"Clinton would not be the first woman to have her name placed in nomination..."

History.

isn't that what we all say.

I hope the Obama people bring lots of air horns ...
maybe pots and pans would help!

I'll be over here on the side lines just in case I'm needed.

If she had dropped out, there would have been talk about how close she came, but the distinction of being the first to complete the primary would go to someone else.

ProSense, your title makes the argument that "Clinton would not be the first woman to have her name placed in nomination..." But who said that?

The link you provided clearly does not make that assertion:

"Obama's campaign encouraged Clinton to put her name in roll call '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,' according to a statement from the Clinton and Obama press offices".

In my OP earlier today, I carefully wrote the following: "The roll call will also include the first woman in the history of the United States to ever have run a full 50-state candidacy for President and who came very close to actually winning."

Where did you get the quotation that you gave in your title that you are proving is wrong?

Your thread seems petty and beneath you.

It is a very historic thing for Hillary's name to be put out on the roll call.

Your trying to diminsh it is sad.

Misleading? Did someone have to mention it before or in order for me to post this snip from the CNN article?



Is that really necessary?

What's up with that?

Sheesh!

And when it's Hillary's turn then she can go all historical on us. But this is Obama's historical moment and NOT Clinton's.

nomination. I know some people like to pretend that he did, but he actually didn't. So whoever didn't get the nomination was going to be seriously acknowledged. If the roles were reversed the level of respect accorded to Obama would have been so much higher then Hilary has been given.

And the argument you just made is all about your own preferences. But you are getting your choice as the nominee--that should be good enough. Conventions are all about winning new voters. Doing things to reach out to voters you don't have locked up--or that you don't have at all--is what you are supposed to do. No candidate is entitled to a single voter. He or she has to earn them. This is part of what Obama is doing in that regards. And it is pretty mimimal--these votes have happened throughout Party history. It isn't exceptional, it's standard.

Steve

Then heal the wounds by celebrating in the first black Presidential nominee.

That's just how it works--always has been. It's called an election. There is nothing new about what I am saying.

As for celebrating--I am trying really hard to like him. I said I would vote for him.

Steve

Hillary is not a primary opponent. She is on our team and the primaries are over. Her supporters threaten Obama by threatening to desert the dem party. They are on our side to distract and make demands. And the media is puffing this up as much as they can.

You forget the level of contempt and disrespect the Clintons showed during the primary.

And it's just sad that people are now trying to spin the delegate count into some kind of "he didn't really win" argument. As I recall, there was a time when the same people were screaming that pledged delegate counts meant nothing, and the superdelegates were entitled to overturn the lead if they felt like it.

Obamites are the ones who disputed that.

It isn't Clinton supporters who scream that the PD count doesn't get you the nomination--it is the rules of the Democratic Party. And it was, and is, inaccurate to say that if the PD leader doesn't get the nomination then the SDs "overturned" anything. You could just as easily say that if one of the candidates wins the popular vote or the electoral college map or the most congressional districts, but doesn't get the nomination, then all the delegates "overturned" the people's will. But I will admit that Obama did a good job of getting that narrative going, complete with totally self-righteous supporters. The primaries are over and they are still as self-righteous as ever. As for the what the SDs were "entitled" to do....I think the rules of the DNC pretty much settle that question by specifically spelling it out.

I didn't forget the "level of contempt and disrespect" the Clintons showed during the primary--I dispute it. I laugh at the suggestion that they did anything of the sort. It was Obama IMO who showed utter contempt and disrespect, and not due to any kind of legitimate complaint that he had.

Steve

It was Hillary who lost.

have to do with whether one of the candidates behaved disrespectfully? They are seperate issues, since victory has nothing to do with the facts pertaining to behavior as different people interpret them.

All you are really saying is that "history is written by the winners," so if Obama won then everything his supporters claim is hereby validated. Well...that doesn't make very much sense. It is also the attitude that is so often the hallmark of losing GE campaigns.

Steve

I'm saying that comment is nonsense. The reality is that Hillary loss was in part due to her negative campaign.