CBSNews is reporting that Hillary Clinton “is seeking a way for her delegates to be heard at the Democratic National Convention.”
It also says that “The former first lady did not rule out the possibility of having her name placed into nomination at the convention”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/07/politics/main4326945.shtml
There is a large PUMA movement of folks who still hold out for Clinton to get the official nomination. Do you think something will be attempted at the convention?
She’s not going to try anything stupid, she’s just trying to remain relevant.
It would be political suicide for her if she wins the nomination - which many would view as her stealing it from Obama - then invariably loses the election. Democrats will blame her as the reason they lost the White House for another 4 or 8 years.
“Attempted” in terms of what? You mean a push to get her nominated instead of Obama, rather than just having her delegates seated? No, I don’t think that will happen. I think there has been some backroom negotiation between Obama and Clinton, and party leaders and Clinton, to prevent that. Because large protests like that during the convention could be a disaster, and a fight on the floor about who to nominate would be worse.
I didn’t know what PUMA means, so in case anyone else didn’t get it, it’s People United Means Action or Party Unity My Ass.
No, there isn’t. There’s a tiny group of jilted Clinton supporters out there (or people who claim to be Clinton supporters, anyway) who are still making noise on the blogs and such, and the media are acting like they’re some kind of significant movement.
They’re not. The overwhelming majority of Clinton supporters are now behind Obama. The number of voters who will stay home if Obama nominates anyone but Clinton as VP is vanishingly small. It’s a non-story.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
I didn’t know what PUMA means, so in case anyone else didn’t get it, it’s People United Means Action or Party Unity My Ass.
[/QUOTE]
Darn, I was hoping it might mean something similar to Cougar . . .
Bolding mine.
So she want to unify the party by showing up at the convention in two separate groups, one of which does not want Obama to be their candidate?
It’s like the aftermath of an argument with a flighty, pouty girlfriend. It doesn’t matter that the argument’s over and you both have decided what course to take–because she still wants you to acknowledge her feelings. And no matter what you both agreed to before, don’t think we’re getting out of this car until you give her some acknowledgement, mister! Ohhh, don’t you try that “logic” with me, you always think you’re so smart. Fine. I’m wrong. I’m always wrong, that’s what you’re really trying to tell me, isn’t it. Because I’m a woman. [Stares determinedly off into space.]
I had the following thought this afternoon: I’ve read in many places that Clinton kept campaigning with the expectation that the superdelegates and party officials were ultimately going to rally to her side. (Many Dopers said for months that was incorrect and unrealistic, and we were right.) Some of these PUMA types say Obama’s win was unfair because “party officials” chose him, not the voters. So apparently, the superdelegates were totally cheating if they didn’t pick Clinton.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Some of these PUMA types say Obama’s win was unfair because “party officials” chose him, not the voters. So apparently, the superdelegates were totally cheating if they didn’t pick Clinton.
[/QUOTE]
Right – even though Hillary started the primaries with around a hundred superdelegates already pledged to her, and even though for her to win the party officials would have had to choose her over Barack, and to hell with fairness.
Koxinga, as a woman and a feminist, I gotta say, your analysis of the PUMAs is spot on, and I cringe at how revoltingly they play into so many negative stereotypes of women.
Here is a quote from Gary Hart back in March, when it looked as if the primary elections might go Clinton’s way:
So put the shoe on the other foot. Wouldn’t Obama’s delegates and voters believe they had the right for their votes to be counted at the convention? Wouldn’t they believe that their candidate’s historical achievement should be officially recognized by the Democratic party? You bet they would. And from what I’ve read as I traced back through article comments and blogs over the primary season, lots of them would be staying home. Why is it supposed to be different for Clinton’s delegates and supporters?
In addition, both Ted Kennedy (1980) and Jesse Jackson (1988) were allowed to take the nomination fight to the convention. Clinton isn’t even asking for that much - as she has stated that she supports Obama and is currently campaigning for him - just some recognition for those who worked hard for her and support her every bit as passionately as Obama’s supporters do for him.
[QUOTE=Suse]
So put the shoe on the other foot. Wouldn’t Obama’s delegates and voters believe they had the right for their votes to be counted at the convention? Wouldn’t they believe that their candidate’s historical achievement should be officially recognized by the Democratic party? You bet they would. And from what I’ve read as I traced back through article comments and blogs over the primary season, lots of them would be staying home. Why is it supposed to be different for Clinton’s delegates and supporters?
[/QUOTE]
This line of thought is such bull. The reason why Clinton’s supporters believe they had the ‘right’ to have their votes counted is because Clinton and her crew worked them up into a frenzy in their last ditch effort to win the campaign.
I stand my belief that Obama’s supporters would not behave this way. Not because they are better people, but because they have a better candidate.
If Obama had lost, his supporters would not have behaved as Clinton’s have and still do; because he never encouraged them to.
Unlike the Clinton crowd. The fire that burns in the belly of Clinton’s supporters is there because she lit the match.
[QUOTE=holmes]
This line of thought is such bull. The reason why Clinton’s supporters believe they had the ‘right’ to have their votes counted is because Clinton and her crew worked them up into a frenzy in their last ditch effort to win the campaign.
I stand my belief that Obama’s supporters would not behave this way. Not because they are better people, but because they have a better candidate.
If Obama had lost, his supporters would not have behaved as Clinton’s have and still do; because he never encouraged them to.
Unlike the Clinton crowd. The fire that burns in the belly of Clinton’s supporters is there because she lit the match.
[/QUOTE]
I ask again, why should it be different for Clinton? It was fine for Jesse Jackson, it was fine for Ted Kennedy - what’s the difference?
Obama’s supporters believe they have a better candidate; whether they do or not, he will be the nominee. But if you feel so certain about how they would behave, go read their statements on any story involving Hillary Clinton. I think Clinton is responding to what she is hearing from the people who voted for her, not stirring up emotions that didn’t already exist.
I used to work with a guy who, whenever he was asked to do something, would go into a long rant about how he did all the work, and how nothing would get done without him. After one such rant, I asked his boss “how do you stand it?” He said, “I just remember what my ultimate goal is (in this case, getting the shipment out). And I let him have his say, and in the end he does what I’ve asked him to do.” Obama and his supporters would be wise to take this sort of approach; in the end, what is it going to hurt to allow Clinton’s delegates and supporters to be recognized? Obama will still be the nominee. If Obama and his supporters can’t manage simple diplomacy at this level, what are we in for when he’s up against real problems?
And I voted for Obama in the primary, FYI. I just think that Clinton’s delegates and supporters have earned the right to be recognized.
[QUOTE=Suse]
Wouldn’t Obama’s delegates and voters believe they had the right for their votes to be counted at the convention? Wouldn’t they believe that their candidate’s historical achievement should be officially recognized by the Democratic party? You bet they would.
[/QUOTE]
I can’t speak for others, but as an Obama voter, no. If he hadn’t gotten the nomination, I wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about the Democratic convention. I most certainly wouldn’t petulantly focus on recognizing Obama’s “historical achievement”, pretending that losing a nomination contest is either historical or an achievement. Nor would I attempt to claim a shadowy sliver of reflected spotlight so that I might childishly inflate my ego. If “my guy” had lost, so be it; watching Bush win in '00 and '04 was way more painful.
But you’re right on at least two counts:
(1) I think Clinton should be vociferous in thanking her supporters; their tenacity is a large part of her strong showing. But I think it should be done through personal gestures, not as a declared item. And it would be silly to think that Obama will not doff his proverbial cap their way.
(2) I (most likely) wouldn’t have pulled the lever for Clinton; she lost my vote at some point back in February. I probably would’ve either written in a name or left that slot blank.
[QUOTE=Suse]
I ask again, why should it be different for Clinton? It was fine for Jesse Jackson, it was fine for Ted Kennedy - what’s the difference?
[/QUOTE]
That the Democrats have a chance of winning this year?
Leave it to a Democrat to point to Ted Kennedy’s convention challenge of their party’s incumbent candidate, who naturally went on to lose the general election, as a good thing.
Good thing, bad thing - it happened. And it’s been acceptable to allow challengers to continue to the convention until this year, when suddenly it’s not.
(In 1980, I voted for John Anderson.)
[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus]
I can’t speak for others, but as an Obama voter, no. If he hadn’t gotten the nomination, I wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about the Democratic convention. I most certainly wouldn’t petulantly focus on recognizing Obama’s “historical achievement”, pretending that losing a nomination contest is either historical or an achievement. Nor would I attempt to claim a shadowy sliver of reflected spotlight so that I might childishly inflate my ego. If “my guy” had lost, so be it; watching Bush win in '00 and '04 was way more painful.
[/QUOTE]
For Obama it wouldn’t be historic in the sense that a black man has gone to the convention and had the votes counted before, but it would be an achievement for the sheer numbers of votes he won. For Clinton it’s both historic as the first woman and an achievement to have won so many votes.
I don’t understand how it lessens anything for Obama and his supporters to allow the Clinton delegates to have their votes counted. It changes nothing, he still wins, he still gets to have his big celebration bash.
[QUOTE=Suse]
I don’t understand how it lessens anything for Obama and his supporters to allow the Clinton delegates to have their votes counted. It changes nothing, he still wins, he still gets to have his big celebration bash.
[/QUOTE]
I am a fervent Obama supporter, and I don’t understand the big deal either. Everyone knows Obama won, everyone knows that Clinton got a lot of votes and delegates. What the heck is the big deal with counting them? How does this detract from Obama’s impressive achievement? The evening news I watched tonight (ABC) was desperately trying to spin this like it was some huge apocalypse for the Democrats if this happened.
Can someone explain why this would be a big deal? The outcome of any delegate count is pre-determined. I think Obama’s camp should say “Sure, no problem. Celebrate Senator Clinton’s historic run, then celebrate Senator’s Obama’s historic win.” Woohoo - cake for everyone!
So, will this totally crush the Dems chances in November, or merely cripple them?
[QUOTE=Suse]
I ask again, why should it be different for Clinton? It was fine for Jesse Jackson, it was fine for Ted Kennedy - what’s the difference?
Obama’s supporters believe they have a better candidate; whether they do or not, he will be the nominee. But if you feel so certain about how they would behave, go read their statements on any story involving Hillary Clinton. I think Clinton is responding to what she is hearing from the people who voted for her, not stirring up emotions that didn’t already exist.
I used to work with a guy who, whenever he was asked to do something, would go into a long rant about how he did all the work, and how nothing would get done without him. After one such rant, I asked his boss “how do you stand it?” He said, “I just remember what my ultimate goal is (in this case, getting the shipment out). And I let him have his say, and in the end he does what I’ve asked him to do.” Obama and his supporters would be wise to take this sort of approach; in the end, what is it going to hurt to allow Clinton’s delegates and supporters to be recognized? Obama will still be the nominee. If Obama and his supporters can’t manage simple diplomacy at this level, what are we in for when he’s up against real problems?
And I voted for Obama in the primary, FYI. I just think that Clinton’s delegates and supporters have earned the right to be recognized.
[/QUOTE]
Clinton stirred up those emotions, and now they have a life of their own. If you can’t even acknowledge that, then we may as well drop the conversation now.
Obama has gone out of his way to be respectful to Clinton and her supporters. The overwhelming majority of his supporters have too; in fact it was at an Obama sponsered event to help Clinton with her debt, that Clinton was speaking about this delegates heard at.
It’s not a matter of difference, but of results. Whenever there is a divided convention or the appearance of one, they lose.
Jesse Jackson, was not a viable candidate and he didn’t stir up his voters into ‘burn all the bridges down’ mob. So giving him his ‘respect’, wasn’t going to damage the party. He didn’t go around telling, demanding or infuring, that he get his respect or else.
That is what the difference is here. Clinton has more in common with Ted Kennedy, than she does with Jackson…and quite frankly I doubt her ability to control the beast that she’s awaken in her grand-standing and desperation…all McCain and the press needs is floor fight, whether Clinton wanted it or not and Obama will lose.
Is that what you want? Is that the price for Clinton’s ‘respect’?
Let’s see:
Obama has constantly and consistantly acknowledged Clinton and her supporters.
Obama has helped her to pay off her debt.
Obama has stepped away from anyone who is now badmouthing the Clintons and often defends the Clintons.
On the other hand:
We have Bill Clinton unable or unwilling to answer the question of whether or not Obama is ready to be President.
We have Hillary Clinton still demanding that she be respected. Despite Obama’s attempting to do that.
Hey let’s lose the election, it already happened once; why learn from our mistakes? Let’s do it again.
Well, maybe this is all a carefully scripted bit of political theater, if you believe Al Giordano’s take on it:
Check out the entire analysis, and start breathing again.