A deal has been brokered between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that will allow Clinton's name to be placed in nomination at next week's Democratic nominating convention, sources close to the Clinton camp told ABC News.
Well, isn't that special. They're going to "allow" Clinton's name to be placed in nomination. Last time I checked she had about half the popular vote, and neither candidate had enough pledged delegates (which aren't even pledged anyway) to lock up the nomination.
The article says this will happen on Wednesday and that there will be a roll call vote. Should be interesting. Either way it's historic. I plan to be there to witness it. I will try to keep my opinions in check and report it straight up from the standpoint of the Tennessee delegation, their vote, and their reactions.
“I am convinced that honoring Senator Clinton's historic campaign in this way will help us celebrate this defining moment in our history and bring the party together in a strong united fashion,” said Senator Barack Obama.
Senator Obama’s campaign encouraged Senator Clinton's name to be placed in nomination as a show of unity and in recognition of the historic race she ran and the fact that she was the first woman to compete in all of our nation’s primary contests.
In other words, this is a formality to reinforce the legitimacy of Obama's nomination and the process. Not that there's anything wrong with that. (By way of ACK)
Submitted by bill young on Thu, 2008/08/14 - 3:26pm.
No thang but a chicken wang just a LITTLE bone to pick.
Nowhere in the joint statement by Obama & Clinton do I see the word "allow".That's ABC's word.To be fair R has studied the rules & knows that ABC saying "allow' is just wrong.
To be honest a delegate is free to cast a recorded vote for anybody they want no matter if that individual has placed into nomination or not.
In the last 40 years only two shut outs have been pitched..Clinton in '96 & Gore in '00.
I hear you Bill. My only complaint is how the Obama/DNC/Netroots tag team entitlement program is being run. It would have been better for everyone if there had been a decisive win by somebody during the primary process. Since that didn't happen, it would have been nice to let the process play out fair and square. Which is where we seem to be headed now, at least symbolically.
Submitted by rocketsquirrel on Thu, 2008/08/14 - 4:46pm.
entitlement program? not sure what that means. whatever.
I think the joint statement is strong, and important symbolically.
I do hope that however the show goes in Denver, the subject is focused like a laser on John Sidney McCain, the first candidate for president from the great state of Panama.
No, I don't think you're wrong Bill. And I wouldn't be stupid enough to ask those questions to which the answer is pretty obvious. (Although the second one would be interesting.)
But I agree that if Obama doesn't have the delegates, as we all assume he does, it will certainly be interesting.
I'm guessing he wouldn't have made such a deal, though, if he wasn't pretty sure about it. Lawyers don't generally ask questions they don't already know the answer to.
No thang but a chicken wang just a LITTLE bone to pick.
Nowhere in the joint statement by Obama & Clinton do I see the word "allow".That's ABC's word.To be fair R has studied the rules & knows that ABC saying "allow' is just wrong.
To be honest a delegate is free to cast a recorded vote for anybody they want no matter if that individual has placed into nomination or not.
In the last 40 years only two shut outs have been pitched..Clinton in '96 & Gore in '00.
Every other convention somebody got some votes.
Some of the somebodies that got votes
'68:McCarthy,McGovern
'72:Chisholm,Wallace
'76:Brown
'80:Kennedy
'84:Hart,Jackson
'88:Jackson
'92:Brown
'04:Kucinich
I hear you Bill. My only complaint is how the Obama/DNC/Netroots tag team entitlement program is being run. It would have been better for everyone if there had been a decisive win by somebody during the primary process. Since that didn't happen, it would have been nice to let the process play out fair and square. Which is where we seem to be headed now, at least symbolically.
entitlement program? not sure what that means. whatever.
I think the joint statement is strong, and important symbolically.
I do hope that however the show goes in Denver, the subject is focused like a laser on John Sidney McCain, the first candidate for president from the great state of Panama.
The first question to be ask of the Tn delegates..how many of you think Clinton can somehow win this nomination?
The second question..how many of you think Clinton got the shaft & are mad as hell?
The third question..how many of you think Obama is a loser & gonna take their marbles & go home?
Delegates answer to these questions may well change from Monday to Thursday.
R you may view my opinion as entitlement but I think Obama has the delegates & will win the nomination.
If I'm wrong you are about ready to be on the floor of the goddamndest Democratic Convention ever!!!!!!!
No, I don't think you're wrong Bill. And I wouldn't be stupid enough to ask those questions to which the answer is pretty obvious. (Although the second one would be interesting.)
But I agree that if Obama doesn't have the delegates, as we all assume he does, it will certainly be interesting.
I'm guessing he wouldn't have made such a deal, though, if he wasn't pretty sure about it. Lawyers don't generally ask questions they don't already know the answer to.
Post new comment