Thursday, July 31, 2008

What I believe

Lately, I have spoken to a number of reporters about the upcoming Democratic National Convention. In almost every interview, sooner or later, the reporter asks me, "You don't honestly believe that [Howard Dean] [the DNC] will allow Senator Clinton's name to be put in nomination?" The is generally followed with second question: "You don't honestly believe that Senator Clinton will be the nominee?"

None of the reporters who have asked these questions has misquoted my replies. But none has captured the tone of my answers correctly, which is actually surprising because for the most part the journalists with whom I have spoken correctly get both the content and the flavor of all my answers to their other questions.

Why the disconnect with regard to what I honestly believe about the DNC and the ultimate nominee? Perhaps I have not made myself clear enough in my replies. So, for the record, here are the questions and the answers.

Q: "You don't honestly believe that [Howard Dean] [the DNC] will allow Senator Clinton's name to be put in nomination?"

A: If the DNC genuinely wants a Democrat to win the White House this November and the DNC leaders are at all in touch with the political climate, the DNC leadership will recognize that the only way that can happen now is if the Democratic Party holds a convention that includes Senator Clinton being placed in nomination and if a genuine and meaningful vote is held, a vote that gives superdelegates the option of choosing between the two candidates leading candidates at the close of the primaries and caucuses.

The question at this point should not be whether the DNC leaders will allow Senator Clinton's name to be placed in nomination. The question should be whether Senator Clinton will consent to that.

Q: "You don't honestly believe that Senator Clinton will be the nominee?"

A: If Senator Clinton's name is in fact placed in nomination and she accepts the opportunity to be considered by the superdelegates, Senator Clinton could easily end up being the nominee. I cannot read the minds of the superdelegates. Many have changed their public position about which candidate they prefer throughout the primary season - a completely legitimate thing to do, just as it is completely legitimate for any voter on any issue to vary his or her opinion right up until she or he actually votes.

I have my doubts about whether the DNC leadership is in fact sufficiently in touch with the political climate among rank and file Democrats to realize what seems eminently clear to me - the need to legitimize the choice of a nominee by having an authentically democratic convention if a Democrat is to win the White House this fall. And I have no idea whether at this point or in three weeks, Senator Clinton would be willing to have her name placed in nomination.

But, yes, I absolutely believe that a reasonably aware and intelligent DNC leadership will allow Senator Clinton's name to be placed in nomination. I also believe that if the superdelegates end up with a live choice between candidates, either candidate could become the Party's nominee.


Blogger american girl in italy said...

Go Heidi! :O)

And if they do the right thing, they will vote for HRC!

July 31, 2008 at 7:52 AM  
Blogger Billie said...

Why bother with primaries if the DNC is going to choose the candidate?
High on Hill in Virginia

July 31, 2008 at 8:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The question at this point should not be whether the DNC leaders will allow Senator Clinton's name to be placed in nomination. The question should be whether Senator Clinton will consent to that.

Exactly. The reporters difficulty in seeing this shows how far rule of law thinking has receded from the national life.

The assumption that principle will be paramount, at least enough so they would understand what you are saying,is missing.We now have cut to the supposed chase thinking that is missing the far bigger story: The abandonment of even a nod towards rule of law . Do you know that scene in "The Man for All Seasons" where Moore's son in law would "cut down every law in England to get to the devil" Moore says," oh? and when the devil turns round on you, where would you hide?....the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws and if you cut them down, and you are just the man to do it,do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I obey the law for my own safety sake".

I'm reminded of that now.... those who stuff the DNC rule book into the shredder, either are aware of the danger it poses and don't care, or don't realize .... It's hard to tell which. All along you and others have been trying to flag down this runaway locomotive for all our sakes and I thank you. We have a month to go. Alot can happen still.

paper doll

July 31, 2008 at 9:55 AM  
Anonymous ainnj said...

"And I have no idea whether at this point or in three weeks, Senator Clinton would be willing to have her name placed in nomination."


You guys are doing terrific work! As you know I support you wholeheartedly and will never be able to thank you and Marc enough for all you have done and continue to do!

I do think what you said that I quoted above is extremely important. You have made it very clear that The Denver Group is NOT being pushed or backed by Senator Clinton in any way; I know the various puma groups are NOT being pushed or backed by Senator Clinton. Whether Senator Clinton would or would not allow her name to be put in nomination is truly not the issue at this point; the important issue is that the Democratic Party must act democratically or come to grips with the fact that it is no longer a viable force or party. No woman or man who is the least bit concerned about the continuing and still accepted subrogation and repression of women in our political system, our mass media and throughout our entire society, should continue to support this party if they fail to allow Senator Clinton's name to be placed in nomination.


July 31, 2008 at 10:38 AM  
Blogger democraticjack said...

Well said Heidi. To me it's as simple as the fact either candidate requires the votes of super-delegates to secure the nomination. Thereby, both names are to be placed into nomination in order to assure a full democratic process. The Denver Group stands for democracy and fair play. Thus far, there has been little indication the DNC stands for either.

July 31, 2008 at 11:09 AM  
Anonymous Memorye said...

After reading ainnj and paper doll . There is nothing left to say . So I will say thank you Heidi and Marc.I really don't know how you keep this pace up.

July 31, 2008 at 12:02 PM  
Anonymous lanikai said...

Thanks, to me what you do is what patriotism looks like.

July 31, 2008 at 12:29 PM  
Anonymous kavala007 said...

Every day my admiration for you increases. You are steadfast in your protection of the Constitution and to Democratic principles. I am so grateful that this country has someone like you.

In your post of today, the phrase “will allow” is the one that really screams out. It speaks to the totalitarianism of the current so called Democratic leadership. Who are they “to allow” democracy to flourish? I fear that, if Democrats continue on this path, the only way to bring Democrats back to democracy may be to defeat them in November.

July 31, 2008 at 2:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


As usual you have stated everything so perfectly what more can be said. Thank you for everything that you do and thank Marc, too.


July 31, 2008 at 4:05 PM  
Anonymous minty said...

It is amazing that they keep asking the same questions and you are speaking in rather plain English. There is no concept of principles or laws anymore. The ends justifies the means..We are living in dangerous times

July 31, 2008 at 8:28 PM  
Blogger L.C. said...

personally, I think unless a miracle of conscience hits the DNC leadership (not likely); the precious is going to be installed by them. They are just like the congress, incestuous and deaf to the people they serve, and in the end

Barry O is going down in a landslide and we'll be stuck trying to check neo-cons for another 4 years.

oh well, divided government is preferable to 4 more years of GWB with a left twist

July 31, 2008 at 8:43 PM  
Blogger hummingbirdv said...

Hey Heidi.... I'm seattlegal, posting as hummingbirdv because that is how I originally signed up. Just wanted you to know it was me and that I'm so glad you wrote this post.

It is absolutely possible for HIll to win the Nomination! Why do these people act so much like sheep, just following along because of the crowd.

The question for me is not whether the DNC understands the climate, it is whether or not they care. We shall see.

July 31, 2008 at 9:06 PM  
Anonymous tvlcrazy said...

only time will tell if our Democratic "leaders" will do the right thing...I am so proud of you and Marc, and so thankful that you are out there fighting for us and our way of life.

If we can't trust the DNC, then we must trust ourselves to make things right.

August 1, 2008 at 1:01 AM  
Anonymous sharmajee said...

It has been obvious that from the get go, the Obama campaign has basically managed the media with calculatedness by feeding not facts, data or truths but spin, slant and attitudes. The reporters in turn, having imbibed a certain viewpoint and then confirmed it in their own heads as the inevitable news event, happily reported a reality that did not exist. And when they faced contradictions, they equally happily explained away some pre-fed narratives.

This process of manufacturing a reality served several interested parties, BHO, DNC, others we know too well. It got them all where they wanted to be. Voters be damned.

Having travelled thus far on a certain blind ride, the reporters naturally have trouble following certain simple, innocent points of faith and principle.

It speaks volumes about the completeness of their happy complicity in the chosen narrative. But Heidi, it also speaks more about your determination and tenacity in illuminating the question with clarity.

August 1, 2008 at 1:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This post came to mind to me today: I hope you can accept comments that are days later than what I am responding to.

It seems Obama's campaign is using the sorts of patterns that The Tipping Point describes: fostering a social "epidemic" in various ways: from the press being so favorable to Obama (much like Peter Jenning's positive facial expressions whenever speaking of Reagan were found in a study to influence viewers' views of Reagan positively) to the planned 50 state person-to-person campaign (social "epidemics" are very influenced by person-to-person exchanges, especially via "mavens" and "connectors" in the book). And the Obama campaign puts out (or at least rides on) the idea that they are an epidemic, a popular movement.

Here's the clincher for me regarding your blog post. The press accepts without question that a social epidemic can sweep the populace due to the efforts of people who believe in Obama. But somehow they are incredulous that we think people can foster a popular movement, a social epidemic, for Hillary. Perhaps they "get it" if it's for a dreamy young man, but not for an older (yet timeless) woman.

And I think you could be classified as a maven, by the way, a trusted wise one.

August 7, 2008 at 12:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home