Saturday, July 12, 2008

Hey DNC, we know the difference between a sham ballot and real election: Why Senator Clinton's name must be placed in nomination

Many have asked me about the relationship between having Senator Clinton name's put into nomination and having her name on a roll call ballot. The bottom line: to become an official winner of any roll call ballot, a person listed on the ballot must be an official nominee to be the Democratic Party's candidate to run for the Presidency in November. Simply being on the ballot is not enough. Under normal rules (for the sake of argument, let's be charitable and assume the DNC will actually use these in Denver), no candidate can win a convention vote unless she or he is an actual nominee. For example, if nobody were to put Senator Obama's name in nomination, he could not become the Democratic candidate for the general election regardless of the outcome of any roll call vote. Likewise for Senator Clinton. There may be symbolic value in having Senator Clinton on the ballot at the Convention, but this measure alone has no teeth. If the DNC truly wants to permit superdelegates to participate in a genuine election, it must permit both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama to be official nominees. Anything else is a sham election, rigged to achieve only one result.


Blogger democraticjack said...

As we used to say in my youth
Right on sister, right on
I am with you 100%.

July 12, 2008 at 12:17 PM  
Anonymous joyah said...

It looks like Obama's Chicago ways all over again. He may have denied Alice Palmer what was rightfully hers but he is not going to succeed doing the same to Hillary!

We've got your back girl!

July 12, 2008 at 1:13 PM  
Anonymous DanDee said...

Congratulations on The Denver Group's first (and obviously successful!) ad. I pray there will be more in the coming weeks. I will continue to donate as I can.

Right there with you 100%, too.

July 12, 2008 at 1:37 PM  
Anonymous kavala007 said...

Heidi, you always focus on the important issues and what is doable. Thank you and thank you for helping to bring some sanity to this insane election year.

July 12, 2008 at 1:47 PM  
Blogger Carrie said...

I used to live in the American Virgin Islands, where there was the usual amount of corruption, but no subtlety about it. I used to think that they did the same thing in Washington D.C. another place I lived, but were at least subtle about it. No more. That someone is even needing to explain why a sham election is unacceptable makes all I saw before in any location pale.

July 12, 2008 at 1:57 PM  
Anonymous adamonis said...

Why would the DNC become honest now?

July 12, 2008 at 3:16 PM  
Anonymous mm said...

Heidi, As I said on my comment on The Denver Group site, this is a truly significant difference and making this accessible to the public will take skill and perserverance. No better people than you and Marc to take this on. Go girl!

July 12, 2008 at 3:54 PM  
Anonymous GaGirl said...

You have our full support on this point - and our dollars to assure that the message gets out.

July 12, 2008 at 4:16 PM  
Blogger can'tbelieveit said...

In case you missed this in the Equal Pay for Equal Work thread, here it is again.
According to MSN Money:
“On average, women working in Obama’s Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That’s according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama’s Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one — Obama’s administrative manager — was a woman.
The average pay for the 33 men on Obama’s staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama’s staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama’s staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. (Clinton and McCain managed to pay their staffs equitably.)
Passing this along for those who may have missed it.

July 12, 2008 at 4:44 PM  
Anonymous DWPforHILL said...

You tell 'em, Heidi!

They need to be made aware that the world is watching, and will judge them accordingly!

July 12, 2008 at 6:45 PM  
Blogger GrandMe said...

I sent information about this site, The Denver Group and the ad to several friends. Have heard back from three--all pleased and at least one will send some money; she is in difficult circumstances but wants to feel a part of the action. (She is a Texas caucus graduate but that's another story.) I will donate again after I balance my checkbook!
Any repercussions on the ad? I wrote Howard D. to explain why I had to send my money to TDG rather than the DNC, and said I hoped he'd seen our ad!!

July 12, 2008 at 7:13 PM  
Blogger samsgrandma said...

Well they fooled me. Yesterday. I called to demand Hillary be on the ballet in Denver and they said "yes, she will be". I got so excited. But they were just playing me, huh? Gosh that pisses me off. So what should we say when we call the DNC?

We really had no roll in this process ever, did we? Except to send in money. All those years, wasted.

In a post on No_Quarter, [Let's Not Forget Why We're Here, Okay?] Lady Boomer NYC, says the DNC is a private company with no obligation to keep its word about anything." Is that true?

Who do Howard Dean and Donna Brazile answer to, Nancy Pelosi? Who thought this up, who planned it? Whoever they are, they didn't just decide to try this for the first time with this election, they have been running things for a long time. Gosh, do we need a new party. Probably need a new party every 30 years.

I think we should decide that Hillary is going to be our next president and then do what ever it takes to get her there.

July 12, 2008 at 10:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Heidi Li, thanks very much for this clarification between "being on the ballot" and "name placed in nomination." I'm trying to help spread the word!

Now, please explain where the "roll call vote" comes in. Is that automatic with either, or just the latter?

Many, many thanks to you and Marc for all you're doing!

July 12, 2008 at 11:34 PM  
Anonymous Nancy said...

Why is this even a negotiation? All those delegates (I ran for a pledged delegate in my district) - isn't the point to have them all go and vote FOR HER?

Since there is only about 133 pledged delegate difference (even less if MI/FL is seated in full) - then HOW can this even be a negotiation?

I thought it was a RIGHT?

July 13, 2008 at 2:20 AM  
Anonymous diana said...

I have been linking Heidi's and the Denver Group sites to other blogs. Hope others think this useful and do the same to spread the word.

From what I can gather, most folks know that something is wrong with the way the process has played out, but "we the people" don't really know the details of HOW the convention is supposed to be held. So, I for one, am appreciative of Heidi and Marc, and all the others who are bringing this to the forefront.
Thank you everyone for caring.

July 13, 2008 at 10:52 AM  
Blogger Matt said...

A candidate does not need to be a nominee in order to receive votes and be nominated. From the Call to the Convention, Rule VIII(C)(7)(c) - "Delegates may vote for the candidate of their choice whether or not the name of such candidate was placed in nomination."

July 14, 2008 at 8:20 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home