"depending on how the roll call is staged..."

Too bad Bob Fosse isn't alive to stage it. He'd have known just what to do, Chicago-style.

"Roolz is roolz," right?

The procedure for conducting the balloting is in there somewhere, I'm sure.

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

Could Ambinder's piece read more like "move along folks, nothing to see here" propaganda?

Reminds me of (spoiler alert!) the ending of DePalma's "Sisters," when the murder witness is brainwashed into repeating "There was no body because there was no murder."

She didn't want to be on the ballot but they twisted her arm and made her put her name in.

Bastards!

/snark

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

The latest news floating around the net today is a supposed AP wire photograph of Barry Soetoro's application to an Indonesian school in which it states that Barry is a citizen of Indonesia and also a Muslim.
If this AP photo and application are verified, things are going to get extremely interesting at this convention.
The photo has been available since January 2007. Will the MSM do their job and vet it in time?

Of course, we'll know soon enough, but where's the fun in waiting for the true facts instead of engaging in rank speculation? If this is true, it sounds to me like a leak from the Obama campaign (the "nothing to see" here folks wording). Which looks to me like it means Obama caved on the issue of the roll call vote (I don't believe that he never fought it, too many signs that he was from Brazile in the WSJ to Hillary's statements about it not being a done deal to Howard Dean invoking the rules, you know that's when they're trying to screw Clinton whenever the DNC cites its ever-changing rules).

I don't mind the roll call being kabuki, they always are. Which is why that there has even been a question is ridiculous. Clinton was not going to pull off any surprise, the entire thing is staged and can be managed. It just makes the Obama people look bad to deny Clinton, her supporters, and especially women this particularly important bit of kabuki. Jackswon was never going to emerge the nominee in 1988 either, but that didn't make the roll call any less symbolically important.

then I'm all for it.

I don't care about the birth certificate humpty dance, because they could do the same thing they did with McCain -- retroactively pass a law for a single person, to make him OK for the Presidency. It's an energy drain, when we've got stronger cases to make about his suitability.

Here. Apparently it's still not clear what "placed in nomination" means and whether Hillary would get the usual speeches, etc., that every other (male) candidate has gotten for the past 40 years. I do not understand why this is so hard. Give her the full treatment and then after the first ballot have her give a rousing speech asking her delegates to support Obama and take back the White House. It's only divisive if you make it divisive and they seem intent on doing that. All of this makes me again think, you're right lambert, that it's more about purging than Unity. Only now they're a bit worried about winning - and being embarrassed by Clinton votes when she's not even on the ballot during their big show - so they have to give at least some nod to Unity.

Of course, I'd feel a hell of a lot more like unifying if they would quit insulting my intelligence:

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.

Forgive my cynicism in the face of Hope, but given that I've seen video of Clinton saying she thought it would be more unifying for her name to go in nomination but that she wasn't the decision-maker, there were negotiations with the DNC and Obama campaign (not to mention the WSJ piece where Obama shill Donna Brazile basically said Hillary would be a divisive bitch for putting her name in nomination (paraphrasing, heh)), I find it hard to believe that this is all the doing of St. Barack of Hope, Change, and Meaningless Blather.

I will also add that this entire charade has only made Obama a weaker candidate. Not only has he failed to completely unify his base, whatever the motives, it makes it look like he fears a vote. It also plays into the noxious "affirmative action" meme that Anglachel wrote about and lambert excerpted. That he needs some sort of special treatment to secure the nomination.

The reason, VL, I don't believe Hillary can pull an upset is that I don't think she has the same SDs she had during the campaign. My own belief is that the SDs will overwhelmingly vote for Obama on the first ballot. There's no upside to them not doing so given that, absent some real scandal, Obama will be the nominee. No reason to piss off the new boss if you don't have to.

What Aeryal said about the birth certificate crap.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/...

I love this job!

fast w/out these nasty distractions.

If the Credentials Committee takes BO's suggestion to reinstate full voting rights to the MI and FL delegations, we have a 59 delegate difference between BO and HRC. (Notice we haven't heard anything from them?) That's waaay too close to NOT have a floor vote. I want to see a full rollcall and a vote on the floor.

I love this job!

Even though I think that Clinton's name in nomination (even with a nom speech and a real ballot vote) will only support the faux 'Unity' bullsh*t, I'm still quite happy about this.

They're not kidding anyone with their spin. Clinton outmanuevered them with the help of her supporters, from the inestimable Heidi Li down to the very last PUMA frantically emailing, calling, and writing the party.

This is Comeupannce, The Appetizer. Main Course served November 2008. But they were finally called on their bullsh*t campaign to crush democracy and throw the real base under the bus.

Now, tomorrow I'll go back to still being utterly enraged and disgusted by their May 31 performance, inter alia, but for today I'm celebrating what a little real grassroots can do.

I love this job!

Why don't Supers want a real nomination vote? (Let's face it, Supers are the ones trying to prevent the vote.)

Could it be they don't want to have to go on record as voting against the candidate who received more votes? Could it be they don't want to go on record supporting the corrupt primary system? You know that is going to come back to haunt Democrats.

The vote is lose-lose for Obama. If the delegates vote based on who they are pledged to, it is close and the Supers have to decide and we can get rid of Brazile since she'll quit the Party. This will probably bring up questions about how Obama got more delegates, which Obama and the DNC don't want to address. What's more likely, the pledged delegates have been intimidated and/or replaced, not reflecting the actual results, which shows that the entire pledged delegate system is a sham.

Supers are just trying to protect themselves.

There is no way a roll call vote will be anything but a rout. Obama will win it going away. If HRC gets more than a symbolic number I'll eat my hat.

...edited to add - which is why it's been so interesting to me to see the delay and dilemma from BO's camp and the DNC on this issue. It's almost as if they are *gleeful* over finding another way to punish or piss off HRC supporters. Nothing has significantly changed in BO's status. The delegates and SD's will vote for him overwhelmingly.
IMO, this just makes them look petty and vindictive, with the aroma of bullying thrown in to boot.

Corner -- it is rather difficult to figure what the Obama campaign and the DNC are thinking. Two possibilities, and I vascillate back and forth:

1. They really are afraid Clinton could pull off a win. This doesn't seem likely, until you think about how much the Money Train and assorted arm-twisting factored into the Pelosi-Dean inspired SD stampede at the end of the primaries factored into Obama's lead.

The Obama campaign has been awfully tight with a buck so far. If he loses in November, there goes the Chuck Wagon so many hitched themselves too. Lots of complaints from local party folks of how imperiously the O Camp has invaded their turf and given short shrift to helping out the downticket folks (many of whom are SDs). Plus some are probably finally realizing what so many of us called months ago -- Obamamania does not transfer. The large numbers of new voters he claims are not people who have enthusiastically joined the political process, but people who have joined the Obama Personality cult. Their money and support doesn't transfer.

Contra: the more authoritarian or tyrannical the group, the easier they see great threats where none exist.

2. Hubris: In the throes of great Obama frat party celebration of February, the DNC saw an opportunity to finally rid the party of those inconvenient and embarassing FDR-Clinton voters from the party. The chance of success was just too enticing and enthralling and they lost all sense of history and risk-assessment; they forgot all the states to come after Feb were Clinton country; they forgot that Clintons never quit; they badly miscalculated their own support by banking on Obama's popularity following an ever-increasing trajectory. And they failed to have a backup strategy if any of their extremely optimistic assumptions proved faulty.

Once committed to this all the eggs in one basket strategy, they couldn't withdraw or readjust. So convinced of their own fabulousness and righteousnes, they lost any qualms about the rule-breaking bull of the way they treated MI-FL, the RBC meeting, or even resting an entire campaign on the candidate who only approached the delegate numbers he needed for the nom because of red state caucuses. They rolled the dice believing the odds were in their favor; but like every gambling addict ever, while they know the House always wins, they just didn't believe it applied to them.

I think it's funny that so many on both sides have tried to show Obama and McCain are somehow ineligible to be President under the Constitution because of the circumstances of their birth. This provision only matters if there's a mechanism to enforce it. You could prove Obama was born on Mars and McCain on Mercury and it wouldn't mean a god-damned thing. The people you need to enforce the provision are the people who are nominating these guys to begin with.

Remember the entire last eight years has been establishing one thing - the rule of law, including the Constitution, does not apply to Villagers. Both these guys are Villagers.

In negotiations this summer with Obama's campaign, Clinton's team did not ask for Clinton's name to be submitted.

But within the past week, Clinton advisers informed the Obama team that many of Clinton's staunchest supporters felt strongly that something had to be done, and that Clinton had concluded that, in part for the sake of unity, their wishes ought to be respected. They heard back immediately: the Obama campaign had always been open to having her name placed in nomination alongside his.

He just the same thing on NPR. Yup, Clinton was afraid she would lose votes from her actual total. Okaaaaay.

And Obama all along wanted her name placed in nomination!!!

Riiiiight. You buy that and I'd like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge....

...for seeing the reason why the birth cert and AP photo stories could have relevance. It has nothing to do with racism and xenophobia to most people, but dual citizenship, truthfulness, candor and honesty do. If these stories get vetted, than it would appear that Obama has been concealing alot about his background, and that alone will hurt him.
Sure, the people who judge others based on skin color and religion will get upset with the Muslim and Indonesian implications, but in this day those people are the minority.
If these stories turn out to be fabrications, then I have to admit that these people are really good at what they do. All that Dan Rather/Bush military saga and the Swift Boat scums sure hit their mark, so even if these stories are not true, but get wide publication at the usual right wing media outlets, they could still hurt a hell of alot.
I do not want to propagate garbage, but I do want someone with credibility to look into these stories and make the proper determinations about them because they do have serious implications.
Anyway, it isn't even October yet. Wait until all that chit starts flying around. Things are going to get really interesting regardless.

Our education system and our MCM has well and truly failed to educate people.

So many seem to have nodea that it is usual and customary to have a roll call vote at nominating conventions. D'uh.

Lots of sexism and misogyny, as well as CDS, in them thar comments (and commenters). Yikes!

for what somebody wrote on a school application which, btw, is probably fake anyway. Even if it's not, it doesn't make any of it true. Parents lie on school applications all the time to make kids eligible for this school or that.

The entire thing is bullshit as far as I'm concerned and I'd much rather see people pushing Obama to come up with an anti-poverty plan or improve his healthcare plan than this crap. As for any potential scandals, I'll be much more interested in them when they concern things Obama himself did after he was old enough to vote.

On the COLB and this latest thingy.

Prove it or debunk it, and then report it. Let the chips fall where they may.

Fat chance on that ever happening.

------------------------------------------------
“But hysteria is all the rage these days, I guess” - gqm

...because Obama has stated many times that he was never a Muslim. If a legitimate document proves he was a Muslim, then that would be considered a very huge lie to many people, including myself. I don't care if Obama is a Raelian or belongs to a suicidal flying saucer cult (actually on those, I do care), but if he deliberately concealed his past, that is a major, major concern. Why not just say "when I was a young boy, my parents decided to raise me as a Muslim, but when I came of age, I became a Christian"? That would be considered honest, and no one could hold that against him, except for bigots. But concealing it would be disastrous.

(PS - thnx for at least allowing me to respond w/o calling me a racist, even tho on that, I no longer care what Internet posters call me or in some cases, cleverly imply about me)

And Lambert, I never said anything about "major press coverage". So wherever you "heard that one before", it certainly wasn't from me. What I said was:

I do not want to propagate garbage, but I do want someone with credibility to look into these stories and make the proper determinations about them because they do have serious implications.

Now, if you're responding to my prior comment about the MSM vetting these latest Internet rumblings in time, then that would a reference to how the MSM knew all about the Rev Wright bigot eruption for over a year, yet sat on the story until they where certain that Hillary would lose, as that story alone would have sent Obama packing before the Iowa caucuses.

. . . more on the variations of Obama criticism, tho I rather hate mixing that into a Hillary thread, however linked H-positive and O-negative (and visa-versa) have become.

Since *not* having her name put into the roll call vote would have been hideously insulting, I'm happy for her that she's avoiding the insult (and here's hoping all of her pledged delegates actually vote for her, though those who don't will certainly go on my list of people to work against in the future). As the first female candidate with a legit chance of winning, and (I think) the first candidate to get the most votes in either major party primary and not get the nomination, she deserves at least equal treatment to the generations of non-winning male candidates who actually got outvoted (usually by a lot).

I'm also happy about this for the reasons stated by gqmartinez -- I want to see how the superdelegates vote (and hopefully get the chance to remind DB of her intention to quit the party if neither candidate can win without them).

As to Obama, even aside from my not caring about the birth certificate issue, I view this as part of a whole disturbing pattern of Obama criticism that actually *helps* him with a lot of people, and hurts the political process overall (and I say this as someone who is *not* voting for Obama and normally likes OxyCon's comments, though I only just got approved to post here and haven't had the chance to say so before).

Okay, yes, Obama himself has proven he is happy to win a race by disqualifying people (even his friends and benefactors) over technicalities, so if ever anyone deserved to lose that way, it is him.

But the overall process of discussion is important, too. And there are so many genuinely important issues to criticize Obama about -- FISA reversal, especially when combined with scarily authoritarian tendencies in his campaigning style; his "solutions" to global warming and energy needs; whether we want to reward a Democrat for running a campaign as vile as anything Rove ever came up with by giving him the presidency (and likewise with whether we want to reward the DNC for their tactics during this primary), etc.

So why waste time and contribute to the general awfulness of political debate these days with distractions about where he was born, or what his parents put on a school application, or things I've seen on other blogs (also by posters I respect and agree with more often than not) such as how often he text messages celebrities?

I would care if Obama was hiding being a Muslim now, but only because hiding his religious beliefs would indicate he was a big coward; and I would care whether he, say, got naked in the jacuzzi with people he wasn't married to if he could be shown to have something to do with Edwards story coming out when it did, but otherwise I don't care who he flirts with or what religion he is; I care about actual character--so far as we can tell--and what specific positons he adopts. I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest he is lacking in character (this primary, for starters) that clearly isn't made up, and his postions suck, so why not focus on these things?

Likewise with the occasional "Obama is Marxist" crap that shows up every now and again. This is in some ways worse than all the other faux-scandal stuff, as it implies that the most right-leaning of all the democratic candidates is actually too liberal, and that shifts the whole political debate in ways that could haunt progressive candidates and issues in the future.

Raising these sorts of issues makes the whole PUMA movement look bad, to me, and since I wholeheartedly support the general pro-Hillary and anti-Obama stance of the PUMAs, I would rather the more irrelevant criticisms just went away.

(and apologies to Oxy if it seems I'm imputing any of these other positions to them, since that isn't my intent, but I do view all of these things as part of a disturbing pattern; sort of "Obama/the DNC slimed Hillary w/all sorts of unfair crap, so take him down the same way"; heaven knows I think he deserves it, but I don't think it's the right way to go)