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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

"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.

The real Clinton die-hards are not her women, but her rich, bi-coastal Jewish supporters who are terrified of Obama for Israel's sake. While liberal socially, these donors are the Democrats' answer to neocons on Israel, which is the most important of all political issues for them, as it is for the neocons and AIPAC. Ever since Likud was freaked out by Carter, their agents in America, the neocons of both parties, have been determined to control American policy towards Israel through campaign contributions. Both Hillary and McCain are in the tank for Israel because of Jewish donors. Obama made an end-run around these donors by going to the Net for the main source of his huge war chest. So he's a frighteningly free agent on Israel, as far as the neocons of both parties are concerned. (Lanny Davis is the media face for these pro-Israel fanatics in the Clinton camp; no wonder he's working now for Fox.) So Obama must be stopped at all cost. The Dem neocons will use "women" as the facade they'll hide behind in their machinations to take the nomination away from Obama. But it's Israel, not feminism, that the hardcore Hillaryites cares about most. Beyond Israel, Hillary's rich Jewish supporters are threatened with a huge loss of power and status in the political process if Obama's in the White House. It's parallel to the threat to people in the old Civil Rights Establishment posed by Obama. Everyone who has opposed the neocon-driven Bush proxy war for Israel in Iraq, and who opposes Israel and Bush's (and Hillary and McCain's) longing to "obliterate" Iran with bombs, should do all he or she can to stop HIllary's die-hard Jewish supporters, since Obama is the only hope for a peaceful settlement with Iran which will not throw the whole world into depression because of doubled or tripled oil prices which would come from bombing Iran.

what utter egomaniacal tripe. what are these hard core shrews selling at their concession stand? Emasculated hot dogs? Hillary withdrew gracefully. She conceded. Look up the goddamned word. It's over. She'll get a prime time speech slot, which she has more than earned. She might even get a VP slot, although I think that would be a major strategic error. Sod off, the lot of you.

Good points. Well worded!

I was just saying I wasn't arguing for Hillary to get a full vote at the convention, the issue in this post. Nor was I arguing that she shouldn't.

I mentioned the popular vote because it was something that Obama supporters talked about quite a bit, until the time it became clear that he hadn't won it.

I should have been careful to qualify that - he didn't win the popular vote, and Hillary got more votes than he did. But it was very close and the totals need an asterisk because Obama was not on the Michigan ballot. The fairest way to say it is probably that it was a tie - in any case, he wasn't the overwhelming popular choice that Obama supporters and the mainstream media made him out to be (and still do, largely).

I did vote for Hillary and I wasn't intending to conceal that, but I think Obama ran a better campaign and deserved to win the nomination, which is not saying anything about who I think is a better general election candidate or would make a better President.

My point: this article makes the historical precedent argument, only because that's the argument where Obama supporters come out on top. If roles were reversed you can be damn sure that Obama supporters would be making the fairness argument, again because that's where Obama comes out on top. I am against faulty reasoning more than I'm for or against any candidate.