You are currently browsing the daily archive for August 15, 2008.
I guess that all the “symbolism” talk took the wind out the propaganda benefits so Politico has new fodder for ya, naughty PUMAs:
Just how many former Clinton supporters will vote for the former First Lady during the symbolic first ballot is anybody’s guess, but each of them will be called upon to do so—whether they want to or not.
“By putting her name in nomination, you’re putting people on the spot,” said former delegate counter Matt Seyfang, adding a second potential drawback: “Having a roll call . . . just chews into your broadcast time.
why is this presented like something hostile to delegates?
On Friday, the Obama campaign confirmed that the floor vote in Denver, intended to assuage Clinton supporters still stewing over her narrow loss, will be conducted as a state-by-state roll call. Under proposed convention bylaws, delegates would be forced to register their votes on a tally sheet with the convention secretary—the rules could be altered or suspended before the start of the convention.
we are further reassured this will look like the real thing:
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the “mechanics” of the roll call vote are still being worked out, but he conceded that Clinton probably will garner many votes on the first ballot.
because, remember, if no candidate has 50%+1, it goes to the second
and then we’re told of the pledged delegates that intend to betray their pledge (although, see the rules, they can’t on the first ballot)
For both the Democratic and Republican parties, committed delegates are bound to their candidates for the first vote.
Some seem ignorant of this rule
“I think that most superdelegates, including myself, are going for Obama,” said New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, who campaigned with Clinton around the country. “I made my decision for Obama, and I’m not switching again.”
thank god the priorities are right though:
“The convention is about nominating Barack, so his people want to speed through the vote as fast as possible so it won’t take too much TV time,” said a Democratic delegate who plans to vote for Clinton. “They also want to avoid a scenario where she’s leading at any point.”
Al righty then! So it is like the primaries – complete with the Fla, Mi debacle – that was also in play to avoid a situation where she was leading at any point. For a minute there, I thought it was an actual vote.
But just like with the primaries
Obama’s decision to accept a roll call vote, which came after weeks of talks with the Clinton camp, doesn’t mean he’ll let the process get out of hand, observers say.
Because, as Rummy taught us “democracy can be messy”
and maybe you want to answer this question: “are you happy now?” (me I was for abou 5 minutes yesterday, until I got the “symbolic” thinghie)
Fuelled by an unholy brew of victimhood and entitlement, Clinton’s supporters threaten to steal the show at the convention. Don’t be fooled by the sweetness-and-light joint statement released by the two campaigns. According to one member of Clinton’s camp, Obama’s “elbow was twisted”. Any future negotiations with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran will probably seem like a picnic.
But the deal Obama struck with Mrs Clinton must have stuck in his craw. The contention, moreover, that it was his idea that her name should be placed into nomination is an insult to our intelligence. By allowing the roll call, Obama has ceded control of what happens on the convention floor.
and the excellent commentary on it by Riverdaughter
Didn’t have to go further that the NY Daily News for it. You know, the ones lying in the past that Hillary didn’t want to be in nomination and refusing to retract it even when seeing the Simo Fish video.
Obama blinked and stands guilty of appeasing Clinton by agreeing to a roll call vote for her nomination. That he might not have had much choice if he wanted peace only proves the point that he’s playing defense at his own convention.
They seem to be rather miffed
It makes him look weak and ratifies Clinton’s sense of entitlement to share party leadership and the convention spotlight.
It was supposed to be his party. Now it’s theirs. His and hers.
Damn that Obama! messing up yet another Daily News cover for early May:
Cheer up guys!
The DNC promissed to rig this vote like they did the primaries!
In another article they look at our side of the story. The Ferraro quote:
“It is not only something she deserves… but something that historically she’s entitled to. To not allow her name to put in for nomination would be doing something [different] than has been done in the past.
“Had they not allowed her name to be put in nomination, [it] would have been disrespectful of her. It would have been denying [the] women of this country who supported her.
The rest of the quotes though are merely pablum.
Cafferty is chiming in with the Daily News
Others suggest this amounts to little more than extortion. One expert says the Clintons have “got Obama hostage and are exacting their ransom” with all of these convention demands.
If he can’t stand up to Hillary, how’s he going to fare against Vladimir Putin?
Here’s my question to you: When it comes to the convention, has Barack Obama let Hillary Clinton take over?
And my answer (awaiting moderation):
What’s the big deal? All primary candidates have been put in nomination for decades Besides, the nomination will be as rigged as the primaries – the outcome is as predetermined.
How else to explain the speakers’ schedule for Tuesday, August 26, 2008, at the Democratic convention in Denver? Take a close look. Do you notice anything odd? What stands out to you? [Note: click to enlarge.]
You’ll see at the link a fresh new way of making Hillary invisible
Continuing the tradition from the Bush years where legal matters (such civil rights after 9.11) were submitted to polls as if public opinion could change the law, Rasmussen actually polled following the rules for nomination. The funniest thing is that the question was formulated as this was B0’s idea
ne third of voters nationwide (33%) agree with Barack Obama that allowing Senator Hillary Clinton’s name to also be placed in nomination at the Democratic National Convention will “help us celebrate this defining moment in our history and bring the party together in a strong united fashion.” But slightly more (40%) believe it will hurt party unity.
Oh, gee, if I knew it was B0’s idea I wouldn’t have to fight him every day for months…The Dems, independents
Among Democrats, 48% say the move will help on the unity front while 28% disagree. Among unaffiliated voters, 43% say the move will hurt while 27% hold the opposite view.
The more interesting numbers come in the opinion of which candidate has a better chance to win. For all the exclusive gushing from the media for the past 2 months and push from DNC
Overall, voters by a 45% to 38% margin say Obama will do better against McCain than Clinton. Democrats agree – 54% saying Obama will do better, 38% that Clinton would. Unaffiliated voters are more evenly divided.
In a mid-July survey, Clinton was seen as a better candidate against McCain than Obama
Interestinger and interestinger
Updated to add TominPaine’s entry on symbolical votes
Maybe it was Obama finding it hard to swallow that Clinton’s name will be placed in nomination that caused him and the DNC to try and spin it publicly as a “symbolic gesture”.
But calling it a “symbolic gesture” it calls the legitimacy of the entire process into question.
Not from the Onion!
Times UK reports:
Russians were told over breakfast yesterday what really happened in Georgia: the conflict in South Ossetia was part of a plot by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, to stop Barack Obama being elected president of the United States.
said Dr Markov, a senior political scientist who is close to Vladimir Putin, the Prime Minister and power behind President Medvedev.
“George Bush’s Administration is promoting interests of candidate John McCain,” said Dr Markov. “Defeated by Barak Obama on all fronts, McCain has one last card to play yet – the creation of a virtual Cold War with Russia . . . Bush himself did not want a war in South Ossetia but his Republican Party did not leave him any choice.”
Jr.jr gone international!
Reminds me of the good ol’ times when the Faluja incidents were billed by our press as “meant to embarrass W in elctions” Wait till the B0bots get wind of this one!
We know the DNC is alergic to them, so maybe it’s a good idea to remind them DA RULES
Mind you, these are good for both parties:
When the Democratic National Convention convenes in Denver, Colorado on August 25th, a total of 4,049 delegates are expected. It will take 2,025 delegates — exactly half, plus one — to nominate the party’s presidential contender for the November election.
For both the Democratic and Republican parties, committed delegates are bound to their candidates for the first vote. If no candidate gets the 50 percent-plus-one delegate needed to win the nomination, more rounds of floor voting are held. Eventually, delegates can vote for candidates other than the ones they were bound to by the voters. But neither major party has gone past the first round of voting in decades.