The Obama and Clinton camps said this week that they agree on a central point: They would like to avoid an embarrassing display of discord from Clinton's most ardent backers when the national convention begins in just over two weeks. Conversations about how to achieve that have increasingly focused on the question of whether Clinton's name will be offered in a roll-call vote by delegates to determine the nominee, even though she has said she is not challenging Obama's claim as the party's standard-bearer.You know what, he should just give in. Here is how the scene will play out. She'll get the roll-call vote, which will be news for a day or so. Then Barack will give an incredible speech at the convention--40 years after "I Have A Dream" no less--and the whole narrative will shift back to Obama. I don't see how this causes any long term damage. Clinton adherents get what the want, and the rest of us get to move on.
« Should a white guy get to join the black caucus? | Main | Michelle Obama's Dickipedia page » Dude, just give her the roll-call vote08 Aug 2008 11:15 am
Nice piece from Anne Kornblut this morning on the behind the scenes pre-convention dealings:
Comments (19)
Hey Ta-Nehisi, Lovin' the bloggin' so far. I agree with you on this one; just seems unnecessary to flex muscle by denying these people a swan song of sorts. But can I just poke you a little bit here on one thing: spellcheck, m'man. Yglesias was a criminal when it came to grammar, and even though you're way smarter and more insightful than he is, you haven't been much of an improvement in the proof-reading category. C'mon, man, you get *paid* for this! 
My guess is that the only thing standing between Clinton and her roll call is the percption that she will try and steal the nomiation she lost. If she can convince Sen Obama that she has actualy accepted the loss she will get the vote.
"He just give in?" Huh? He should just give in? He just gave in? Clarify, please!
You bet she'll get it. It's long past time the Obama campaign start exploiting media obsessions instead of flailing against them.
She lost. Why can't she just accept that? Because Hillary is just trying to set herself up as the 2012 front-runner in case Obama loses. I expect that if this occurs, many of the supers who previously endorsed Clinton will vote for Obama. When that occurs, watch out for the backlash from the die-hard Clinton supporters screaming about how it PROVES that the Democratic Party STOLE Clinton's nomination from the people. Recall the "logic" that was being thrown around as Clinton was losing the primaries. What has occurred since then that makes anybody believe sanity will return to these people? It will be a side-show that the media will play up for all it's worth, even if the whiners are less than 1% of the people there. Reporters love drama, no matter how inconsequential. This isn't for the good of the party. This is for Bill & Hill's egos, and for that hope for 2012 (or perhaps even 2016).
he SOULD just give in. wtf? jackie robinson, remember?
Obama's in a no-win situation here. There's going to be discord from that tiny cadre of hardcore Clinton supporters no matter what happens at the convention, and the media will act as though there's some crazy deep division in the party when that handful of PUMAs go off their nut in public, even though there's absolutely no evidence of it. So if it were me, I'd stick to the no-roll-call stance. If you're going to get popped, might as well make it for something.
45th. The speech was given in 1963. He was killed in '68. I wouldn't mention it except for that everyone keeps saying 40th.
"Clinton adherents get what the want, and the rest of us get to move on." And I think this is what Hillary Clinton was saying to her supporters in the clip that the media outlets have been showing in connection with this story.
Yes please give her a roll call vote. I'd enjoy seeing her get embarrassed when she gets trounced in the roll call by a much larger margin than she did in the unofficial delegate counts. Maybe that's what she needs to shut up and accept the fact that despite having every advantage she blew it and lost the nomination (by being too timid to oppose Bush and Cheney's reckless war).
If they do give her the rollcall vote, will she and Bill finally just go away? Please???
Obama is indeed in a no win situation so he should let the masses speak. It would be a high moment in American politics if Hillary gets her roll call vote and is thoroughly trounced--sort of a combination of British Parliament and the Gong Show. Perhaps they could actually get Gene Gene the dancing machine to make an appearance once Hillary is voted down? Chauncey DeVega
if the roles were reversed, and clinton was the nominee, do you think for a second she would even consider kissing obama's ass the way he's been kissing her's and bill's? of course not. butthe clintons think obama OWES them for something which i never really understood. they did their best to destroy him and his campaign. And Now they want something from him? i seriously think the clintons have mental issues. they're clinging to relevancy because, quite frankly, neither one of them is nationally relevant anymore and they can't bear to face that fact...
If they do give her the rollcall vote, will she and Bill finally just go away? Please??? As theater, I think it is likely to make her look silly--desperately trying to shine a little spotlight her way as the convention forcefully marches in another direction. "Wait, don't go! I have to give you my blessing! Howard, thank you...Terry! Get back in your spot!" I really don't see the appeal. She should be trying to put together an incredible speech that casts her as party elder sending forth the next generation, not maneuvering for a "wait, children, Bill and I aren't bowing out yet" moment.
It was the "Mountaintop" speech that King delivered in April 1968.
Giving HRC supporters a roll call vote is a sign of strength. If he isn't threatened, why not? I think the Hillary dead-enders need this to get on board or at least shut up. Of course Republicans will try to say this shows how weak Obama is, but only hard-core Republicans will buy this. Independents Obama need to sway are either so disengaged from politics that convention trivia is off the screen, or so moderate that Obama will be seen as graceful and canny.
You people need to get informed. There is ALWAYS a roll call. Making her negotiate for it is not just undemocratic, it's unprecedented. No one negotiates for this, it's how it's done! Clearly everyone here is in the tank for Obama (how you can still defend him is a mystery to me). But if you think this media induced argument that her name being in nomination is somehow "inappropriate" is going to fly with her supporters, say hello to President McCain. That is how serious this is. So stop sounding ignorant, claiming Obama "won" (there is no "winner" until August 28th) and how her getting a roll call is somehow "flexing her muscles." How about turning off MSNBC and read a history book: Votes cast on FIRST BALLOT - 1988 -- 1992 --
2008: No ballot. No nomination. Howard Dean himself got a roll call with 114 lousy delegates. Can't you see you're being manipulated?
writerchick - Thanks for setting the historical record straight. (I had remembered watching the roll calls in '76 and '84, but didn't have any numbers handy.) Exactly right - roll-call votes are the essence of why conventions are held in the first place: to pick the nominee. The primaries and caucuses are the first stage; the roll-call votes of the delegates are what ultimately decide it. I'm an Obama voter but can see no good reason not to have a normal roll-call vote at the convention. Precedent, fairness, and general-election strategy all dictate that Hillary's name be part of that roll-call vote.
|
Subscribe to Ta-Nehisi Coates by Email 
Trailer for The Beautiful Struggle  Monthly Archives
Recent Posts
Keepin It UnrealStanley Crouch Is A Gangsta RapperConfessions of a 30-Year-Old GamerRice, Rice, Baby!Compa$$ionate Capitali$MJust Another Quick-Witted, Egg-Roll-Joke-Making, Insult-Hurling, Chinese-American RapperThe Irrelevant Rev. SharptonWal-Mart's Urban RomanceBlack and Blue |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Or the Clinton people can just grow up.
This business of HRC saying she's on board but "you know those supporters of mine" strikes me as a little disingenuous.
I guess the relevant question here is: what's the precedent? I'm pretty sure Howard Dean's name wasn't submitted for nomination. What about Bill Bradley in 2000?
OTOH, I recall Jesse's name being thrown out there in both '84 and '88, so maybe the HRC people will make the same case based on groundbreaking, historymaking nature of the campaign.
Posted by Bart Acocella | August 8, 2008 11:30 AM