Hillary Clinton to be put in the nomination at the DNC
 

I guess this makes some sort of sense, but in my mind I see it as another way for her to be an attention whore. I feel she's still trying to say, "Look at me! Look at me!"

It almost feels like having to have a birthday cake for someone who's birthday it is, only to have they hand it to you when it comes time to blow out the candles.

It's a saving face maneuver, and I have no real problem with it. She's a smart lady, and I hope she continues to serve the public.

I think the move is more about trying to get butthurt Hillary supporters to finally support Obama.

This is the Clintons looking to outmanouver Obama. They are looking to make him look weak so the Republicans will win the election and Hillary can run in four year's time.

Jesus - what a trainwreck. Following on charlatan's post, I can imagine the following: Clinton gets respectable support, but eventually loses the nomination at the convention. Democrats hail the "democratic" policies of their party. Doubts are allowed to creep into the minds of independent voters, and Obama loses the election to McCain. He's "black," and "liberal," and a number of people say they will vote for him. However, at the polls they just can't pull the lever - despite all the hoopla about "anything but Bush." McCain is an Army man, and after all we're involved in serious military conflict. 2012 rolls around - things aren't substantially "better" than they are now - and Hillary is able to remind Democrat voters that she *almost* won in 2008 - only the controversy over Florida and Michigan surfaced...she should have won...afterall. No one likes old 75 year old "needs to go to Florida" McCain...she did bow out "graciously" at the end...

So I can see that angle. Frankly, this election process for the Democrat nomination has been one complete pile of shit, in my opinion. After Obama seemingly won the nomination, it seemed for a while that it might have been decided. The decision by the Clinton Campaign to "suspened" her campaign, instead of ending it, spoke volumes to me. I wasn't sure if she was holding out for a VP nod, or simply trying to keep getting $$$ to pay off her campaign debts. Frankly, I'm still not convinced. This may be her way to force a VP spot on the ticket. If she looks to get respectable support at the convention, Obama may be compelled to add her to the ticket. It would then help to shore up the consensus of the Democrat party - as much as it could be shored up - and head off a potential 2012 move against him if he looses in 2008. How could she run against the sitting President in 2012, assuming with her support and the lack of ensuing party dissension he can win in 2008?

If this plays out, she will exercise the power of Cheaney, as developed under Bush, and I would suspect between her and former President Bill Clinton, they will have a significant influence on national policy. I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing - but between the Bush II and Obama presidencies, we could see a significant shift on the role of the VP in administrative decisions. If you follow the Bush template...VP is a pretty damn sweet place to be.

Now there are claims (from the Clinton camp and prominent supporters) that the "media" purposely didn't bring John Edward's current "improprieties" out to the forefront when they surfaced last fall... Edward's campaign essentially "robbing" Hilary of the primary win.

The implication is that the fix was in for Obama and that Hilary will demand the nomination to go to the floor for a vote. Who knows what deals are being made or what maneuvers are in store between now and the convention.

It ain't over 'til the pant-suit-lady sings.

Just sounds like a lot of QQing to me. Ya lost lady, get over it. :thumbsdown:

Nonsense...to all of the above...IMO.

There has not been a Democratic Convention in my lifetime (other than 1968) when there was a second candidate with a substantial number (nearly 50%) of the pledged delegates. In the past 40 years, the leading candidate has gone into the convention with over 75-80% of the delegates and, in most years, the other candidates were included in the roll call vote as a courtesy.

It is simply the Democratic party letting the system play out to give some recognition to the Clinton delegates who represent 18+ million primary voters.....and they will have their 2-3 hours to wave their banners and dance in the aisles.

Clinton will then move to have the NY delegate polled last and announce that as a Super Delegate, she is voting for Obama and ask her delegates to join in a unanimous resolution....some wont, but they will be drowned out by the overwhelming majority who will.

And Obama will come off as being magnanimous for agreeing to the spectacle and Clinton will come off as a team player and preserve her future in the party.

At most, it will make for one night of marginally interesting drama at the convention.

Fixed it for you. Other than to try to unify the Democratic base or to try make one last stand, I see no point in this. This will only hurt the Democrats. IMO, Hillary is unelectable. She has a reputation for being duplicitous and is too far left politically to win a major election.

i don't think the sporting-event of the campaign--which is different from the campaign itself, which is rather it's televised duplicate, which obeys an entirely different dynamic than the actually existing campaign even as it references the actually existing campaign to provide itself with motion by way of rotating contents---i dont think the sporting-event campaign has anything to do with anything except the needs of television to legitimate itself and the broader political context of which it is, to my ongoing horror, central, by providing the illusion of continuity for its own sake.

the convention probably needs to have a certain degree of drama to it so that the actually existing campaign can becomes intertwined for a while with the sporting-event duplicate campaign. without some kind of drama, the illusory campaign, built around the substitution of video images that enable a sense of "being-there" as over against "being-informed" (pace virilio), the closed-off self-referential pseudo-present of television-land will entirely swamp the actually existing campaign, as it has these past months.

it is within the context of the sporting-event campaign that illusions on the order of "hillary clinton is too far to the left" can have currency. people will vote for hair styles and manly cadences while the spectral "candidate" strides into or out of buildings.

so i'm rather hoping for theater for its own sake.
i have no particular expectations for or even interest in the content of that theater.

i would just prefer to be able to imagine that this election is going to be decided on the basis of something more substantial than what the reactionary televisual talking-head set tells you that you think.

damn it roach: don't go ruining my soap opera! I'm fairly certain that the decisions of Jason Priestly and Luke What's His Name not to appear on the new version of 90210, along with the dashing Ian Zierringing are closely tied into to key moves to add plot twists to this exciting installment. I'm fairly certain that I've seen an early script written on Big Chief tablets somewhere.

Truth.

Even more insightful truth. Hillary never does anything that does not benefit Hillary.

That's pretty much what politics at the national level amounts to these days, anyway. So I think your hopes will be fulfilled, at least on this score.