Listen Up, People: Symbolic Votes Are What They Have in Iran?!

Marc Rubin, co-founder of the Denver Group, speaks out in response to the suggestion that the roll call vote for Hillary Clinton at the Democratic Party’s convention will be a “symbolic gesture.”

Rubin writes:

“Yesterday's news that Senator Clinton was going to have her name placed in nomination (as it should have been in the first place) was completely undermined by a degree of political stupidity by Obama and the DNC so stupefying that one would think it was beyond even the most inept politician.

‘“A few hours after the announcement that Senator Clinton's name would be placed in nomination, someone in the Obama campaign or the DNC, at the behest of the Obama campaign, put out a statement saying that Clinton's name in nomination and the subsequent roll call vote will be ‘a symbolic gesture’ reducing it to something as fake as Obama's ill fated Presidential seal.”’

Read more.

Joint Statement from Clinton and Obama on Denver Ballot

Below is a joint statement from the press offices of Senators Clinton and Obama announcing that Hillary Clinton’s name will be on the ballot in Denver:

Since June, Senators Obama and Clinton have been working together to ensure a Democratic victory this November. They are both committed to winning back the White House and to to ensuring that the voices of all 35 million people who participated in this historic primary election are respected and heard in Denver. To honor and celebrate these voices and votes, both Senator Obama’s and Senator Clinton’s names will be placed in nomination.

“I am convinced that honoring Senator Clinton’s historic campaign in this way will help us celebrate this defining moment in our history and bring the party together in a strong united fashion,” said Senator Barack Obama.

Senator Obama’s campaign encouraged Senator Clinton’s name to be placed in nomination 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.

“With every voice heard and the Party strongly united, we will elect Senator Obama President of the United States and put our nation on the path to peace and prosperity once again,” said Senator Hillary Clinton.

Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are looking forward to a convention unified behind Barack Obama as the Party’s nominee and to victory this fall for America

Agreement Near: Clinton’s Name Will Be Placed In Nomination in Denver

Marc Ambinder reports this morning, Aug. 14, 2008:

“Reports of strife between negotiators for Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are exaggerated and the two sides are nearing an agreement on how Clinton's delegates will participate in the formal nominating process at the Democratic National Convention, according to advisers to both Democrats.

“Although Clinton had resisted pressure from donors, allies and supporters to accept demands to allow her name placed in nomination, she and aides to Obama seemed to realize independently that doing so would be the best way to incorporate and welcome Clinton's supporters into Obama's general election campaign, both symbolically and practically.”

Read more.

Hillary’s Backers Will Be Heard in Denver

At Real Clear Politics, Stephen Ohlemacher reports that Clinton backers will be making noise at the Democratic convention in Denver.

In other words, Mr. Ohlemacher, they’re still refusing the dictates of party leaders to sit down, shut up, and get with the program?

Ohlemacher writes:

'"The Clinton and Obama campaigns have pledged in a joint statement to 'ensure that the voices of everyone who participated in this historic process are respected" at the convention.

"They have not, however, decided whether Clinton's name will be placed in nomination.

"'The only way a Democratic Party will have the credibility to elect a Democrat in November is if the party uses a legitimate process to choose its nominee," said Heidi Li Feldman, co-founder of The Denver Group. 'We are not per se a Clinton support group, we are a Democratic Party get-your-act-together support group.'

"Some of the activists complain the Obama campaign manipulated party caucuses; others feel the media treated Clinton unfairly. Nearly all are still angry over how the party divvied up delegates from the Florida and Michigan primaries.

"With the agreement of all Democratic candidates, the states were initially stripped of all their delegates for violating party rules by holding early primaries. None of the candidates campaigned in the two states, but Clinton won the two primaries and thereafter tried to get all the delegates seated.

"The national party reinstated the delegates in May, but gave each a half vote. And it awarded Obama some Michigan delegates, although he had taken his name off that ballot because of the party's initial decision.

"With the nomination clinched, Obama said this month that he would seek to give both delegations full voting rights."

Read more.

Why Does Obama Fear an Open Convention?

Photo credits: AP

Rumor has it the Obama team is resisting attempts by Clinton supporters to have her name on the ballot with a roll call vote at the national convention in a couple of weeks. You have to wonder why Obama and company fear an open convention conducted according to democratic procedures. Carla Marinucci offers a few clues in her article in the San Francisco Chronicle today, Aug. 12, 2008 that begins:

“A determined crowd of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's delegates - preparing to head to the Democratic Party's national convention in Denver - have begun gathering signatures to ensure her name is placed into nomination, insisting their effort won't take spotlight off presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

“Many of those involved in the campaign, which they say is a matter of respect and acknowledgement of 18 million voters who backed Clinton, argue that the nomination of the New York senator is a matter of historic and political precedent at such party conventions. And they're chafing at reports that the campaign of the Illinois senator is resisting the efforts - and even hoping to avoid a roll-call vote.”

Marinucci spoke to several Clinton delegates who are prepared to vote for her in Denver:

‘“Since 1884, we've had a roll-call vote. ... It's a nominating convention, not a coronation,’ said Garry Mauro, the four-term Texas land commissioner and past gubernatorial candidate who ran against George W. Bush - and who will go to his 10th Democratic national convention this month as a Clinton delegate.’

“With less than two weeks until Aug. 25, when Democrats open their nominating convention in Denver, the sentiment is typical of many Clinton delegates who say the nomination of the New York senator from the floor of the convention doesn't endanger Obama's presidential campaign - and could serve his cause.

“The Obama campaign declined to comment on the story, but many supporters of the presumed Democratic nominee suggest that Clinton will get more than her share of high-profile face time and respect at the convention.

“She is scheduled to deliver a keynote address on Aug. 26 - reportedly to be introduced by her daughter, Chelsea - and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, is delivering the prime-time address on the following night, when the vice presidential candidate is nominated.

“’Still, ‘I don't think there's any harm in nominating Sen. Clinton at the convention,’ said David Serrano Sewell of San Francisco, one of the delegates at the forefront of the signature-gathering movement. ‘It will acknowledge the success we had, and it will give an opportunity for people to express themselves and get behind Obama and win in November.’

“Already, he said, Clinton delegates have more than half of the 300 signatures needed to put Clinton's name into nomination - and they fully expect to get more than enough by the time the convention begins in Denver.”

Read more:

It’s Not Too Late for Democrats to Nominate the Better-Qualified Candidate

Photo credits: AP/Susan Walsh

Two of the three articles I’m linking to this morning are related to the current positions staked out on the war in Iraq by Barack Obama and John McCain. The third article highlights the closeness of the general election race that many would argue ought to be Obama’s to lose.

WaPo Criticizes Obama on Iraq War

An editorial in today’s Washington Post turns Barack Obama’s criticism of President Bush and John McCain for their rigidity on the Iraq War back onto Obama:

“BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: "They said we couldn't leave when violence was up, they say we can't leave when violence is down." Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might "refine" his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.

Read more:

Obama's Web Site Deletes Surge References

Touching on the related matter of Obama’s initial opposition to the surge, Andrew Malcolm's post at Top of the Ticket (the LA Times) reports how the Obama campaign has lately deleted relevant references on its Web site:

“A funny thing happened over on the Barack Obama campaign website in the last few days.

“The parts that stressed his opposition to the 2007 troop surge and his statement that more troops would make no difference in a civil war have somehow disappeared. John McCain and Obama have been going at it heavily in recent days over the benefits of the surge.

“The Arizona senator, who advocated the surge for years before the Bush administration employed it, says the resulting reduction in violence is proof it worked with progress on “15 of 18 political benchmarks and Obama's plan to withdraw troops by now would have resulted in surrender.

“When President Bush ordered the surge in January, 2007, Obama said, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse," a position he maintained throughout 2007. This year he acknowledged progress, but maintained his position that political progress was lacking.

“Tuesday, while Obama gave a speech on foreign policy, the New York Daily News was first to notice the removal of parts of Obama's campaign site listing the Iraq troop surge as part of "The Problem." An Obama spokeswoman said it was just part of an "update" to "reflect changes in current events," as our colleague Frank James notes in the Swamp. The update includes a new section on the rise of al-Qaeda violence in Afghanistan.

“But some might see the updating as part of Obama's skip to the political center now that he's secured the Democratic nomination. "Today," McCain said Tuesday, "we know Sen. Obama was wrong" to oppose the troop surge.

“An old quote of Obama's criticizing the "rash war," which helped him with the left wing of his party and helped differentiate his stand from that of Sen. Hillary Clinton, a primary opponent who voted for the use of force in Iraq, has been replaced on his site by one saying that ending the Iraq war will make America safer. That's more of a general election message.

“And hat tip to the folks over at the Wake Up America blog for their continuing trenchant analyses of the summer campaigns in general and, specifically, for highlighting the video below that contrasts Obama's pre-surge position with a more recent interview of David Axelrod, his chief campaign strategist, denying Obama's statements. A reminder of how carefully voters must listen during these last four campaign months.”

Watch the video here.

Are Obama and McCain Ebbing or Flowing?

Finally, Tom Edsall at the Huffington Post, wants to know if Obama and McCain are ebbing or flowing:

“About a week ago, Republican media specialist Alex Castellanos asked pollster Scott Rasmussen to add a question to one of his surveys: If the November election were between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, who would you vote for? Obama crushed Bush 54-34.

‘“Noting that tracking polls generally show just a 2 to 4 point edge for Obama over John McCain, Castellanos said the most obvious conclusion is that "McCain is not Bush." But more importantly, Castellanos argued, ‘It means McCain is not running against the Obama who won Iowa, but [against] the more polarizing Democrat [who] Hillary Clinton was beating like a drum in Texas, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, etc.’

‘“In the current political environment, according to Castellanos, ‘where the GOP is in disgrace, the President is unpopular, gasoline is 5 bucks a gallon, housing prices are sinking, and the economy is in the toilet,’ Obama's slim lead ‘means he is not an acceptable Democrat. . . . Obama is in big trouble.”’

Following the Rules in Denver

I would argue it’s the Democratic Party that’s in big trouble. But it still has a chance to set matters right in Denver with Hillary Clinton’s name on the ballot and a roll call vote. Obama has not yet been duly elected as the party’s nominee even though the DNC has rented a football stadium for his “acceptance speech.” We can still hope for a last-minute upset by Sen. Clinton, who is easily the better-qualified candidate.

For more on keeping the Democratic Party's convention democratic, check out the Denver Group and Heidi Li's Potpourri.

Come Denver, Superdelegates Could Change Their Minds

Photo credits: courtesy of cdn.channel.aol.com

Craig Crawford’s post yesterday, July 14, at Trail Mix (CQ Politics) summarizes how the importance of the role of the Democratic Party’s superdelegates in choosing the nominee has shifted along with the fortunes of Barack Obama since day one of the primary.

Crawford writes:

“There was a time months ago -- when Hillary Rodham Clinton led the Democratic nomination race -- that party superdelegates were the bad guys according to the rhetoric coming out of Barack Obama's camp.

“Obama supporters trashed the unelected, automatic and unpledged delegates as undemocratic autocrats when it looked as though they might put Clinton over the top. Not anymore.
“With the dust settled on the primary season, one thing is clear: Obama is the presumed nominee thanks only to superdelegates. He never did win enough pledged delegates to reach the winning number, falling about 350 votes short. His expected victory stems from beating Clinton among superdelegates 463-257, according to a tally on Real Clear Politics.

“All the more reason for Obama to make sure that there is no roll call including Clinton's name on the ballot at the national convention -- which a few die hard fans of the former First Lady are still clamoring for.

“Why highlight just how close the Democratic contest really was? And there is certainly no gain for Obama in dwelling on how he had to depend on superdelegates to win the nomination.”

Crawford links to an earlier post at CQ by staff member, Shawn Zeller that reports a conversation with Heidi Li Feldman, a Georgetown University law professor.

Feldman contends: "‘…there’s still ‘no way of predicting’ the outcome should there be a fair vote. That’s because Obama has not secured enough pledged delegates to ensure the magic number of 2,118 needed to claim victory; the Illinois senator has gone past that benchmark only with the pledges of about 390 superdelegates — and they can change their minds at any time up to the moment they cast their ballots.

‘“If they had a meaningful vote, I have no idea who would win. But I know that if Sen. Obama were sure he would win, there wouldn’t be a negotiation about Clinton’s role at the convention.’

“So Feldman, who says she has raised about $100,000 for Clinton, has turned her prowess to raising money for advertising demanding a convention vote, and she has teamed with a fellow pro-Clinton blogger, Marc Rubin, to form the Denver Group to lobby the Democratic National Committee, much of the staff of which has already moved from Washington to Chicago to work for Obama.

“Feldman says she won’t vote for Obama if Clinton doesn’t get a convention vote. Rubin says he might not. Both say they aren’t worried that their efforts will continue to divide Democrats at a time when they should be uniting to take on Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona. In fact, they argue, many Democrats might stay home if they feel Clinton gets short shrift.

‘“What they have to do is make it possible for people to say to themselves that there was a fair and correct process,’ Feldman says.”’