The Roll Call

The AP is reporting that yesterday an agreement was reached on today's roll call vote.

Behind the scenes Tuesday, the Obama and Clinton camps struck a tentative deal that would allow some states to cast votes in a roll call before somebody -- possibly Clinton herself -- cuts short the tally and asks the convention to nominate Obama by unanimous consent.

DemConWatch elaborates, per an Obama conference call this morning.

A joint statement from Alice Germond and the Obama and Clinton campaigns was sent to the state delegation chairs last night about today's process.

They say that vote tally sheets have been distributed to the state chairs, and they will pass them out to the delegates. They will be reviewing them at the state breakfasts this morning. From 3 - 5 MT this afternoon, the nomination and roll call process will occur.

There will be speeches nominating Clinton first, Obama second: Clinton will have two seconds to her nomination, and Obama will have three. There should be about 30 minutes of speeches, the tally sheets will be submitted, and then there will be a state roll call, with the totals for each candidate being announced by the state chairs.

We should know more after the 1pm delegates meeting. I'm going to try to ascertain the status of the second petition Hillary delegates were circulating yesterday.



Display:


Re: The Roll Call (none / 0)

It may just be me but this strikes me as a lot less egregious than it does others.

Here are some reasons why:
1)  There never is an individual by individual (Delegate Smith, Delegate Jones etc.) roll call vote a la the US Senate.

2)  In light of 1 the delegation chair could in theory make up numbers out of whole cloth.

3)  Other options that would be on the table would be acclamation (a complete non-starter), or some sort of off hours/rolling roll call (would having your votes registered at a podium at 3 AM make people feel any better?).

4)  If a rolling roll call is unacceptable and the current plan is unacceptable what would be better?  If the answer is "a primetime roll call", please name 3 hours worth of speakers between 8 PM and 11PM that you would eliminate.

Should Hillary Clinton be honored? Yes.  Should President Clinton be honored? Yes.  He is receiving much better treatment than the other living Democratic former President.  

However, how do the details get worked out in any other way?


Visiting the hopium dens proudly since 2007.
by AZphilosopher on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:49:17 PM EST

The Democratic Party (none / 0)

is in a never-ending search for new ways to appear silly.


No way. No how. No McCain. . . . . . If you can ship a job to Bangalore India, you can ship a job to Flint Michigan.
by NJ Liberal on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:20:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Roll Call (none / 0)

This is just bizarre and reminds me of setting up a negotiating with North Korea or something.


by RandyMI on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:55:25 PM EST

Re: The Roll Call (none / 0)

Is there really a serious concern that "Hillary supporters" (I'm not sure people who do this are that, in point of fact) are trying to solicit delegates to change their votes so Hillary can perhaps win a Roll Call vote? Can someone please post about that since I have not seen one, and there was a rumor on a site which shall not be mentioned that they had three hundred such and were now claiming eight hundred. what's going on with that?


by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:07:58 PM EST

Re: The Roll Call (2.00 / 2)

No, no one is seriously trying to swing the vote to Hillary over Obama.

This is a historic moment.  For the first time ever, a female candidate for president garnered some 18 million votes.  It is right that there be a formal recognition of this achievement.  Like it or not, more than 50% of the Dem base is female.  It means something to them, and it will mean something to the future, that there was a respectful acknowledgment of how far she came.  This is history happening in front of us.  Hillary's campaign will be remembered along with Seneca Falls, and it is appropriate to have the formalities associated with recognizing this historic event.

This is not the same as projecting disunity or trying to "steal" the nomination.

There was a rumor yesterday that they were going to try to have it all happen secretly, off-camera.  That would, rightfully, have upset many and would have ruined a historic moment.  Something that allows the delegates to cast a vote for her, consistent with the primary votes, and then formally nominate Obama is good, it's healing, it's traditional, and there's no reason to panic about it.


by milton333 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:35:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree 100% (2.00 / 1)

I actually think it weakens Obama to NOT have the official roll call. Just as Clinton (and her supporters and delegates) deserves her historic moment, he NEEDS the solid proof that he has more delegates in the official, final, PUBLIC tally.

I really cannot fathom why his campaign would not want that to happen? It gives the appearance that they are not confident in the outcome.

The outcome will accurately represent the REALITY. This was an exceedingly close race, there are big states which overwhelmingly supported Clinton, bug constituencies which Obama must unlock in order to win this thing. The party IS divided, that is the reality. But Obama won.

Obama must now face the challenges which come along with trying to reach true unity... not by brushing any indication of dissent under the rug but by looking it in the eye and trying to understand. It is one thing to talk about unity and say that we'll all be united... it is quite another to lead the way, set the example, convert the dubious.

The WORST thing Obama could do right now is act as if everyone chose him, that this was in any way an overwhelming or unanimous win. It wasn't. He's got to show the humility to say clearly that he knows he's got work to do, that he acknowledges that he wasn't the first choice of half the party... and that he'll work his ass off.

The DNC must stop being scared of its own shadow and handling Obama with cautious kid gloves.


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:51:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree 100% (none / 0)

I disagree.  The party is ALWAYS divided, that is the reality, that is what the Democratic Party is about, diversity of opinion.  But we always come together for the common good because we are the Party which cares about the COMMON good.  As a Party we have taken the drama out the the convention and put it in the Primary system and by doing so put the decision making in the hands of the people and out of the backrooms.  That has been a good thing.  To pretend the role call means anything is to emphasize the division at a time we need to emphasize the unity.  Hillary nailed it perfectly last night when she asked all of us to ask ourselves who are we really in this for?    Obama shouldn't have to win you over anymore.  It's no longer a case of nuance between  his health plan and hers.  It's a matter of Health Care Reform or not.  Roe v. Wade or overturning Roe v. Wade.

The historical aspect of Hillary's campaign is not that she was the first woman to run for President because she was not.  History was made at the California debate when two and only two choices stood before us: a black man and a white woman.  That was her, his, and our historical moment.  We are way past that and we now are on a mission to take back the White House and take back our country.  To do so we must grab hold of the narrative of the campaigns and make sure everything we do is aimed squarely toward achieving our goal.  


by Piuma on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:50:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.