Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama's Savvy Convention Move

The news today that Barack Obama's campaign had agreed to allow Hillary Rodham Clinton's name to be put forward for nomination at the Democratic National Convention is a savvy piece of political strategy.


Because, in politics, it's always better to appear magnanimous than small; petty disputes between candidates tend to turn off voters -- especially at the presidential level where voters expect the most of candidates.

"You want unity, which is why the Obama people have been generous to the Clintons," explained longtime Democratic strategist Bob Shrum. "I don't think that's a mistake. I think that's smart."

In allowing Clinton's name to be submitted for a roll call vote -- a purely symbolic measure since the New York senator lacks the votes to be nominated -- Obama is offering a powerful olive branch to those still loyal to Clinton while also giving a subtle wink and nod to the professional political class that he gets what he needs to do to win in November.

Given the tremendous atmospheric advantages Democrats enjoy heading into the fall election, the one major potential problem would be signs of disunity permeating the ranks of convention delegates and party officials.

Sure, some people -- PUMAS we are looking at you -- will make trouble for Obama. But if the convention organizers can limit any public signs of disunity to a handful of disgruntled activists, it's likely that the average viewer won't even pick up on the protests.

Of course, that's a major "if". But, today, the Obama team made a major step forward in defusing what could have been a major problem for them in Denver.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 14, 2008; 6:25 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam: The Best (and Worst) Vice Presidential Picks
Next: Friday Senate Line: Is 62 Democrats' Magic Number?


An honest roll call could be a brilliant exit strategy for Obama. What if he sees he's going to be the McGovern of 2008 -- not so good for someone with his ambitions.

Clinton/Obama has always been his best move. Now by letting her win the vote, he might save some face.

Posted by: fsteele | August 18, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

When did the Democratic convention morph into a mass rally designed to support a personality cult?

Since when does one candidate "allow" another candidate's name to be put forward for nomination at the convention?

Since when was there not a roll call vote at a Democratic convention? Obama mentor, good old Teddy K., was free to challenge an incumbent Democratic President in a roll call vote, even though he had even fewer delegate votes than Hillary Clinton. So much for the bull about party unity. Will that be covered in the soppy video on Day 1?
Were the situation reversed, are we to believe Obama and his supporters would have been satisfied with no roll call vote for HIM? Somehow with this guy, you always are left with the impression that he's got to be treated differently.

Obama has had almost THREE MONTHS to put his house in order and did not/could not do it. What does that tell us about his ability to govern a nation?? This guy couldn't even get it together to manage a party coming together for a convention.

"..the Obama people have been generous to the Clintons.." Like Tony Soprano's people were generous to their opponents. Only because they have to. What happens on Day 5 of the convention will be X-rated due to violence.

Last but not least: Bob Shrum - now there's a winner!! If he's the most insightful the Democrats can offer, the Republicans should have no problem whatsoever.

Posted by: expatriot | August 18, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

SCRIVENER+++++Obviously you must live in the state of denial, as yours views show you are delusional. You must be also waiting for Russia to apologize for invading Georgia and the People's Republic of China to apologize for Tienanmen Square.Your view that Hillary will be chosen at the convention is totally preposterous. You are totally out of touch with reality.

Posted by: majorteddy | August 18, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

The PUMA's are not good Democrats. I question whether they are really Democrats at all. If they believed in Hillary so much, why did they fail to back her financially? Why did they leave her in so much debt? Because it is all a big Republican organized front, and a lot of over-emotional people are being taken in by it.

Posted by: majorteddy | August 18, 2008 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Obviously some people are not students of history - even very recent history or they would know that Obama is doing neither Clinton nor her supporters any favor by putting her name in nomination. That is what is normal at the democratic conventions of the past.

There have been other candidates who took the fight all the way to the convention floor and no one asked them to drop out (of course Hillary only suspended her campaign .) A striking example of this was in 1980 when Sen. Ted Kennedy who lagged behind then incumbent Pres. Jimmy Carter by almost 1,000 delegates took his fight against Carter to the convention floor where he susequently lost to Carter. Why did Ted Kennedy not think about dropping out before the convention for the sake of "party unity"? Could it be because he was a man?

Truth be told no matter which side of the fence you are on, Clinton and Obama are almost tied in terms of delegate count and the super delegates have not cast their votes yet. That will be done at the convention. But the media, the Obama camp, and some leaders of the democratic party are acting like the convention has already happened and Obama is now the official nominee which is far from the truth.

What happened to the word "democracy" in the democratic party - the "big tent party" which included everyone from all walks of life, all ethnic groups and races, blue-collar to the "elite"? It seems what was once home to so many diverse peoples and cultures is now the property of a "select membership" who condescendingly look down on those of us who don't quite "make the grade" and say to us, "we will throw you a few bread crumbs to make you happy, if you don't make any noise and do what we tell you to do."

Again, students of history, look around you. How do leaders of totalitarian states control their citizens? They silence the "dissenters". One of the first and easiest methods is to ridicule and intimidate those who "don't fall in line". That's exactly what is happening within the democratic party today and the MSM is in collusion with them.

I say thank God that there are groups like PUMA which give voice to those who are told they don't count. We cannot afford "unity" when it dismisses and silences the voices of 18,000,000 voters.

Posted by: Cathy in Ks. | August 17, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

drossless? 400 or so PUMAs? Honey, it's far more than 400-- even though the bam-bots tried to take one major Puma site down, we're back up and still NOT supporting Barack Obama. Does not matter that we have always supported the Dem in past prez-races, Obama is NOT the correct nominee... and he has not actually won enough pledge-delegates to call himself the nominee. The slimy Dems in charge changed this for Obama and, I for one (of MANY) will certainly NOT be falling in line and backing him. It's not Hillary's fault. It IS Obama's own doings and his own fault that he will not win the election in November. Talk about someone who cannot relate? Yeah, that's your saviour....

Posted by: AnneBeck | August 17, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Yes, as long as obama is bringing in the bux, he's a hero to the party as well as MSM. MSM drooling over latest figure even though it is 49 million short of goal.

Posted by: PamelaofthePoconos | August 17, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Republicans and the 400 or so PUMAs out there would really like to make folks believe there is some problem somewhere. But there isn't -- at least, not for the Democratic Party. We'll take a few disgruntled Hillary supporters along with record fund raising and new voter registrations, if we have to.

But Republicans have to deal with:

High gas prices. Two endless wars. No jobs created, unemployment increasing. Americans losing their homes. Stock market in the tank. High debt. Worthless energy policy that consists solely of giving tax-payer money to the president's supporters. No solution to immigration issue. Torture accepted as US policy for the first time since George Washington rejected it. Massive privacy violations. Terrorism policy rejected by conservative courts. Detested President and Vice President.

Whew! Glad we're not running on that!

That makes running a black candidate with a funny name look easy. Obama 2008!

Posted by: drossless | August 17, 2008 3:05 AM | Report abuse

This is too perfect! With Hillary arguing that she lost because of "sexism" and Barack arguing that he ought to be elected because those bad Republicans say he has a funny name and doesn't look like the presidents on dollar bills, and Bill Clinton, the centimillionaire waxing indignant, and Michelle Obama fistbumping and sista-mouthing, the entire convention is going to resemble that bar scene in the first "Star Wars" movie...and Americans with their heads screwed on straight will say "Nada de Eso!"...So, it's bye-bye BO, we're so sad to see you go...

Posted by: justareader | August 17, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

"if they cause the defeat of Obama in 2008, the Democrats will not get substational Black support in 2012, 2016 nor 2020."
Posted by: Anonymous | August 16, 2008 3:09 PM

I'm glad the Obama people are taking seriously the possibility of defeat of Obama in 2008.

Now, what about the effect of such a defeat ON OBAMA? If he becomes the McGovern of 2008, will he ever be given another chance?

For his own career, the safest course is Clinton/Obama 08. If he's fore-seeing a landslide to McCain, letting Hillary have an honest election at the convention might be a slick way for Obama to get out of the line of fire this year, and have a clear shot in 2016.

Posted by: fsteele | August 16, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama is not doing Hillary or her backers a favor. This is not a magnificent or even a generous act. This is traditional party politics and roll call makes the nomination appear even more valid. If you want unity make an effort to unite. Pomposity and posing have been overdone.

Posted by: Lizfi | August 16, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse


The Republicans are a true minority party with a problem. They have the resources and numbers to get elected, but increasingly, they have to resort to the kind of campaign Rove is famous for to overcome the Democrats numerical advantage and the large number of independents. This kind of campaign WORKS in America and I suppose it is possible it will work again.

I'm not sure if ANY Democrat can look shiny and new under such attacks and to some Americans, the "tarnish on the silver' somehow reads as weakness. I'm also not discounting the propensity of Democrats to adopt such tactics in extremis but so far, they have proven more reluctant to do so, hence the wins by GWB in ''00 and '04. Now we have a candidate who really energizes people at a level that Republicans can only imagine and the attacks have begun. First it's the ridiculous Paris ad, then it's the Corsi book. McCain is not actually responsible for the publication of the book but the pattern of deniability while coasting on the effect are all too familiar.

I do not think Obama is weak and I do not think there will be a rebellion at the convention (perhaps a 'demonstration' but we would not be Democrats without SOME fireworks!). I actually believe the party will be united in a way we have not seen in a long time and when we look back, this will be the moment that is remembered--for Obama's first presidential act--pre-presidential for those who resent the idea of anyone laying claim to the office before winning it--Presidential because it is so in keeping with the message he has been trying to send to the American People that it will become (forgive the word) iconic as political healing. (I hope)

Posted by: dch | August 16, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

I think the Democrats are stuck with a very weak Obama right now which is a pity. The party would be ruined by a rebellion among the Obama superdelegates giving Clinton the win so they have to go down with the ship here. Make no mistake about it, when you're talking about Biden as your VP you're a tin soldier like Kerry and the real soldier will win it.

I really liked Obama. Too bad. Well, he showed what he was made of. Another in a series of Democratic cowards.

Posted by: DexterManley | August 16, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps all the PUMAs, the Anti-Black Blue Collar Democracts and those pissed-off Clinton (waiting for a plum job) hanger-ons should realize that if they cause the defeat of Obama in 2008, the Democrats will not get substational Black support in 2012, 2016 nor 2020. This would spell the end of the Democractic Party as we know it.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 16, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats need to wake up and realize there simply is not enough time for Obama to EARN THE TRUST OF THE VOTERS and there is too much at stake to just hand this election to the republicans! Our COURTS, ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT, INTERNATIONAL STANDING, WOMEN'S RIGHTS.... are at stake! A symbolic roll call vote still leaves us with an unelectable candidate. OBAMA MUST NOMINATE HILLARY AT THE CONVENTION and agree to serve as HILLARY’S VP. Think what an EXCITING CONVENTION that will be! Think of the MEDIA coverage! Think how wise and pragmatic Obama will appear. The Democrats will be UNITED behind this WINNING ticket. The republicans will not be able to adjust their strategy and Dems will win the White House!

I am wondering about all these SUPER DELEGATES, listed below, who are ENDORSING OBAMA only after he made LARGE CONTRIBUTIONS to their campaigns, even though their CONSTITUENTS OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED FOR HILLARY!

Tom Harkin Iowa
Carol Shea Porter New Hampshire
Baron Hill Indiana
Jeff Bingaman New Mexico
Frank Lautenberg NJ
Ron Klein FL
Joe Donnelly Indiana
Gerald McNerney CA
Jason Altmire PA
Niki Tsongas Massachusetts
Dennis Cardoza CA
Gabrielle Giffords AZ
Jim Costa CA
Zack Space OH
Charlie Wilson OH
Jay Rockefeller WV
see link below for details.

Posted by: Caryl in Florida | August 16, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Sen. Hillary Clinton in the primaries as did my wife. Now, we will vote for Sen. Barack Obama for President in the general election. I believe it's foolish for anyone, who cares about our Country and the Democratic Party, to vote for John McSame or stay home because that does not accomplish a thing. Rather, it plays into the hands of those, who've succeeded in virtually destroying our country. This is sort of like the old saying of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. It makes absolutely no sense.

Posted by: caliguy55 | August 16, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I am happy that Senator Clinton's name will be placed in nomination, it would be simply ludicrous if her name wasn't placed in nomination. Sadly, if this is purely a symbolic event, we will clearly all be aware of it, and it IS sad because I know Obama can't win and Hillary can. I don't care what Obama-Media says, and I know we've already had the American media dictate our reality for far too long, and worse, we have allowed the news media to make the news, but the truth is that Obama doesn't stand a chance of winning the general election if he is the nominee.

Obama didn't win the popular vote, nor the big blue dem states, nor the all important purple swing states, and he mainly won red republican states by caucus. He is an extremely weak candidate because of this, and also the fact that he is very inexperienced, has a flimsy resume, a questionable record, and a disturbing background. Beyond that, Obama outspent Hillary 4 to 1 in places like PA, and Hillary just kept winning and winning, especially toward the end, which is a bad sign for Obama. Obama only made it this far because the media has been in the tank for him, protecting and promoting him, while never vetting him as they concentrated on attacking the Clinton's and Hillary's supporters. Absolutely no one will forget that delegates were stolen from Hillary and given to Obama, no one will forget the under-handed actions at the caucuses, and no one will forget that accusations of racism and methods of misogyny were used for politcal gain.

NONE of it will be rewarded with my vote. There are millions of democrats who will not vote for Obama, and one need not look any farther than the exit polls to see that a HUGE number of democrats will not vote for Obama. You have to remember that the media covered up all of Obama's shocking associates and history until the very end, and not even Pastor Wright hit the mainstream media until a year after he was first interviewed on Fox. Clearly there has been a media cover-up, not unlike what was done for Edwards. Only a small child would not be able to see that.

Beyond that, Hillary was called on to quit since Iowa and she kept winning and winning. It doesn't matter what the media says, and it doesn't matter what the "changed" dem party big tops say: MORE people want Hillary and MORE people said they would not vote for Obama if he got the official dem nom.

It's either Hillary or McCain in 2008. I want a democrat NOW, but if Obama gets the dem nom, obviously McCain will be president, and then I will furiously wait until 2012.

DEMOCRATS are USED to losing and waiting...and waiting...

Nothing new!!

That's why I am TIRED of waiting, and we need to elect the stronger candidate NOW, and not later.

Hillary Clinton for president in 08 OR 12.

Just Say No Deal
Puma Pac
The Denver Group


Posted by: kat in your hat PUMA | August 16, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

I agree with the columnists who are saying that Obama had to agree to the roll call (I hope it's a legitimate one, per Marc Rubin), either because the PUMAs would make more trouble without it than with it, or because 9 million Hil supporters are standing firm against Obama, or both.

The recent Pew poll says "“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.” Pew finds about 3 million still planning to vote for McCain, but Pew does not consider those who will protest by staying home. Those stayhomes, according to Opinion Research, brought the total to 9 million.

PUtting HIllary on the ticket as VP doesn't help either, according to a WP/ABC late July poll: that repels as many as it attracts.

Obama is good at crafting gracious statements way after the fact. I hope he is studying these numbers and considering whether he'd rather be Hillary's VP on a Clinton/Obama ticket and then POTUS in 2016 -- rather than being the McGovern of 2008.

Posted by: turndownobama | August 16, 2008 2:13 AM | Report abuse

Bob Shrum's judgments are highly questionable considering how many democratic candidates he's guided to defeat. It's laughable that he would call the Obama campaign "generous" in agreeing to the Clinton speech and roll call vote. Obama was forced into these gestures due to his sagging poll numbers and the refusal of so many Hillary supporters to move to him. The DNC told resistant democrats that Obama did not need them in order to win. The more rabid Obama supporters from Daily Kos hailed the purge of Hillary supporters from the party. Now they find they need us after all!

Posted by: pumapunch | August 16, 2008 1:32 AM | Report abuse

Amidst all the petty 'inside-politics' venting going on here an interesting fact has emerged.

The same billionaire speculator British Intelligence figure, George Soros, who bundled much of Sen Obama's internet contribution haul--also lavishly financed the career of lunatic neocon Georgian Pres. Saakashvili.

You know Saakashvili--the nice man trying to get us into a war with Russia, by killing Russians in Ossetia. Bush is waxing eloquent about the territorial integrity of Georgia.

Q: What does the Republic of Georgia have--that makes her regime so sacred--that Serbia, Sudan,Iran, Iraq, Zimbabwe, and others facing foreign intervention do not have?

A: A neocon president, Saakashvili, owned by London financiers like George Soros.

Peace activists take note. Soros' is a lavish funder of Obama--but since Soros started his career as a teenage Nazi collaborator in Hungary--it is unlikely he actually wants Obama inaugurated.

Posted by: bjerryberg | August 16, 2008 1:07 AM | Report abuse

I am amused at the quotations cited from Bob Shrum lauding Obama's convention 'counter-insurgency tactics' against the Clinton camp.

Obama partisans ought to really worry when Shrum lauds their strategy. Shrum, after all, holds the record for the most national campaigns' managed--without a win.

The Clinton lead in actual votes cast and George $oro$ role in negating that with the $uperdelegate pledges and the DNC, would make anyone a bit $uspicious of the integrity of the proce$$.

I would say that the change-agent of the hedge funds--the limitlessly funded Obama-- is apt to get more than he bargained for--one way or the other.

Eight years of a vain puppet is enough--and puppets come in all colors.

Posted by: bjerryberg | August 16, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Guess I'm not astute enough to ascertain whether or not allowing a roll-call vote with Clinton's name in nomination is a good idea. To be honest, although I do care about what happens in Denver, I start to glaze over when I read articles or comments about the Clintonista/PUMA coup d'etat planned for the convention. I suspect a good part the talk is simply sour-grapes flatulence by a relatively small but incredibly loud group. I DO think there will be a media feeding frenzy at the convention as the media bottom feeders sensationalize any of the inevitable murmurs of discontent. I DO expect that that frenzy will help McCain et al. I DON'T expect that the perpetrators of the convention stink will feel (let alone ever express) any remorse for aiding and abetting the real (read: Republican) opponents.

I hope all "real" Democrats (which includes the vast majority of both Obama or Clinton supporters) will unite at the end of the convention. I hope that all Democrats, whomever they supported in the primaries, will understand that the nightmare will be a McCain presidency, not the lack of a Hillary presidency. I hope that the Clintonista/PUMAs begin to understand that while NOT seeing Hillary back in the White House may be disappointing, seeing John McCain there is much more frightening than seeing Obama there.

Most importantly, I hope that Hillary Clinton is unequivocal and crystal-clear about her support for Obama and that she demonstrates her sincerity by working tirelessly for victory in November. I would think that she would be toast in 2012 if she isn't a good soldier now.

Posted by: old white male democrat in WV | August 16, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse


Are you for real or are you a community organizer for Obama?

Posted by: Amarissa | August 15, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Iirc all conventions have had a roll call ever since LBJ was nominated by acclimation, and look how that turned out.

Posted by: fsteele | August 15, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

To all Hill's supporters, you better beleive Obama is doing her a favor. He is the leader of the Dem. party now and he didn't have to agree to it. So all you Hill supporters better get over it, you can't take this nomination from Obama. Remember you try to take it in the primary
the primary with FL and MI, and look what happen.Nothing has change, you still can't change the rules in the middle of the game.
That is called cheating.

Posted by: pokeymompokey | August 15, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Funny how we weren't going to count Michigan and Florida at all because there are "rules" and Hillary agreed to them. And now we are going to count them -all of them -so what happened to the rules? Oh yeah it might have made a difference earlier.

And before we weren't going to have a roll call vote because who ever heard of everyone not jumping on board with the "presumptuous " nominee. Unheard of.

And who cares if even though Hillary "earned" 4 more delegates in an actual primary in Michigan that they gave them to Obama PLUS all the undecideds even though Edwards was still in the race during that "vote" (perhaps Edwards voters are a little less inclined to go with Edwards decision to support Obama given the new revelations and may start questioning his judgement and all).

And who cares if Obama was able to use the undemocratic super delegates to try and counteract Hillary's slew of wins even on the last day because those super delegates are SO much more important than those pesky voters in West Va and SD. Why should we be bitter.

Why is Obama endorsing a roll call now? My guess is the numbers are telling them they have a problem and I can confirm they have a real problem. I have voted democratic all my life and I will not vote for Obama. Never. And if I feel this way so do a lot of others.

So please keep pretending the precious one will win. And PUMA's don't exist. If the nation could reelect George Bush over that namby pamby liberal north easterner Kerry, how in the world can you think those voters are going to vote for a liberal elitist black politician straight from the Chicago machine? Once again the DNC, Donna Brazile and Howard Dean shoot us in the back and saddles us with a loser.

Posted by: bornagaindem | August 15, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you said: "Barack Obama's campaign had agreed to allow Hillary Rodham Clinton's name to be put forward for nomination". You act like he was doing her a favor! Obama does not have enough delegates to secure the nomination at this point, since the supers can not vote until the convention, so why was there even a question of Hillary's name in nomination? Hillary SUSPENDED her campaign – she did not "drop out".
Right now, Their is a i/10th of 1 pecent difference in delegates. The role of a delegate to represent the people who voted for a particular candidate. We are holding the Hillary delegates accountable, by voting for her! The role of a super delegate is to vote for who is most electable, and with Obama in a tie with McCain, I hope they all remember their purpose.
We are expecting a true nominating convention, not a scripted coronation. We will not support a democratic party which is not democratic.

Posted by: rrowing | August 15, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

You're watching us? How nice. Maybe you can take some notes: this is how real Americans feel. Also note that PUMA's are not violent. Then, note the reaction of Obama supporters. You know, when they LOSE. Which will, either by the super delegates voting for Senator Clinton in the interest of actually securing a democratic White Houes, or in November when John Mccain takes him in the election.
Eiether way, happy viewing you corrupt media muppet.

Posted by: Kerri | August 15, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

PUMAs are the surrogate Republicans of this election. I agree with Chris. Trying to suppress the Clinton delegates would have created resentment. Plus when it becomes clear that Obama will win the roll call vote by a large margin the attractiveness of the event will lose its appeal. The PUMAs have loud voices but they are few in number. The more they talk the more they reveal their ulterior motives.

Posted by: zotz | August 15, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I actually think it is the total opposite. How bad would Senator Obama look when the petition is turned in to place Hillary's name in nomination? REAL BAD!Would make for good publicity for him, don't ya think. Only 300 signatures of super delegates were needed. Once he seen how close the petition was and the fact that super delegates were starting to go public, i.e. Sacha Millstone with the strong arm tactics of his surrogates he had the messiah had to save face.

Posted by: tlatexaspuma | August 15, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

No Obama in 2008 means No Clinton in 2012. Whether the Democrats realize it or not, both sides need each other. If Clinton supporters don't back Obama, Obama's supporters will surely never support Clinton.

So where does that leave PUMA and Dems for McCain? They will never see Clinton or a Dem in the White House for a long time!

Posted by: Clinton and PUMA need Obama | August 15, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

The idea that having Hillary's name placed in nomination was within Obama control is absurd. Every other Presidential candidate who won delegates in past elections has had their name placed in nomination. And the idea that Obama will be seen as magnanamous by Hillary's supporters is equally absurd. Brazile told us we weren't necessary for the Democratic Party's new coalition . . . so we just have to go elsewhere. If Hillary is not on this ticket, I, and many other Hillary supporters, will vote for McCain in November. Obama can keep his generousity
just like th can "keep the change."

Posted by: Lynn | August 15, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Sen Clinton should act like the grown-up here. She should immediately convince her supporters to cease and desist and let this convention be about Sen Obama. If Sen Clinton does otherwise, she will for all time be branded as "The Ungracious One". The one who may just have caused the Democrats to lose what should have been a shoe-in election.

If she does not stop these so called supporters of hers from continuing to be obnoxious and divisive and Obama loses, she inevitably will be blamed. Moreover, Sen Clinton and former Pres Clinton will never again hold places of honor or respect in the Democratic party.

If they allow the Republicans to keep the White House, they will never be forgiven. Moreover, the party will not be Sen Clinton's in 2012 if that is what her supporters think, because the Obama supporters will have longggggggggggg memories.

Posted by: Watch Out Trouble Makers | August 15, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Obama is offering a powerful olive branch to those still loyal to Clinton while also giving a subtle wink and nod to the professional political class that he gets what he needs to do to win in November.

Yes, apparently he can't win in November if as many Clinton supporters stay home (or vote McCain) as still plan to.
Pew says "The voting preferences of Clinton’s supporters are virtually identical to earlier polls in June and July.”

Pew finds about 3 million voting for McCain. Opinion Research earlier found an additional 4 million staying home.

Posted by: fsteele | August 15, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Hey CrazyMe.....You say you have never meet a PUMA? If you are going to the Convention I'm sure you will,cause we will be there.
I also notice you didn't mention your IQ,you came off as brain dead though.

Hey,if you ever get an IQ maybe you can be a PUMA too.

Posted by: Sweetie | August 15, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

The clinton's move and her supporters is a shocker, how is the DNC going to appease Obama's supporters...we are just a bunch of whatever who will accept to be insulted, mocked and by the way our vote doesn't count, only a handful of votes of PUMAS, COUGARS, COBRAS,CHITTAHS... you name it, count. They are 18 millions, so are we 19 millions and yes latte sipping, internet browsers, facebook addicts but we do not deserve to be slapped in the face by the Clintons.

Posted by: AR | August 15, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

When I enter the voting booth, the Democratic Party is not the lever I pull, it is either Hillary or McCain.
I have a higher moral standard and consider it a privilege to be able to cast my vote. Obama/Soetoro is a corrupt, arrogant, fraud, and should be eliminated by the delegates before the convention.

Posted by: No No 2 Bo Bo | August 15, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

What Obama has done may not placate a small number of Hillary supporters and it cannot buy him the votes of the rest of us, because given our choices we would have had to vote for him any way. BUT....

The "BUT" is that it goes a long way to proving that Obama is not the small minded vindictive, egotistical, power hungry, conniver many of his supporters seem to think Hillary is because they have bought the lies about her that the far right-wing has been repeating for nearly two decades!

Obama is just beginning having to deal with the kind of crap that Hillary has had to overcome to get as far as she has. In the days and years ahead he will need the support of former opponents who have experience at recognizing that kind of crap for what it is and he has just proven he is worthy of that support by displaying the kind of respect for an worthy adversary that has become a too rare characteristic.

Congratulations and soon to be President Obama!

Posted by: akahidden | August 15, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

I don't understanad PUMA's. I'm a woman. I'm 57. I've been working with the Obama campaign for a year and a half. I've never met a PUMA or spoken with one, and that's after making calls to just about every state where there was a primary.

But I do understand this quite clearly - PUMA or not, if you are a woman - you don't want John McCain to be President. As a matter of fact, if you are a human with an IQ over 40, you don't want John McCain to be President. He might have been good in 2000, but eight years later he is a shadow of who he was and c'mon everyone - you can SEE him deteriorate before your very eyes. He can't think on his feet any more. He is Bush's parrot.
McCain is not even for equal pay for equal time. He would overturn Roe V Wade and please, even if you are "pro life", I doubt if you'd want you daughter to have to have a back alley abortion somewhere. The Republicans would like to take us back to the 50's - but it's the 21st Century and we need a 21st Century President!
Obama '08 and beyond!

Posted by: CrazyMe | August 15, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

am so tired of these articles and the comments that follow. Why? Why is there so much hate from a campaign who professes unity - professes clean politics? I don’t know why I bother to read anything in the papers - all it serves to do is make my neck hurt from shaking my head back and forth. *geez*


Posted by: di54 | August 15, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

"He is ... a Socialist Pinco"
by ldt1930
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant. Tell me... If Nixon were running, he'd get your vote, right?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

No Obama! Not ever! He is not a true Democrat but a Socialist Pinco and as long as the Democrats insist on running such far left candidates they will be dead in the water. The American people are not ready for Communism or Marxism yet. I know of many good Democrats who will not vote for him for that reason.

Posted by: ldt1930 | August 15, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

It looks to me that the "messiah" just got steamrolled by team Clinton proving that he is in search of a back bone and.

How would he be in front of (name that dictator)?

Posted by: Formerstaffer | August 15, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Here is an email Hillary is sending to her supporters

Dear Joe,

I cannot wait for the lights to come up and the cameras to roll at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. When I join Democrats from across the country who are unified and ready to get to work to elect Barack Obama, I want you there.

I hope you will take this chance to come and cheer us on!

So many people have reached out to help us pay down our campaign debt, and I was just overwhelmed by the generous spirit of so many of you. I'm pleased to announce that Leslie of Tacoma, WA won our contest and will be joining me for dinner soon. But so many people participated that I knew I just had to give you another chance. So will you enter today for the chance to join me in Denver?

Join me in Denver. Contribute today.

This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see an event that will truly make history. I'll make sure you get great seats to see me speak on Tuesday night when I address the nation and see Senator Obama accept the nomination at Mile High Stadium on Thursday.

We're going to have an amazing convention and head into the fall campaign unified and ready to work. And if you contribute today to help us pay down our campaign debt, you might be the one to join me in Denver!

Join me in Denver. Contribute today.

If you're the lucky winner, we'll fly you to Denver, where you'll be my special guest at the convention. And I'll make sure that you and I have some time together to chat. You'll get to see me speak Tuesday night and see Senator Obama accept the nomination at Mile High Stadium on Thursday.

You know that we're still working hard to pay off all the small vendors we owe from our presidential campaign. And your help continues to make a huge difference.

So let's have some fun in Denver -- try your luck and contribute today. You might be the one joining me for the 2008 Democratic Convention!

Contribute today, and you might be my special guest for the convention.

Thank you again for your incredible support!



Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Yea well I forget the schedule off the top of my head - but the day (?) after Hillary speaks, Obama will step into a stadium filled with a sea of people chanting "Obama". After a few minutes they might forget their bitterness and join in the shouting.

Since The Decemberists won't be there to draw in the multitudes, I wonder what the Dems will offer the reluctant voters to fill the seats?

Posted by: NoOneImportant | August 15, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I say it again..the Phewmas are just another RepubliCon front group, full of whiny baby reactionaries and paid shills..definitely not Real Women! I've now lost all patience with these frauds! Adults..Real Women..recognize that they need to do what it takes to get things done..and they do it! They take their defeats in stride and move on..not just for themselves, but for the greater good.

They don't harbor infantile grudges, sitting in the corner and stamping their little heels on the floor, while they have some self-absorbed tantrum! News flash..everyone who didn't win the primary..lost! Where's Joe Biden or Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson's name in nomination? Why aren't their supporters having a little snit-fit over their not having won the nomination? They're adults!

Take it from a married white woman born the same year as Clinton..if you're supporting this clap-trap, then honey, you are definitely NOT for the cause! need to grow up, or go re-register as a RepubliCon (if you aren't one already), for anyone who could stomach watching Faux..the Liars' Network..does not give a hang about women or women's and workers' rights. There's the door..and here's your spoiled little brat.

Posted by: Janbana | August 15, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"Give me a break, why is everyone acting like obama is doing Hillary and her supporters a favor?"
by Cougar Sherri
The favor is putting Clinton on the ballot. Usually its a roll call vote with only one eligible candidate. The meatheads that organize these events think a unanimous vote is better than showing intraparty disagreement.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

PUMSA amount to exactly zero. They had a drive to get her name put in nomination and got around 400 signatures of the supposed 18 million. So much for the supposed support Hillary has. This is going to be a big embarrassment for hillary. Currently they have her a 22% This will put an and to the Hillary myth I am glad they are doing it.

n light of this deal, maybe Hillary will tell her supporters (PUMAS?) to be quiet now and support the party's candidate for office.

A fractured party in which ex Clinton supporters try to take down the Democractic candidate is a huge favor to the Republicans----and I'm pretty certain PUMAS, etc, don't want a pro-life president and vice president.

Their efforts are pure stupidity.

Posted by: delantero | August 14, 2008 9:32 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Give me a break, why is everyone acting like obama is doing Hillary and her supporters a favor? The audacity of his ego amazes me. There is suppose to be a roll call of delegates at our convention!!! Why act like they don't usually have one when they do! Geez why would this year be different? Could it be because our candidate was "selected" (DNC, paid-off super-delegates) not "elected" (popular vote!)!!!! Whatever, it is Hillary's right to be in the roll call, she earned it people! I will watch the night the Clintons are on but will watch "fox" the night Mr. obama is crowned! Hillary or McCain, it is that simple for me!

Posted by: Sherri | August 15, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

To the PUMAS:
I voted for Obama 3 million times so he won the popular vote. I am angry because for some reason all my votes weren't counted.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

"and now Fox is calling it "The Clinton Convention""

FOX is merely entertainment for the ill of mind. Who really cares or gives credence to what FOX says?, except the ignorant, racist, greedy lying, cowardly traitors that have sold this country to whatever bidder comes along.

Posted by: JR | August 15, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Never have I seen a presumptive party candidate be treated so poorly, so disrespectfully.

The guy won flat out, I won't re-hash the multiple reasons why, it is well known.

So go ahead PUMAS, do your best to ruin the election and get the guy in there who represents EVERYTHING Hillary is against. And please make sure you keep the guy who agrees with 95% of Hillary's policies out of the White House.

If you had any respect for your beloved candidate who acted so shamefully during the primaries then you will not vote for McCain.

You can stamp your feet, yell and scream, make distortions and demands, your candidate is still not going to be nominated at the convention.

And if you think that Hillary will stand any chance in 2012 you will be sorely mistaken, if there is any whiff that it was her, or her supporters who blew this election her political career will be over.

Remember, Obama has his supporters too.

Posted by: JR | August 15, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

and now Fox is calling it "The Clinton Convention"

yeah that's really positive for the issues and the people who are effected by them...ugh.

Posted by: dl | August 15, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

and like I said the delegate count is going to be swayed much heavier than the "PUMA" people realize toward Obama.

again all those superdelegates who pledged early to the Clintons now are probably going to Obama because these are people who put the issues and platform ahead of any one individual. So the split chances are is going to be very strongly swung toward Obama.

Posted by: dl | August 15, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse


How about being gracious losers? Obama supporters aren't jerks when they are annoyed at a small group of whack jobs...not Hillary supporters.

Most Obama supporters actually have worked for years with "Hillary suppoerters" and vice-versa.

This whole rigamarole with press attention on "catharsis" is fine...but that is not the point of a convention. and I am wondering if every other canddidate is going to get "catharsis"...seems to me they aren't looking to do the "catharsis" thin at the Republican convention.

but maybe because in leading a country leaders know priority is the issues at stake... not hurt feelings.

call me a jerk but the issues mean more to me...women's rights mean more to me and the safety and well-being of our children means more to me.

seems the "being jerks" terminology that you use may be defined and used differently by a majority of the public.

Posted by: dl | August 15, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Oh good guys are getting your panties bunched up over nothing. Obama may look passive but this 'agreement' came with some strict guidelines behind the scenes. Obama is not going to let the Clintons 'steal the show'. Thursday night is going to be the greatest night in this country's recent history..stop wringing your hands and be proud of what your country is doing---GETTING PAST HER PAST.

Posted by: Shelly | August 15, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

If Obama loses, it will not be because of the Clintons or the Clinton supporters. It will be because Obama's supporters are jerks and they can't see the big picture or be generous winners. All they ever had to do was be grateful their candidate won and shut up and stop trashing her. How hard is that? But they can't manage it b/c they are too self-righteous. And the person they damage is Sen. Obama, who frankly, is undeserving of the hatred that is heaped on him because of his supporter's attitude problems.

Posted by: Stephanie | August 15, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

NextGeneration needs to get his/her facts straight. First, Obama voted against John Roberts. Second, nothing about his response to the Russia/Georgia situation has been mishandled; his measured and careful response is a welcome contrast to the "shoot first, aim later" rhetoric of John McCain. Third, neither Obama nor his campaign has blamed or trashed Hillary. Random comments on internet sites by people who may or may not actually support him don't count.

Posted by: Adam | August 15, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

I hardily agree with "aleks". Hillary's actions, and those of her crazed supporters, do nothing but hurt women. How can women be seen as equals and leaders if Hillary and her supporters are behaving like whiny, petulant children who insist that they need a hug and their hand held to walk through the process of losing. Hillary is not portraying a strong female leader. What people (other than her zealot supporters) are seeing is a woman who feels that she's somehow owed special treatment even when losing because she's a woman, which is what those who dismiss feminism are always ranting about. Equal does not mean special. To put this into perspective, if Hillary were a man and everything else in the primary campaign had gone exactly the same as it did, the losing male candidate would not be insisting that he absolutely needed to have his name read at the convention to make his supporters feel valued, and if this didn't happen he'd cry foul. He'd just be out of the running. By Hillary's standard we should have every candidate's name read and their delegates counted, not just hers and Barack's.

I also have a huge problem with this contention that Hillary's name must be read so that her supporters voices could be heard. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what voting in the primaries is? Your vote is your voice. Now her supporters are insisting that their voices haven't been heard. I strongly disagree. You voted, that was your voice. The fact that your vote and voice were not enough for your candidate to win is irrelevent. You don't get to go back and demand that you get to voice your opinion again and louder because you don't feel it was heard strongly enough the first time. How does this make sense?

I think it's about time that someone explained to the Clintons what the repercussions of their actions could be because they don't seem to be able to see past their own incredulity that Barack won. As pointed out by jhherring, if Hillary doesn't turn this thing around, meaning start fully supporting Barack and telling her supporters to get on board, the future doesn't look very bright for her.

Imagine that she and her supporters disrupt the convention and the general election, and due to the upheaval in the party, Barack loses. Are Clinton and her supporters delusional enough to think the country will suddenly run at break-neck speed to her in 2012? I think I can safely say that with every shot she and Bill take at Barack they are chipping away at his legacy and her political future. The DNC won't let her steal the nomination, but she could harm the general election. If that's the case, imagine her first day back in the Senate after the election. Where is her political clout going to land? As a New Yorker, I can tell you she would have a race on her hands just to hang on to her Senate seat. This state may have gone her way in the primaries, but that doesn't mean that everyone in this state voted for her. And if Barack loses and she's seen as a factor in that loss, why would anyone (other than the rabid, of course) vote for her. People are acting like if she gets the chance to run in 2012 she'd be the only one running. How many millions will vote against her for her behavior this year? You don't reward vindictiveness with a promotion.

And on my basic argument that she's only hurting women with her behavior, and as a woman I think my opinion should carry some weight, what do you think people with say the next time she or any other woman decides to run for president...? Are they going to say "great, now I have another chance to vote a woman into office" or will that magic symbol already have lost its shine and people will only be thinking about what kind of theatrics to expect because that's all they've seen from Hillary so far. How does that help us be taken seriously?

Posted by: kjbogart | August 15, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

So, why is it that every time I read one of
WAPO Obama Shill,Gurly Boy,Silly Chrissie
articles that I have to run to the bathroom
and barf? NOBAMA 2008 or Ever!

One More Independent Voter Against Obama!

Posted by: Sherry Kay 2004 | August 15, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

cilizza ... you're got your head in the sand or up your keester, or maybe you really never had one

Posted by: jake | August 15, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

"We'll be there and we are not going away anytime soon. See you in Denver."
by Madelaine FL

cougars for clinton!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

It is amazing to me that the Obama folks are STILL blaming/trashing Hillary - all in the name of unity! How they think this will win over uncertain/uncomfortable voters is beyond me - it is not just petty politics, but dumb politics.
And for all the Hillary-bashing: it wasn't Hillary who egregiously mishandled O's response to the Russian assault on Georgia, it wasn't Hillary who flip-flopped on FISA, or Hillary who voted to confirm Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court Justice who keeps ensuring all the far-right Court decisions. At some point Obama has to show a capacity to lead and while I am voting for the man it is with deep, deep uneasiness: Obama has shown himself to be politically amoral and vacuous - quite a combo.

Posted by: NextGeneration | August 15, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

I agree that Obama should tell the Clinton's to get with the program or get lost. Nothing is going to placate the PUMA’s. They have a long list of what ifs, (Florida, Michigan, Edwards, etc) but the bottom line is Hillary lost. Period. The choice is between Obama or McCain. PUMAs talk about how Hillary was treated, I remember how she acted. The Clinton campaign threw every slander and demeaning attack they could think of at Obama. It’s telling that the Republicans are using many of her attack lines. I supported Bill and Hillary but never again. I’m willing to bet there are more Anti-Hillary than Anti-Obama Democrats and once more, she has no one to blame but herself.

Posted by: GabsDad | August 15, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

I think Obama would much rather not have to worry about this at all, so I think this whole Clinton roll call issue is just a way for him to show one final bit of good faith to the Clinton fans. After this, he needs to assert control over what should be his party now. And if he doesn't, he will deserve to lose because if he can't stand up to part of his own party, people will argue that he can't even stand up for the nation.

I wrote more about this here:

Posted by: theseventen | August 15, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

MadelineFL: You complain about people not treating Clinton nicely. What do you think of the attacks Michelle Obama is weathering? Are you against it for it or indifferent?

Posted by: GC4Life | August 15, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse


the numbers are much stronger for obama than they were at the close of the primaries. Remember many of those politician and politician hires that are superdelegates...were loyal to Clinton because...well she is a Clinton.

They do not have to worry about being loyal to the issues first and not worry about retribution from the clinton's.

I am sure it will surprise a lot fo people to see how many have switched to support the nominee ahead of the vote.

the disparity between delegate counts will show Barack with a much bigger lead than PUMA's want to believe he has.

Posted by: dl | August 15, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

You have been on the MSNBC Hardball ("I am so excited")and Ulbermann Ober Alles shows so much, you have lost the political and realistic edge that I admired in you. This was a no-brainer; I will only watch the Democratic convention long enough to see Hillary's name put into nomination--I still don't know for whom, I will vote, come November 4.

Posted by: James Linney | August 15, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: F.O. Larry Eisenberg | August 15, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

(CHICAGO)(December 18, 2007)

work of and comment on the original research
by Abdon Pallasch of the Chicago Sun-Times.,CST-NWS-Obama-law17. ..What follows is my opinion and reaction to the story about Barack Obama's grossly inflated legal career as a 'civil rights attorney.- There was 'no there, there.-When a lawsuit is initiated, or when a new attorney enters an existing case, an attorney files an 'appearance,- a formal legal document which notifies the court and, more particularly the clerk of the court, that counsel has 'appeared- in the case. Obama has made a career of defrauding the American public about his legal 'career.- Obama, a Harvard Law School graduate, never filed a single appearance in a single case all of the years he was 'practicing- law.

Of course we could include Billy Jeff “Blythe,” Clinton a fairytale father that died in a car wreck, it is the same mind set and they were successful in having him elected twice but his real sleaze came out like Edwards after he was no longer a Potential President.

Posted by: Billgls | August 15, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

To: "Anonymous" at 1:49 a.m.:

When the paid company trolls start calling me a troll, and spout faux-Obama sentiments as thinly disguised agitprop/disinformation, I know that there is still hope for democracy in a nation under siege.

To Tom Joad!

Posted by: scrivener | August 15, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse


Barack Obama, to appease,
May soon find he’s shorn of fleece,
Bought Ms. Hill’ry’s pig-in-poke,
Put his neck right in her yoke!

Posted by: By Larry Eisenberg | August 15, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

A "smart move"? What choice did he have? Hillary has half the delegates to the convention. He couldn't have stopped it if he wanted to. This column makes no sense.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | August 15, 2008 6:17 AM | Report abuse

It's a stupid, sophmoric move that means Obama is allowing the Clintons to once again hijack the moment that should be his. Instead of nailing down the week's airwaves; he is sharing it with not one Clinton, but both Clintons and that is what people, journalists and the talking heads will be talking about during convention week. Another chink in the Obama armor and another subliminal plus for the old man on the right.

Posted by: Rick | August 15, 2008 5:58 AM | Report abuse


Campaign bio is his "historical fiction" autobiography with "composite characters"

Repaints campaign airplane with "Air France One"

Affixes his presidential-seal-looking campaign seal to gate outside his home

Creates a silk campaign "flag" that has Indigo et Alizarin Crimson stars and stripes on it

Summer strategizing and positioning is about whether to allow convention delegates to actually vote

Convention night "fist bump" knocks runner up candidate off the stage

Picks his wife as VP because Obama-Obama sounds twice as good

Some convention concessions labelled "Typical White Food" sell beer and hot dogs instead of wine and crudites

Keynote speech calls for "class based" affirmative vision in which someday bitter white rural voters will cling to Whole Foods, too

Immediately after nomination starts work on his "historical fiction" presidential memoir with "composite characters"

-- AsperGirl

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 15, 2008 4:51 AM | Report abuse

Harlemboy, do not be fooled by the ugly dowdy Maureen the loud Republican.

Whew.Great News,Hillary looking face to face at the Delegates. Priceless!

Sad, she was not able to be at the Marriott Wardman massacre. The horrible bias Democrats twisted Michigans arms to give delegates to a person that was not on the ballot because somebody in Chicago told him to take his name off. Yes it would have been a treat if Hillary was looking into their faces and observed all of their back room shenanigans..
Happy Days are here again!!!

.. 18 million people are now almost happy.

Sorry phonies, 18M is a large handful.
Yes, we long time American Democrats do want a change from Bush, but we respect and admire the stamina and strength of Mrs. Clinton. Can you imagine her face off with Putin in Georgia. I can almost see her heels dug in.
We appreciate Mr. Clinton 8 years as our Democratic President and of course we all know everybody appreciates his raising many millions for medicine to save thousands of lives of African Children with AIDS. He will continue doing this because he cares about everybody.

Posted by: Jeff (American Democrat) | August 15, 2008 2:01 AM | Report abuse

Oh come on Scrivener you troll....

Obama's certainly a flawed candidate. However thanks to GOP corruption and hypocrisy, a rabid squirrel could beat a Republican this year even if it bit every voter in the country on the way to doing so.

Those battleground polls haven't shown McCain with more than 50% of the vote in any tally since last winter. Obama will win PA, MI, IA, NH, NM, and either CO or VA. Checkmate. He'll probably win in OH too. There's really no path for the GOP this year. Sorry to rain on your parade, but I think you already knew all of this.

Welcome to the wilderness.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 1:49 AM | Report abuse

Sorry Chris, but this is a dumb move. I don't think it will do a thing to placate the Hillary dead-enders. ONLY her being offered the Presidency will matter to them. They'll walk out after the 'roll call' and be surprised at who President McCain nominates to the supreme court to protect their rights to equal pay and abortion.

Obama is going to too far to pay homage to the Clinton's losing campaign. Yes it was historic, but if she is to lay claim to being 'one of the boys', then she should expect no more than one of them gets when they lose (nothing). But I don't think it's about paying homage. Bill and Hillary want to show Obama and everyone else WHO wears the pants in the Democratic party. By forcing a roll call vote, they undermine the candidate (who now looks like he can't even control the agenda of his own coronation) and lay the groundwork for 2012. Don't think that the Clinton's are unaware of the damage the roll call will do to Obama. They know all too well.

Personally I don't think there's a single HRC supporter among those demanding a roll call that will actually VOTE for Obama, so he has nothing to lose by telling her to take the proverbial long walk about it.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 1:40 AM | Report abuse

I guess I have not been paying close enough attention to the details of this campaign, being unaware of what a puma is in relation to the Clintons. Anyway, no one can deny, who knows much about the Clintons, they crave being in the limelight.

Posted by: Independent | August 15, 2008 1:39 AM | Report abuse

Yes, yes, because Hillary needs "catharsis" and to have her name heard one more time.

As a feminist, I wish she wouldn't act out her selfish mania in quite such a stereotypical way. She's damaging future female candidacies.

Posted by: aleks | August 15, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

The handful of PUMAs who aren't actually GOP mischief makers in political drag are delusionally self-centered. They rank with the flat-earthers and the tinfoil hat brigade both in numbers and influence.

Irrational dead-enders yell at cloud.

Posted by: FlownOver | August 15, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

Pumas! Pumas! Pumas!

Hi Chris:

While most of the posters here tonight will be sitting - again- at their computers or watching the Democratic Convention on their televisions, we will be in Denver watching. Yes we will watch those pesky DNC, R&B people and also those who treat Clinton not so nicely. We've already been there once, in Washington DC on May 31, 2008 and we are very aware of their prickly attitudes, power defenses and their re writing of rules.

We'll be there and we are not going away anytime soon. See you in Denver.

Posted by: MadelineFL | August 15, 2008 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Much of this is a tempest in a teapot. Senator Clinton has two options- to be seen as a serious solid supporter of Obama or not. And there are two possible outcomes- Obama wins or loses.

If Clinton is perceived by the politically connected NOT to be supporting Obama and he loses, she will take the blame, and her political influence in the Democratic Party will forever disappear. If she refuses to support him and he wins, she will be irrelevant- her only hope would be that Obama fails so spectacularly that she could try to resurrect herself for 2012- not a likely prospect.

On the other hand, she could support Obama, and be perceived as doing so. Then, if he loses, she is still considered a good soldier for the Party. If he wins, she can hope to have some serious relevance in policy discussions, etc.

Seems obvious that she should support him, right? Except for one thing- to support him, fully and enthusiastically, she will have to directly confront her most vocal supporters and tell them to back off, after months of telling them never to do so.

In this situation, while she can make Obama's situation more difficult, she is in a a worse position- she has to either a) stand on principle and refuse to support Obama- and end up a pariah whether he wins or loses- or b) support him and suffer the disappointment and wrath of her core constituency.

I suspect the Obama crowd followed this sort of analysis in deciding to go ahead and go for the roll call vote- they are giving her plenty of rope to hang herself.

Posted by: jhherring | August 15, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse


• Prediction: Obama gets nominated -- as Al Gore's VP -- because the Dems will lose with him on top

"Purely symbolic" you say?

Let's place a gentleman's bet. I say Hillary's got the 200 or so defections she needs to ensure that Obama is not nominated on the first ballot.

If there is an attempt to make "her" roll call purely symbolic, and not binding, such a move would reek of sexism, and probably would be discriminatory and illegal to boot. If Obama tries to invalidate Hillary's vote tally, perhaps Hillary would elect to take the DNC and his campaign to federal court.


No, Chris, I'm wagering that Obama had to cave on the Hillary roll call because he had no choice. And I am going out on the limb to say that Obama may even know that he's been checkmated. If he doesn't win on the first ballot, he is officially declared a political eunuch. And then Hillary can pledge her delegates to a third candidate, such as Al Gore, who would go on to win the nomination and then promptly name Obama as his veepee in a swift and effective unification move.

And the hostile takeover of the DNC is reversed in a cunningly executed "coup de parte." The Clintons know how to fight and win, unlike the compromising, combat-averse Obama. His hubris is unearned.

In fact, this script already may have been written, and signed off on, by Obama; maybe that's why he didn't cut short his vacation so he could look more "presidential" and in command during a critical news week.

McCain clearly won the week by showing up -- and next week's polls will tell the tale.

What you characterize as "magnanimous" on the part of Obama, I would call back-to-the-wall capitulation. Remember, Obama didn't want to do this. Just a couple days ago, he rejected the "catharsis" of a Hillary roll call. But then he realized that he would be perceived as anti-democratic -- Obamanistic, you might say -- if he fought the vote.

Let me say it once again: Obama will NOT get the presidential nomination because the supers know full well that he cannot win the general. Look at those battleground states polls. It's dead-even at a time when the Democrat should be pulling away.

If the supers let Obama get the nomination, they are ceding the general election to the GOP. They cannot do it. And Obama's issue vacillations and his unwillingness to fully engage shows that he does not deserve the nomination.

But Obama can unify the party -- and get his shot at the top job in 2016 -- if he's a good solider and accepts the probable deal he's been offered by the Clintons, with Al Gore and John Kerry as their friendly enforcers: Take the vice presidency, Barack, and live to fight for POTUS another day.

To quote again from my favorite poet du jour, the unknown Larry Eisenberg:

Barack Obama, to appease,
May soon find he’s shorn of fleece,
Bought Ms. Hill’ry’s pig-in-poke,
Put his neck right in her yoke!

BUT WILL THE ELECTION EVEN MATTER? Not when government-supported "vigilante injustice" squads are targeting Americans outside of the bounds of the law:

Posted by: scrivener | August 14, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Cougars for Clinton!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

wait to quote Bob Schrum on how to run a convention... After he ordered that no one mention Bush's name at the convention four years ago, his advice doesn't hold too much weight with me.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't hurt Obama to be magnanimous and perhaps, with both Clintons front and center at the convention--and let's hope (God help us) on HIS best behavior--the party can unite. Barack Obama surely knows that the campaign really doesn't begin until after the convention and, in the case of this one, until after all the formalities have been conducted. That means giving Hillary her moment and hoping her words are helpful--and healing. Then the campaign can be about the November election and not patching wounds. BTW, the word is that HRC did not want to go through with it because of the possibility that her roll-call vote would be less than her primary vote. Still, from the sound of things, the convention protocol was arrived at with surprisingly little rancor from the principals--something PUMAs might take a lesson from?

Posted by: dch | August 14, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Since there are only a couple hundred PUMAs anyway, and they're all flat-ass broke, may I submit that Obama is doing this not out of fear, but because he genuinely wants her name proffered?

The PUMAs and those who tremble at the mere mention of their name are deluded if they think they have any more pull at this point than the LaRouche gang, the Moonies, or the Hare Krishnas.

Posted by: bondjedi | August 14, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

In light of this deal, maybe Hillary will tell her supporters (PUMAS?) to be quiet now and support the party's candidate for office.

A fractured party in which ex Clinton supporters try to take down the Democractic candidate is a huge favor to the Republicans----and I'm pretty certain PUMAS, etc, don't want a pro-life president and vice president.

Their efforts are pure stupidity.

Posted by: delantero | August 14, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

In what has been an historic and brilliantly organized and managed campaign by BO, this move -- to allow HRC's name to be put in nomination so that Hillarians can enjoy a "catharsis" -- is ridiculous.
BO continues to be unable to put HRC and the Harpies in his rear view mirror. Instead of bidding them adieu, he foolishly tried to buy them off by offering to pay down her debt (amassed when she continued her campaign long after she was mathematically out of it in order to hurt him in the general election). HRC, Inc. then proceeded to attack BO, claiming he can't win because of his color and that, at least according to HRC's spouse, is not qualified. They are still openly bad-mouthing BO everywhere except publicly on TV. What gratitude.
Now BO has turned over the entire convention to the Hillarians, two whole days I understand, with the climax to be the bogus roll call vote for their leader. The Hillarians obviously, obviously plan some last minute stunt where they will claim she won and then disrupt the convention. And the networks will ignore BO to devote 24/7 to the unhinged hate blasts and rants of Ferraro and Harriet Christian.
Some brother with street smarts needs to "hip BO to the jive." This is a major HRC set-up. HRC clearly at any time could have called this Hillarian nonsense to a halt but has not done so -- why? -- because she's instigating it. BO isn't going to win even one Harpie over (go ask Harriet Christian); they are still going to call him names and put paper in their ears when he speaks. Count on it. But this, too, will pass... Stay thirsty, my friends....

Posted by: Broadway Joe | August 14, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

It's the smart play by Obama. Hillary and her supporters would have raised hell at the convention otherwise. It's an easier accommodation to make, I wonder what other demands that irrational old hag is making.

The Clintons know how to use and abuse power. It is a testament to Obama's character that he didn't make her VP and use them to attack and destroy the Republican party.

The Republicans should be thankful that Obama has spared America from the Clintons, and probably for good. If they had any character they wouldn't be swiftboating Obama. Then again if McCain and the Rs had any character they'd be Dems.

Posted by: JR, Boston | August 14, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama is nuts. The Clinton's are unpredictable at best. Is she going to try and nab the nomination at the last minute? Will she engage in another of her schemes to have her supporters force her to be the Veep nominee? You simply cannot ever know what she or her minions (visions of the "Walking Dead") are going to be up to. It will make for great theater, but a bunch of screetching ancient feminists, lecturing the country like nagging old ladies (HEY, THEY ARE!), maybe doing some out of control protest ala the 1960's street theater these twerps did "back then", isn't going to inspire a lot of confidence in voters. On the other hand, maybe Obama will pull out a wooden stake and drive it through her heart. Now, that would inspire confidence! Maybe a twofer and do Geraldine at the same time?

Posted by: Observer | August 14, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Always GOT to keep the chicks happy!

Posted by: Kase | August 14, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

PUMAS are in fact republican backed. They are a farce.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

she also knows that chances are most of the supers now will be backing Obama so...those numbers are going to be heavily weighted toward Obama.

Posted by: dl | August 14, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

she also knows that chances are most of the supers now will be backing obama so...those numbers are going to be heavily weighted toward Obama.

Posted by: dl | August 14, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Not everyone agrees with this. Here is what Maureen Dowd said:

Some Democrats wish that Obama had told the Clintons to “get in the box” or get lost if they can’t show more loyalty, rather than giving them back-to-back, prime-time speaking gigs at the convention on Tuesday and Wednesday. Al Gore clipped their wings in 2000, triggering their wrath by squeezing both the president and New York Senate candidate into speaking slots the first night and then ushering them out of L.A.

Wednesday will be all Bill. The networks will rerun his churlish comments from Africa about Obama’s readiness to lead and his South Carolina meltdowns. TV will have more interest in a volcanic ex-president than a genteel veep choice.

Obama also allowed Hillary supporters to insert an absurd statement into the platform suggesting that media sexism spurred her loss and that “demeaning portrayals of women ... dampen the dreams of our daughters.” This, even though postmortems, including the new raft of campaign memos leaked by Clintonistas to The Atlantic — another move that undercuts Obama — finger Hillary’s horrendous management skills.

Besides the crashing egos and screeching factions working at cross purposes, Joshua Green writes in the magazine, Hillary’s “hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency.”

It would have been better to put this language in the platform: “A woman who wildly mismanages and bankrupts a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar campaign operation, and then blames sexism in society, will dampen the dreams of our daughters.”

Posted by: harlemboy | August 14, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company