But why do I feel like every time Jerome drops by these days, it's to disapprovingly wag his finger at us?

What? How DARE you not call this a conspiracy by "that woman" to destroy the country and let loose rabid weasles on babies! This is MyDD dammit, and she has to be the devil incarnate in all the postings or you're a troll!

This also adds a bit more drama to the nomination process, the process of putting Obama 'over the top' in delegates more exciting, and indeed it does give the Clinton supporters (also known at 48% of the party) a chance to express themselves. Bravo.

Of course I'm sure the conspiracy theorists will start in on how HRC has a secret plan to steal Obama delegates and the nomination.

I have no problem with this, as it has always happened in the past.  My only issue is that there are too many PUMAs who are actually still aggressively pushing for a contested convention.  They are still refusing to accept that the race will be Obama versus McCain.

This is not going to be a 'catharsis' for them.  They want to spend 2-3 days of the convention fighting over the merits of Obama and Clinton.  They want to carry the fight into the convention instead of spending this limited time speaking of how we are going to work to defeat the GOP this fall.

The problem is also that the PUMAs are going to get all of the media attention during the convention.  And I wouldn't doubt that there are going to be a lot of GOP 5th columns within the PUMA congregation.

The reason that the GOP always wins is that they follow the 11th commandment.  They may hate their nominee, but they don't spend the entire campaign season bashing them.  They know that once you are out of the primary season, if you can't say something nice about your nominee, you don't say anything at all.

I feel compelled to endorse Jerome's tone in this particular post.  Let this be a lesson to you all, this party is gonna be unified WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT! =D

Gotta love the mature tone of these front-page diaries.

I seriously have to wonder what the PUMA spin on this will be.  I'm gonna go check.  Pray for me.

I see you're still distressed by all those insects...everywhere...all around...coming after you...

Let it go, man. Really. It's OK. No one cares how bitter you are or how long you think we should drag this out. I never had a problem with her being nominated. I doubt most Obama supporters had a problem with it. So manufacturing more outrage and making a stink over something that's not a controversy outside of your own...uh, mind...makes you look silly and encourages similar behavior from those who may still respect your work.

Look, to be blunt, you did not do shit.

In fact, all you did was sit here and make arguments for why this should not be allowed to happen.

The only reason this issue was a source of anger and resentment on the blogs is that many Obama supporters - unlike their classy candidate - refused to acknowledge that this was the obviously correct way to handle things.

So please, let's all work together on moving past it now, which means skipping the speeches about how much you have done to make everyone happy.  It wasn't you.

Right, it's definitely Obama supporters fault that a bunch of wingnuts are pushing for Clinton to get a vote so that she can still win the nomination.  Take a look at the Denver Group, along with all the stories written about how angry some Clinton supporters remain, and then tell me this "controversy" was Obama's fault.  

I mean good lord Jerome, why can't you just let the primary stuff die.  99% of us who supported Obama think Senator Clinton has been extremely gracious, and look forward to a unifying convention.  The only reason that Senator Clinton getting a roll call vote was anything approaching an issue was the PUMA movement, which has refused to follow Senator Clinton's lead.  I note, by the way, that you have never called out or criticized the PUMA folks around here.  Nope, just us terrible Obama supporters.  

Obviously do what you want, but I really don't understand the constant insults and jabs at a group of people who want nothing more than to unify the party and win.  A stance, I would add, that would not have changed for me if Senator Clinton had prevailed.  

What has also been hashed out is that at some point during the convention, Clinton will release her delegates officialy to Obama and that she will make it very clear that she is voting for Obama, the source said.

I don't know how many others said this is how it would work oot, I only remember that I did.

This is a complete non-issue and a mere formality. If the symbolism of Clinton putting her name forward, having the votes counted and Obama winning officially at the convention makes some of Clinton's longtime supporters fell better then fine.  Why is this worthy of a snarky post?

I love this. First create a conspiracy out of thin air. Claim that Obama or his supporters are deviously not "allowing" a vote, and then when it turns out to be false, blame them for... I'm still not sure. Who are you complaining about and why?

I find it disappointing that the front page of this blog continually feels the need to be sarcastic and caustic as a basic posture. If we want civil dialogue on this and any other important issue we all need to try to rein in our more snarky impulses and this certainly includes the front page writers.

That being said, if this is standard procedure and is treated as such, then it can't hurt, especially if it is supported by Obama. If it is used, as it almost certainly will be by certain elements not inclined towards unity, to rub Obama's nose in the closeness of the primary vote, then it will not bring catharsis but instead more acrimony.  

Any Obama supporter approaching this from a pragmatic point of view would come to the following conclusion: the only thing worse than having a roll call vote which includes Senator Clinton, would be not having one. As you say, not having the vote would be completely asinine.

We all realize that long ago, political conventions turned into 4-day infomercials. But at this point, it's as if people are going one step further, and are trying to turn them into religious ceremonies, like weddings: lavish, perfectly choreographed, and perfectly planned. If you dissent, or one want to discuss issues....well, damn it, just get out! Only happy faces are allowed here.

Given that, I suspect TV viewership of this year's conventions will continue a decades-old decline. If you want a condensed version of the stuff peddled by these so-called "conventions", just go down to your local Hallmark store and peruse the greeting cards for a couple of hours. The quality and value of the content will be roughly the same.

that the accuracy of this statement ("Too bad for all the naysaysers that claimed this would ruin the unity of the world for all of mankind") will not be verifiable until after the convention. There is no way to say whether this will have a positive or negative effect on party unity at this point so sniping at those of us who worry about this is really unnecessary and juvenile.

as this convention promises to be one of the lulziest events in years.

...weren't you the dude telling us how she was going to win this one in the end? Right? That was you? What's the over under on being wrong before your POV become irrelevant? Never mind... if you tell me... and then are wrong... then it'll be one more chit against you.

the Obama team is not respectful of the Clinton campaign.

As for me, I guess we will see how this plays out.  Count me as concerned.  

This all harkens back to 2000 when W supporters smugly told us all to "Get over it!"

Well, the slight majority of our own party is throwing waaaay too much 'tude at Clintonistas without, until this decision by the Obama campaign, offering a reason to be onboard. Much like you all hated to be scolded and left out back in 2000, we haven't taken kindly to being treated like children this cycle - especially by our own party-mates.

The tone of this post and it's subsequent comments have gone no further in giving us reason to move on.

I'm no PUMA, but I loves me some Hill and very dissappointed that not only the lesser candidate won, but large chunks of our community were very quick to jettison Hillary and chastise her supporters for not falling in line like good little sheep.

I will never, as long as I live, understand why the opposition for Obama, who is

• pursuing a 50 state strategy
  
• building the party through epic registration drives -- in all states
  
• leading a mammoth growth in Dem. registration over GOP
  
• leading a mammoth growth in participation by traditionally undersevered voting populations
  
• is putting North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Indiana, Alaska, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico and other Bush states into play -- or better...

... just seems to linger. The cynic in me kind of thinks there's an unseemliness to it, especially since the party faithful were able to rally around pre-Green Gore and pre-pulse Kerry -- hardly barnbusters either.  

Why the Hillary supporters want to risk undermining Obama -- especially since there is so little policy diffrerence between them -- is beyond me. But whatever, I mean, Hillary and her team would have even more states in play, right? No? The downballot help this registration effort will have would have been better with Hillary atop the ticket, right? No?

The only plus side I see in this is maybe there will be greater coverage due to the "drama." Beyond that, this is just sad people living out a faint fantasy that, once over, will only find a new way to inflame them. Maybe they'll be upset at the seating chart for the convention. Hillary supporters got obstructed views!

And I still wonder what Obama can do to get the author of "Crashing the Gate" to stop dismissing his supporters. I mean, Will a little more party chaos during the convention finally allow Jerome to stop hating the majority of his readership here? Or at least lessen the visible contempt?

Well, we HRC supporters should fall in line like good little sheep.  She is going to win a roll call so what is the need to have one?  The only outcome is that she loses and some of our group get pissed off (again) and allow the MSM to write process peices about how the DNC didn't solve anything.

Party unity is critical to winning the election, so from that perspective yes, this is an important step. It is symbolic, but the alternative would have been such a slap in the face of the millions of Democrats who did not vote for Obama that in comparison this is a positive. It is very strange that Obama appears to be so reluctant to make these symbolic gestures, I'd expect him to work harder to dispel the notion.

But it is only symbolic. Obama has not, and probably will not, made the substantive changes necessary to win the general election by a wide enough margin among Hillary Clinton's primary coalition. I am less and less convinced that his coalition of young voters, African Americans and a larger minority of evangelicals will fill in the gap.

But your question illustrates for me a persistent problem with Obama's campaign, and certainly among his online partisans. This is not about making voters or people online "happy" or "satisfied", it is about how we persuade enough voters to vote for the Democrat so that we have a Democratic president in 2009.

And I thought a small part of my diary was a little OTT.

(and a come-lately Clinton disliker), I agree this is no biggie.

Clinton's supporters want her on the ballot: So be it.

Jerome, I found your blog way back when, and I've been a fan for a long time, but I have to say that I've found the tone of your recent posts very disappointing.

I saw this advice on another blog, and I'll pass it on to you. Focus on McCain instead. It would be possible to write a post on a different topic every single day from now until the election detailing how dangerous John McCain is and how important it is that he not be elected president. You could point out the severe damage that John McCain would do as president without ever saying a word about Obama, or his supporters. You would not even have to pretend to like Obama - just say nothing at all.

I get that some people have misgivings about Obama. I have misgivings too. I can honestly say that I have no idea what kind of a president he'll be - but I do know that he'll be light-years better than John McCain would be.

If you see that too - and I believe you do - your course of action should be clear.

Just wants to make a big show that Hillary, the woman, lost.

Stay classy Jerome.

No problem for me, but pity the poor superdelegates, who will be flooded anew with all-caps semiliterate rants from the big pink looney bin.

the cargo cultists see planes on the horizon.

http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDi ary.do;jsessionid=C99F6A0D2138BDFD900AAD 009293232C?diaryId=613

I can just see it now! Every one fainting in awe of Jerome winning an argument!  Finally, the unthinkable happened. Jeez Jerome please tell us what exactly, should we discuss in this Dairy. You have more chips on your shoulders than Lay and Wise put together.

This from first read:

The Obama and Clinton camps have agreed to have Hillary Clinton's name placed in nomination for the roll-call vote at the Democratic convention, according to a source familiar with the discussions.

The source adds that the mechanics of this are still being worked out, but it's "likely" that Clinton will release her delegates to vote for Obama after her name is submitted. Clinton -- who is a superdelegate -- will cast her delegate vote for Obama.

This is good news for John McCain! (isn't everything???)

So when Clinton has her name put into nomination, and then proceeds to release her delegates to vote for Obama, and then votes for Obama herself, can we finally move on??

I won't hold my breath.

Unbelievable the way some people around here act. I was literally obsessed with Howard Dean in '04, and I know he didnt win any delegates (well, Vermont), he was still slime-balled by Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman during the primaries. Did I threaten to withhold support of Kerry unless Dean was verbally fellated at the convention? Did anyone for that matter?

No, we all sat by and supported our party. We didn't whine when John Edwards, the biggest phony this side of the aisle, was selected and Veep. The same Edwards that magically became a populist after he saw how successful Dean was. The same Edwards that so many people supported and bought his bullshit (not me!).

I am not a Hillary hater. I surely don't agree with her Iraq war vote. I surely didn't agree with her scare-mongering after Obama won Iowa. I certainly didn't agree with (but found highly entertaining) her tortured logic of "well, we've won the most delegates in the past 2 weeks" nonsense.

But what I do hate are the dead-ender can't let it go sad saps who continue to refuse to acknowledge that we have a nominee. And that he won fair and square. Not because Edwards dropped out. Not because Howard Dean magically made Ickes and Wolfson support and vote for DNC rules that dictated how the game would be won.

Give it a rest dead enders.

I missed your posts so very much Jerome. :-D

Jerome isn't wagging a finger at Obama supporters. He's wagging it at people who jumped all over him for suggesting that Clinton's name be put in for nomination. Because they just didn't get it and still don't, if all the comments to this post are any indication.

It was a good idea when Jerome posted about it and it's a good idea coming from the Obama team as well.

As the last line in the post says, the nomination of also-rans is a tradition.

Looking forward to it myself. The Dem convention is actually looking like some interesting viewing. I bet this sort of thing will really boost our ratings.

Well done both camps!