Skip to content
Categories:

The Clintons and the Convention

Post date:
Author:

There’s been at least some talk in recent weeks about exactly what role the Clintons would have the Democratic National Convention. Would they get snubbed? Would they feel respected? Would those who supported Hillary in the primaries feel like the Clintons had been given their due?

By all appearances, it looks like the Clintons will be up front and center in Denver.

Yes, Bill Clinton will have a role at the Democratic convention.

After a curious week of back-and-forth between the Obama and Clinton worlds, the former president was offered an invitation to speak on the second-to-last night of the party’s convention in Denver. He will take the stage on Aug. 27, three Democratic senior officials said, before the address by the party’s vice-presidential nominee.

The offer was extended by the Obama campaign on Thursday to Mr. Clinton, who accepted it.

The Democratic convention only spans four nights. Now, two of the four will feature prime-time speeches from Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Not too shabby.

I know the media would love there to be intra-party drama here, and would gladly exaggerate any lingering ill-will between the Democratic nominee and the candidate who came in a close second, but it’s getting increasingly difficult to make the case.

Isn’t the more interesting story that John McCain has no idea what to do with George W. Bush at the Republican National Convention and that Dick Cheney might not even show up at all?

I don’t want to exaggerate the intra-party dynamic too much; there are some questions to be resolved. That said, the notion of Democrats tearing each other apart have been wildly off the mark.

The Obama and Clinton camps said this week that they agree on a central point: They would like to avoid an embarrassing display of discord from Clinton’s most ardent backers when the national convention begins in just over two weeks. Conversations about how to achieve that have increasingly focused on the question of whether Clinton’s name will be offered in a roll-call vote by delegates to determine the nominee, even though she has said she is not challenging Obama’s claim as the party’s standard-bearer.

Clinton confidante Cheryl Mills is working directly with Obama campaign manager David Plouffe to reach an accommodation, both sides confirmed. Clinton has been told that she will probably speak Tuesday night, Aug. 26, two nights before Obama’s acceptance speech, and she is working on her remarks, which will touch on her breakthrough as a woman but will be, in the words of one associate, largely “forward looking.”

It appears the lingering question is whether, and why, Hillary Clinton’s name would be submitted alongside Obama’s for a required roll-call vote. There’s been some suggestion that Clinton supporters would find this “cathartic,” though I’m not sure why. (“You worked hard during the primaries and came up short. As part of an exercise to make you feel better, we’ll have you come up short again at the convention in a choreographed defeat.”)

It’s one more detail to be worked out, but the bottom line remains the same — it’s hard to say the Clintons are being slighted if both Bill and Hillary get prime-time speaking slots.

Comments

  • Racer X

    says:

    There’s been some suggestion that Clinton supporters would find this “cathartic,” though I’m not sure why.

    What? I always find it cathartic to lose in front of a ton of people. Cathartic means painful and pointless, right?

  • Stevio

    says:

    Let’s hope Bill’s zipper is in the up position. As he aptly put it yesterday, “An argument can be made to whether anyone is actually qualified to give a speech at the Democratic Convention…”

    (sorry for the paraphrased nuance)

    Also, let’s hope that Hillary will be able to dodge the sniper fire while giving her speech that surly will be be 99% about herself and 1% about the black guy who ruined her pipe dream…

  • Katie Chop

    says:

    All of those PUMA people need to wake up and get in line. The number was supposedly 18 million people marching for Hillary to be the nominee on the day she speaks. If they really cared for Hillary, they should each bring $1 to help her debt, NOT further divide the party.

  • Frak

    says:

    It’s not surprising that a former Dem president and the major challenger for this nomination would be invited to speak if they’d like. Who better? But a nominating convention is the opening salvo for capturing the hearts of any voters who are undecided, if only through snippets on the news. It is not a time for catharsis, but a pep rally. Why can’t the dumb Dems stay on message a bit more like the Rethugs? Just one of the many reasons they are so adept at snatching defeat. Let’s not hurt anyone’s feelings.

  • Chris

    says:

    Well, I for one am glad that the Clintons are getting prominent roles at the convention. It’s been nearly a week since one of them has been the center of the nation’s attention. I’d hate for them to go into withdrawal or something.

    Seriously though, she lost the primary and Bill made an ass out of himself during the campaign. Bill’s complete lack of grace since then and Hillary’s unwillingness to tell her supporters to get over it is just too much. They seem to think that the Democratic party is their personal play thing. Can you only imagine the ruckus that they (and Hillary’s little cult) would make if they weren’t treated like royalty and given a big bright spotlight in Denver?

    I used to have so much respect for both of them before the beginning of the year. Both of them in their own unique ways have just proven themselves to be so nationally tone deaf over the last 8 months it’s not even funny. Then to pout about the outcome of primary after as though the election were somehow taken from Hillary? Please, get over yourselves. Reading those reports that the Clintons have doubts about Obama’s electability, I have only one thing to say: PITCH IN. Given the way Hillary’s campaign was conducted I have nothing but doubts about their political prognostication anyway…

  • Dale

    says:

    Of course, the Clinton’s will be featured prominently.They’re all grownups. That pouting meme was all a Dowd et ilk creation.

  • Chris

    says:

    #5

    Yeah, you’re right. It’s not surprising that a former president and a leading primary contender would speak at the convention. It’s the air of expectation and the fact that it appears to be required as yet another offering to soothe the Clintons’ bruised feelings.

    I’d just like to hear either of them say “Yeah, maybe if Hillary had run a better campaign than Obama, particularly early on, we probably would have won.” With the exception of Hillary’s hardcore supporters that are still upset she lost (as though she lost for reasons other than a crappy campaign), the rest of the Democratic party is ready to get on with the pep rally. The Clintons act like the Democratic party can’t do anything without their approval.

  • slappy magoo

    says:

    To have any of the PUMAs get up during the convention to make their case for Hillary heard – ONE MORE TIME – has way too many shades of Matthew-Brady-trying-to-speechify-after-the-Scopes-Monkey-trial-verdict-in-Inherit-the-Wind for my taste.The convention isn’t about Hillary, or the primary, or the infighting or the scandals. It’s about putting all that crapola behind us and conentrating on taking back the White Hosue as a party as uited as can be. Theatrics contrary to that goal will be met with all the “enthusiasm” of Captain Lou Albano in Madison Square Garden insisting that everyone cheer and applaud the Fabulous Moolah before MTV picked up the feed of the wrestling match between Moolah and the Cyndi-Lauper-backed Wendi Richter in the mid-80s (crap, I’m older than I care to admit)

  • JoeW

    says:

    The catharsis in in giving her supporters a last hurrah – a chance to get it out of their systems, so to speak. But I do wonder about the value of it. The votes are in. Hillary lost and conceded. By a roll call vote, she will lose even worse, as many of her previous supporters have already moved on and now back Obama.
    Really though, I don’t think it matters a whit. If she wants to hear the cheers of her loyal supporters and then get trounced on national prime time TV, let her.
    Again, I don’t see any practical point to it. But, if that’s what she wants, fine by me.

  • Chris

    says:

    Clinton confidante Cheryl Mills is working directly with Obama campaign manager David Plouffe to reach an accommodation,…

    What is there to “accommodate”?

    Senator Clinton is the same person who said Michigan wouldn’t count, but then claimed to have won there after breaking her signed pledge not to “participate”.

    Catharsis has nothing to do with it. She wants her glory and/or she wants the nomination.

    She cannot be trusted.

  • jimBOB

    says:

    There’s nothing unusual about having the (still enormously popular) most recent Democratic president speak. Nor is it odd to have a night for the runner-up and runner-up’s supporters to have their glory. The only unprecedented thing is for these two figures to be spouses. But I think we’ll survive it.

    It’s Obama’s party now, and there’s no reason not to say bygones and move ahead with the important business of saving the country from the tender claws of the Cheneyites. Corporate media would love to distract from this with fake stories about nonexistent intraparty friction, but we don’t have to pay attention to them.

  • Tom in Ma

    says:

    What are the precedents? I seem to remember Jackson’s name being put into nomination? And Gary Hart’s? Reagan’s name was in nomination when Ford was nominated? Hasn’t it been rather the norm, then the exception that candidates to whom delegates are pledged are put into nomination and the votes counted?

    Why wouldn’t this be the first question asked and researched, before people start speculating on the inner psychological workings of the Clinton’s?

  • SadOldVet

    says:

    Why the f*ck do the Clintons have to be the center of attention?

    As a person who has been ABC (anybody but) since Billary declared for the primaries, I am disgusted with the PUMAs and the corporate news media. After the Feb 19th primaries, there was virtually no possibility of the Clintons getting the nomination. The Clintons, with the assistance of the corporate media echo chamber, presented a fantasy view of a close contest and the hard core sh*t-head Clinton supporters bought into it.

    If Billary had been in Obama’s position after that date, the corporate media would have been all over that fact. The fantasy position of the Clintonistas created the environment for all of the PUMAs to thrive. It is past time for the PUMAs to get over it – you lost – fairly.

    Questions for the PUMAs:

    Do you hate our country?
    Do you hate the democratic party?
    Are you willing to further the destruction of our country with Bush policies?

    Reasons for Hillary Clinton Supporters to Destroy Obama or Vote for McCain

    1) Health Care

    The McCain Health Care Plan provides a $2500 tax credit for singles and a $5000 tax credit for families. It also removes tax incentives for businesses to provide medical insurance.

    If you believe that telling people to ‘go get your own insurance’ is a better plan than Obama’s plan, you should vote for McCain. If you believe that a family, with or without preexisting medical conditions, can get quality health care insurance for $5000 a year, you should vote for McCain. If you believe that a family, that does not have a tax bill of $5000 to be credited, can get quality medical insurance for even less than $5000, you should vote for McCain.

    2) Social Security

    The McCain Social Security plan is basically a rehash of Bush’s Privatization, while denying that it is privatization. It calls for ‘younger’ workers to pay less Social Security and Medicare taxes and to put that into ‘Private Accounts’.

    If you believe that telling people to ‘go get your own retirement’ is a better plan, you should vote for McCain. If you believe that the American workers would be better off if Bush’s plan had been implemented six years ago, you should vote for McCain.

    3) War

    The McCain plan for Iraq is continuing war. The McCain plan for Iran is “bomb, bomb, bomb…”. The McCain plan is to continuing killing Iraqis and having our military continue dying until we achieve (an undefined) win.

    If you believe that war is peace, you should vote for McCain.

    If you believe that ‘the only good raghead is a dead raghead’, you should vote for McCain.

    If you believe that war should be the first option, rather than diplomacy, you should vote for McCain.

    War has been credited in the past with bringing the U.S. economy out of recessions and depressions. If you believe this could happen again, you should vote for McCain.

    4) The Economy

    McCain’s plan for the economy is basically Bush tax cuts for the wealthy on steroids.

    If you believe that the problem with our economy is that the rich do not have enough money, you should vote for McCain.

    5) Women’s Reproductive Rights

    McCain has proclaimed that his ideas of quality nominees to the Supreme Court are Scalia, Alito, and Roberts.

    If you believe that men should decide on what medical care options are available for women, you should vote for McCain.

    If you want to see Griswold vs. Connecticut (the real goal of the hardcore Right-To-Lifers) overturned, you should vote for McCain.

  • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

    says:

    I hope I am just paranoid here, but I AM scared a bit. Conventions have been ‘stampeded’ before and the expected nominee HAS been beaten (Wilkie, Stevenson, even Bryan, arguably Eisenhower as well.). If Obama has suffered a momentary set-back or two, and Hillary’s Monday night speech went well, I can see Bill’s speech arguing that people should have really have chosen Hillary. It probably wouldn’t work, but it would really rip open the wounds. (After all, if Obama wins and is successful, Hillary would have to wait until 2016, when she’d probably be too old.)

    I hope this proves to be the dumbest statement I’ve made here, and the odds are better than 9-1 against my worries being valid, but I’m still going to make sure the librax supply is full — as well as other ‘calming substances’ that week.

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    It appears the lingering question is whether, and why, Hillary Clinton’s name would be submitted alongside Obama’s for a required roll-call vote. There’s been some suggestion that Clinton supporters would find this “cathartic,” though I’m not sure why. (”You worked hard during the primaries and came up short. As part of an exercise to make you feel better, we’ll have you come up short again at the convention in a choreographed defeat.”)

    Well, you see, in PUMALooneyTooneyLand (check Larry Johnson’s “blog” for confirmation), if both names are offered, the convention delegates will be overwhelmed by The Truth That Is Hillary, and see that the One True Thing To Do is to cast their votes for her. Hillary will emerge as The Annointed One all PUMAs know she is, and All Will Be Made Right In The World.

    After which, on the next morning, the sun will rise in the west.

  • jimBOB

    says:

    I hope this proves to be the dumbest statement I’ve made here

    How to say this gently – yeah, not the smartest statement in the thread. Look, the entire party apparatus is now being run by and for the nominee. This is standard for any modern presidential nominating convention. Everything that goes on, from the smallest local speaker to the the voting to the nominee’s acceptance speech, is choreographed by the nominee’s people.

    In the old days political conventions actually decided things. These days they are a made-for-television pageant whose sole aim is to generate political support for the nominee.

    Allowing Hillary Clinton to speak and to have her name be voted on isn’t about catharsis or skulduggery. It’s a way of honoring her strong campaign as well as all the people who voted for her. After Barack Obama wins the vote there will be a grand show of unity and support. Then on to defeating McCain in November.

  • pfgr

    says:

    Has there ever been a group of sore winners like the Obama posters on this board? I just wish you’d take a clue from your candidate and lighten up.

  • SadOldVet

    says:

    Until the Clintons decisively prove otherwise to my satisfaction, I continue to believe that their center of the universe is named Clinton.

    Until the Clintons decisively prove otherwise to my satisfaction, I continue to harbour fears of their continuing sabotage of the Obama campaign.

    Until the Clintons decisively prove otherwise to my satisfaction, I continue to believe that they want Obama to lose so that Hillary can run again in 2012.

  • Chris

    says:

    There’s no “sore winning” about it. It would be great if the Clintons and her supporters would allow Obama to win without being shits about it. Bill’s “well you could argue that no one is ready to be President” comments don’t help, especially after rattling off a list of Democrats he said were ready just a few months ago. Hillary has been better in public but behind the scenes she’s done nothing to get her supporters to cool it. I doubt the Clintons are actively rooting for him to loose the election but they certainly wouldn’t see it as a lost opportunity.

  • brian haferkamp

    says:

    Sen. Obama’s first mistake here is that he is pondering what Sen. Clinton and the former president want. I think it’s clear that they both want to be back in powerful, decision-making roles in the federal government. It is clear that they want the spotlight on them (as individuals and a collective unit). It is clear that Sen. Clinton is not happy with the way the primary season ended and she was given the nudge off of the Democratic Party’s stage.

    Even now, it seems an insult that she is given the stage at the DNC convention a day before her husband and not after. In an event that is climaxing to the last night, it seems that she got shorted by the party again. This smells of an opportunity for some sort of retaliation on her part.

  • Chad

    says:

    I’ll say this, the Democrat’s best chance to win the presidency this year was with Clinton. How the Democratic Party has been taken over by the socialists, marxists, and hollywood elites is beyond me. I remember when the Democratic Party actually were considered blue-collar democrats who worked hard and believed in the govt’s role to help out when it could. Now, it’s all about re-distribution of wealth, punishing successful people, universal government health care, and a bunch of enviro-nazis screaming chicken little about the global warming myth. Your party has dived off the deep-end, and middle-class hard-working Americans are going to make their voices heard in November, IMO, that they’re sick of it.

    And now, you have you undies in a bunch because Hillary is only following the process of nomination. Obama hasn’t won anything yet, he’s only favored. Far be it for Hillary or anyone else to fight for the presidency using the rules provided. You are the Democratic Party, why not have a Democratic vote during your convention?

  • Molly Weasley

    says:

    Obama ALWAYS was going to be the strongest candidate in a general election. Hillary always had more than 50% of the population against her, where Obama had room to grow. Also, “wouldn’t vote for a woman” always polled higher than “wouldn’t vote for a black candidate” (and both were lower than “wouldn’t vote for a 72-year-old”).

    It makes perfect sense for Hillary to address the convention on Tuesday night. This was a historic primary race. The country — and the Democrats — are better off for it. After this year, “wouldn’t vote for a woman” and “wouldn’t vote for a black candidate” will become almost meaningless.

    They need to keep Bill on a stopwatch (keep dreaming, I know) on Wednesday. Hey, maybe if they start him early, before prime time? That’s also the night of the VP’s speech, so that’s a good excuse.

    Obama has bent over backwards being gracious to the Clintons; I wish they’d learn and do the same.

  • Mike

    says:

    , Chris said; There’s no “sore winning” about it. It would be great if the Clintons and her supporters would allow Obama to win without being shits about it.

    The phrase ‘being shits about it’ refers to Obama and his minions:
    “As to those avid Clinton supporters who still haven’t warmed up to him and may even resent him, Obama said, “We’re not talking to those people, we’re talking directly to the Clinton campaign people and staff.” ”

    Generally, in close primaries, the anointed winner would make an effort to address the political concerns of the other side. Not Obama. Not his thuggish supporters. It has been made clear that such civility will not be forthcoming.

    SadOldVet said: Why the f*ck do the Clintons have to be the center of attention? As a person who has been ABC (anybody but) since Billary declared for the primaries…

    Winning most of the larger states and being within 40,000 votes of 36,000,000 cast entitles one to have their concerns heard, despite the bullying, misogyny, and race-baiting of the Obama camp.

    Since you like lists: Reasons not to support Obama but a third party progressive instead:

    Both McCain and Obama think the telecoms should be immune for breaking the law and the Bush regime should not be held accountable.

    Both McCain and Obama think Social Security need be ‘fixed’

    Both McCain and Obama believe NAFTA is fine the way it is

    Both McCain and Obama present worthless health care policies but only Obama has used Harry&Louise style ads to attack universal health care proposals …. So far anyway

    Both McCain and Obama are cool with taxpayer funding of religious nuts.

    Both McCain and Obama have flipped to support offshore drilling

    Neither McCain or Obama has offered any serious economic plan to bring back American jobs from low wage countries and prevent off-shoring American jobs.

    Both McCain and Obama are anti-Gun control.

    Both McCain and Obama are pro-death penalty.

    Both McCain and Obama are for continued Cuban embargo (an Obama flip) and both support non-productive Israeli policies.

    Both McCain and Obama has said that ‘all options are on the table’ regarding Iran. Neither has committed to immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

    It’s time for a little honesty: Obama is more like a Republican than any other candidate in the Democratic primaries. Obama’s people are more like RNC trolls than those of any other candidate: the bullying groupthink, the classism, misogyny, the joyful repeating of old rightwing smears&lies, and a delight in echoing Drudge bullsh*t. Obama supporters are fauxgressives willing to abandon any real progressive or liberal policy to extol their candidate.

  • doubtful

    says:

    Has there ever been a group of sore winners like the Obama posters on this board? -pfgr

    See, that’s just the problem. We haven’t ‘won’ anything yet. Winning is what happens in November. Not April, not August. We’ve got our eyes on the prize, and so you must forgive our reaction when we see people nearly actively fighting against that goal (and I’m talking PUMAs, not the Clintons, though they could really end this with more emphatic statements).

    Sore winners? Hardly. More like aspiring winners.

  • libra

    says:

    The catharsis in in giving her supporters a last hurrah – a chance to get it out of their systems — JoeW, @10

    In that case, castor oil would have been more effective than catharsis.

  • Eric

    says:

    I suspect Obama’s people and Clinton’s people will work it out, almost, and the Clintons will rise to the occasion, almost, and be gracious and supportive, almost, and the media will all crow that it went well, almost, and many, many people will focus too much time analyzing why the Clintons didn’t completely support Obama, rather than focusing on McCain and Obama and the general election. And that is the problem of the Clintons’ egos. If they were truly focused on seeing a Democrat in the white house in 2009 then Hillary Clinton should have demonstrated some class by standing up the moment the last poll closed and said, It was a great fight, Obama is a great man, and I look forward to helping him be the next President.” She didn’t have to mean it, but she did have to say it, and she failed the test.
    My other prediction is that “the story” that all the msm will beat to death will be the screaming Clinton “supporters” who each get their 15 seconds of national airtime to say, “Nobama. Vote for McCain.” I suspect that most of these “supporters” have never voted for a Democrat in any national election.