Gary Hart on Clinton's convention protesters:

At the convention in 1984, Hart said, each of his 1,200 delegates voted for him "with no defections."

"My people put on a massive demonstration. It went on for 10 or 15 minutes," Hart said. "They felt very good about it afterward."

Hart thinks Clinton, a longtime party loyalist, will want to prevent protests and help Obama get elected.

"She has a future in the party," Hart said. "She has very little interest, nor does her husband, in wrecking Obama's chances because it will be held against them very, very strongly. She has a lot of reasons to pull an oar, and I think she will."

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10132808

I hope he's right about Clinton.

against the Clinton bashing memes so popular here. Hilarious.

Not very clear from the article.

Sounds like Hart understands that this is a different time with different circumstances.

Remember the attempts to use past primaries to claim there was nothing wrong with people converging on the RBC meeting? It turned into a circus with Hillary's delegates trying to shout down the vile losers. The RBC meeting's circus atmosphere did nothing to promote unity, and we're still seeing the results of continually trying to justify that potential circus before it happened.

This is not the 1980s. This is a different era, complete with extremely bitter assholes intent on being disrupters. You can make the argument about precedent and claim that rational Hillary supporters have a right to do this, but what about the disrupters? You know they're going to be there in numbers. There is no way to vet the crowd so why promote a situation that will likely turn into a circus?

All one needs to do is look at the video of Hillary speaking to a group of supporters to know that this situation is a circus in the making.

Its a circus in the making and Hillary herself is bringing the clowns. She wants the convention to be about "catharsis" for herself... as opposed to being about supporting the nominee. What a joke.

rather than a crowning.

what it should be, figuratively speaking of course. The democracy part was taken care off during the (endless) primary season.

No party has had a roll call with two candidates since the 1976 Republican convention. She wants "catharsis" not unity. Thats why she still call him "my opponent". Its bullshit.

That's what seems to matter to Sen. Clinton now.

than Bill is. :eyes: I cant wait to see those internal campaign memos come leaking out next week. Her strategy will finally be verifiable.

Hillary Clinton can and should have her delegates cast their votes for her at the convention.

Sheesh!

like this.

The kool-aid flows as strongly now as it did back in primary season.

Oh wait.......

It would not be to her advantage if it had her fingerprints on it, that is certain. It will have to look "organic" so Hillary can claim a swelling of support beyond her control. That won't happen, she couldn't even get her supporters to show at caucuses, they aren't the types to do much physically for change. Sot will take some organizational effort to arrange the pro-Hill protests, that can't be done easily and faked.

This sounds more like advice from Hart than insight.

that this could be a continuation of "Operation Chaos." While it is possible that a "catharsis" could have a beneficial, healing effect, my distrust of the Clintons and their corporate paymasters is so profound, I believe the risk isn't worth it.

And by the way, I got shut down yesterday for a post that expressed this concern.

Her supporters want it and deserve it. Both Hart and Kennedy had one and they finished far behind the nominee, unlike Hillary.

Why all the hand wringing? Roll calls are quite common and preventing the first woman who came a hair away from winning the nomination to have one may end up being counterproductive. It would not promote unity, quite the contrary, many of her supporters will be furious that the roll call was not allowed and would view it as another sign of disrespect from the party and the Obama camp. Nerves are frayed enough as it is, no need to add more fuel to the fire.

It is a shame that some from the old Team Obama are just too bitter to let go of their anti-Clinton primary hate.

may go a very long way toward stopping any of the protests on the floor that will be played over and over on the MSM, further dividing the party.

I thought the primaries were over.

If Hillary is behind supporting the nominee 100%, then there should be no arguments that anyone is being "disrespectful" for boosting the nominee in every way we can.

All Hillary would have to do is demand that her name be taken off the roll, and then ask all of her loyal supporters to cast votes for the nominee.

That would promote more unity than having disgruntled, half-loyal DEMS trying to take thunder away from the nominee.

I just dont see how it helps DEMS or Obama to have people casting what amounts to protest votes against the nominee....

all two of you....Simone DuBois, Debra Bartoshevich

Let's see if this quells some of the Clinton bashers:

1980:
Jimmy Carter - 1981 delegates
Ted Kennedy - 1225 delegates
Uncommitted - 122
No way Kennedy could win, but his name was placed in nomination.


2004:
John Kerry: 2192.5 Pledged delegates
Howard Dean: 114.5 Pledged delegates
Dean had already dropped out with no chance of winning, but his name was placed in nomination.

2008:
Barack Obama: 1766.5 Pledged delegates
Hillary Clinton: 1639.5 Pledged delegates
The contender is being told to shut up for the sake of the party.


In addition, Teddy Kennedy has had his name on that first ballot in 1968 (12 votes), 1972 (12 votes), 1976 (1 vote), 1980 (1150 - he lost some supporters along the way).

Jesse Jackson has had his name on that first ballot twice: 1984 (465 votes), 1988 (1218 votes).

So, once again, what's the problem with Hillary placing her name in nomination and having a roll call?

If I was a Hillary delegate it would bug me big time if I had to give up a week of my time, fly to Denver, and then not be allowed to cast a vote for my candidate.

Her supporters are asking for an orderly first ballot that allows all the delegates (including Hillary's delegates) to have their allegiances recognized by the Convention. They are not asking for a prime-time floor fight.

Preventing the Clinton delegates from voting for Hillary would be the best way to encourage the PUMA-types to go nuts and start accusing the DNC of sexism.

What am I missing here?

Does Hillary WANT them to vote for her instead of the nominee?

Shouldnt they do what Hillary wants, since they are so loyal to her?

on the second ballot.

Hillary calls it "catharsis".

I prefer to call it "healing".

that her name ends with Clinton.

Oh, and I had forgotten that Howard Dean's name was on the first ballot in 2004. Thanks for the reminder.

I doubt it will quiet any of the hyperventilation, though.

this, and not wanting a repeat of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6607552&mesg_id=6607715">this.

with this?

2004:
John Kerry: 2192.5 Pledged delegates
Howard Dean: 114.5 Pledged delegates
Dean had already dropped out with no chance of winning, but his name was placed in nomination.

Yup!

Read it again.

what will be avoided by simply placing her name into nomination. No, I did not miss the point. You may be missing the point of what will be accomplished. The Clinton delegates will be much more able to be enthusiastic on any subsequent ballots if they feel she has been shown the respect she has earned. There won't be any floor fights, and I doubt the first ballot roll call will be done in prime time.

Senator Obama understands this, why don't you?

Oh, an btw....Harriet is not a HRC supporter. She just played one for the cameras and for Rush. I know you would rather believe otherwise, but that is how it is.

???

2004 CONVENTION looked like! It was unified and calm. We did not lose because of the convention, and becaus Howard Dean's name was oplaced in nomination. We lost becaus John Kerry ran a lousy campaign.

A lot of talk from Dean supporters about "holding their noses and voting for Kerry"- didnt help at all.

Some folks just love to repeat, repeat, repeat the mistakes of the past.

Why take any chances?

Why cant the Hillary supporters help DEMS present a united front by simply boosting the nominee in front of the cameras at the convention?

How about examples of where we WON when we were not unified as opposed to examples where we lost? That would be much more reassuring than bringing in the failed 2004 election cycle as some sort of model or template to follow.

as a "template to follow! The campaign was not lost because ot the convention or anything to do with the convention. It was lost because Senator Kerry, - who, by the way - I defended time and time again here during the 2004 primary season, ran a horrible campaign. He did not fight back at the swift boaters and allowed people to believe that he was who they said he was.

The 2004 convention was unified BECAUSE Governor Dean was not ignored. There would have been much more "unrest" among Democrats during the General election if the convention had been "brokered".

That's what will be avoided by the plans they are making. The country will see a unified party, in contrast to what the MSM and the (R)s are trying to make them believe.

Hillary cannot "control" the more unreasonable delegates. These are who are being addressed.

The rest is crap.

We LOST the 2004 election- and the more disgruntled Deaniacs never went head first for Kerry- so again, I'm not sure what your arguement gains from the '04 comparison.

That was a FAILDED election, not a successful one.


Why use certain Dean supporters as a template at all?

Dont we want to win this thing as opposed to just letting Hillary's people be treated like Dean's people?

I dont see the point at all.

your don't want to see the point. You are so filled with animosity toward Hillary, you have no room for anything else.

The POINT IS...and I'll try to say this very slowly, so maybe it can penetrate some of that hate.

1) We did not lose the 2004 election because of anything that happened at the convention. We lost because Senator Kerry did not run a good campaign, and because it was stolen once again.

2) We would likely not have come as close as we did if the country had tuned in to see a contentious convention. "Gee, the Democrats are in disarray, no way I'm going to vote for those nasty people".

3) The more disgruntled of Senator Clinton's supporters may not ever go "head first" for Clinton, but is it better for them to at least be satisfied that her accomplishment has been recognized, or for country to watch them protesting that it wasn't on the nightly news for a week? Senator Obama recognizes this. Why are you unable to recognize it?

4) Governor Dean did not come NEARLY as close as Senator Clinton, and the historical significance was not there. There was no loud uproar in 2004 about the votes he received at the convention.

5) Senator Obama and the Democratic Party will be more well respected for having recognized the historic value of this campaign than if we simply say "She lost...get over it!" We should not, and do not treat each other that way.

Sounds like media spin aka revisionist history. Me would prefer to read and believe this link. You should be very lucky to have Kerry and Kennedy as your senators. It's better than mine (Alexander and Corker--TN).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

If Dean had his name placed in nomination with the measly amount of delegates that he garnered, why shouldn't Hillary do the same when she ended with only 127 less than Obama?

Or maybe on a TV show or something?

How much recognition does her failed bid need?

Dean? I was against all the anti-Kerry Dean people too.

Why is bringing his name into it supposed to matter?

We LOST the election where he had his name placed, so I'm not sure why you all keep bringing up the failed 2004 moves as some kind of model we should follow.

Are we here to "recognize" someone's failed bid for the nomination or are we here to win for the one who IS nominated?

"Recognize" Hillary, Dean or whover on your own time- weve got an election to win here.

It would be nice if people would leave them alone and give them credit where credit is due in helping Obama win the nomination.

It would make more sense if you gave us stronger examples where the conventions were not unified but we still won the election.

'76 is the only one you give us as a relevant example where we won after a convention- and Hillary would get more than one vote in the current case.

What is the problem? Maybe there wont be one if some of the Lieberman/DLC types decide to be loyal DEMS for a change, but your examples dont help your argument at all.

Yet there is nothing more important than to a politician than to have their ego stroked.

Ford beat Reagan by 57 points. Coincidence? I think not.

This is not a coronation!!! Hillary ended only 127 PDs behind Obama and has earned the right to have her name placed in nomination. It still won't change the outcome, and of course it shouldn't, but it would give the millions who supported her a boost and a reason to cheer her one more time.

Why do we need to be giving Hillary a boost at the convention?

Cant they cheer her one more time when she gives a speech supporting the nominee- or win she does something great in the Senate?

I fail to see why her supporters need the convention as an outlet or reason to cheer on anything but a 2008 victory.

Dems have lost and won many elections regardless of having other names in nomination at the convention.

There were only 4 Democratic conventions in history that nominated by acclamation ...Franklin Roosevelt in 1936, Lyndon Johnson in 1964, Bill Clinton 1996 and Al Gore 2000. The rest had at least one vote. (It took 103 in 1924)

The year was 1984, when one of the biggest racists from the GOP party was sitting in the White House, Ronnie Raygun!!

Jesse wanted his votes counted to make the point that a black man had ran for President and had received delegate votes in the process!!

Jesse was a trail blazer, in many ways.

and we who supported her want that acknowledgment. Hillary came extremely close to being the nominee and she has earned the right to the roll call much more than Kennedy and Dean ever did.

Jesse didn't sleep with anyone to get where he is today.

Hillary won almost 18 million votes and her name did not win her all those votes. Trying to minimize her achievement is not going to change the reality that she has almost half of the PDs that will attend the convention.

I dont see why loyal DEMS would not want to present a unified front for the nominee- wouldnt that make much better political imagerey & symbolism?

And they need their "catharsis". Havent you heard? Unless they get scream and yell for Hillary at the convention... there will be no "unity". Riiiiight. Of course, Obama has stated that he doesnt want the convention used for "catharsis" but that doesnt really seem to matter. :banghead:

Are you saying the Democratic Party should be more like the Chinese Communist Party?

It would be so much more unified if everyone would vote the same way the whole time!

:sarcasm:

People who never intended to vote Democratic in the general election.
Many exit polls proved that.

I doubt that the "Operation Chaos" crowd would account for even 1% of her total votes.

And the exit polls bore that out.

Around 36 million people took part in the Democratic primaries and caucuses.

5 million Republicans would represent 1-in-7 of those voters.

To me it sounds like a lot.

that remark is laughable............

:7

Same if they are threatening to stay home, or not lift a finger for the nom.

If they are going to support the DEM nominee 100% as a given, then why are we even having this discussion?

If they are not going to support the fair & square DEM nominee 100%, then it is not laughable to question how loyal they are to the party.

Hey- they have every right to vote for or help McCain (R) if they want- even if they are regisitered DEMS- but lets not confuse loyal partisans with swing voters.

It is very well documented that Hillary consistently won most of the States where only registered Democrats were allowed to take part in the Presidential primaries.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6603062&mesg_id=6605882

Does it bother you that they are doing this?

They stalk him on the bus tour, they are making ads against him. Why Dean? They tried to do it during the primary as well.

believe someone can stop them from stalking the chairman, running lies about him in ads, and calling him a liar when he tells them the rules.

The whole DNC is under attack from their phone calls and so are the superdelegates.

Hillary could stop this in a heartbeat.

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, she respects their First Amendment rights?

You know, like she does for what's left of our Fourth Amendment Rights?

So what they do as a Team is going to be looked at by many people who have questioned their behavior in the primary season. They can either try to heal themselves and the Democratic Party and boost Obama's chances or make their legacy rating go down even more in some people's views while boosting the win at all cost distructive behavior of the past in their avid supporters eyes. It is up to them how they wish to be viewed in the future of an Obama candidacy.

:shrug:

If noone has noticed, Clinton haters love to laud others for their support of Obama, and their "wise" choice. Funny how that admiration, and faith in their ability to make the right choice is thrown under the bus when making a positive statement concerning Clinton. Screaming at us how much you hate the Clintons is not exactly the best tact in exposing Clinton's so-called "All About Us" tour. It doesn't matter how many pro-Obama speeches she makes. It doesn't matter how many times she states her support for Obama, and it doesn't matter what efforts are made by Obama, and his prominent supporters to bring democrats together, Clinton haters will not let go of the fantasy world they have created for themselves. "It's like (Clinton haters) take pride in being ignorant". :evilgrin: Thank you Senator Obama for providing the words that, in more than one case, explains everything to a tee. If McShame is smart, and he gets in trouble during a speech, he can always pull out his back-up, which reads, "Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Hill and Bill, the Clintons, ad nauseum. Clinton haters may be so impressed, McShame may find himself with more admirers than he thought. Thanks.
quickesst

that it takes two...two opposing ideals, two opposing people, two opposing groups...why can't any discussion about this situation be held, w/o one group using words like bashing, hate, haters, etc., and on and on...ad nauseum?? I'm sick of it all...Everyone needs to understand something...the primary was hers to lose, she did...it doesn't matter how close it was....she lost....it takes only ONE vote to lose...in any election....but the 2008 Presidential election is OURS to lose... someone above made the point that in all of those conventions where votes for other candidates were allowed, as a show of support, or whatever, the DEMS went on to lose the election...is THAT what we really want??? Are we really ready to risk that???

You want four years of McCain, after the last 8 years of Bush?? I simply can't understand that mind set...Obama is the "presumptive nominee"...Clinton has asked her supporters to get behind him and help elect him...IF they truly support her, then why can't they follow her instructions????why don't we allow Clinton and Obama to settle this between themselves and leave the convention out of it...

Don't we realize that the Rep's would just love to see us go down in flames when this election should be ours overwhelmingly???...How about considering what's best for the country as a whole, instead of it being about one person......wb

is you're basing it on the "point that someone made above" that in conventions where votes are allowed the Democrat went on to lose the election. This is a lie. Since the first convention in 1832 there has only been 4 times that the candidate was nominated by acclamation. 1936, 1964, 1996, 2000. Votes were held in all other years. Some years the Democrat won, some years they lost. Nominating by acclamation obviously doesn't guarantee a win either (2000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_National_Conventions