That literally brought tears to my eyes. AMAZING!

i don't get what just happened...why is it historical?

Illinois gave up their right to open the floor for nominations to New York, and Clinton opened it with a nomination for Obama and a request to nominate by acclimation. Basically, it shut down the malcontents who want to create a fight over the squeaker primary. Very classy of her.

Doubeeo wrote:

"i don't get what just happened...why is it historical? "

Not only is it history simply because they avoided a floor fight between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters through acclimation. Acclimation is what got all the attention, but that's not all that happened here.

Did you catch it? Clinton made a motion that was two-pronged:
1. All delegate votes be counted
2. All delegates will nominate Obama by acclimation

It is #1 above that is the most telling. This is because two states, Florda and Michigan, were supposed to have had their delegates disqualified because their state lawmakers moved up their primary dates, in contravention to the rules of the Democratic Party. The party disqualified delegates from those states as a penalty. Clinton won Florida and Michigan. Even though Clinton conceded the nomination, what she engineered through successfully moving that Florida and Michigan delegates be counted is a moral victory. Forever, she will be able to make the argument that it is SHE who should have been nominated, because SHE had the most delegates at the convention -- delegates who nevertheless supported Obama (at her urging).

In other words, she worked it out so that she handed the nomination to Obama, rather than Obama winning it on the merits. She handed it to him by conceding her "majority" of delegates, and also by not rocking the boat. She's now in the position of kingmaker, whether she deserves it or not.

The Dems made history TWICE tonight. We have our first African-American candidate for president, and a record number of convention delegate votes cast for a woman. We can celebrate both, no?

And let's take a moment to remember Shirley Chisholm, who made historical progress on both those fronts back in '72.

Doubeeo wrote:

"i don't get what just happened...why is it historical? "

Sorry to point out the obvious, but...

The first viable female candidate for the presidency makes a very classy move, making the nomination of the first African American major-party candidate a reality. She does this while standing next to the first black governor of NY, who is also the first legally blind governor in US history. All of this is presided over by the first female Speaker of the House.

Is that enough historic firsts?

I'm not sure I agree with John Dias's reasoning, because I don't count FL and MI as victories for Clinton. I count them as botched, invalid elections, and blame those states' Democratic leaders for disenfranchising the voters. They didn't play by the rules, and they were punished.

I'm so impressed with Clinton, and look forward to this competition (Clinton v. Obama) leaving the headlines. Time to focus on the main event.

Oh, and everyone should read this: http://mediamatters.org/columns/200808260005

Sybsyb wrote:

"I don't count FL and MI as victories for Clinton."

She won them according to the voting officials in those respective states, and based on her successful motion on the floor of the convention, those delegates WERE counted! Hillary actually had a majority of delegates, and yet a man (Obama) managed to wrest the nomination away from her!

Hmmm... Both morally superior and a victim at the same time... Sounds like a feminist to me.

I have to say that this whole week has really been fantastic for the Clintons. Two great speeches, constant acknowledgment of their - especially Hillary's - contributions to the Democratic Party, and now this moment. They were her delegates to release in the manner she deemed appropriate.

If anyone was looking for catharsis, this certainly doesn't disappoint. Hillary was in control of the moment, surrounded by her fellow New York legislators at the state and national levels, as well as the delegates who helped her reach Denver in the first place. Everyone's had 24 hours to mull over her (fantastic) speech and the official motion to nominate by acclamation was the all-aboard signal for everyone to work together.

John Dias, the only situation in which Clinton comes away from this convention either distinctly morally superior OR a victim is the imaginary one which you outlined in your first post.

The reality of the situation is that, despite your convoluted projecting and totally botched "reading between the lines" interpretation of tonight's events, Clinton almost certainly didn't do what she did so that, as you claim, "forever, she will be able to make the argument that it is SHE who should have been nominated, because SHE had the most delegates at the convention -- delegates who nevertheless supported Obama." Honestly that is a really silly way of looking at what happened, and indicates that you think Clinton will come back at all of this with a "HA I REALLY WON INSTEAD OF YOU!!11!" attitude that I absolutely cannot imagine her adopting, either explicitly or implicitly.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a Clinton supporter any more than I am an Obama supporter--I find both only very minimally palatable as candidates I favor more than their Republican alternatives but who don't embody my own very liberal political ideals--but it's unfair to project as far as you did into the situation.

In fact, your imaginary scenario is exactly the sort of thing that has made me realize that no matter what Clinton does or says, she will ALWAYS be painted as being self-serving and manipulative rather than unifying; if you ask me she has displayed nothing more than a desire to unite the Democratic party throughout the convention thus far. I just can't let that sort of grossly hyperbolic statement slide without saying anything about it.

"Both morally superior and a victim at the same time... Sounds like a feminist to me."

Wow, you pretty much lost all credibility with that line. I didn't see a victim last night, and I sure as hell didn't see a victim there. That is a strong, proud, competent woman who understood both the importance of having her name on the role call and understood the importance of bridging the two candidates into a full throated support for Obama.

If your comments have any basis in -I don't know- fact, especially about how Hillary Clinton is going to play the martyr and self-sacrificing victim after giving up "her" delegates, I would love to see it.

I'm so happy with how the convention has worked out. The Clintons made it absolutely clear that they support Obama. Only profoundly dishonest pundits could continue to deny it.

There is no way that Hilary Clinton engineered the nomination to suggest that she should have been the candidate instead. She did what great leaders do; she clearly assessed the needs of the people and did what needed to be done. She has behaved heroically.

LlesbianLlama wrote:

"...you think Clinton will come back at all of this with a "HA I REALLY WON INSTEAD OF YOU!!!" attitude that I absolutely cannot imagine her adopting, either explicitly or implicitly."

Why is it so far-fetched of me to predict precisely that? For the last 8 years, I have repeatedly heard the same argument about Al Gore winning the 2000 general election, that he not only won the popular vote but should have been considered the victor in Florida as well, and thus should have been considered the winner of the entire election. Democrats have been pounding out that drumbeat for years!

And not only do we have a similar situation, but in this case Clinton's concession seems to have been given willingly (brownie points to her), even though she had an outright majority of delegates as well as a claim to have won the popular vote. If Gore supporters could run around for years making the argument that he was the rightful victor, is it such a stretch to expect the same from Clinton's supporters (or from Clinton herself)?

The Gore situation is completely different from Clinton's. Gore won the election. Clinton did not win the nomination, but she had a historic run and came very close. Her achievement was worthy of the recognition it received. She has earned her place as a central figure in her party and she will continue to be very powerful for years to come.

I guess some conservative whining and lying is in order; they must be eaten up by the jealousy they feel. The Democrats have multiple great leaders. They have none.

PetPluto wrote:

"That is a strong, proud, competent woman who understood both the importance of having her name on the role call and understood the importance of bridging the two candidates into a full throated support for Obama."

If she was offering her "full throated support" for Obama, why was there any need for her to move that all delegates be counted? If the outcome of the nomination was a fait accompli, with Obama surely the victor, why did Hillary have to ask for something that gave her a majority?

She DID want to be considered the moral victor. Otherwise, she wouldn't have made an issue -- on the floor no less -- to count more delegates into her column.

Eileen wrote:

"Gore won the election."

On what basis do you claim that Gore won the election? Because he rightfully won Florida, and thus had a majority of electoral delegates? Hillary, through her successful motion to count Michigan and Florida delegates (disproportionately divided massively in her favor), also won the delegate count. There's no way around this fact. CLINTON HAD THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES ON THE FLOOR OF THE CONVENTION, and yet "gave" all of them to Obama. Clinton "won," but Obama won. Gore "won," but Bush won.

Oh my God, John Dias, calm down. You're making yourself crazy over something nobody cares about... especially not Hillary Clinton. History is leaving you behind, friend.

This would only be an issue if there was any lingering bad feeling, and there is not. This would only be an issue if Obama's nomination was in question, and it is not. The people who matter, which is the Democrats, do not care about your fictional drama. And so you are talking about something that is not an issue. This is a fiction created, I would venture to guess, by some of the less intelligent representatives of the conservative movement who feel themselves losing and are desperate.

Desperate.

Eileen wrote:

"The people who matter, which is the Democrats, do not care about your fictional drama."

This will be my last post... After making several comments now, I'm sure I'll get dinged for trolling, even though in my opinion the comments I've made are germane to the topic.

Nevertheless, the "people who matter" are not just the Democrats. Obama has secured the nomination, and so Hillary has no prayer of being president this time around. Nevertheless, it is the full weight of the electorate -- and the full gamut of public opinion -- that will weigh in on this issue.

Hillary created this drama -- not me. She didn't have to have all delegates from Florida and Michigan counted in her column, but she moved that they would (and was successful). If the court of public opinion says that this matters (prior to the election), then it matters in the short term. If historians say that this matters (subsequent to the election, especially if the Democratic nominee goes on to win), then it most definitely matters in the long term.

john dias: and if your clinton=gore analogy works, when did gore "give" (your quotes) his delegates to bush?

ALSO, you, like many other anti-feminists, need to actually meet and have a civil conversation with an actual feminist. you're profoundly ignorant.

I know, I shouldn't encourage.

"If she was offering her "full throated support" for Obama, why was there any need for her to move that all delegates be counted? If the outcome of the nomination was a fait accompli, with Obama surely the victor, why did Hillary have to ask for something that gave her a majority?"

Oh, I don't know; because Democratic nominees who came in second have had their names placed into nomination for YEARS (seriously, read the link sybsyb provided).

In addition to that, she ran an incredibly close campaign and was the first woman ever who had a credible shot at becoming the presidential nominee for EITHER mainstream political party; so even if the practice wasn't traditionally done (which it IS), it would still be a testament to Hillary Clinton's own historic campaign. And has the healthy additional element of providing further proof of unity by both acknowledging the legitimacy of Hillary Clinton's achievements and the legitimacy of her supporters while also providing further proof of unity by voluntarily calling upon those same delegates to support Barack Obama in the nomination for the Democratic presidential nominee. In that way, Hillary Clinton was recognized, and Barack Obama got the nomination he won on merit alone.

But I guess that is conspiracy theory enough for you.

Did everybody read "Hillary Clinton speaks at convention. The press concocts a story" at Media Matters? It sheds a lot of light on the attempt at an argument made above.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200808260005

Hey, I linked the same story as Sybsyb! Must be worth reading...

Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, and nobody campaigned in either state. Clinton "won" those states because she had the most name recognition, not because she supposedly ran the most successful campaign there. Which is why the Florida and Michigan delegates can't be counted towards her. It wasn't an outcome to a fair election.

However, her move to have the delegates counted did a lot of good to not piss off Florida and Michigan (crucial swing states) democrats who felt that the DNC disenfranchised them (even though it was their own states in reality).

Eileen and Sybsyb, thank you for the link to mediamatters. That article does well to put all this in context. I am forwarding it to those who have only been seeing the slanted broadstrokes that MSM has been giving them.
Could we make it a main post?

Not that I want to promote his site, by this is what "John Dias" is linking is name to:

http://www.dontmakehermad.com/

So, I think I'm pretty safe to make the assumption that he is a troll. Don't feed.

Making Herstory,
Wow! Makes you wonder why ANYONE identfies as a republican? They are WAYYYY behind.

Damn Dias,
You're living proof misgynists are all mentally ill, insecure whiners who can only listen to the screeching in their head like some primitive animal.

I suggest we give Dias The Knuckle-Dragger an utimatum:
* either evolve from being a flaming mentally
incompetent
or
* send him packing.

I wonder if you can get rid of this type (which are differentiated from the obnoxious troll posters) of commenter by posting a message to them bringing up the inappropriate comments and ask whether or not they will continue the same idiot habits. If they choose not to answer the question, then dismiss them as it will be assumed to be a no. If they reply back that no, they will not stop their misogyny then delete their profile. Clearly those that are like Dias, aren't merely tossing out their opinions, but are simply using this forum for their own idiot rant tirades. So it wouldnt be a blocking of intellectual dialogue, reasonable differing opinions, or the innocent maistakes posters may make when becoming aware of social issues. Hes the only one making idiot coments and because of his singular status, can be easily tossed out.

Dias is the type of poster that stops just short of revealing himself to be like the others who get kicked off. He will probably try and be more subtle to avoid being openly pinned down as a blatantly identified misogynist. He hopes his ranting will pass as 'opinion,' to remain on this forum. In reality this is simply a strategy to continue posting his misgynistic crap. I'd pull the cord on his profile if it was me that had control to do so.

WOW! I may have misread dais comments. Is he suggesting that even though she won, a man still took the nomination from her?

"Hmmm... Both morally superior and a victim at the same time... Sounds like a feminist to me."

This last part is what caught me up! Its seems very anti-feminist, or is it simply a critique? Aside from the last part on your first post I agree with your perspective. Interesting way of looking at it. Sorry about the above posts, I thought you were a troll crasher!

"I count them as botched, invalid elections, and blame those states' Democratic leaders for disenfranchising the voters. They didn't play by the rules, and they were punished."

I wonder if you would make that same statement had the tables been turned and those were Obama's delegates to begin with?

The thing that makes me uncomfortable about many of Obama's supporters is the cult like support.
It creeps me out more than the fact that he hasn't spoken clearly enough or strongly enough (for me) about gender equality and gay rights. It adds to my concern as i watch him pander to the center and right, and as he keeps pointing out (and his wife too) how "Christian" they are.
Not that all Christians are something to be wary of, but, please, i get who they are pandering to with that and- well, it sure isn't the likes of me.

In his speech tonight, will he do more than echo the historic speech Dr.MLK Jr.
gave some 44 or 45 years ago? I wonder if he will go a step further and bring into the hope/dream women's rights, women who do not want to just support men (regardless of their education) women who are gay and disabled and single mothers?

Will he ever acknowledge the work Hillary has done regarding health care and seek her assistance in the matter? I'd like to go to the doctor, get diagnosed and have it covered (I'm waiting for insurance so I don't get labeled as having a "Pre-Existing") I'd like my dearest friend to be able to breathe and afford the meds that help him do so. I'd like fewer women to have to compromise themselves for the sake of their children's health care.

I'd like Obama to show women that he is absolutely more interested in being supported by feminists than by people (republican or not) not supportive of equal rights for women (including re-productive rights).

Regardless of how many times Hillary asks me to keep going and remain a democrat, he wont have my support-
not unless he proves to be at least as much of a feminist as Cynthia Mckinney.

Yes, it can be measured.

Now, go ahead and attack the commenter who is not adoring your favorite candidate ever.

As for the historic moment in the video above, it saddened me & it made me even more proud of her.

gopher, i can't believe you're giving this guy the benefit of the doubt. this is ridiculous. clinton is working to unify the party because, perhaps, she sees getting policy chances effected is more important than personal ambition. oh, my, really? yes. clearly.

i_muse, neither clinton nor obama were ever all that great. and neither one of them would ever run close to as feminist a perspective as mckinney... and that may be part of why mckinney's not on the dem ticket, because they (the dems) don't have room for people with solid values. principled people can't possibly win the presidency. period.

further, who the heck here is cultish about obama? come on... i mean, that kind of trash-talking is as good as saying clinton is a screecher... they're both flawed, lying politicians... either one better by miles than mccain...

and i don't know if you saw the debates, but obama frequently spoke to clinton's health care reform work and other initiatives that she took up or that they both worked on. honestly, people critically recognizing that it's much better to have obama in office than mccain doesn't strike me as cultish and doesn't come close to bothering me as much as obama's campaign giving out "obama pride" stickers while having a just two-page piece (of which 1/2 a page is HIV/AIDS-related) about lgbt issues and implicitly not supporting gay marriage (not that cliton did either)... makes me think that he cares about lgbt folks all the way to the polls...

big surprise. you're not going to have a candidate who really considers the experience of lgbt folks with a chance of getting the top office anytime soon (maybe that's overly cynical, but...).

sorry for the rant, but i'm kind of fed up with both camps... i couldn't see too much of a difference between the two of them and i'd just be happy for them to combine their savvy marketing machines and win this election... full-well knowing that the democratic party is, overwhelmingly, a bunch of career politicians who are willing to sacrifice the few for the votes of the many... so to see people so sad over clinton's loss or so excited for obama's potential presidency really just misses the point for me.

finally, dias, if you're still reading this, consider this: clinton knows that the fl and mi votes were flawed (i don't think obama was even on the ballot), but she also knows that the voters in those states should not be left out in the cold. she was particularly positioned to help bring these voters and politicians back into the party and, assuming she cares more for getting stuff done than just getting famous (though she definitely doesn't mind that), the only step that makes sense is to bring those voters back into the party without complicated the convention (and drawing away from the battle with mccain).

bless

oops... policy "changes"

i_muse,

I would make those same statements about those states. Those elections were not fair at all. I am a Hillary supporter, but she is not the Democratic nominee this year. This fact makes me sad, but for me, Obama is certainly a better option than McCain. During the primaries were a lot of Obama supporters cruel in their treatment of Hillary? I think they were. I contend that Obama is not perfect, but McSame is even worse.

Will he ever acknowledge the work Hillary has done regarding health care and seek her assistance in the matter?

You mean, like he did in his speech when he clinched the nomination?

"We've certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning – even in the face of tough odds – is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as First Lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency – an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton."

thanks, jimmy 5... i think it's really wild how folks on both sides argue that these two don't respect each other as much as they clearly do. it seems more like that sentiment is among their supporters and it's not helping to keep mccain out of office.

this brought tears to my eyes.

hillary clinton = CLASS ACT

I said:
"I count them as botched, invalid elections, and blame those states' Democratic leaders for disenfranchising the voters. They didn't play by the rules, and they were punished."

i muse said:
"I wonder if you would make that same statement had the tables been turned and those were Obama's delegates to begin with?"

In all honesty, yes I would. In all honesty, I've been more of an Obama supporter than a Clinton supporter since the beginning. However, I don't think there's any of the "Obama-cult" in my comments above, and he has certainly lost the shiny glow for me. Neither of them are as perfectly feminist or progressive as I would like.

I think puckalish, Femgineer, and Jimmy 5 all covered the rest of what I wanted to say.

puckalish,
I didnt see dias's comments to be against her recent move, but only to express his disappointment at how screwed the election turned out to be and how in spite of her feminist character she was turned (by our misogynistic political system) into a "kingmaker," rather than a president. However, I am absolutely impressed by this move on Hillarys part. It demonstrates brilliant manuevering on her part, that is unseen within either party and this is undoubtably very innovative in Americas her(his)story. I'm happy she still came out strong!

(sigh)...I wanted Hillary.

"However, her move to have the delegates counted did a lot of good to not piss off Florida and Michigan (crucial swing states) democrats who felt that the DNC disenfranchised them (even though it was their own states in reality)."

I think MLEmac hit it on the head with that one. A lot of people here in MI were very ticked off about the whole no delegates thing to begin with, then the half delegates thing, which really didn’t appease us much. By recognizing the MI and FL delegate votes as full delegate votes, from what I can tell in my circle, it did soothe a lot of some feelings toward the Democratic leadership in our state. You don’t want to have MI voters mad at the Democratic Party, especially when we have seen hard economic times during our current Democratic governor’s last term and a half. The combination of economic woes and being miffed at Democratic Party leaders could spell disaster for Democrat candidates in the next few elections here.