- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I'm not arguing against having people who supported her speak, theoretically. However, no convention these days will allow someone to speak if they haven't actually endorsed the nominee. That's the root of the Clinton - Casey family issues. Sen Bob Casey's father wanted to speak at the 1992 Democratic convention and he refused to endorse Bill Clinton, in fact, he went out of his way to say he wouldn't and he wanted to speak at the convention and make it clear he wouldn't endorse him - and he was refused permission. The Casey family maintains, to this day, that it was because the Governor opposed abortion, but that wasn't the issue. He was going to get up there and refuse to endorse the nominee.
I realize that conventions didn't used to be this way, that there used to be actual nomination ballots and floor fights, etc., but there aren't anymore unless there isn't a clear winner. Senator Clinton made a decision not to go to take her candidacy to the convention although there were cases where people with less support had (Ted Kennedy). I believe her supporters should respect their own candidate's wishes, at least in this matter. Not, necessarily in the way they vote in November if that isn't what they want to do that's their business. But the candidate made a decision. They should respect it - or they don't actually respect her.
If there are people who want to speak who supported her who can meet the requirements of the current convention - that they have to in some way, shape or form, endorse the nominee, then more power to them. But I don't see any point in submitting her name for a floor vote.
