Unless the linked article in the OP is grossly misreporting her position, she’s going to the convention as a candidate for her own possible nomination rather than as a supporter for Obama.
And that article itself says:
Clinton is trying to walk a fine line between placating the most vociferous of her supporters, whom the media are now whipping up, and supporting Obama cleanly, which is what she needs to do politically and wants to do for the sake of her own political future as well as her own political beliefs. IMHO.
The same article says she has not said she’s ruling out the possibility and points out that all she has to do to formally put her name up for nomination is sign a declaration and get 300 signatures on a petition. The petition is already been sent around and signed. So the only thing holding her back is the effort it takes to sign her name.
Besides what do you think it means that she wants her delegates heard? We already know what they’re going to say. They’re her delegates because they want her to be nominated. If they get heard at the convention, it’s going to be to make a call for Clinton’s nomination.
What part of “she will almost certainly not ask to have her name placed in formal nomination at the convention” isn’t clear to you? This is from her top people.
Apparently part of “almost certainly” isn’t that clear to you. Despite what sometimes slips out, these people choose their words carefully. “Almost certainly” is a phrase that clearly leaves some wiggle room. Wiggle room isn’t left if there’s absolutely no intention of wiggling.
I don’t think it’s going to happen, either, but with some of the stuff her campaign has done in the recent past in mind, it’s hard to say with 100% certainty. It’s not outside the realm of possibility.
I agree it’s not impossible. Very few things are impossible. But HRC has nothing to gain and quite a bit to lose by allowing it to happen, so I think it highly, highly unlikely, and I really think this is something being talked up by pundits to sell airtime.
Well this seems to be the compromise:
"Hillary Rodham Clinton’s name will be placed in nomination along with nominee-in-waiting Barack Obama at the Democratic convention in Denver, an emblematic move intended to unite the party after a divisive primary fight.
Democrats will officially nominate Obama at the convention but the state delegations will do a traditional role call for his vanquished opponent as well. "
Is this fair? Could this cause chaos?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/14/politics/main4350428.shtml
Why wouldn’t it be fair? And no, it won’t cause chaos. This will be a tightly scripted event, with pretty much everyone applauding wildly for everyone. Obama is very well organized, and he is not going to leave things to chance.
I’m pretty sure this is all going to work out OK, but there aren’t enough :rolleyes: for the double-speak involved in saying this is supposed to unite the party. Whatever. Let’s just get this over and head into the general.
I can’t help but think that Hillary is still hoping to catch a Hail Mary pass in the off chance that something really big comes out about or happens to Obama. She’s tanned, ready, and waiting (as they say).
If anyone wonders why some of us consider Hillary a disgusting candidate, if not a disgusting human being, there ya go. Oh, but of course she’s not responsible for the perceptions she creates, is she? That’s the other thing–that she and her supporters rely so much on plausible deniability. She wasn’t wishing anything bad to happen to Obama, it’d just be 
a shame if it did, and shouldn’t we be prepared for, ah, any eventuality, now?
Fuck, she gives me the creeps.
Did anyone actually read the CBS news story (bolding mine)?
Clinton didn’t want it. She thought she’d end up with fewer delegates than she’d had at her peak, and that it would be embarrassing. But her supporters were being a pain in the butt, so both she and Obama had to suck it up.
I agree that it’s a tempest in a teapot at this point, but I still can’t help but think of Shakespeare:
ANTONY: I thrice presented him with a kingly crown / Which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?
CITIZEN: Marked ye his words? He would not take the crown / Therefore 'tis certain he was not ambitious.
The photo on that tabloid-rag website is hilarious, too. She looks like a little girl who just swallowed the chocolate-chip evidence. “Uh, noooo, I din’ see no cookie…”
I thought her delegates already WERE a herd, anyway. I see them as a bunch of colossally dumb cattle, permanently pissed-off about some grievance they’re incapable of understanding, but the only thing they know to do is moo, about three months too late.
“Moooo, I understand Farmer Obama is taking our milk, mooooooo.”
“Mooooo, yes, he can! Mooo, moooo.”
“Why can’t, mooooooo, we get some of it? Mooooo.”
“Do we even, MOOOOOOO, want it?”
“It’s mooooo ours, sisters.”
“Well, okay then. Moooooo. Let’s make some noise. Moo. Tomorrow. The barn. Sunrise. Mooooooooooooo.”
“Mooo, what will we MOOOOOO with it if he gives it to us?”
“Who cares? Moooo. Let’s show him we’re not a bunch of brainless cows.”
“Okey-moo-dokey.”
The thing is, it’s is not even a majority of her delegates that feel “disrespected”. It’s a small, whiny, pissy group of entitled assholes.
That said, this is absolutely the right move. I think it would be very cool if New York passes to the end, and Hillary (who is herself a superdelegate) at that point moves that Obama be nominated by acclamation.
I think that if that were to happen, it would probably go down as the cheesiest, most cringe-worthy move in political history. That sounds like a scene out of an '80s high school movie that would surely be followed by a slow-clap and possibly the playing of “Don’t You (Forget About Me)”.
When conventions were contested, it was common-place for the defeated candidates to move the winner’s nomination by acclamation at the end of the roll call. So at best this could only tie for most cringe-worthy move.
Has anyone watched a convention roll call during the last 20 years? They’re godawfully, breath-takingly unwatchable. I mean, they make team dressage look like roller derby. First the delegation chairman introduces some low-level functionary to cast the votes: “The New Mexico vote will be announced by our distinguished State Party Vice-President in Charge of Coptic Christian Outreach, the Honorable Humble Q. Bumfuck”. Then Bumfuck drones for ten minutes about all of the great Democrats New Mexico will elect to the House, the Senate, the state House, the state Senate, and the Albuquerque Mosquito Abatement District in the fall, and finally, just when people start jabbing needles up their ass to stay awake, he casts the votes exactly as they were determined six months ago by the New Mexico primary.
Why does anybody care about this?
Hee, hee! Great post, Freddy. As a matter of fact, I haven’t watched one of these spectacles in the last 20 years, but that is how I remembered them. I thought it was SOP that everyone who had any delegates got their name placed in nomination and had their votes counted, got some podium time, then urged their followers to support the predetermined winner. Has the practice changed? Am I remembering it wrong? Or is what Hillary is planning to do something different than this?
The 1992 Democratic National Convention is the last convention of either party in which more than one candidate was given a nominating speech from the podium. At that convention, Jerry Brown refused to withdraw and insisted on a nominating speech, and Paul Tsongas also had a speech on his behalf but withdrew before the roll call. (He got a few votes anyway.) Since then the losing candidates have either dropped out during the primaries, or won so few delegates that they weren’t entitled to a speech.
The last Republican convention with more than one candidate was in 1976, when Ford ran against Reagan.
But the point is . . . regardless of whether there is one candidate or five, the roll calls are unwatchable.
:rolleyes:
What do you think a “pledge” is? :dubious: