Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With all the votes that Clinton received, this move is really the only "fair" thing to do.
Do you think that once she takes the stage she will release her delegates?
Could Hillary and Bill be planning something different than Barack has in mind?
Will there ever truly be "peace in the kingdom?"
Unfortunately, the Democratic party is not worthy of Barack Obama. This move is an example of why Republicans have had their way with the Dems the last 8 years. Quite pathetic.
Her die hard camp like GeorgiaDem who posts here will never vote for Obama .
That's the bunch that snivel . They have a right to but Obama shouldnt waste time with them.
I leaned for Hillary over Obama due to experience but even before it was over was in the Obama camp .
Thanks for speaking for me, but try to get your facts right.
I am not a die hard Hillary supporter.
I am a citizen that gets to vote for who I choose,
not for who is picked for me.
I have never liked nor trusted Obama, and I will not vote for Obama just because that is the will of the DNC.
If you want to, then do it, but don't try and guilt me into it. I was a good little dem and voted for Al Gore and then I was a good little dem and voted for John Kerry.
Well, this time, I say no.
It amazes me at how many folks on here think their vote is their vote, but my vote does not belong to me.
Vote for Obama, but back off telling me who I need to vote for.
I own my vote.com~~~~~~
Clinton addressed any of her backers who are considering voting for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.,: "I strongly urge you to reconsider."
Of Obama, she said, "I know that he'll work for you. He'll fight for you, and he'll stand up for you every single day in the White House," Clinton said, calling Obama "a leader who invests in our future."
I didnt know this, did you?: The town of Unity, NH, where they'll hold their first joint campaign rally, "was symbolically chosen by the Obama campaign for the event because of its name and because 107 residents voted for Obama and 107 voted for Clinton during the primaries."
I wonder if this request would have been fulfilled if the roles were reversed.....
I think it would have been. The race was to tight and historical for this to have not been the outcome either way. Had Hillary won we would be at the same point and the same direction.
Hmmm, guess this officially takes Hillary off the short list for VP. You can't run for both!
I don't believe that Hillary would have taken VP if she had been asked. She's setting herself up for a run in 2012 if 2008 doesn't work out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Upton
According to First Readthis was a joint decision and both sides are happy with the outcome. Also it is likely that Clinton will release her delegates to vote for Obama after her name is submitted.
Sounds like a good move all around. My only question is, with this now off the table,..what will those disenchanted Clinton supporters snivel about next?
Of course it was a joint decision. Obama realizes that he has no choice but to have this happen. You can't honestly think that they sat together in the back rooms and Barack said, "Ya know, Hill, I've been thinking. You really did get most of the popular vote. I think that it would only be fair if your name was put into nomination and we allow the American voters decide. I just want to be fair."
What will they snivel about? Probably the fact that the POTUS stinks and Hillary would have done better.
Do they do this during every convention (put the names of the winner and runner up into nomination)?
Yes. Although Carter was president, he was not given an automatic renomination and did not have the minimum number of delegates in 1980, so it was he against Ted Kennedy. Mondale did have the required number of delegates in 1984, but Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson's (and other) names were still on the ballot.
In 1988, Dukakis was the presumptive nominee, but Jesse Jackson and others were still on the ballot.
In 1992, Clinton was the presumptive nominee, but Jerry Brown and Paul Tsongas were still on the ballot.
1996 was different because Clinton was unanimously nominated and unchallenged by other Democrat Party members.
Having Hillary's name on the ballot is the right thing, and in keeping with the Democrat Party's Charter, and is quite democratic.
And yes, it only takes any combination of 112 super-delegates or Edward's 21 delegates to defect and Obama doesn't get nominated on the first round.
The fact that Hillary is being nominated doesn't necessarily mean something's up, but the fact that she hasn't fully conceded and that neither her nor Billary are stumping for Obama might mean that they're very close to getting their 112 defecting delegates.
It's also probably why she has rejected VP offers. A show of force is one way for her to get what she wants, whatever that might be. Perhaps Secretary of State, so she can wallup Obama in 2012.
Yes. Although Carter was president, he was not given an automatic renomination and did not have the minimum number of delegates in 1980, so it was he against Ted Kennedy. Mondale did have the required number of delegates in 1984, but Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson's (and other) names were still on the ballot.
In 1988, Dukakis was the presumptive nominee, but Jesse Jackson and others were still on the ballot.
In 1992, Clinton was the presumptive nominee, but Jerry Brown and Paul Tsongas were still on the ballot.
1996 was different because Clinton was unanimously nominated and unchallenged by other Democrat Party members.
Having Hillary's name on the ballot is the right thing, and in keeping with the Democrat Party's Charter, and is quite democratic.
And yes, it only takes any combination of 112 super-delegates or Edward's 21 delegates to defect and Obama doesn't get nominated on the first round.
The fact that Hillary is being nominated doesn't necessarily mean something's up, but the fact that she hasn't fully conceded and that neither her nor Billary are stumping for Obama might mean that they're very close to getting their 112 defecting delegates.
It's also probably why she has rejected VP offers. A show of force is one way for her to get what she wants, whatever that might be. Perhaps Secretary of State, so she can wallup Obama in 2012.
Wow oh wow what a campaign she will run with no money and no organization. Do you really think Obama will give her his money and his people?
Or will she run on a shoe box campaign and just take the Lewinsky hits etc?
none of us are worthy of barack obama, a junior senator. wait, actually, obama isn't worthy of my toilet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexus
Unfortunately, the Democratic party is not worthy of Barack Obama. This move is an example of why Republicans have had their way with the Dems the last 8 years. Quite pathetic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
