For those with short memories: having multiple candidates names put into nomination is typical

[onenote]

Selecting a nominee by acclamation without votes being cast for any other candidates is the exception, not the rule. Yes, it happened the last three conventions, but those conventions were atypical. In 2004, the only candidate with an appreciable number of delegates (still less than 600), Edwards, had been announced as the VP pick, so it made no sense for his name to be put into nomination for the presidency. In 2000, Gore had swamped his opposition -- it was hardly surprising that Bradley, who had around 400 delegates to Gore's 3400 and had not won a single state, released his delegates on the eve of the convention. And in 1996 we had an incumbent Democrat in the WH (same thing for 1964).

But in 11 out of 15 post WWII election years,the Democrats have had more than one name put into nomination at the primary, even when the outcome was a foregone conclusion at the time of the convention. In 1992, Bill Clinton was clearly going to be the nominee. But Jerry Brown (with 3 wins and around 600 delegates) and Paul Tsongas (with 6 wins and about 300 delegates) had their names put into nomination and had votes cast for them. In 1988, Dukakis was the presumptive nominee. But Jesse Jackson, who had won 9 states, had his name was put into nomination so his 1200 plus delegates could vote for him -- a historic moment.

[DefenseLawyer]

1. Thanks for the history lesson.

It's just that: history. Ancient history in terms of the current purpose of the convention.

[onenote]

3. why is the purpose of this convention different than it was in, say, 1988 or 1992?

If Jesse Jackson, who was the first African American to mount what might be considered a serious bid for the Democratic Party nomination -- winning 9 states plus DC -- had been denied the opportunity to have his supporters acknowledge his effort by casting their votes at the convention -- there would have been, and should have been, outrage. One can make the case that giving the supporters of HRC's equally historic campaign their moment is appropriate.

And, just to be clear about this, I never supported HRC for the nomination and cast my vote for Obama in the Virginia primary.

[DefenseLawyer]

5. Well to be blunt about it

Jesse Jackson, for whom I cast my first vote for president , had no chance to be president and everyone knew it. He didn't have ardent, misguided supporters claiming they would vote for Bush instead of Dukakis and Jesse Jackson and his wife weren't saying and doing things that lead people to speculate, rightly or wrongly, that the nominee did not have their full support. There also wasn't a 15 minute news cycle and 24 cable news and internet/ youtube coverage of everything, parsing every word and spinning it in McCain's favor.

[roguevalley]

11. why is it different? Because if we fuck this up, we are over as a world

with cultures and civilization and the like. They gave us -- the environment scientists- 100 months to turn this around before its too late. If this fucks up, we are dead. Get it? The future is a horror I hope to be too dead to watch.

Egos be fucked. This is too important to play around with.

RV, who remembers a lot of brokered conventions but none of them with these stakes.

[terrya]

2. And I'll recommend this post as well.

Thank you for your informative post.

[Pirate Smile]

4. True but you can't ignore that the reason this makes people nervous (not me - I'm fine with it) is

that for months the only way Hillary could win the nomination was to have the superdelegates overrule the majority of pledged delegates. It was a major part of the Clinton campaign during the last few months - with some deadenders still pushing of it. That is why there is more tension about it then normal.

I think everyone should chill out. It will work out but people aren't crazy to be distrustful. They should trust Obama. He isn't going to let anything happen that will make his winning the nomination in doubt in any way.

[unblock]

6. true, but times have changed, particularly due to tv.

the conventions now are theater. the results are a foregone conclusion and the convention is a guaranteed major audience draw, a platform from which to launch the general election campaign. it's a four-day extravaganva advertisement for the party and its nominee.

what worked fine prior to tv and widespread media attention doesn't work any more.

that's not to say having hillary's name in nomination won't work, it's just that it has to be handled carefully. if it can be easily portrayed that there are divisions or disarray or drama in the democratic party, that would not be good for us. on the other hand, if it can be managed so as to make it a celebration of the party's values and accomplishments, and unity of all of us coming together behind obama, that could work quite nicely.

[Phx_Dem]

7. This nomination is the first of it's kind.

It's nothing like the nominations of the past. For the first time in the history of this country an African American candidate is set to be nominated as a candidate for President of the United States, and by the Democratic party no less. That is something that deserves an an unqualified celebration of unity, but because the Clintons are such sore losers and care only about themselves, they've decided to step on what should be a great celebration of a unified and history-making Democratic convention.

Both Clintons and their tacky PUMA supporters should be ashamed of themselves for diluting this great moment in history and trying to make it all about them. But they won't be ashamed because they don't have the class or character.

[stray cat]

8. First time there has been a credible female run for the WH - isn't that also worth celebrating?

And I'm an Obama voter.

[onenote]

9. exactly

[Phx_Dem]

10. Not at all the same thing.

She lost. He is CLAIMING the nomination. If Hillary had been gracious about the race and her defeat, no one could care and most, including me, would welcome it. But she has been anything but gracious. She had to be begged to fucking concede after he officially won the most delegates. Her supporters have rained on Obama's parade and smeared him and his supporters since the day he won it (presumptively) and she and Bill have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to quell the nasty and uncalled for dissent. They have, and likely will continue, to marr what should be a great occassion. If the Clinton's knew how to behave with any measure of dignity or grace, I would agree with you but, clearly, they do not.


Edited to add: When Hillary met with her supporters a few weeks ago and it was caught on video, she could easily have used that opportunity to quiet the dissent and tell them that initially she was, of course, very disappointed, but now she is thrilled that our party -- the Democratic arty -- will nominate the first African American in history to be a presidential candiate, and she's so very proud to support him and wouldn't think of supporting any dissent and hope that her supporters wouldn't embarrass her by doing so, blah blah blah. Instead, she fed them bullshit about understanding their anger and needing a catharsis. She has fueled the fire. And, I believe, she knew exactly what she was doing. She might be a nasty person, but she is no dummy.

[AtomicKitten]

12. I completely agree and that video spoke volumes about her intent.

[ruggerson]

13. Why are you so suspicious of Obama's judgement?

He made this decision.

[Lilith Velkor]

14. It's no use - the "high-information voters" have to have their tizzy

[ruggerson]

15. lol

:thumbsup:

[DeepModem Mom]

16. Thanks, onenote! nt