"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."

I doubt it.

I'd Rather Not Say: "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."

I like your attitude. I wish more Clinton supporters vocally communicated this mindset (where were you from Feb. through early June????).

By all means, keep your Hillary sticker up!

Fredda Weinberg: "I'm not surprised you don't get it. But if was a sports team, you would. It's something for me to cheer ... to relive the exciting potential with others. Sorry you can't empathize, but that's normal too."

POLITICS. IS. NOT. SPORTS.

ynotsf: "Once Hillary won the popular vote and Obama the nomination, that argument went strangely silent..."

What is especially strange and silent is the idea that Hillary "won the popular vote."

She didn't.

Don't buy the lie.

Independence: "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..."

Question is moot since Michigan didn't legitimately count to begin with.

hyblaean: "If she is not a threat then why do you all care if her name gets said or not?"

As if there aren't other reasons? Such as simple annoyance?

Roman Berry: "For me, it doesn't really matter. I won't be voting for Obama regardless. But if Obama wants to win, he and the convention planners would be well advised to give Clinton her due."

Voting for McCain? Or sitting out the vote?

Thanks. And thanks.

Independence: "Perhaps this year's DNC Slogan should be... "Unity through Ignorance. Ignorance through Arrogance.""

Perhaps we should be less fixated on self-serving slogans.

Alex,

I was a delegate in 1984 where there was a roll call vote involving more than a single candidate. As a Hart delegate I can assure you I cast my vote (not a protest as the record recorded a rather closer than expected tally) for Gary Hart. Other candidates also had their delegate counts. My candidate's name was placed in nomination with a second and a prime time speech.

Who ever was giving you information otherwise was incorrect.

When a candidate receives just shy of 50% of the vote, don't you think they deserve a true roll call vote? Why not? Sounds a little suspicious to me.

Polly Briley

The only way Obama didn't win the popular vote is if you include the full votes from Michigan and Florida and exclude the vote from four caucus states that didn't keep a tally (three of which he won). And I don't know why you'd exclude estimates from four caucus states but include the results from Puerto Rico, whose residents can't participate in the fall but gave Hillary a 250,000 vote advantage over Obama. You're going to exclude Washington but include Puerto Rico?

These continued efforts to somehow get Hillary the nomination have gone way beyond pathetic and are now deeply delusional. I understand being disappointed when your candidate doesn't win the nomination - I was very disappointed that Kerry was the nominee in '04 instead of Dean. But there comes a point for most people where you accept reality and move on.

I don't know why some Hillary supporters are so dead set against Obama as the nominee, even months after she conceded, but I have my suspicions.

"But no party has had a roll call with two candidates since the 1976 Republican convention, when then-President Gerald Ford beat Ronald Reagan by 57 votes."

I seem to recall watching a two-candidate roll call between Walter Mondale and Gary Hart at the 1984 Democratic National Convention.

Please.

The typical post 1976 roll call vote is as boring as can be imagined. Roll calls with some drama were not. If there is to be no actual vote, they should just stipulate it and go on to something else.

I think what it boils down to is that a lot of us are still pissed as hell about Obama (probably) being nominated. I know, as well, that there is a certain number of former Obama supporters who wish they had an alternative to either McCain or Obama now that he has shown his colors with his 'new' positions on FISA, gun control, abortion, and patriotism.

Call it buyer's remorse. If anyone's to be blamed, it's Obama for making such a jackass of himself immediately after Clinton's resignation but prior to his official nomination. Democrats can hardly be blamed for waffling in their support for him after he's waffled in support of things like the Constitution.

The operative word being "die-hards" "supporters". This is not a reflection on Senator Clinton and this article is somehow suggesting it is Hillary herself asking for the vote. This deception is part of why Clinton is not the nominee today. The media loves to blame the Clintons for any and everything and it's time to praise this woman for her accomplishments and stop distorting the truth.

I have serious concerns about those Democrats who endorsed Obama from the start because as time goes on, Obama cannot seem to gain traction with voters. The fact Obama is near tied with McCain is a concern and Democrats cannot lose. Perhaps there is buyers remorse and Hillary could have handily beat McCain.

Senator Clinton has endorsed Obama, and it is HER supporters who are requesting the floor vote and that somehow is her fault how? Clinton has been vetted and if Obama hopes to win, I doubt it can happen without Hillary as his VP. Obama cannot make in-roads to the blue collar and Hispanics that Clinton won over with ease. Clinton connects easily where Obama suffers from a disconnect. Let us place blame where it belongs the media, and stop pinning blame on Hillary. The media knocked her out pressuring her to quit sooner. Huckabee ran when the math was impossible and not one person told him to get out. Is sexism alive and well in America? You better believe it! The greatest asset Obama has are the Clintons and the sooner Obama wakes up to that reality, the better his chances.