Richardson: Clinton to Pledge Her Delegates to Obama After Vote to Make it Unanimous

(CNN) — New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said he’s now comfortable with Sen. Hillary Clinton placing her name in nomination at the Democratic convention, but he admitted he was uneasy about the move at first.

“It's going to be placed in nomination in recognition of the 18 million votes that she got — her historic candidacy. But then she is going to pledge her delegates to Sen. Obama so that it's a unanimous — a unanimous election. That — that gives me comfort,” he said Sunday on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

“Until that had been worked out, I was a little uneasy about there being just a roll call without any transference of that support to Sen. Obama. But the point is the party is united.”

Last week, Barack Obama’s campaign said it 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."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/17/richardson-i-was-a-little-uneasy-about-a-clinton-roll-call/

Given the treatment of Richardson during the Primaries, to know he is confident means a lot. Certainly reduces my concerns.

Recommended.

I don't know why we would have any doubts. :sarcasm:

Right now, according to fivethirtyeight.com Obama and McCain are just about neck and neck in both the popular and electoral votes, which was certainly not the case very long ago. Pray or send positive thoughts, whatever you are comfortable with. And maybe contact Hill and encourage her to be energetic, whole-hearted and persistent in campaigning for Obama. At least reserve judgment until Denver.

The drama builds, record number of American tune in. In the end, the UNITY celebration "off the chain". I can't wait.

Bingo.

Think someone might have thought that would be a good thing? :D

all is forgiven.

Do any of them realize how ignorant and ridiculous they appear when they spout this stuff? :rofl:

I guess I missed the part where Hillary Clinton and her delegates needed Richardson's permission to do anything.

implying that he or anyone else "gave permission" for this. I am sure that it was worked out between HRC and BHO's respective staffs.

Careful, or the pizza man may be on your trail.

If Clinton were a male candidate, she would not be subjected to the fearmongering, threats and attempts to restrict standard operating procedures relating to Dem primary nominees.

No deal needs to be worked out, the rules are clear and, until this convention, applied normally without controversy.

That Clinton has been subjected to so much gender discrimination as a Dem candidate will reverberate through the party, for better or for worse, for many many years to come. In many ways, its a good thing. Equal rights for Dem women candidates is a noncontroversial issue that has somehow become controversial.

Fine, then we need to fix it. The Democratic Party is not the party of gender discrimination and leanings in that direction need to be stopped. Expect to see the problem dealt with after the election.

If a strong Democratic Party that doesn't discriminate against women is a problem for you, that's truly a shame.

In fact, she had every advantage entering the race: name recognition, the party apparatus at her disposal, and a pile of cash. She was at 50% just walking through the door and pissed it away. Not because of sexism but because of poor management and planning of her campaign. She needs to accept responsibility for her loss and stop blaming everything else under the sun EXCEPT herself.

or is that chicken?

:P

Rules are rules.

DNC rules are rules.

Dem primary candidates are allowed to have her name placed in nomination. Its standard procedure.

Its a DNC rule.

All other Dem candidates have received fair treatment under these same rules for the last hundred years or so.

Can you explain why the Dem party, bastion of opposition to discrimination, would violate its own rules when a Dem woman candidate is one of the nominees?

Can you explain why the same rule that allowed Shirley Chisolm's name to be placed in nomination doesn't apply to Hillary Clinton?

Thanks in advance for your prompt and complete reply.

Clinton was unopposed in '96, Bradley did not submit his name in 2000 and none of the candidates but Kerry submitted their name in 2004.

The last time we had two candidates submit their names was '92 when Jerry Brown did it and Clinton's aides were less than enthusiastic about it and made sure that he didn't get a chance to speak.

And while it was historic for Shirley Chisolm to submit her name, McGovern ended up giving his acceptance speech at 3am because it took forever to finally nominate him and giving his speech that late greatly weakened his candidacy.

I'll be happy to take up a collection for some night school.

Richardson is relieved because if Hillary does this it will prevent the media from exploiting any perceived "division" between the two camps and undermining the convention.

that has caused the ill feelings.

that your ignorance of the political process allows you to misunderstand the DNC rules for primary candidates and conventions.

Might I make a few suggestions for remedial learning about politics and the Democratic Party?

and my misunderstanding of the rules come into play? I said it was the bs campaign she ran and not sexism that has caused her to have sooooooo many people that are tired of her. You seem to have one standard answer on here for everyone. Everyone but you is dumb and a woman hater. I would say that you can't see the truth. YOu must have a huge blind spot.

Now, I admit the republicons would never vote for Hillary. Part of that is because they are so full of Clintonian hate. Part of that is because they are repugs. And part of that is because she is a woman. But to suggest on a board of this nature that we here hate her because she is a woman, is ridiculous.

I myself have only come to dislike Hillary since her campaign. She looked foolish and bratty. It was unbecoming a woman or man. You're answer of everyone who distrusts her as being dumb and a woman hater, is also foolish and bratty. I can see why you admire her so much.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and both candidates found those to be formidable challenges.

that said, the candidate with the better campaign prevailed.

Voting for McCain? Sitting at home? If so, I'll add your name to my blame pile. And when my son loses his health care all together, and women lose the right to control their own bodies - I'll make sure he knows and they know that a bunch of sore losers couldn't get over themselves enough to do the right thing. She lost fair and square. She had every advantage, and squandered it through mismanagement and mixed message. We don't have time to play "crybaby I want my way". There is too much at stake right now to wait.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=150&topic_id=16236&mesg_id=16236

I was talking about the party and its leadership.

:shrug:

The rest of us just endured being called cultists for 4 months.

Even when they ran losers (as candidates, not as people) like Dukakis, Mondale and Kerry.

IMO, the cultists are those who would rather see McCain win than get behind the nominee of the Democratic Party, unless, that is, the nominee is Hillary. Feminists, my ass.

being called racist and Nazi and, of course...disloyal...because we supported Senator Clinton in the primaries. You will NEVER convince me that there was absolutely NO sexism in play during this campaign, but every time any of us even mention(ed) the word, we were told we were whiny, "victim" card playing racists.

The vast majority of us fully support Senator Obama as our nominee, as do Senator and President Clinton, but for ANYONE to claim that there was NO sexism involved in the campaign...only racism...and to continue bashing the Clintons at every possible moment, is ludicrous!

Because that's a pretty clear sign of who's running the show :eyes:

I don't recall the DNC moving to AR when Bill was running or TN when Gore was the nominee.

:eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

seriously. Either you shouldn't be here because you so obviously do not support Obama with your constant snide remarks and belong on another site that is more conducive to your needs (the Breaking Mews! one comes to mind)

or you shouldn't be here because your sorry ass should have been canned in concrete weeks ago.

where the poster said Obama is not her candidate.

and no, you don't control the party, thank goodness.

And yes, you will have to be held accountable when you totally screw up the operation and lose the GE, too.

Focus on running against the GOP instead of acting like novices. Its more important for Dems to win the election, period.

and if Dems choose to discriminate against women presidential candidates, they can be prepared for a righteous reorganization after the November election.

I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of a misogynist, male, Democrat when the shit comes down. Be prepared.

thanks for the laugh.:rofl:


ego much?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it's the horrible way she conducted herself and her campaign, like the way she aligned with McCain against Obama, and the way she kept hammering him even after it was perfectly clear that she wouldn't win the nomination, and her use of the race and class card.

:wtf:

:eyes:

that's one of the big reasons it's time for them to take a hike and relinquish their self appointed thrones.

or he wouldn't say it. He is not a bullshit artist.

This is excellent news and a class move by Hillary.

knowing her camp has been pressing for it (as backed up by the video of her wink-wink to supporters). He gave her the umbrella of saying he was for it, but Obama, hell the party, needs the Clinton Convention Dog and Pony Show like a hole in the head. The primaries are over and the intention of the convention is the launch of the general election, not a retro homage to a provocative primary that divided people and continues to divide people.

The "look at me" demands of the Clintons and all their usual suspect cronies are the epitome of narcissism and selfishness. One might say even a last ditch opportunity to demean the nominee some more to sufficiently take the focus off him just enough to tilt the contest to the Republicans in a HRC2012 or bust kind of way.

And after agreeing that MI and FL wouldn't count, leaving her name on the MI ballot saying it "wouldn't count for anything," hoocha-hoocha-hoocha she turned around and DEMANDED it be counted.

So, you'll have to forgive those of us that were bit by the dog the first time and learned not to wave red meat in the dog's face again.

edited for typo

Hillary has the right to place her name in nomination and have a roll call, just like any other candidate who came before her.

I don't think Obama had any choice.

Maybe he let them speak at Denver to keep them from giving interviews on Faux Snooze.

Hell, I'm surprised Geraldine Ferraro isn't giving a big speech about race realtions at the convention - she'd be a big hit with the Clintons!!!!

:rofl:

Okay, THAT was funny. :o

I completely agree with your post. And it's good to know that even with all of the "YOU people just don't understand conventions!!1" and "A roll call is no big deal!12!" crowd here on DU, even a Democratic big wig like Bill Richardson had big ol' juicy doubts about Hillary's name being on the ballot.

"Until that had been worked out, I was a little uneasy about there being just a roll call without any transference of that support to Sen. Obama."

No sh*t, Mr. Richardson! Join the freaking club

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

While I don't agree with how she conducted herself during the primaries (or even in the years leading up to them), I'm glad to see she's on-board with the most important objective of defeating McCain.

I'm unfamiliar with the process of pledging one's delegates though: is it automatic that your delegates go, or do the delegates have the final say? I remember in 2004, Kerry did not get a unanimous vote (I thought I remembered 15 DK delegates, but I was way off. Also forgot about the abstains) and that became a "story" to show that Kerry couldn't even get his party behind him, and that Bush was able to get a unanimous vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNC_2004#President

Sometimes one could get the impression that no one at DU--or at least not the resident drama queens and indignation junkies--has ever watched a convention before.

In the past either only the winner's name was entered into nomination--as was typical--or the convention would be contested. For someone to be entered into nomination specifically for PR reasons, then throw their support to somebody else, is highly irregular.

It's a pity, too. The roll call was the finest part of the convention. A true bit of Americana.

If Hillary is stating her intention to pledge her delegates to Obama then I feel more at ease too. When I first heard her name was to put in for nomination I was suspicious.

Julie

Mostly, I like that it was Obama's idea. The Clinton's needn't have worried about being disrespected, Obama was looking out for Hillary AND the unity of the party. I'm cautiously pleased.

Great TV.... All of the votes get counted and then Senator Clinton takes the stage... pledging all of her delegates to Senator Obama...

Love it.

What did he expect, a political coup?

Please..........

:eyes:

was the superbowl hafltime show.

Noiw, we all remember how that tuyrned out. Tell Clinton that Bill really shouldn't go on.

by the Obama campaign to release this info in an effort to comfort the Democratic voters who were seeing RED over Hillary's name being tossed into the ring. Particularly the black and brown voters.

It's certainly calmed me down a bit. Only seeing Hot Pink now.....

the vast majority of them preferred Clinton to Obama. That fondness hasn't changed just because she's not the nominee.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You stated that the "black and brown" Democrats were seeing RED over Hillary placing her name in nomination. I'm just saying that you're wrong. Hispanics are not upset that she's having a roll call. The Hispanic community like and respect both Clintons.

Also, who the hell said that Hispanics will not vote for Obama over McCain?

YOU said that. And that was an obvious reference to the primaries. Thus, YOU are talking about the primaries.

You made a reference that Hispanics have some "fondness" for Hillary. My point was that whatever "fondness" Hispanics had for Clinton seems to have been converted quickly, seamlessly and EASILY to Obama. It's been reported that over 75% of Latinos who voted for Clinton will now vote for Obama. And they did it without all of the wailing and beating of breasts that a small but vocal number of her white, female supporters did.

Draw your own conclusions.

If you believe that Hispanics have not come around to Obama, as a Dem, you should be concerned about what can be done to win Hispanics over to Obama. I assume you are.

about Hillary placing her name in nomination and that's not true. The majority of Hispanics will vote for any Democratic nominee, as they have done in previous elections, but that doesn't mean that they have stopped liking either Clinton.

Besides, I hate the term "brown" when referring to latinos. Hispanic is NOT a race it's an ethnic group, they come in all races: caucasian, black, native, asian and a mixture of all the above.

"Besides, I hate the term "brown" when referring to latinos. Hispanic is NOT a race it's an ethnic group, they come in all races: caucasian, black, native, asian and a mixture of all the above."

You're the one that said 'Hispanics' but now you're giving a crash course in anthropology! :rofl: The grasping at straws never gets old.

"The majority of Hispanics will vote for any Democratic nominee, as they have done in previous elections, but that doesn't mean that they have stopped liking either Clinton."

If you generalizing comment is true, then they're all behind Obama, right? Seeing as Latinos will 'vote for any Democratic nominee'. Right?

Is Bill Richardson (choose one)

a)an ibecile

or

b)a corrupt political prostitute

that he needed permission to support an established rule of the DNC convention rules?

Your condescending and 'divide & conquer' attitude is beyond unnecessary but who's really surprised? I'm sure the last time you bit the dust you were just as vocal with your 'expertise'.

Is "unfaithful_servant" (choose one)

a)an ibecile who can't spell "imbecile"

or

b)a corrupt pharma-funded kittytroll

that s/he needed to whine about mean old "Judas" Richardson again?

:rofl:

just some stress relief for a shitty Monday morning.

I thought that she might do something like this, but hearing it from her is reassuring.

It'll be harder for the media to print the blaring headline "DIVISION AT DEMOCRAT CONVENTION GUYZ" if she pledges her delegates to him on the second ballot.