Explain How This Does Not Reflect Outright Fear Of The Convention Spinning Out of Control:
[Posted by WLS]
The AP is reporting that the Obama and Clinton campaigns have been discussing a plan that would cut off the roll call of the individual state delegations, and proceed to a call for Unanimous Consent in favor of Obama in order to demonstrate party unity. One idea is for Hillary to announce the votes of the NY delegation — or after those are announced — and then Hillary will call for Obama’s nomination by acclamation.
I’m not sure how she can agree to that after stating publicly earlier that she herself would vote for Obama, but for the rest of her delegates it was a personal decision that each would make. If she goes through on this idea in the AP story, she could be seen as cutting off the votes of her supporters — maybe driving more of them into the McCain camp.
This strikes me as a particularly bad idea. Obama’s camp should simply come to grips with the fact that he won by a very narrow margin, and the rollcall of the delegates is going to reflect that. He should take comfort in the fact that most of the superdelegates broke for him. He should also work as hard as possible to recruit Clinton delegates to vote for him. But then he should let them vote.
The few minutes of unease when Clinton will remain close in the delegate count will pass and be forgotten after he gives his speech Thurs night. But all this handwringing over having a traditional rollcall only serves to make him look weaker still — this time to Dems.
WLS, don’t you think that the close election issue has gotten state since 2000? I think it’s a valid concern that Obama is weak in his own party.
Is this a good response? No, not really. But if they can get away with rigging the vote, they will. If they can have this vote quietly, they will.
The whole ‘it’s soooo close’ election story is something voters hate to hear. It could come to define this entire convention. If I were running the convention, I would be willing to look bad to avoid that ordeal.Juan (4cdfb7) — 8/25/2008 @ 1:13 pm
I doubt they want to tie up prime time with roll call votes instead of the celebrities and well-known Democrats who are scheduled to speak. It’s like having an Oscar awards that runs so long all we see are the technical awards and best documentary.DRJ (a5243f) — 8/25/2008 @ 1:23 pm
Juan — I think the medicine is worse than the disease.
The delegates are DIE HARD democrats. Even the delegates that insist on voting for Hillary in the rollcall are going to vote for Obama 98%.
But cutting off the rollcall — which will no doubt be commented on by the press — really is a final sharp-stick-in-the-eye to all those PUMA’s out there.WLS (26b1e5) — 8/25/2008 @ 1:25 pm
nomination by acclimation.
I believe you meant acclamation, but maybe not. More than a few Clintonistas are having some trouble acclimating to sitting in their cheap seats in the nosebleed section.allan (ed202d) — 8/25/2008 @ 1:25 pm
However one slices and dices this, the dems are not united, this helps john mc cain. It doesnt matter if billy n hilly make nice with obama, what matters is can obama capture these voters in nov. So far, that would be a BIG NO with 20% or so of hilly voters in mc cain’s camp, according to most polls. If obama doesnt figure out a way to earn these voters and soon, i dont see how he wins.james conrad (6bb6e6) — 8/25/2008 @ 1:37 pm
It’s less a fear that the convention will spin out of control than it is a rather pathetic attempt to mollify Mrs Clinton’s die-hard supporters. This acknowledges her very close second-place finish — in which she was actuially in first place in votes won — and gives Mrs Clinton the opportunity to be gracious by letting her name be put in nomination, and then calling for the unanimous consent herself.
Mr Obama knows one thing: the Clintons’ desire is for him to lose to John McCain in November. They believe that she will then be the obvious choice in 2012 — when she’ll say, “See, I told you so!” — but she has to do all of the gracious loser steps first, to keep from generating any hard-feelings issues in 2012. In the end, she’ll certainly support the Obama-Biden ticket, just as vigorously as she supported Kerry-Edwards in 2004. 🙂Dana R Pico (3e4784) — 8/25/2008 @ 1:37 pm
I meant “acclimation” — “The process of acclimating or becoming acclimated. Adaptation of an organism to to its natural climatic environment.”
“Acclamation” means “The expression of enthusiastic approval. An oral vote, especially and enthusiastic vote of approval taken without formal ballot.”
Denver is the “Mile High City” — clearly acclimation is a major source of concern.
Why would I have ever used the word you suggested?WLS (26b1e5) — 8/25/2008 @ 1:39 pm
WLS, you’re right. This is going too far. And perhaps that’s not an accident. If they threaten this kind of thing, perhaps whatever steps they actually do take will seem tame.
But I don’t think there is any solution to their problem. That doesn’t mean they should do nothing about Hillary delegates… it just means that anything that happens will be problematic. Democrats have raised stinks many times for quite a while. They decry voter IDs and demand recounts. If their convention is going to be similar to these debacles, I think they need to do something to avoid it, even if it is irritating to PUMAs.
I think those that want to be mad are already mad, and the solution is obvious: make abortion an issue. Any sort of scheme to challenge Roe v Wade, or perhaps a statement from pro-choice Justices that they intend to retire, would do a lot towards getting PUMAs on Obama’s bus. If they can fix many PUMAs, then I think they shouldn’t tip-toe around trying to appease them now. They were insane to permit a roll-call vote, so now they need to find a way to fix it (perhaps having superdelegates vote first in an overwhelming pro Obama showing, and emphasize the sheer difference in votes instead of the percentage, so the vote never closes that much). If they could hold the vote at 3:00 am tonight, with no cameras, that would be ideal for them.
I dunno. In all honesty, this is too bad for our country. The democrat’s process is a real shame.Juan (4cdfb7) — 8/25/2008 @ 1:45 pm
The Obama campaign could have done something to stop this: Vet Hillary and offer her the VP slot. I think the Obamas detest and fear Hillary but not only would it mollify her supporters, it would put the onus on Hillary to put up or shut up. And best of all (for Obama), it would almost assure him a victory.
JFK did it with LBJ. Obama should have done it with Hillary but thankfully he’s no JFK.DRJ (a5243f) — 8/25/2008 @ 1:52 pm
Obama was afraid she would take it. Then he would need a food taster in the White House.Mike K (6d4fc3) — 8/25/2008 @ 1:56 pm
No, he’s no JFK. More of an A-s-s. This must be a sampler of what’s to come should this little adolph get into the White House. Unanimous ‘support.’ By force.Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/25/2008 @ 2:00 pm
In an ABC Radio News update on the hour, I heard Richard Daley shouting to somebody about how “We are not going to have any dissent!”
Presuming that it was accurately played in the context of Daley enforcing party unity, it reminded me of a scene from Gomer Pyle, USMC in which Sgt. Carter, sticking his finger in Pvt. Pyle’s face, ordered him to go on a double date: “You’re gonna go on a double date with me, AND YOU’RE GONNA HAVE FUN!“L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 8/25/2008 @ 2:02 pm
This strikes me as a particularly bad idea. Obama’s camp should simply come to grips with the fact that he won by a very narrow margin, and the rollcall of the delegates is going to reflect that.
It would make all the Dems’ criticism of Karl Rove’s “51% majority” ring rather hollow, wouldn’t it?L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 8/25/2008 @ 2:06 pm
#11 – Vermont Neighbor
what’s to come should this little adolph get into the White House
— That’s Little Fidel, if you please.Icy Truth (b746b7) — 8/25/2008 @ 2:10 pm
What a train wreck. Bill and Hillary Clinton continue to dominate the news. Nobody even should be thinking of them. They lost months ago!
If Obama should self-destruct and drop out before Friday, who would be next in line? Hillary or Biden? I think Hillary is in a stealth race with Biden on the remote chance the top slot opens up before the election.Wesson (f6c982) — 8/25/2008 @ 2:11 pm
WLS’s homonym problem: acclimation / acclamation
Barack’s homonym problem: Obama Nation / abominationIcy Truth (b746b7) — 8/25/2008 @ 2:13 pm
Here is some advice I hope Obama takes. This left wing weasel is why we are so misunderstood in Britain. Of course, anyone who reads the Guardian is already lost in space.Mike K (f89cb3) — 8/25/2008 @ 2:19 pm
If Obama cannot take this much heat (that is, he cuts off the rollcall), he should never have even considered being in the running for President, and we can’t afford him in that position.htom (412a17) — 8/25/2008 @ 2:20 pm
Icy @ 2:10
I bow to your correctness. It’s true … but the other sounded better.
Tonight in Denver is going to be all kinds of crazy.Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/25/2008 @ 2:23 pm
In an ABC Radio News update on the hour, I heard Richard Daley shouting to somebody about how “We are not going to have any dissent!”
Damn, I guess this really is “1968” all over again. Daley is talking just like his daddy, “Hizzoner Da Mayor.”MarkJ (42fe5b) — 8/25/2008 @ 2:23 pm
LN Smithee 8/25/2008 @ 2:02 PM:
Like MarkJ, it reminds me of this famous quote from Daley’s father at the ’68 convention:DRJ (a5243f) — 8/25/2008 @ 2:23 pm
As if “motherfucker” is really worse than “Jew” in that context.Icy Truth (b746b7) — 8/25/2008 @ 2:41 pm
Now there are reports that Jimmy Carter is being gagged. Supposedly he’ll be on the stage, but not allowed to speak.
Mmm, popcorn!Evil Pundit (843b74) — 8/25/2008 @ 3:15 pm
and gives Mrs Clinton the opportunity to be gracious
The Other Dana #6 – ginormous oxymoron!
I say let them all speak, no gags, no controls, let it run completely amok- there might even be a brawl… I love this campaign.Dana (084de8) — 8/25/2008 @ 4:50 pm
You are right that it makes Obama look weak.
He has a strong grip on the nomination. So why the paranoia? He’s mentally weak. He’s not fit to be president.Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 8/25/2008 @ 7:51 pm
We DEMOCRATS like to rally in support of of each “favorite Son” &/or “the next President of the United States” with the Roll Call Vote from each & every State. (also w/BALOONS!!!)
At the 2000 Convention; before the nomination of JFK; it was feared the nomination might even go to a 3rd Ballot.
In 2008 The pledged Votes are close & ONLY the Super Deligate Votes will decide the Candidate. It is especially important for the full election process to be done; so no State or group will feel dis-infranchised.
In 2008 it would be foolhardy to try to conclude the selection without EVEN One full Ballot. There is no need to fuel the sentiment that “insiders” have “picked” the candidate by circumventing the elective process.
AFTER: the Ballots show a clear Nominee; it is customary THEN: for a re-count and the Nominee re-affirmed by ACCLAMATION!!!PJ (bca3f9) — 8/25/2008 @ 8:34 pm
The Democrats convention should be reinforcing the idea to the rest of the world that the American political process doesn’t always have to end in the courts or emulate much of the world in simply clubbing or arresting the opposition delegates.
Even if a demo on the floor went on past prime time the convention is not going to elect Sen. Clinton and so the fears of a coup are simply the nervousness of the time and motion consultants. When did the political process in the US become the province of wedding planners with the balloons being dropped at exactly 8:05PM and the candidate giving his last wave 30 seconds before the late news?
But after seeing some of the haircuts on the diminished number of retro-Communards outside I do have to admit that I have no problem with them being arrested. Or even better tased, hosed and then arrested.Pat Patterson (f44efe) — 8/26/2008 @ 3:10 am
I fixed the typo without reading the comments.
WLS, I may have you start submitting your posts to me in draft form before publication. They’ll be less timely, but they’ll have about five fewer typos per post.Patterico (bee44a) — 8/26/2008 @ 9:40 pm
I don’t want to intrude on someone else’s posts but I’ll proofread if WLS wants me to.DRJ (7568a2) — 8/26/2008 @ 9:45 pm
Dude, WLS… I think they’re calling you out…Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 8/26/2008 @ 9:53 pm
How about if I want you to?
I enjoy WLS’s commentary, but he needs an editor.Patterico (701253) — 8/26/2008 @ 9:58 pm
You know I’m happy to help if I can, but I don’t want WLS to feel like I’m trying to butt in.DRJ (7568a2) — 8/26/2008 @ 10:01 pm
I’ve been meaning to ask anyway. I just didn’t want to overload you.Patterico (aab138) — 8/26/2008 @ 10:06 pm
Hillary Clinton Releases Delegates.
The posturing of fear you guys take sometimes astounds me.
School of Karl Rove I guess.Oiram (983921) — 8/27/2008 @ 2:37 pm
It’s called wishful-thinking; something that certain people ^^^ live and die on.Icy Truth (a1e931) — 8/27/2008 @ 2:45 pm
What are we fearful of, Oiram? Or, are you talking to those charicatures in your head again?JD (5f0e11) — 8/27/2008 @ 2:53 pm
#36, No JD, you guys aren’t fearful.
You said “What are we fearful of?” You guys aren’t fearful of a Democratic convention spinning out of control, in fact I think you would love it.
But if you spread that kind of talk you put fear into those who are on the fence as far as who they are going to vote for.
Come on JD, you know that as well as I do.
The Clinton 11th hour wishful thinking by WLS here didn’t happen, I needed to point that out.Oiram (983921) — 8/27/2008 @ 3:02 pm