Imagine if there was only the slightest hint that when Ted Kennedy ran for president he would not be accorded his right to place his name in nomination, present speeches advocating his candidacy, and have a roll call vote. Outrage would have been expressed by the Eggheads and Big Media.
But a woman candidate stands alone.
There is no outrage by Eggheads or Big Media when a woman running for president is insulted and demeaned and denied basic rights.
Hillary Clinton stands alone against Big Media and the full power of the election rigging leadership of the corrupt, formerly democratic, Democratic National Committee.
Hillary Clinton stands alone to face Democratic Party abuses. Hillary has won round 1 in the fight for Democracy because Hillary supporters stood by her.
Hillary Clinton’s name will be placed in nomination at the Democratic convention, a move aimed at generating enthusiasm among the vanquished candidate’s still-sizable corps of reluctant Barack Obama supporters. [snip]
Many of Clinton’s backers remain wary of the presumptive nominee. When the two appeared in Unity, New Hampshire, in late June to show that they were together, the crowd cheered Clinton but was lukewarm toward Obama.
The Illinois senator is in a virtual tie with presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in many national polls, and he needs a smooth, unifying convention to give him momentum. [snip]
A new Pew Research Centre poll, released yesterday, found that Obama has picked up 72% of Clinton’s supporters but that 18% said they were likely to vote for McCain and another 10% were undecided.
“The Obama campaign has made no significant headway among former Clinton backers over the past two months. The voting preferences of Clinton’s supporters are virtually identical to earlier polls in June and July,” a poll analysis said.
The fight for a fair vote at the convention is not yet over. Marc Ambinder, typing all the Obama arguments, provides hints of treachery to come:
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.[snip]
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.
If Clinton’s name is formally offered up, she could be afforded the normal complement of nominating and seconding speeches, and the official role call of votes will include participation from her delegates. (In theory, if enough Obama delegates change their minds, then Clinton could win the nomination. In practice, there’s no chance that will happen.)
On August 6, Clinton told donors at a private fundraiser that she thinks “that people want to feel like, O.K., it’s a catharsis, we’re here, we did it, and then everybody get behind Senator Obama. That is what most people believe is the best way to go.”
That sentiment is shared by Obama advisers, even as reports of tension between her aides and Obama’s campaign have proliferated in the press. To the contrary, multiple sources in both campaigns have described the negotiations as relatively free of acrimony. Obama’s convention managers and his political are acutely aware of the fact that at least 45% percent of delegates were stalwart backers of Sen. Clinton during the primary.
At no point, according to advisers to both candidates, did Clinton use her leverage over her delegates as a bargaining chip, especially because the Obama campaign, aware of DNC rules, had anticipated the inclusion of Clinton in the formal roll call in some way.
The exact choreography has not been worked out.
It is possible that Sen. Clinton, having had her name submitted, would use the occasion to release her delegates to Obama; depending on how the roll call is staged, Clinton’s released delegates could put Obama over the top.
Clinton aides also confirmed, and Obama aides did not dispute, that it was Clinton who informed the Obama campaign that she did not to give the keynote address to the convention. It is not clear whether the Obama camp would have offered the honorific, but they did not, sources said, deliberately deny it to Clinton.
Ambinder’s reporting is wrong in many respects in its ceaseless defense of Obama. The Obama campaign encouraged reports that Hillary would be the keynote speaker and not once denied the many reports calling her speech the keynote speech. Ambinder is also wrong in other respects: the reports of strife between the Clinton and Obama campaigns are not “exaggerated“; Hillary Clinton was not “resisting” those of us who wanted a roll call vote. On the contrary Hillary Clinton herself made it clear that she thought a roll call vote was a good idea and the right thing to do.
The claim by Ambinder that Obama has always been open to having her name placed in nomination is a bogus claim. The Obama campaign fought like Chicago street gangs to keep Hillary supporters in a cage, disenfranchised at the Democratic convention.
For example, when Hillary suggested that a roll call vote would be cathartic Obama immediately held a press conference in which Obama deliberately slapped at Hillary:
“I don’t think we’re looking for catharsis. I think what we’re looking for is energy and excitement.”
Hillary Clinton won a hefty 1,600 convention delegates in six months of primaries. A big question now is whether to let them vote at the Democratic convention. [snip]
A full roll-call vote that reminds everyone how close she came to being the nominee could reveal party rifts going into the fall campaign, they said. But keeping her name off the roll call could anger her supporters.
It is a “bone of contention” in the negotiations between the Clinton and Obama camps, said Democratic consultant Donna Brazile. [snip]
Under party rules, Sen. Clinton’s huge delegate count gives her the right to put her name into nomination. “But do you do it?” asked Ms. Brazile. “Politically, does it heighten tensions?”
Sen. Clinton could decline to have her name put forward, and Sen. Obama then could be nominated by acclamation. Party rules require a roll call, but the party’s rules committee could adopt any agreement the two campaigns reach, said political consultant Tad Devine, who helped script the roll-call votes for Walter Mondale in 1984 and Michael Dukakis in 1988.
Dropping the roll call would require a vote by the delegates, and would need choreographing to prevent any protests by disappointed Clinton delegates. But an unanimous nomination of Sen. Obama would send the message that he had unified the party, while allowing Sen. Clinton to ingratiate herself with his campaign.
The problem is “there’s a strong feeling” that Sen. Clinton’s delegates need the chance to vote for her, Mr. Devine said. Many are still angry with a party decision that they feel deprived her of delegates from Michigan and Florida. “You don’t want a situation where anybody feels they’ve been cheated,” he said.
A second option would be for Sen. Clinton to be nominated, complete with laudatory speeches and happy floor demonstrations. By prearrangement, Sen. Clinton then would take her name out of consideration and endorse Sen. Obama’s nomination.
“There’s nothing symbolically wrong to putting her name in,” followed by a scripted withdrawal, said Ms. Brazile. But the spectacle of a rapturous welcome for Sen. Clinton would be irresistible to television and could embarrass Sen. Obama.
The two camps also could agree to hold a “friendly” roll call, with the states tossing verbal bouquets to Sen. Clinton before voting for Sen. Obama. But unless lots of delegates switch their votes to Sen. Obama, a roll call would remind voters that Sen. Clinton won the primaries in such swing states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Mexico and Florida, which could determine the outcome of the November election.
The attempts to cage and disenfranchise Hillary supporters have been repeated and ungracious (a Pelosi discription of Hillary supporters). Certain powerful Democratic hounds issued orders for delegates NOT to sign delegate petitions to get Hillary’s name in nomination.
Michelle Cottle of The New Republic on August 9 wrote an op-ed article for the New York Times which discussed how unpopular a roll call vote is within the Democratic National Committee:
NEARLY everyone in the Democratic Party seems to think that officially entering Hillary Clinton’s name into a roll-call vote for the presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention would be a dangerous show of disunity. It’s true that having America watch as some portion of Mrs. Clinton’s 1,640 pledged delegates thumb their noses at Barack Obama would disrupt the party’s vision of a carefully scripted Denver love-in.
Immediately after the Iowa caucuses Obama/Dean/Brazile/Pelosi tried to shut down the primary voting. As primary season drew to a close Obama/Dean/Brazile/Pelosi stomped their collective feet in an attempt to shut down the voting in the last 10 primaries.
FDR and real Democrats know that Voting is Fundamental.
A roll call vote to determine the party’s nominee is not a gift, it is a right.
Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton supporters have won a big victory in defending the Democratic value of voting – both in the primaries and at the convention. But we know we must remain vigilant:
Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.