About that roll call vote

In my humble opinion, the media, ardent Clinton supporters and Obama's team are making too much of that roll-call vote. Whether there is a roll-call vote or not, the fact that this was a close race in which the two candidates were separated by a few % points  will not change.

Indeed, there is such a simple solution to this roll-call vote ``controversy'' that I feel compelled to spell it out. The thing is that there SHOULD BE A  ROLL CALL VOTE on Monday, which of course Obama will win. Instead of getting nervous and fearful about it, Obama campaign SHOULD INCORPORATE  THIS INTO CAMPAIGN THEME OF CHANGE. Here is  way to do it. Bill Clinton, or maybe the VP, could come and say something like--

``What a remarkable moment in history? 100 years ago (or better when the Republican nominee  was growing up), not everybody in the country had a vote. Today, as I speak before the Dem convention, the two candidates who finished first and second in the primaries come from groups that did not have the right to vote back then. Not only they finished first and second, they received more votes than anybody in the history has ever received. Now, that is CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. This is no cosmetic change. New people bring new ideas and perspective, and gives HOPE to all those people who have been left behind whether economically or socially. Here is what a President Obama's will bring to the admin--    ''

I am sure that professional speechwriters can do a much better job than me. But really, it seems to me that a roll-call vote is something that could be used as an advantage to Dem party.

Tags: Party Unity, Roll-call vote (all tags)



It's all so much theater

The fact is in the end that the outcome will remain the same.

by Its All So Goofy 2008-08-08 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: About that roll call vote

There will be a roll call vote. See my diary below.

The claim that there won't be one is nonsense.

by politicsmatters 2008-08-08 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: About that roll call vote

It's simple really.  According to convention rules there has to be one.

Please name for me the candidate who garnered the required amount of pledged delegates to not require a roll-call vote?

by TxDem08 2008-08-08 07:18AM | 0 recs

Why do people keep bringing up these busted talking points?

This is old news. Nobody ever said their wasn't going to be a roll call vote. That's just something the deadenders and kitties made up to work themseleves into a faux frenzy.

by spacemanspiff 2008-08-08 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: About that roll call vote

And, the media has now picked it up and is using it for their

"OBAMA VS CLINTON" newsbreaks.

I saw a video of Senator Clinton speaking to a small group of supporters about how important it was to THEM to have her name in nomination.

That I get. And, I'm willing to state, SHE IS going to have her name put into nomination.

They want her historic run, and their hard work recognized.

And, OF COURSE the Obama folks will want that as well, I think they are wanting to try to make sure this is a UNITY moment, not played in the media as "The rift is STILL there...."

There is another complete group of nuts out there, with a different reality on "the vote."

What Big-Kitty Ville is tin-foil hatting about is, they believe there is this ground swell of Supers about to defect and throw the nomination from Obama to Clinton.

So, Howard Dean, the DNC, Nancy Pelosi, Michelle and Barrack, the Illuminati, the Bildergergs, Jimmy Hoffa, and a group of aliens from Centuri 5 are conspiring to keep that vote from happening....

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-08 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: About that roll call vote

A roll call vote may be rather unsatisfying for the Clinton folks outside of the convention hall. I know several Clinton delegates, including one who used to head my state's Democratic party. They are all going to vote for Obama.

by politicsmatters 2008-08-08 07:52AM | 0 recs

that's the thing - she'll get fewer votes than she actually had delegates at the end of the primaries.  I'm sure our friends at Alegre's Asylum will claim that they were STRONGARMED BY THE CORRUPT CHICAGO MACHINE!

by JJE 2008-08-08 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: yeah

I'm sure they'll say that, despite the fact that it's normal for the delegates of the losing candidate to vote for the winner.

by politicsmatters 2008-08-08 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: About that roll call vote

It's just procedure, it's not supposed to be "satisfying". Seeing the House of Reps do a roll call vote is boring as hell, but that's their voting procedure. I just don't know why people are making a big deal about it.

And I've always been under the impression that the reason for the roll call vote at the convention is to give the state delegations their moments of glory on TV. Those people spend lots of time working for the party, traveling to the convention, and picking out ridiculous red-white-and-blue outfits and silly hats. They deserve their 15 seconds of fame!

by LakersFan 2008-08-08 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: About that roll call vote

These have been migrating from prime time except for the last state or two. Expect to see anchors talking over it, unless you watch on C-SPAN.

by politicsmatters 2008-08-08 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: About that roll call vote

I'm certain non-prime-time C-SPAN is plenty good enough for most delegates considering they tend to be the type of people who believe that politics matters.

by LakersFan 2008-08-08 10:15AM | 0 recs
by jsfox 2008-08-08 08:22AM | 0 recs
she'll get fewer votes

Which why the smart move for The Clintons is to instruct their delegates to vote for Obama anyway. It won't be a humiliation that way and will make them look bigger --  and will head off the kind of divisive (yet pointless) intrigues on the part of McDeadenders who want to wreck the party this year so The Clintons can run again in 2012.

by Glaurung 2008-08-08 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: she'll get fewer votes

I think the smart thing (as well) would be for Hillary and Bill personally to vote for Obama. If they are worried about their political future, then they surely know the road back to power (in whatever form they choose) involves winning back the majority of the Democratic Party, and that means making nice with Obama, Dean, the progressives, and the assorted legions of Obama supporters. The Clintons have a lot of talent and experience to bring to the table, and a really classy performance at the convention that gives a boost to Obama will help relieve the questions many of us have about their commitment to the progressive movement.

My current idea - When Dean's ready to move on (it's very rare for anyone to be a party chair for more than six years), he names Hillary Clinton as his successor at the DNC. Now THERE is a role where I'd like to see the Clintons' "politics is a contact sport" mantra in action - as long as it is bent to progressive ends. Granted, the lobbyist issue might be a problem, but perhaps its one that Hill and Bill could think their way through.

by X Stryker 2008-08-08 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: she'll get fewer votes

No way.

Dean cleaned up the DNC after McAuliffe the Clinton buddy lost us repeated elections. With the Clintons in charge you can say goodbye to the 50 state strategy, small donor influence, and the inclusion of grassroots supporters.

There are many great roles out there for the Clintons.  The DNC head is not one of them.

by Renie 2008-08-08 09:04AM | 0 recs
My guesses...

Obama will choose Dean's successor at DNC and Dean will succeed Leahey in the Senate after the 2010 election.

As for Hillary, having a Senate seat is better from a personal power standpoint. She might head one of Obama's departments if asked, and would probably love to sit with the Supremes.

But I also can't see how putting the DNC back into the hannds of the DLC will help the Democratic Party.

by Glaurung 2008-08-08 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: About that roll call vote

I know that a lot of people are still hurting about this campaign.  I also have come to very much like Hillary after the primaries were over.  I have changed my mind to feel that I would welcome her as the VP nominee (although that doesn't seem likely at this point).  I've even said that if she continues to push hard for progressive issues and campaigns wholeheartedly for Obama, I will gladly support her for pres. in 2016.

Partisanship makes you see the exact same series of events in different ways.  I believe that Hillary supporters are absolutely sincere about their perception of the overwhelming role of sexism in the primaries.  As an Obama supporter I saw it peripherally, but because she wasn't my candidate I didn't FEEL it in the emotional way that Hillary's supporters did.  I think that because of this I didn't see it as having as big of an impact as I would have if I had had a vested and emotional interest in the candidate.  

Similarly, as an Obama supporter, I felt very strongly about some of the things that Hillary did during the campaign.  While I can understand why her supporters feel that she should have stayed in as long as she wanted to stay in, I cringed every time she lengthened the race or came up with another mathematically outrageous justification for staying in.  Just as I felt that her eventual concession speech was brilliant, it REALLY upset me that she didn't give it on the night the primaries ended and it was clear that she would not win.  While I am growing to like Hillary more and more, there is a mistrust that lingers and I just can't shake.  It continues because I feel like many of her comments during the campaign encouraged the development of the PUMA crowd, and I don't really see her taking vocal actions to nip it in the bud.  Why isn't she publicly calling out sites like No Quarter and Alegrescorner?  Why does she not publicly say that they DO NOT represent her?  If they were not out there hounding delegates and looking for every possible opportunity to make drama in the media, I wouldn't care about a roll call vote.  That isn't the case.  They want drama, and rather than using her voice to specifically tell them to cut it the hell out, she seems to be encouraging them.  That's why this  bothers me.

by Renie 2008-08-08 08:44AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads