"If the situation were reversed, there is no doubt there would be an outcry if Senator Obama's name were not allowed to be placed in nomination."

Really?? I think there's some considerable doubt about this assertion and I'd really like to see some proof.

Don't let democratic principles get in your way.

What flavor is the kool-aid this week?

Where is the harm in letting her name get called? It isn't going to change the outcome...

@Georgia: you asked for proof of the impossible. As we don't have a portal to the alternate universe where she won, we are going to have to assume that they meant 'hypothetically, (they) feel very strongly that...'

It's over Joan.

Time to move on.

If you want evidence for the supposition that if the situation were reversed, Obama supporters would demand a roll call vote, all you have to do is look at the history of their rivalry. Back in March and April when Hillary had the superdelegate lead, Obama supporters consistently warned - I'd say the tone was closer to 'threatened' - that it would be a travesty if Hillary won by a parliamentary move that would sway superdelegates to her side in contrast to the elected delegates and popular vote. Once Hillary won the popular vote and Obama the nomination, that argument went strangely silent. And now, these same people are attacking the argument that the nomination ought to be decided more democratically.

I'm not arguing for either side, and let's make it clear that Obama has won fair and square, but there's something very disingenuous about the Obama argument here. The bulk of his supporters have never argued for him on principle, only on desired outcome. The lazy analysis in this post is just the latest example.

And, as he points out, once the other candidate has endorsed the presumptive nominee, this doesn't happen.

It would be one thing if neither candidate actually had enough delegates for the nomination and one hadn't endorsed the other. Then, go to the convention and fight it out. But, barring someone finding out Obama is actually a space alien (which might be a solution, we've never had a space alien - that we know of - as a President before, although Jerry Brown did run as Governor Moonbeam) he's the nominee.

I say this as someone who was not a supporter of either candidate, who wasn't particularly bothered by the actual political stuff in the primaries, or fact that it went to the end of the primary season (as opposed, btw, to the press coverage, which gets worse every election) - there is no point to this. If these people aren't going to vote for Obama, don't vote for him in November. If they feel that there are some issues where he does not represent them, find a way to make their voice heard at the convention and impact the platform. But this serves no useful purpose.

I think it is possible to want her name brought up as acknowledgement and "respect" rather than as some last-ditch effort to get the nomination. But what is the point? Clinton has endorsed and done the good soldier bit. It's more than time to follow her lead and move on. The stage needs to be cleared for Obama at the convention.

Anyway, if you're still bumming that Hillary lost, which I am, it is better not to drag it out any further. I've got my Obama magnet on the car and I'm moving on. Even if I haven't taken the Hillary sticker down yet.

It's okay! Why not let them speak about Hillary. She is wonderful, and she still might be the Vice President.

Are you guys all 14 years old? Both parties used to have conventions with multiple nominee-nominees, and we all used to love it. Plus, they came together at the end.

This is not even an issue, if Obama will say, "Okay, what the heck?" This is a good thing. Please calm down.

It's something for me to cheer ... to relive the exciting potential with others. Sorry you can't empathize, but that's normal too.

I think you are arguing for one side here -- you tip your hand when you write that Clinton won the popular vote. That's a talking point, not a fact.

Check out this link from factcheck.org:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_clinton_win_the_popular_vote.html

Or this one, from realclearpolitics:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Without barely hidden Republican support, this kind of thing wouldn't even have the laughable amount of traction that it does. If this stuff is even going to be reported, there needs to be an acknowledgment of just how far away it is from the Democratic mainstream, as well as the quite open efforts of Republicans like Rush Limbaugh and others to interfere with the Democratic nomination process.

As your link points out, since he was not on the Mich ballot it is actually impossible to say who won it for sure. Even Fact check qualifies its answer...

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.