Step away from the keyboards, take a deep breath and chill for a second.
This is a move to disarm the “Republicans pretending to be Clinton supporting PUMAs”, as well as a way to shift the media narrative to “Democratic Party Unity” instead of the constant infighting. Having Clinton up on stage, casting her super-delegate ballot for Barack Obama and urging her supporters to do the same will do more to shut up the Republicans trying to milk angry Clinton supporters than anything else Clinton or Obama could do.
So stop it – this is normal political theater. There’s nothing wrong with this and every time folks get their knickers in a twist trying to figure out what kind of EEEEEVIL plot the Clintons are secretly fomenting in their basement, you start to sound like a bunch of nutjobs.
JRD
says:As is not unusual, I agree with Prup. There’s probably nothing to worry about, but Clinton’s tactics during the primaries and the fanaticism of some of her supporters make me just a little nervous anyway. She was talking months ago about the fact that even pledged delegates aren’t legally required to vote for the candidate whom they’re elected to support; I can’t really believe that Clinton would try at this point to sway enough delegates in her favor for a surprise upset at the convention, or that such efforts would be successful even if she did try it, but I’m going to remain irrationally nervous about this until after the nominee is officially announced.
doubtful
says:This is pointless.
It’s a last ditch effort to wrangle the nomination away from Obama or, at the very least, undermine his legitimacy disguised as catharsis.
Honestly, who gives a shit about closure for a few hundred PUMAs. We’ve got real world problems to solve.
doubtful
says:And, I might add, this will not resolve itself with catharsis. It will, rather, reopen old wounds.
August J. Pollak
says:I wonder if they’ll get their “Hillary ’08” pacifiers in before the convention.
Racer X
says:NonyNony makes sense on some levels, but…
I forgot to say that Hillary has forced her people to pick between her and Obama.
Forced them.
This isn’t theater, this is her way of fucking with us, of pissing on the entire Democratic party for “cheating her out of the presidency”. Well screw you, Clintons, and all your deluded followers who still think the nomination was somehow stolen from her because she’s a woman. Deluded people like you are pretty embarrassing anyway, so go vote for McCain if you want to. Vote for the guy who would gladly strip you of your rights to choose, because someone dared beat Hillary out of her entitlement.
Hell hath no fury, indeed. I believe this is probably Hillary’s way of forcing her way into the Obama administration, her way of creating the illusion* of an independent power base. She’ll say “I got __ votes for the nomination, so give me (X) or I’ll mobilize those people against you.”
Obama was probably blackmailed into giving them the floor, I hope he’s smart enough to keep them out of his administration. The way they’ve screwed up everything in their campaign should be enough to disqualify them, but we’ll see.
* I say illusion, because the people at the convention are the hard core, whereas the voters who sent them to the convention are far less likely to support the divisive actions of the core.
Virginia Harris
says:Thanks to the suffragettes, women have voices and choices.
Most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won.
Now readers can discover the sexy, shocking truth of how the suffragettes did it, and it’s as easy as opening their e-mail.
“The Privilege of Voting” is a new e-mail series that follows eight great women from 1912 – 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote.
Two beautiful and extremely powerful suffragettes — Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan, Alice Roosevelt and two gorgeous presidential mistresses.
There are a LOT of hot affairs, and tons of heartache on the rocky road to the ballot box.
Presented in a unique sequential e-mail series — each exciting episode is a about 10 minutes — perfect to enjoy during coffeebreaks, or anytime.
Subscribe free at
http://www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/tpovpage.html
Mike
says:The hate speech constantly being spewed by Obama’s supporters on this and other sites echoes the worst of Free Republic and TownHall. It’s is no wonder that there are some principled Democrats who find this reprehensible. When has Obama ever tried to rein in his lunatics or lectured them on basic civility? Obama gives lie to his rhetoric: he, like Bush, thrives on division, pandering to the right and calling forth the worst in people..
One can re-list the myriad ways that Obama has proved his arrogant lack of concern for the Party’s base issues, but obviously, Obama’s dearest are Halperin fauxgressives
pawpaw
says:You all may be suprised come convention time. Jr.Senator Barack Husien Obama has stuck his foot in his mouth so many times lately that enough of his deligates may be ready to jump ship and vote for Clinton. The Clintons may know what they are doing, Its obvious Obama doesn’t or He would be as uneasy as a one-legged man at a butt kicking. Demos, chew your nails into the quick!
doubtful
says:The hate speech constantly being spewed… -Mike
Hate speech is a term reserved for the maligning of an entire race or group of people, like African Americans or homosexuals. Please do not cheapen the term by mis-attributing it to the ire some feel specifically for a couple people, the Clintons.
Instead of engaging in hyperbole and turning someone’s disdain for the actions of the Clintons into an attack on Obama, as you did, why don’t you please explain to us what the rational political reasons are for allowing the name of someone on the ballot who withdrew from the race?
Are we to extend this courtesy only to Sen. Clinton or will Sen. Dodd and Rep. Kucinich be on there as well? Don’t their supporters deserve catharsis, too?
I honestly cannot think of one legitimate political reason for allowing this. Please, tell me how allowing this will advance the Democratic cause? In an election cycle when we should be a unified force against neocon rule focusing our efforts on ending unnecessary wars, fixing the economy, and restoring the United States’ good name, what good is it worrying about the emotional health of holdouts who will never really accept Obama anyway?
This will just be fodder for the media who have finally just gotten over talking about how divided the Democrats are anyway.
This is exactly the kind of asshattery that people are referring to when they credit the Democratic party with snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.
Megalomania
says:NonyNony said it well, and for me there is a lot more flowing that is good about the process. Its wide open Democracy with ticket scalping and revenged demonstrations predicted. A lot of floor trading and real talk good in your face plain talk not clouded with close interviews with jeckle journalist likely dropping or planting open microphones all over the place.
Heck I look back at how Hillary Clinton supported Liberman in his election just becuse he was a Democrat. I think intuitively Hillary knew what knid of guy Lieberman was yet move forward pledged to the unity in the party for the sake of the way to win in the election but we all got stiffed. Many of us hope that will not happen with Obama.
This ideal, making Hillary a nominee, or move is nothing clever, nothing new, and most of all should be appreciated that some one or some people have the courage to do it. This is a wonderful day for Democracy, and for me Hillary Clinton even with her short fall in issues, and presentations, Hillary Clinton has brought forward away in politics one could respect and believe that Hillary Clinton if elected president would bring change to America with a comfort level not match at any time.
True, there is a whole legion of Hillary haters, especially among the Republicans. However America is begining to see that collective right wing chunk of corruption Hillary talked about that needs to be cleaned out.
Here, and for me, it is an intuitive thought, Hillary will support and vote for Obama when the time comes for it likely Hillary thinks of America like that women in the bible at Solomns time. Rather than spliting the child in half Hillary would rather Mother America give in to her personal ambitions to see the Country succeed in unity with the Democrats in power. For me if that is so, it is the most unparallelled statesman approach that few Republican have as inate quality today.
The fact is as long as Hillary is there in politics, president or not, from now on, those of this unpopular neo-con culture of corruption will go down kicking and screeming all with the complicity of Mainstream Media.
This kind of battle is a hard one, especially with the legions of deviate minds in the Gay communty spread through our society, the public media and theater that have thrown the Clintons under bus. Say what you will I witness this and condemn them.
Megalomania
says:NonyNony said it well, and for me there is a lot more flowing that is good about the process. Its wide open Democracy with ticket scalping and revenged demonstrations predicted. A lot of floor trading and real talk good in your face plain talk not clouded with close interviews with jeckle journalist likely dropping or planting open microphones all over the place.
Heck I look back at how Hillary Clinton supported Liberman in his election just becuse he was a Democrat. I think intuitively Hillary knew what knid of guy Lieberman was yet move forward pledged to the unity in the party for the sake of the way to win in the election but we all got stiffed. Many of us hope that will not happen with Obama.
This ideal, making Hillary a nominee, or move is nothing clever, nothing new, and most of all should be appreciated that some one or some people have the courage to do it. This is a wonderful day for Democracy, and for me Hillary Clinton even with her short fall in issues, and presentations, Hillary Clinton has brought forward away in politics one could respect and believe that Hillary Clinton if elected president would bring change to America with a comfort level not match at any time.
True, there is a whole legion of Hillary haters, especially among the Republicans. However America is begining to see that collective right wing chunk of corruption Hillary talked about that needs to be cleaned out.
Here, and for me, it is an intuitive thought, Hillary will support and vote for Obama when the time comes for it likely Hillary thinks of America like that women in the bible at Solomns time. Rather than spliting the child in half Hillary would rather Mother America give in to her personal ambitions to see the Country succeed in unity with the Democrats in power. For me if that is so, it is the most unparallelled statesman approach that few Republican have as inate quality today.
The fact is as long as Hillary is there in politics, president or not, from now on, those of this unpopular neo-con culture of corruption will go down kicking and screeming all with the complicity of Mainstream Media.
This kind of battle is a hard one, especially with the legions of deviate minds in the Gay communty spread through our society, the public media and theater that have thrown the Clintons under bus. Say what you will I witness this and condemn them.
Ken
says:Who the hell is stopping their voices from being heard.
Obama could talk them. Agree to everything they say. And the psycho bitiches will not go away.
I don’t trust Hillary, no way, no how.
Ignore what she says, we know that is a lie. Watch what she does behind the scenes. Her lap dog media folks will keep talking her up.
She wants McCain to win. Deal with it.
Prup (aka Jim Benton)
says:Megalomania: You’ve now revealed yourself as both a homophobe and an anti-semite, as well as being, for the most part, almost totally incomprehensible. Will you go away and take up somebody else’s bandwith?
William
says:Craptharsis… These Clintons need to sit down and shut up. Dynastic Craptharsis! Fine, put her and her husband’s big, stupid asses up to the microphone for one more hoorah, oh the joy of the Clintons…………
She’ll release her delegates and all will be well with the party………
Will they “go away” after that? Please?!!!!
Craptharsis
Billy Ray Joe Bob
says:Warning, Will Robinson, Warning! Danger, Danger!
I smell a double cross.
William
says:This kind of battle is a hard one, especially with the legions of deviate minds in the Gay community spread through our society, the public media and theater that have thrown the Clintons under bus. Say what you will I witness this and condemn them.
Not certain WTF you mean with this statement. As a “condemned” deviate gay legionnaire (who threw the self obsessed Clintons under a bus?) I must admit that I think you lost your mind in mid-post. Seek professional help soon there Megalon!
Prinz H.
says:If Hillary or her supporters tried any of these tactics to undremine Obama’s nomination,she will never be president. If I remember correctly even before the nomination process began, Hillary was the odds on favorite to win it, she had it locked up no way she could lose,over by Super Tuesday. Loosing the nomiation to a black man.”Hillary would have made history, Obama has changed history.To those who feel entitled,she played the game and lost.
Chris
says:NonyNony trusts Hillary. I don’t.
Despite the fact that she was violating the Four State Pledge that she signed, Hillary once said that leaving her name on the Michigan ballot was a “technicality” and that the Michigan election “wouldn’t count for anything.” Then, after the Michigan primary, she claimed to have won and included those votes in her “I won the most popular votes ever” crap.
She’s a liar, entirely self-centered, and cannot be trusted.
Maria
says:Like John Cole, I found this headline painfully funny.
KRK
says:I believe that Clinton stepped over the line many times in the primaries. But I also believe that she has too great a sense of political self-preservation to try anything at the convention worse than a largely self-congratulatory speech on Tuesday night. She knows she doesn’t have and won’t get the votes to take the nomination and, even if she could get the nomination, she doesn’t have and can’t get the votes or money to win the election. She would fail, look ridiculous and become a pariah, and Bill’s support of any such effort would drag his legacy down as well.
I’m still convinced that this is, for Clinton, largely about positioning and fundraising. She’s talking up Obama because she knows that a McCain win would be a disaster (both for her and for the country) and because she wants to be a player in the coming decade of Democratic dominance (fingers crossed), but she’s not going to say anything right now to alienate her fans (including PUMAs) who might still be willing to send her some cash.
Lance
says:A party source told Greg Sargent, “This will recognize the historic nature of the primaries, honor the voices of everyone who participated, and help with party unity.”
I find it fascinating that a practice Ted Kennedy exercised in against Jimmy Carter, holding on to his delegates and getting a vote at the convention, somehow is considered wrong now by Obama’s other supporters????
Wow! Is there a lot of paranoia spilling out today. But you know, I don’t blame you guys, because, you know, if Hillary were to pull off a convention vote upset, guess what, she wins…
… fair and square.
Scary thing about rules, they are created by people who know how and occasionally want to…
cheat!
So keep up the comments about how dangerous this is, because you guys are absolutely right. But sometimes you can only win the race by running close to the edge.
Hannah
says:Nothing to comment other than to ask that had Obama lost to Clinton by a small margin, would Clinton allow Obama’s name to be put into nomination?
Opinions?
doubtful
says:Nothing to comment other than to ask that had Obama lost to Clinton by a small margin, would Clinton allow Obama’s name to be put into nomination? -Hannah
I think the better question is, had the roles been reversed, would Obama allow his name to be placed in nomination? I don’t think so. I’m certain he’d put unity ahead of ‘catharsis,’ and wouldn’t argue the meaning of the word ‘withdrawal.’
Lance
says:Hannah said: “Nothing to comment other than to ask that had Obama lost to Clinton by a small margin, would Clinton allow Obama’s name to be put into nomination?”
Are you suggesting that Obama’s supporters are less committed to him than Clinton’s are to her?
Seems to me they are pretty militant too.
beep52
says:After the disgusting campaign she ran, HRC deserves nothing. The PUMAs, on the other hand, have earned a cold shower and a spell in the time-out chair.
There’s some big-time, serious crap going on in this country and around the world, and hissy-fits and hurt feelings don’t matter one iota. People have had 2 months to get over her defeat — more than enough for any adult. But instead of moving forward, we have to suffer more pointless, meaningless drama.
If the Clintons had shown up this past month going after McCain like they went after Obama, I’d feel differently, but they didn’t. All we got was a couple of token appearances that looked and sounded insincere.
doubtful
says:Are you suggesting that Obama’s supporters are less committed to him than Clinton’s are to her? -Lance
Obama’s supporters are not less committed. They are more gracious.
Please, tell me how to rationalize these statements with the contentious actions in question:
How does reopening old wounds accomplish her goals espoused in that speech, the speech where she withdrew from the race and endorsed Obama?
You called some of us paranoid in the same breath you say that paranoia is warranted because some people, wink wink, like to break the rules. So seriously, you were/are a Clinton supporter, is this cathartic, or is she getting your blood boiling and trying to undermine Obama’s legitimacy?
You can draw all of the inappropriate historical comparisons you want; there has never been a Clinton/Obama race and there is not accurate proxy.
Her name does not need to be on the ballot, and this thread of comments alone is all the proof we need that no emotional epiphany will be had, only a rehash of an argument we had left behind which will undoubtedly be amplified by the media.
Seriously, it’s well past time for Clinton and the PUMAs to move on. The stakes are far to great to spend time placating their egos. If we lose this election, the blame will rest squarely on their shoulders.
teri tunder
says:Having originally been a Hillary supporter this new drama by her and her insane supporters disgusts me. She has managed to make the drama about her not Obama and is secretly planning to disrupt the democratic convention so she can in her twisted mind become the nominee. The fact is that if she somehow manages this she will not be elected dogcatcher in her dream of 2012. All her “sweet” go with Obama speeches are undercut by her not to subltle ambition and arousing her rabid supporters. She is certainly not gracious it’s like “he’s not a muslim…….as far as I know” That is how she does it. It seems to me that this will only bring about the loss of the Dems to John McCain, so she and her lemmings can disrupt the convention. No party has ever won an election when the convention was divided, so I hope she and her supporters will be happy with overturning Roe/Wade going to war, destroying Social Security and Medicare and further dividing the country between the rich and poor. Because John McCain will susrely be elected. I may vomit!!!!!!! Why would she or anyone else vote against their own interests. By the way it has been all but universally agreed that she didn’t lose because of sexism, she couldn’t even unite her own campaign, or make any decisions. Just keep the drama going for the sake of her ego. If this fiasco continues John McCain will be the next president, she should take her name out of nomination and not have a roll call, that!!! is gracious.
Hannah
says:#40 I’m not suggesting anything about supporters. Just wondering what would happen between Clinton and Obama if the roles were reversed.
In the 2004 primaries I voted for someone other than Kerry (he had already won enough delegates so I chose to vote for someone else for the heck of it) and was pleased when at the convention the person I had voted for did receive some delegates at the roll call. I felt like my vote had counted for something. But I was fine with Kerry and of course voted for him in the general. So I guess I can understand Clinton’s supporters feeling like their support counts for something, even though some are being stupid and say they won’t vote for Obama in the general.
One word comes to mind when I read of how Obama has handled his campaign: magnanimous. This is but one more example IMO.
Patrick
says:This is a sad state of affairs. People here seem more upset that Obama is being gracious to Clinton and doing the right thing to try to unify the party than they are about a potential war that McCain’s campaign chairman might have helped cause. Nothing is more repellant to a person like me that likes Clinton than hearing supposed democrats attacking her with such vitriol. I have moved to Obama’s side for months now and I support him, but hearing these kinds of things about Clinton disgust me and make me wonder if these people understand the idea of party unity and without it, Obama will not win. Look at how close the polls are. Many people on this site keep bemoaning the closeness of the polls and wonder why Obama isn’t pulling away. This is why. Next time you wonder why the polls are so close, think about reaching out to Clinton supporters instead of bashing her. Telling me how shitty you think Clinton is does not make me think about liking Obama more. It makes me question the company I am keeping.
Maria
says:I believe that Clinton stepped over the line many times in the primaries. But I also believe that she has too great a sense of political self-preservation to try anything at the convention worse than a largely self-congratulatory speech on Tuesday night. She knows she doesn’t have and won’t get the votes to take the nomination and, even if she could get the nomination, she doesn’t have and can’t get the votes or money to win the election. She would fail, look ridiculous and become a pariah, and Bill’s support of any such effort would drag his legacy down as well.
Exactly. Every word here is dead on.
Deep breaths, please. If y’all don’t want to give her the benefit of the doubt on trust (and I can understand that), give it to her on the absolute certainty that Hillary won’t do anything to ruin Hillary’s political future.
doubtful
says:People here seem more upset that Obama is being gracious to Clinton and doing the right thing to try to unify the party than they are about a potential war that McCain’s campaign chairman might have helped cause. -Patrick
No one here is more interested in political infighting than the ongoing wars. If you reread my comments, you’d see that part of my indignation derives from the media cycles which will be spent on placating the egos of sore losers instead of the those more important things, like the ongoing wars.
Nothing is more repellant to a person like me that likes Clinton than hearing supposed democrats attacking her with such vitriol. -Patrick
I think very few people here are being vitriolic, and if you like Clinton so much, please, read my comments and answer the many questions I ask. You say that having her name on the ballot is the right thing, but don’t explain why you think so. I have asked several questions and no espoused supporter of this inanity has bothered to broach even one of them.
Next time you wonder why the polls are so close…
No, absolutely not. Placating the PUMAs has nothing to do with the closeness of the polls. The sliver of a subset of the slice of the splinter that they represent cannot affect the polls meaningfully. The polls are just what PUMAs wield like a cudgel to overstate their significance.
If you want to know why the polls are close, you have only to look at one thing: the source. They are designed to be close to sell ad space. No other explanation is needed.
It’s the attitude displayed in your comment, Patrick that makes this such a bad idea. Why on earth do you take such offense to other’s opinions of Bill and Hillary Clinton? Why is no one allowed to be mad at them for what they’ve done or said during their campaign, or who they hired and funneled millions of dollars to?
Do you really want to risk losing in November over catharsis for bruised egos? Are you really ready to stomach McCain because you can’t stand the fact that some people don’t think the Clintons are saints? A lot of Clinton supporters latched onto the meme that Obama supporters thought he was the messiah, but really, it’s the Clintons who can do no wrong in your eyes. Give me a break.
Give me one valid political reason for including the name of one withdrawn candidate on the ballot. I have yet to hear a single compelling reason for this insanity.
If y’all don’t want to give her the benefit of the doubt on trust (and I can understand that), give it to her on the absolute certainty that Hillary won’t do anything to ruin Hillary’s political future. -Maria
Unless she doesn’t see a political future without making a power play. Many of us suspected Senator really meant ‘stepping stone’ to her. If she’s of that mind set, she make think eight years or more is too long to wait.
king meow
says:Obama’s acquiescence to the Clintons will probably cost him the Presidency !
It is hard to believe that he does not see thru Hillary and her minions !
The spit has not hit the fan yet !
He should have told her politely, but firmly, NO !!!
For her personal agandizement, Hillary is willing to take down the entire Democratic Party ! She is the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary definition of
SORE LOSER !!!
Well, lots of us believed if she lost, she would be dippt if anybody else was gonna be the Democratic president. She lost, so she’s taking home her ball with her,
and nobody else can play !
Mc Cain has to be dancing a jig, as we speak, thrilled at the thought, that
his candidacy has been revived, by none other than Mrs.C.
I have supported Obama throughout ! With all the naysaying, I never believed the mud that was slung at him. For the first time, I am truly disappointed, that his backbone turned into jelly !
He’s a bright guy, and will have no trouble finding another job !!!
But now the Oval Office will be occupied once more by a Republican ! And they won’t even need the help of the Supreme Court, to pull it off !!!
Hillary was the judge and jury !!! What a legacy !
She had the opportunity to leave better !
Patrick
says:Doubtful,
You make good points. I don’t have polling information to support my contention that many people feel this way, other than the conversations I have with many associates at work and friends. Every one of them that was a Hillary supporter has a different outlook now. Some of them feel, as I do that we have to support Obama. The alternative is unthinkable and I have always liked him alot anyway, I have just liked Hillary for alot longer. I have a couple other friends that say they will vote for McCain. I am consistantly informing them of many of McCain’s many faults and I tell them about why they really need to support Obama. I think I will be able to turn one of them, but not the others, unless Hillary is his running mate.
By all accounts this should be a runaway year for democrats, but so far it isn’t. I honestly believe party unity is the key. I have seen polls that say a generic democratic candidate polls better against McCain than Obama does. How can this be anything other than a party unity issue?
Patrick
says:Doubtful,
I forgot to answer your question about why having he name on the ballot is a good idea. That is a pretty simple one. It is almost always done that way. The roll call is the official way it is done. I don’t know for sure which conventions have and have not done this, but I know it was done in 1992 after Clinton was the Presumed Nominee.
KRK
says:Thanks, Maria.
On further reflection, I now see Obama’s choice to accept the nomination in a stadium of thousands as a brilliant pre-emptive move. I don’t think he did it for that reason (I don’t see him really being concerned about a Clinton double-cross), but imagine it:
70,000 people anxious to be present when Obama accepts the nomination; many of whom who spent money, took time off from work, and traveled across the country to be there. In the imagined scenario where Clinton gets the nomination, what does she do with those people, who are already in Denver by then? Appear before them and risk being booed and/or walked out on by tens of thousands? Address an empty stadium? Cancel the event and set tens of thousands of angry Obama supporters lose in Denver with nothing to do?
NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
One other thought, if Clinton’s appeal for money to cover her campaign debts had been met with a wave of donations and support, I could envision some delegates and party officials wondering whether she might not, after all, be the stronger candidate and being open to a possible switch. But that didn’t happen.
doubtful
says:That is a pretty simple one. It is almost always done that way. The roll call is the official way it is done. -Patrick
I don’t like historical analogy because it’s never apt and tradition because it’s meaningless. Winning in November should be the primary goal of all Democrats, and I believe that candidates who withdrew from consideration did just that and should not appear on the ballot. Unity would be far easier to achieve if we were, you know, unified.
Again, I submit this thread of comments as a valid reason why old wounds should not be reopened. I already had to stomach one McCain ad which ended with the unnecessary praise heaped on McCain by Hillary during the primary. Now I have to sit through more news cycles about her catharsis and ego repair and divided Democrats.
She’s wouldn’t even be the first woman on a nomination ballot: Senator Margaret Chase Smith (R – ME) was in 1964.
I appreciate your answer, but I can’t see tradition as a politically salient reason for soothing the bruised egos of the Clintons and their supporters.
Rielle Lovechild
says:Ah, the refreshing sound of the Democratic circular firing squad on the left engaging in one more round of Clinton hate.
This was a very civil high stakes political campaign and it’s no wonder that Obama and Clinton are still friends and willing to work with each other for a common good.
You sure can’t say that for the progressiver-than-thou, looney Obamabots on here though.
Most of us Clinton supporters have said through the entire campaign, that ALL of the contenders were very worthy, and we’d happily support the people’s choice. It’s very Republican and Bush-like to tell the Clintons and their millions of supporters to “shut up.” – which is the general tone from the apoplectics like beep53, doubtful, and their immature ilk. Then again, all they do is help to raise the level of immaturity as a campaign issue.
Excuse me, I have to get down to my local party headquarters and work with the others here (many of them fellow Clinton supporters) to help elect Senator Barack Obama as president.
Shheesh. Grow up you freakin’ whiners!
doubtful
says:I’ll ignore the irony of being called immature by someone with the chosen handle of ‘Rielle Lovechild,’ and go ahead and ask, instead of resorting to name calling why don’t you answer the questions I’ve asked?
Honestly, I feel I’ve asked some salient, well-begged questions concerning this issue, and I don’t recall telling Clinton or her supporters to “shut up.”
I did tell them to move on. Putting her name on the ballot is clearly not moving on.
Excuse me, I have to get down to my local party headquarters and work with the others here (many of them fellow Clinton supporters)… -Rielle Lovechild
Once again, an espoused Clinton supporter helps illustrate the nature of the problem. There is no such thing as a Clinton supporter now. She withdrew. She’s not running for anything. Stop counting yourself among the numbers of a nonexistent group. There are now only Democratic supporters. It’s that mindset that demands coddling. It’s that mindset that needs ‘catharsis.’
And you call me a whiner.
Additionaly, if you think I’m an Obamabot, clearly you are too new to have read any of the FISA releated threads.
I’m just a realist who wants a Democratic victory in November and a new progressive direction for the country. Exactly how does Clinton’s name appearing on the ballot help achieve that goal, since you are evidently a bastion of knowledge from on high?
Apoplectic minds want to know.
Lance
says:doubtful asked: “So seriously, you were/are a Clinton supporter, is this cathartic, or is she getting your blood boiling and trying to undermine Obama’s legitimacy?”
I just think that in a democratic system people should be allowed to register their votes at a convention. Sorry if that is too liberal for you.
And no it’s not cathartic. I really don’t have that much emotion invested in this.
doubtful wrote: “You called some of us paranoid in the same breath you say that paranoia is warranted because some people, wink wink, like to break the rules.”
Hey, there is paranoia on this thread. Have you been reading it all? Try rereading #6, #11, #18, #31 and #18 (hey, that’s you!).
Hillary would not be breaking the rules if she won the nomination at the convention by getting delegates pledged to Obama to vote for her. Those are the rules! The fact you constantly ignore that is one irritating part of this whole situation.
And remember, even paranoids have enemies. That doesn’t make them any less paranoid, it just means they are less capable to dealing with their enemies in any rationale fashion.
Can you say Boy George II and his obsession with Saddam Hussein?
“Obama’s supporters are not less committed. They are more gracious.”
Read #4, #20, #34, #41. That is not gracious. That is vicious and mean.
“You can draw all of the inappropriate historical comparisons you want; there has never been a Clinton/Obama race and there is not accurate proxy.”
What the effing Hell did you mean to write there?
And how is what happened in a Democratic Convention not an “appropriate historial comparison”?
beep52
says:Rielle Lovechild… Another apoplectic mind, here, wanting to know exactly why it’s immature to expect the folks whose primary candidate lost to get behind the candidate who won when the differences between parties are so stark and the stakes are so high. You’ve got it all backwards.
Chris
says:Next time you wonder why the polls are so close, think about reaching out to Clinton supporters instead of bashing her. Telling me how shitty you think Clinton is does not make me think about liking Obama more.
To this day, I’m not clear on how criticizing Hillary has anything to do with Clinton supporters or my support of Obama.
I, for example, supported Dukakis, Tsongas then Bill Clinton, Bradley then Gore, Dean then Edwards then Kerry, and now, Obama.
Hillary Clinton? I don’t trust her as far as I can throw her. It has nothing to do with her supporters, nor does it have anything to do with my current support for Obama. If he were out, I would have happily supported any of the Democratic candidates nominated (that is until Hillary started applying Rovian tactics to win).
Why some of Hillary Clinton’s supporters want to take personal offense to my lack of trust of her escapes me. Why such supporters would then project any anger arising out of my beliefs (and those of like mind) onto Barak Obama escapes me even more.
Obama supporters this and Obama supporters that. Utter nonsense. I’m sorry that some of her supporters feel offended by my distrust at her, but that distrust has nothing to do with them, Obama, or the vision of the future of the country that we all (liberals, progressives, Dems, …) share.
Overdonalded
says:Excuse me, I have to get down to my local party headquarters and work with the others here (many of them fellow Clinton supporters) to help elect Senator Barack Obama as president
Which party is that? You’ve already stormed tearfully out of both the Republican and Democratic parties of your little state when they failed to take instruction from you. Why would you think you’re in a position to lecture anybody about working together — not to mention about maturity?
doubtful
says:I just think that in a democratic system people should be allowed to register their votes at a convention. Sorry if that is too liberal for you. -Lance
Everyone knows you’re smart enough to know that’s not what conventions are about anymore, and besides, dropping out of the race should mean removing your name from the ballot, but hey, we learned in Michigan that she’s not capable of removing her name from ballots.
Regardless, the party is not beholden to little d democracy. They can select the nominee any way they want, and they already have, and it’s Barack Obama. All that remains is a formality. Extending a fight that ended two months ago into the convention is not conducive to winning in November and it smacks of insurmountable ego.
And no it’s not cathartic. I really don’t have that much emotion invested in this. -Lance
I never accused you of saying it was cathartic. That’s the excuse Clinton put forth. I wanted to know from an generally rational Clinton supporter (few and far between these days) if they thought that excuse was legitimate. I think it is a terribly silly reason to give the media a story about Democratic infighting to feast on for the next two weeks.
Hey, there is paranoia on this thread. Have you been reading it all? Try rereading #6, #11, #18, #31 and #18 (hey, that’s you!). -Lance
I never said I wasn’t paranoid. I was just pointing out the irony of calling out the paranoia at the same time you justified it. Nothing Clinton did at the end of the primary season assuages that paranoia. You know as well as I do that if Clinton did manage to usurp this nomination, she would lose in November, unless you think you can win without minority support.
Hillary would not be breaking the rules if she won the nomination at the convention by getting delegates pledged to Obama to vote for her. Those are the rules! The fact you constantly ignore that is one irritating part of this whole situation. -Lance
Please show me where I said that? I never did, and you putting words into my mouth will not make it so. I do think there should be consequences to withdrawing from the race, namely that your name won’t appear on the ballot. If she wanted to be on the ballot, she should have never conceded.
Essentially, the concession was a slick move to convince Obama to ask his supporters for cash to pay off her massive debt. It meant nothing.
Now, since you’re having trouble understanding my point, I’ll summarize.
It’s unethical for Clinton to put her name on the ballot because she withdrew. By making this an issue, especially for some sort of nonsensical emotional closure, she’s devaluing the significance of her campaign with pettiness, undermining women in politics by highlighting the need for emotional restitution, and handing McCain an unforced gift in that the news cycle will focus on perceived Democratic infighting instead of the lobbyist and the new war.
Read #4, #20, #34, #41. That is not gracious. That is vicious and mean. -Lance
That’s a violation of Drum’s law. Anyone can prove their point with random blog comments. Look at their actual surrogates (the people who obviously help make the choices we were discussing) who are still filling the media with hypotheticals that might have led to a different outcome. That’s not supportive of the Democratic party.
What the effing Hell did you mean to write there?
And how is what happened in a Democratic Convention not an “appropriate historial comparison”? -Lance
There isn’t an apt historic comparison for this race. I don’t think I could state it any more plainly. Kennedy/Carter was nothing like this race. I think too much is different that it makes historical comparison moot.
Ultimately, what it boils down to is that it would have been better for the Democratic party and the country in November if Clinton and her ardent supporters would have just moved on. Unfortunately, they didn’t. Like I said earlier, Clinton surrogates accused Obama’s supporters of treating him like the second coming, but Clinton is the real cult of personality.
dcattorney
says:Sorry, but I think there are more than a few hundred PUMAs, although I don’t count myself as one of them yet.
Obama didn’t win anything. Clinton didn’t win anything The nomination is being decided by the superdelegates. My understanding is she got approximately 100,000 more votes, he was smarter in his strategy, particularly the caucuses, and has an edge in the delegate count which is, as many count it, more or less 100 votes.
There are two factions here that got more than 18 million votes. Telling HRC supporters to “sit down and shut up” is counterproductive, and sounds sexist. Calling HRC a witch is also sexist, and says more about the commenter than anything else.
KYJurisDoctor
says:Can you trust ANYTHING that comes out of BILLARY Clinton’s mouth?
The answer is a BIG FAT NO!
And ANYTHING they do is for their SOLE benefit!! OsiSpeaks.com
dcattorney
says:Sorry, but I think there are more than a few hundred PUMAs, although I don’t count myself as one of them yet. If you look at the polls re HRC supporters who indicate they will not be voting for BO, that is a fairly large percentatge. Not all are PUMAs, of course.
Obama didn’t win anything. Clinton didn’t win anything This nomination is being decided by the superdelegates. Fair enough, those were the rules. My understanding is she got approximately 100,000 more of the popular vote, he was smarter in his strategy, particularly the caucuses, and has an edge in the delegate count which is, as many count it, more or less 100 votes.
There are two candidates here who each got more than 18 million votes. Attention must be paid and respect must be given, or there will be no Party Unity. Telling HRC supporters to “sit down and shut up” is counterproductive, and sounds sexist. Calling HRC a witch is also sexist and is hate speech too. Like all hate speech, it says more about the commenter than anything else.
TCG
says:Its time to move on.
The candidate who had all the advantages in money, machine, name recognition and Media, LOST.
The guy with the funny name won.
MaBelle
says:Ya know, the blogosphere is becoming a lot like MSM, with its own biased reporting: The grafs above are perfect examples. Talk about stirring up the shit! Instead of issuing a snark-free narrative about this (which you were quite good about up until the last two grafs), you had to include this crapola. Why? We aren’t a bunch of morons out here who can’t understand that there will be unhappy Clinton supporters no matter what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton do. But you give it that added flourish here, you build it up into something bigger than it is, and you add your own editorial comment/snark in the process. So, tell me: what exactly makes the blogosphere any different, any more informative, any less biased, any less sensationalistic than the MSM? This ain’t journalism, boyz, it’s just a slightly more sophisticated bit of news-making.
TCG
says:STFU Ma. This ain’t your site so chill.
BAC
says:Patrick said it well: “By all accounts this should be a runaway year for democrats, but so far it isn’t. I honestly believe party unity is the key. I have seen polls that say a generic democratic candidate polls better against McCain than Obama does. How can this be anything other than a party unity issue?”
The reality is that Obama can’t win unless a majority of Clinton supporters vote for him. If Obama loses, the fault will be with people like:
doubtful
Chris
SadOldVet
Prup (aka Jim Benton)
Racer X
DebbyeOh
August J. Pollak
Ken
William
Billy Ray Joe Bob
Prinz H
Maria
Lance
beep52
teri tunder
king meow
KYJurisDoctor
TCG
Your hate for Sen. Clinton could very well cost the Democrats the White House. Every time you post a sexist comment you make it that much harder for Clinton supporters to consider voting for Obama. I don’t think they will vote for McCain, they will simply stay home.
And do you want to know what else comments like these do? As NonyNony said above: [they make]“you start to sound like a bunch of nutjobs.”
BAC
Jazzylady
says:Here’s a prayer for you;
I pray that you all get what you want, and have to live with he who is the one, the Aobamanation.
I pray that you live the lives of his people in his district, those upon whom he visited
poor housing, those who lost their jobs waiting for him to rescue Maytag, and those who were ousted by the Aobamanable one, when he who is the one purged the roles of all African American voters with the quote “I didn’t want to do it but I did it anyway”!
I pray that he visits upon you his arrogance, his megalomania, and his narcissism ten fold, that he may spy upon you all, and continue to send your jobs overseas and to Canada, where he promised that his talking out the side of his neck was just that, talk. May he continue to speak in tongues of change which he does every five minutes, hope, which he has none of, and audacity, which he used to steal that nomination and bring in the bean bag politics of the Chicago machine, along with Deadwood Dean, Chickenhead Nancy, Grandma’s stupid sayings Brazille, et al.
And may you all continue to be fools and dupes for believing in this crook and liar you have anointed king of the preznits, and not bother those of us who would not bow down and give King Purple Pee our votes when this idiot runs amok in the White House, asking where is the golden toilet.
World Without End
Amen
JTK
says:If there was any doubt left that the Clinton campaign have done serious damage to the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party in general (and, indeed, to the country should this result in another 4 years of Republican Kingship), read this thread again… and again… and again… until you get it: mission accomplished, you brainwashed traitors!
Jazzylady
says:Bac,
you are so right! I have no intentions of voting for nobama, period. Can’t vote for McShame either, racist, no mater what he says. Staying home, gettin’ tore down!
Tom Cleaver
says:Guys you’re all sounding like a bunch of paranoid Clinton-haters.
Even paranoids have enemies. I suggest you read Jeff Sharlet’s book “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism At The Heart Of American Power,” and pay particular attention to the chapter about Hillary and what she’s really been doing the past 5 years.
There’s nothing too bad to be said about the Clinton’s that isn’t true.
Maria
says:Every time you post a sexist comment you make it that much harder for Clinton supporters to consider voting for Obama.
To those who’ve fallen far, far down the rabbit hole, “sexism” now apparently includes all criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, whether or not it contains any direct, indirect or remotely inferrable references to her gender.
Sheer, unadulterated lunacy.
August J. Pollak
says:Your hate for Sen. Clinton could very well cost the Democrats the White House. Every time you post a sexist comment you make it that much harder for Clinton supporters to consider voting for Obama.
Hahahahahahaha I love you people. I want to pat all of you on the head and buy you ice cream.
“If I don’t vote for Obama, it’s your fault that he didn’t get enough votes!” God, is anyone else stunned that the Hillary lunatics haven’t actually just said that they’re going to hold their breath until their turn blue and “never, ever speak to you again, ever?”
beep52
says:By all accounts this should be a runaway year for democrats, but so far it isn’t. I honestly believe party unity is the key… I. How can this be anything other than a party unity issue? — Patrick, BAC
Honestly? Have you read a newspaper, listened to the radio or watched the coverage on TV in the past several months? Have you heard, seen or read about any McCain ads? Have you ever met anyone who says flat-out they’ll never vote for a Democrat — or a black man? Party unity may be a factor, but it is NOT what’s keeping this race close. You’re living in a country that re-elected George Bush in 04 based on lies, innuendo, scare tactics, media complicity, and 40 years of liberal-bashing from the Right.
Your hate for Sen. Clinton could very well cost the Democrats the White House. Every time you post a sexist comment… — BAC
That’s almost funny. I can’t speak for all the commenters BAC lists @ 66, but I know don’t carry enough clout to influence a national election. You mistake justifiable anger and frustration for hate. In most cases, anger over the way HRC ran her campaign, and frustration that we should still be dealing with internal party issues and personal feelings instead of McCain.
And if it’s really party unity that concerns you, well, get behind the presumptive nominee and, voila, party unity. It’s not that complicated. No one can do it for you. You do it yourself. Oh, and at the risk of being stupidly obvious, being critical of a woman — or a man — does not a sexist comment make.
Bill Clinton has been given a slot to speak at the convention. HRC has been given a prime time speaking slot. They’ll get warm welcomes, and rounds of applause and perhaps standing ovations. But neither is running for president. The primary is over.
Now for the clincher, so read slowly — had Obama lost, I’d expect those who supported him to get behind the presumptive nominee. If they didn’t I’d be angry and frustrated that their personal issues were standing in the way of moving forward, and I suspect many of those commenters you listed would feel the same.
doubtful
says:BAC,
Instead of making wildly unfounded accusations about me (I harbor no hate for the Clintons nor have I engaged in sexist name calling), why don’t you actually try to answer my questions. Or at least provide proof for your wild accusations.
You didn’t actually read the comments, did you?
You know how I know that?
Because you included Lance on your list. Pssst…BAC, Lance is on your side.
Before you come in spouting baseless accusations, maybe you should read the comments written and try to answer some of our questions. I’ll not bother rewriting them for you since I’ve already given compelling evidence you skipped reading the opinions of others before piling on your own brand of verbal diarrhea.
You owe a lot of us an apology but I won’t be holding my breath.
Rielle Lovechild
says:doubtful,
Full of yourself much? Nobody has the time (but you) to read and attempt to consider your long-winded parsing. Again, why don’t you and your ilk stop whining and spinning in your own tortured logic and get busy on helping the rest of us (including the hated Clintons) to unite the party and win in November.
doubtful
says:Nobody has the time (but you) to read and attempt to consider your long-winded parsing. -Rielle Lovechild
Ah, you don’t have the time to read the comments of others, but the doesn’t stop you from insulting them repeatedly. I can’t help but notice you still haven’t provided anything substantial to this discussion.
Run along now and let the grown-ups talk, child.
LanceThruster
says:Divide and conquer. Cui bono (who benefits?)
BAC
says:doubtful … if the shoe fits …
BAC
Lucia
says:Wow, is this the “Anti-Clinton” blog?
It is common, usual practice for the prominent candidates from the primary to be treated with respect – names placed in nomination, speakers at the convention. Those treated with respect in the past – Jerry Brown, Ted Kennedy.
doubtful
says:doubtful … if the shoe fits … -BAC
What shoe? What are you even talking about?
Seriously, at least Lance tried to engage my concerns and have a rational conversation about this. I disagree with Lance all of the time, but I still respect him because he represents his points with thought and dignity.
This conversation is cheapened by commenters like you, BAC and Rielle Lovechild, who do not take the time to read and consider the opinions of others but come in with accusations blazing and idiocy to spare.
As I told Rielle Lovechild, I can’t help but notice you’ve not added anything substantial to the grown-ups conversation here, so run along. We’ve no room for name calling and trolling in the real world.