Obama And Clinton Camps Promise "Respect" For All The Voters At The Convention
The Obama and Clinton press offices put out this statement tonight, seeking to put a lid on press reports about party disunity:
"We are working together to make sure the fall campaign and the convention are a success. At the Democratic Convention, we will ensure that the voices of everyone who participated in this historic process are respected and our party will be fully unified heading into the November election."
Time is reporting that Clinton has failed to discourage her supporters from symbolically placing her name up for a vote on the convention floor. Even some of Clinton's staunchest former supporters in Congress, such as Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of Florida, have said this would be a bad idea and that the convention should focus on party unity behind Barack Obama.
That said, it's not entirely clear what message this statement is supposed to communicate on any of the relevant questions.
Advertisement
a Clinton putting their own ego and political opportunism ahead of the party's or, daresay, the country's wellbeing?
surely not.
August 7, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
An Obama supporter acting like his or her cult leader ran away with nomination?
Surely not.
To say, as the NYTimes did, that he was 'wheezing across the finish line' is putting it nicely.
Get over yourself. He barely won the nomination and wouldn't have without the party elders.
He needs the Clintons. Its a fact and it doesn't matter how uncomfortable it makes you.
August 7, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually based on polling of women and hispanics, Obama doesn't need the Clintons. He's doing pretty good in those demographics without her. And I'd suggest if she wants to keep her senate seat she needs to calm the waters. Already there's a movement in NY to find a replacement for her.
August 7, 2008 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
God I hope so.
August 7, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
And let's be real. It's not as if Dems don't have a decent bench in NY.
Andrew Cuomo and RFK Jr are both warming up in the bull-pen.
They both wanted Clinton to win the Nom so they could move into that Senate seat. Especially Kennedy, it was his fathers seat.
But these are ambitious men. Don't expect them to put their careers on hold if they think they see an opening.
And this might almost be worse for Clinton if Obama wins a squeaker than it will be if he loses outright.
August 7, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, I am not sure that the polling either confirms or disproves the idea that Obama does not need the Clintons. Yes, the polling shows that Obama is doing fine with those demographics that went for Clinton in the primary, but would that still be the case if, instead of endorsing Obama, Clinton was out there actively campaigning against him? I would not like to find out by putting the matter to a test. I think that MKyleM is right in this instance, or at least close enough to correct for present purposes. Nobody (on either the Obama or Clinton sides) stands to gain from an intra-party spat. Obama supporters acting like poor winners are not helping Obama.
August 7, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The party needs the Clintons to stop trying to scuttle this election.
You think Barack needs the disgruntled Hillary holdouts to win. You think the Clintons don't need Barack's supporters if they are going to have a future in the Democratic Party?
August 7, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The party needs for The Dear Leader and His braid-dead cult members to get over themselves. The Dear Leader got the nomination ONLY with the help of the party elites. Your so-called "movement" will turn out to have been a bowel movement unless you, His fan club, come to terms with that.
Keep right on disrespecting Clinton's supporters, children. The more you foolish little 'bots shoot of your mouths, the more you alienate the grown-ups. If you want your chump-ass Dear Leader to win this thing, you need to be sure that all of His sycophants pretend to be civilized, well-mannered adults. You're not, of course, but there's always that naive core of people who might actually think otherwise....
August 8, 2008 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Cult leader"? Oh, fuck off.
I wish I could use lighter language, but I'm just fucking over folks like you demonizing Obama because you got your feelings hurt. Look, your candidate lost. It sucks. It was close.
But making the convention about the nominee is what's supposed to happen! It's not about a "mandate" - get a grip.
Shit - he's giving the Clintons two prime-time speaking slots on two different nights! What do you want?
If you're still that bent, then what's the alternative? Voting for McCain? See where that gets you, as a Clinton supporter, on the issues you supposedly care about. When you eventually realize that electing McCain over Obama would be disastrous to progressive policies, you'll realize how pointless it is to have a defeatist mindset like yours.
I appreciate that the Clinton supporters fought their hearts out for their candidate. But let's be real. If this was the other way around, with Obama having lost in the exact same manner Clinton did, I'm sorry - we're not even having this conversation. There would be exactly zero attention paid to the demands of Obama supporters, and I don't believe that the Clintons' overall fan base is as hard-headed as you happen to be. I think some of them care about something more than themselves and their own political preferences.
Let's get Obama elected, and never mind the bollocks.
August 8, 2008 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, when it's "not clear what message a statement is supposed to communicate," perhaps that means it might not be news?
This entire line of questioning is simply pointless. I have zero doubt that there will be anything but an outpouring of pure democratic support for Obama come the end of August.
As I recall, no one is boycotting that Convention, nor are any Senators up for re-election avoiding it. I think it that regard, the NRC story is much more important as a sign of things to come.
I think channeling 2006 for this election as a whole is not off the mark. I know it is very difficult for us lefties to get our expectations where they should be, because of those heartbreaks in 2000 and 2004. But seriously, it is time to start believing. Not to mention working those phones, friends, neighbors, and family. In fact, that's the most important thing.
August 7, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
ooh, i like the unintended secondary meaning of that blockquote at the end. now i really feel like a lawyer.
August 7, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thinking of, how is the internship in D.C. going (or, if it is over, how did it go)?
August 7, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not for a minute buy the notion that a meaningful number of Hillary supporters require the "cathartic" effects of a floor vote to supporting Obama.
The Clintons are putting on good cop/bad cop routine to serve two intensely personal objectives: recognition of Hillary's achievement as a woman candidate and Bill's legacy as president. When will they realize that their unfortunately petty behavior at this critical moment advances neither.
August 7, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Strong point. Self-serving political mechanizations. Obama is best to ignore this fly, because it really is not big enough to bite him. If Hillary and friends can't get on board, and Obama loses, she'll pay come 2012.
Her position is already decided. These are mere theatrics that, thankfully, do not command serious media attention any longer. Thank God those days are long gone.
August 7, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is really sad. I cannot believe that at this point Hillary would make this move. After seeing the rage in Bill's interview and now this, I now see that the Clintons want him to lose.
August 7, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I'm glad that people are finally getting what it is all about.
With the Clintons it has never been about the Democratic Party winning, it has always been about them.
Go over what happened in the primary -- Heck, even what's going on now when us plebs get a mere glimpse of the fu*ked up games being played behind the scenes.
Their strategy of Divide and Conquer is still operating.
The Clintons will bring down the Democratic Party if they have too... just like Lieberman [and NOTE those that both backed Liebermand and Clinton] will do if they don't get their way.
I truly believe that.
August 7, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Should have deleted the brackets -- oh I miss the edit function.
August 7, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
We've known that since Wisconsin.
August 8, 2008 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay listen up girls! The entire future of the Democratic Party rests on this next election. If Obama loses, the Dynaimc Duo and their minions will swoop back into power, fire Howard Dean, nix the 50 state strategy, and snag the White House from 2013-2021.
Therefore, there wouldn't have been a Democratic President not named Clinton in the White House for 40 years and two whole generations.
August 7, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Dynamic Duo and their minions had the wherewithal to swoop into power, they would be celebrating the nomination of Hillary this month in Denver.
But they don't, so they won't. And if they pursue the PUMA theme much longer, this Duo won't be Dynamic for long.
August 7, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
An Obama supporter acting like his or her cult leader ran away with nomination?
Surely not.
To say, as the NYTimes did, that he was 'wheezing across the finish line' is putting it nicely.
Get over yourself. He barely won the nomination and wouldn't have without the party elders.
He needs the Clintons. Its a fact and it doesn't matter how uncomfortable it makes you.
August 7, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Obama and his flock of Obamabots will call evryone who disagrees with them racists and of course they will all cheer when they call Hillary a F*cking Wh*re. Bunch of scumbags the lot of them.
August 7, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons are *so* 1996. The last time they were beloved by most of the Democratic Party Carson Daly still hosted TRL.
August 7, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. I must say that I'm shocked to see such hostility coming from both sides of the same coin here.
Obama won the nomination. Hillary conceded (or at the very least, 'suspended'). I'm sure that there will be nothing outrageous that happens at Convention -- lest we forget Ted Kennedy and Gary Hart (if you have no idea, look it up).
If this country is to change directions and get out of the sh*thole that we are in, the Democratic party should, nay, NEEDS TO unite behind Barack Obama.
So, MKyleM, whether Obama "needs" the Clintons or not is completely irrelevant. Our nation NEEDS Obama right now.
http://thepajamapundit.com/
August 7, 2008 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
what a sourpuss. we all knew that her "suspending" her campaign was pure bullshit. her speech was bullshit. she was never going to release her delegates. she still thinks obama can't win. i'm done with giving her the benefit of the doubt.
August 7, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has asked for fullseating in Michigan and Florida. Is it just a coincidence that the Clinton machine is getting revved up again?
August 7, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, Hillary has never put in any effort to stop her supporters from acting like spiteful little children, she likes it. Her silence speaks clearly. She wants it to be all about her. She wants a march and people chanting or whatever.
I'm so sick of Clinton nonsense, from both of them.
August 7, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, she's given a couple excellent speeches for Obama, but you're right about her failure to corral the most hardcore Hillraisers.
She seems to be trying to use her most ardent supporters' frustrations as an excuse for trumpeting her legacy before the MSM and thereby keeping her name "out there" when Obama needs all internal party conflict kept to an absolute minimum.
August 7, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You remember The World According to Garp? The Ellen Jamesians? That's what the obnoxious and very vocal Hillary dead-enders - and they probably only number in the thousands - remind me of. Even after the real Ellen James told them to stop cutting out their tongues, they continued the practice anyway. For these hold outs, it isn't even about Hillary anymore, it's about them. And most are probably fat cats ticked off because they won't get jobs in a Hillary administration and are worried they won't have as much access with an Obama administration. So they whine and cry and try to convince the media that the party is far from united. Meanwhile, most of the rank-and-file have already moved one, while even more will get behind Obama come November.
I'm thinking Hillary will do the right thing and will tell Bill to hold his tongue in the process. She still has a future in politics - Bill and the last remaining childish holdouts do not.
Now let's just hope one of these dead-enders doesn't shoot Obama at wrestling practice.
August 7, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
rogue Clinton supporters can't put her name into nomination without her consent... arguing that somehow she can't stop them is bogus
under parties rules, for a candidate to be put into nomination, it requires signatures of 300 delegates AND a signed statement of consent from the candidate
Somehow she, Obama and the DNC have to decide how to handle this in a way that is right for the fall campaign, party unity and HRC's political future -- all of which suggest the best move is to have the big symbolic Clinton night on Tuesday, and either let Obama be the only nomination made, or have HRC symbolically put in nomination, a couple of speeches paying tribute, and then have her address the convention (and the country) with a strong speech withdrawing her name and urging the acclamation of Obama as the nominee
August 7, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to be surprised that the egomanical, power-hungry Clinton's constantly put their own desires above party or country. I wish someone could explain exactly how Hillary or her supporters were disrespected? It was a tough primary, but no one was nastier than Hillary. The only people being disrespected is Obama and his supporters who cannot enjoy the nomination because they have to live in constant fear that the maniacal Hillary will do everything she can to make sure her own party loses, just because she lost. She's become a sad figure.
August 7, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...Clinton has failed to discourage her supporters?" The video I saw showed Clinton leading her supporters in efforts to place her name in nomination. She used to be my girl, but that doesn't take away from the fact she is one sneaky bitch (not a term I use loosely).
August 7, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is nothing but deja vu..
A 'symbolic ballot' being 'cathartic' is the same as not removing her name from the ballot in MI, because 'those votes won't count'
I do not beleive that Obama is this naive, not even under the auspices of catharsis.
why o why won't the Clintons go away.
I am beginning to think that Novak needs to run down HRC in DC traffic.
August 7, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink