Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday

Scoop:

Senate candidate and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner is scheduled to deliver the Tuesday night keynote address at this year's Democratic National Convention -- the same role that launched Barack Obama to national prominence four years ago.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama's rival during the Democratic presidential primaries, is also scheduled to speak that night, Aug. 26. But Warner is being given the plum position, according to an e-mail that Obama campaign adviser Mike Henry sent to Virginia supporters late Tuesday.

Henry's e-mail, which was provided to The Associated Press, included a quote from campaign manager David Plouffe.

"Mark Warner is not afraid to challenge the status quo to bring people together and get things moving," Plouffe's statement read. "It's that kind of spirit and innovation that resulted in his selection as keynote speaker on a night when the convention program will focus on renewing America's economy."

I heard about this earlier today. I'm jazzed that "The Mapchanger" is making the keynote. Mark Warner will one day be President.

Update [2008-8-13 3:12:24 by Jerome Armstrong]: There's more about Clinton speaking the same night here:

Some news reports had incorrectly said Clinton would be the keynote speaker — although the convention committee and campaign always described her as the Tuesday "headliner." Clinton and Obama advisers have been in delicate negotiations over her role at the convention, with some of her reporters calling for her name to be put in nomination because of her strong second-place showing.

Giving Warner the prime role could be viewed as a slight to some of those supporters as the Obama campaign is working to build unity going into the fall election. But Sam Arora, a former Clinton staffer who co-founded a group, VoteBoth.com, that encouraged Obama to pick Clinton as his running mate, said Warner was a good choice.

"Mark Warner is the future of the Democratic Party, and putting him on Tuesday night with Hillary Clinton is exactly right move for Obama," said Arora, who shut down the VoteBoth.com effort two weeks ago under the assumption that Clinton would not be picked. "They highlight Senator Obama's vision and leadership qualities."

Is it not difficult to get the sense that the "delicate negotiations" might be having some frictiveness to it? And how about that "... some of her reporters..." typo?

You know, I'm long past the whole primary, but Clinton should just put her name into nomination, ad let the catharsis play out to its finale; what the hell, let it happen, the world won't rock away the nomination of Obama at the last moment (and the Clinton hatred & paranoia needs to end too). This will then have been totally played out and dealt with fully. Ended.



Display:


Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 2)

But... Why is Hillary not being given the primetime spot? Am I just really missing something? Forgetting something about the convention?


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 02:51:38 AM EST

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 0)

Don't get me wrong, Warner is a superstar. But he didn't nearly win the Presidential nomination.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 02:52:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (none / 0)

A lot of people didn't nearly win the Presidential nomination who would probably be great keynote speakers. I don't believe Obama nearly won the 2004 Presidential nomination, and letting him deliver the keynote seems to have worked out just peachy.


by Cincinnatus on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 02:58:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nobody nearly won the (2.00 / 0)

2004 nomination; John Kerry dominated everybody.  I think everybody has acknowledged that this year is different from any other primary that has taken place in the last forty years.

Warner is probably my favorite pol; I love that he's getting the keynote.  I'm not sure how this is going to play; from my biased eyes, it appears that HRC has gone above and beyond in terms of expressing her support for Obama (Big Dog is another story) and Obama hasn't really gone the extra mile in terms of reciprocation.


by Blazers Edge on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:42:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nobody nearly won the (none / 0)

I'll tell you why he hasn't gone out of his way to "reciprocate" the "support"... because the last time I checked he was accepting the nomination.

Hillary Clinton should be doing everything within her power to support Obama, because her chances in 2012 or 2016 depend on it.

While I believe she would be a good surrogate for Obama, this isn't supposed to be about negotiations. This is supposed to be doing whatever the leader of the party asks of you.

Obama has to win this damned election... not worry about how to appease the Clintons egos...

Ok I'm going to bed... I've to work in the morning... LOL

GO OBAMA!


by Justin Pugh on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:54:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nobody nearly won the (2.00 / 5)

Like Chuck Todd said it's a riddle there is no right amount of support or admiration Obama can show the Clintons to make this all better.  The goal posts continually move from HRC supporters who claim Obama has not done enough.

The only way for these type of supporters to be appeased is if Obama selects her as VP or he drops out...that's it.

Even if there is a role call and she loses the supporters who say "that's all they want" will move on to another issue as to why the can't support the Democratic nominee...It's never ending and has never been about not knowing enough about Obama, it's about HRC losing.


Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.
by hootie4170 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:01:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nobody nearly won the (1.00 / 4)

Justin,

My thoughts exactly.  Hillary should sit down and be happy with whatever role is assigned to her by the party's TRUE NOMINEE, Barack Obama.

Hillary lost.  Get over it.

She lost.

She cant make demands now.


by chicagomary on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:41:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe she can't make demands, (2.00 / 1)

but she can and should put her name in nomination.
There is no reason she needs to remain nameless and voteless at the convention.

I've had a belly-full of not counting votes.


by Radiowalla on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:26:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe she can't make demands, (none / 0)

Radiowalla, you are being trolled.  "She" is a fake poster.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 01:38:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then call her (none / 0)

and tell her to put her name in nomination. Nobody's stopping her.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:05:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then call her (none / 0)

I have.


by Radiowalla on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:07:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then call her (none / 0)

FLorida and Michigan didn't play by the rules, so their votes didn't count.

Get over it.  Clinton lost.  It's over.


by chicagomary on Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 03:54:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obviously (none / 0)

you didn't watch the Rules and Bylaws Committee assign votes from Michigan and Florida?  You didn't notice the part where they gave ALL of the Uncommitted Michigan votes to Obama even though he wasn't the only Dem to remove his name from the ballot?  You didn't notice where they took delegates won by Hillary and re-assigned them to Obama?  Did you miss that little sleight of hand?

It may be "over," but the Democratic party will never be the same.  You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.


by Radiowalla on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:21:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 2)

Maybe she's getting the VP spot.


by Politicalslave on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:20:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 2)

Keynote is typically used to spotlight an up-and-comer, as Obama was in 2004 and Harold Ford (being the youngest congressman) was in 2000.  Mark Warner makes perfect sense to me.


by leshrac55 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:00:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

She's getting a big spot. In past years it'd be a national spot, but now they spread the conventions out so long and the networks are so uninterested in covering them that they're only broadcasting like an hour a night on the main networks.

The 24 hour news channels will of course carry it all.


by Siguy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 02:56:13 AM EST

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (1.25 / 4)

Because she doesn't need the prime time slot...

The night is not about her... the night of the key note address is to give the key note speaker the prime time slot...

The night is not about Clinton... enough with the god damned Clintons... is it not enough that they are GIVEN the opportunity to even speak at the damned convention?

GEEZ


by Justin Pugh on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 02:57:29 AM EST

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

It isn't a matter of OWING them, it's a matter of OWING the people who are reluctantly supporting Obama. He was asked to give her the VP, he likely isn't, and that's his choice. Hillary could easily make a bit of a stink behind the scenes or at least mildly tolerate one, but she isn't, and that's her choice. But at least she deserved A prime spot at the convention. Respectfulness is all I mean. We shall see, I suppose.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:04:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (1.00 / 2)

She is being given respect...

She is being given more respect than she deserves...

Was anyone whining and crying about prime time slots when John Kerry was accepting the nomination? NO!!!

This coming week is about Barack Obama the Democratic Nominee, not Senator Hillary Clinton.

Obama doesn't need to respect her...

Do you think the Giants give a rats ass about the Patriots? No, because the Giants won the Super Bowl not the Patriots.

Of course she should speak at the convention, but why go out of the way to give her a "prime time" slot when everyone and their mother knows she will be speaking and will be watching. If not the media will drool all over every word she and her husband say anyway...

I'm willing to bet she mentions those 18 million voters 5 or more times in her speech too...

This should be about Obama and how she can best serve him... not how he can best serve her!


by Justin Pugh on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:43:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 2)

I heard today that Lady de Rothschild is her point person on the platform committee.  This is the same person who goes on Fox constantly and talks about supporting McCain.

In the interest of not refighting the primary I don't like to talk about these things, but let's don't go overboard about how she's not mildly tolerating a stink behind the scenes, because she is.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:07:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 2)

Some people need to be careful about what they say since the Democratic Party is not exactly solidified. Uh, that would include you, pugh.


by Check077 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:05:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 2)

This doesn't deserve an h'rate. For all the talk of free speech on this blog some Clinton supporters have a pretty itchy finger.


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:34:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (none / 0)

I agree.

btw spacemanspiff, what are you doing giving "chicagomary" 2s?  That's a troll account. One second "she's" talking about Larry Sinclair, the next she's saying thing's to deliberately piss off Clinton supporters.

"We don't need the Clinton's. It's Barack's party now."  Who talks like that?


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 01:41:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

Is it not difficult to get the sense that the "delicate negotiations" might be having some frictiveness to it?

I think there's much more than I thought.
"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:16:51 AM EST

Maybe they'll just move her to Wednesday (2.00 / 1)

night after Big Dog; I love Warner and him and HRC speaking on the same night would normally be enough to send a "tingle up my leg" but I can see how some would view him being the keynoter as a slight.  I guess those that called it "Hillary night" initially were wrong.

Isn't the keynoter the last one to speak during the evening?  If so, perhaps they can make an exception and have Warner speak before HRC though the labels "keynoter" and "headliner" seem to have some type of special meaning.  At least Tuesday night appears to be a star-studded evening compared to the dud on Monday.


by Blazers Edge on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:33:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe they'll just move her to Wednesday (none / 0)


I don't see the big deal...

In 1988 Michael Dukaukis was the nominee and Jesse Jackson finished 2nd.  Ann Richards gave the keynote and Jackson also spoke.

In 1992 Bill Clinton was the nominee and Jerry Brown finished 2nd.  Barbara Jordan gave the keynote, but Brown was not selected to speak.

In 1996 Bill Clinton was the nominee and Lyndon LaRouche finished well behind the incumbent.  Evan Bayh gave the keynote and LaRouche did not speak.

In 2000 Al Gore was the nominee and Bill Bradley finished 2nd.  Harold Ford, Jr. gave the keynote, but Bradley also spoke.


Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.
by hootie4170 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:52:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

C'mon hootie (2.00 / 2)

You don't see any distinction between HRC and those second-place finishers?


by Blazers Edge on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:57:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: C'mon hootie (2.00 / 4)

They way I have seen the keynote is that Dems usually ask a fresh face that has a lot of upside and who they want to introduce to the country  as a possible POTUS of the future.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone and their grandmother knows about the Clintons, few people outside of us political junkies and the state of VA know about Mark Warner.

I think this is a great idea, regardless of where or what position the Clinton's are given to speak it will covered by the media as a keynote.  Placing Warner in this role just increases his visibility among the nation.


Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.
by hootie4170 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:06:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't. (1.75 / 4)

She's super duper special to her supporters but to those who didn't support her she is the candidate who came in second.  At least that's how I see it.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:23:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Case in point (2.00 / 2)

Just posting that (true though it is), got you troll-rated.

We're constantly reminded that Obama's Democratic support is not unanimous. The same is true of HRC's Democratic support.


by Neef on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:04:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I kind of expected it. (2.00 / 2)

It was a pretty blunt statement, though true. Obama's supporters are expected to be gracious winners while having to put up with constant harassment from the sore losers among the Hillary camp.  It gets to me sometimes.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:01:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Catfish (2.00 / 2)

The TR button is crying because you are abusing it so hard.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:32:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL, the 2016 Democratic primary field... (2.00 / 2)

is shaping up to be even stronger than this cycle:  Clinton, Warner, Schweitzer and Obama's VP.

This doesn't seem to be good news for Kaine's VP chances.  With Warner as the keynoter, they've got Virginia covered.  


Our Moment Is Now
by mboehm on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:31:12 AM EST

Did Kaine really have a shot (none / 0)

given that all he's done is ride Warner's coattails into office (Jerome could probably confirm this point)?

I'm with Jerome on this point, Warner will either be president in 2012 or 2016; if only Obama could get him to flip on his Shermanesque statement.  The four strongest Obama teams in my opinion are Obama/Warner, Obama/Gore, Obama/Clinton, and Obama/Clark.


by Blazers Edge on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:36:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 2)

You know, I'm long past the whole primary, but Clinton should just put her name into nomination and get into the catharsis to its end; what the hell, let it happen, the world won't end. This will then have been totally played out and dealt with fully. Ended.

You know I don't think she really wants a roll call at the convention...as per Chuck Todd on Hardball.

And so at this point, she just sort of wants to continue going through this process.  And this process, at this point, would be to have a moment at the convention.  But I`ll tell you, you know, I`ve talked to some folks that sort of know how this delegate thing works.  If there is a roll call, she`s actually going to lose by a bigger margin than her actual delegate total.  What will that feel like?  Will that be a good thing?  Is that something that her supporters are going to want to hear?  Because so many people now have sort of switched over to Obama because they--you want to be on the winning team.

And you know, what good comes of that?  Does it create a moment where, all of a sudden, Obama feels the need to step on the Clinton--I mean, it`s just an extra mess that may not be beneficial to Hillary Clinton`s future and also not beneficial to Barack Obama.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26139280/

Like Chuck says, there's no good that could come out of it...For anyone.


Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.
by hootie4170 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:33:58 AM EST

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (1.00 / 2)

The only catharsis there needs to be is the nominee being nominated...

Like my Company Commander in Afghanistan said to us, "No your role and shut your mouth." Well "The Rock" said that, but my CO gave one hell of a speech, putting "complainers" in their place.

Hillary should be honored to even be speaking at the convention. There was never a doubt that she wouldn't be speaking, but to want to "squeeze" as much "Hillary Moment" out of Obama's convention is just selfish and self-centered!


by Justin Pugh on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:49:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (1.66 / 3)

And Barack should be honored that Hillary is speaking at the convention...


by Check077 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:11:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And there you have it (2.00 / 1)

The crazies will say he embarrassed her intentionally if that were to happen. Barack can't win with them whatever he does.


by conspiracy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:37:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

"I'm long past the whole primary..."

I don't buy that for a second Jerome. Your suggestion that she just put her name in for nomination isn't an off the cuff remark, unburdened by the history that you shrug off with such seeming ease.

It's okay if you still hold hard feelings about the outcome, but don't insult our intelligence by denying they play a role in your "put her name in for nomination" comment. Just say it. You don't care for Obama. You will vote for him (presumably) begrudgingly. You wouldn't mind seeing Hillary get to stick a middle finger in his face before she rides off to the Senate again (or to his Cabinet...or SCOTUS).

I wouldn't agree with you and I'd argue with you about why it's a bad idea, but at least I'd be able to look you in the (digital) eye and have some respect for your position.


by mikeplugh on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:45:03 AM EST

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 2)

I completely agree with this. Nothing I have read from Jerome indicates that he is over the primary. It is a constant parade of sour grapes. And putting her name in nomination is not catharsis, it is insanity.


by wasder on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:40:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

Yes, there is a reflection of paranoia in your mirror.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:17:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (1.66 / 3)

Whatever...you are really lucky to have a passionate loyal bloggership here and your lame snark here is an example of why you may not deserve it. Do you really think that people buy the statement "I have long gotten over the primary"?

I am not paranoid, nor do I normally resort to any kind of name calling but I think that after many people have asked you politely to defend what you did during the primary and to explain what your position is now, this kind of childishness response from you is really lame.


by wasder on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:37:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 2)

Whoops. Meant to say your response was childish.

Also, would add that lots of people here blog here despite your input not because of it.


by wasder on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:40:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 2)

wtf is there to defend? That's just bizzaro thinking. You know, typically, what would happen is that I would come out with what Obama should do, and the rapid-response team would bash me, and then Obama would wind up doing just what I said. Throwing Wright under the bus and ok'ing drilling are just two examples.

You need to get used to people opposing you that are on your side.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:11:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 2)

Thanks for responding. I don't mean "defend" like you are wrong to hold an opinion that is different to mine but your writing has been an unnecessarily strong blogosphere headwind for Obama.  There is a level of disdain in your tone and attitude towards the Democratic nominee that does nobody any favors. Maybe I worded it wrongly---what I would like to see is some kind of essay or front page blog from you that spells out the reasons why you went so far in the tank for Hillary and why you have suspicions about the nominee. THAT would be catharsis for this site. You have wounds here on this board that you could help to close.

Yes, I need to get used to the fact that somebody on my side disagrees with me, and no I don't think that we should all march in lockstep, but at a certain point all of us have to let go of the primary frame and pick up the GE frame. That goes for you and me both (and lots of other people here). As the "discussion leader" for lack of a better word more of the burden falls on you. Sorry to say this but you started this blog to be relevant politically and you have to own up to the responsibilities that come with that more than just childish putdowns.

I will not write another word on this topic and I am sorry if I was too harsh but I am really sick of rehashing stuff that happened six months ago or parsing polls from April about who could better defeat McCain. We have a nominee, a fantastic one I might add, and he needs our 100% committed support.


by wasder on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:18:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 0)

i don't understand what your point is nor do I believe you even believe its true.

there's a reflection of paranoia in your mirror?

c'mon.


!
by alex100 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:54:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (none / 0)

McCaskill and Sebelius will be speaking at the convention according to a small blip in The Kansas City Star.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/sto ry/745981.html

Read it for a possible clue as to who the veep might be.


Obama/Sebelius '08
by evantakesall on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 03:56:22 AM EST

Marc Ambinder's credibility (none / 0)

rests on the VP picks being Sebelius and Pawlenty.  I still don't see Sebelius either going right before the roll call vote and hence, right after Big Dog or right after the roll call vote.

Is "Securing America's Future" really just a coincidence?  If Jeralyn from talkleft is completely behind Wes for VP, you know the guy is a stud.


by Blazers Edge on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:01:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Marc Ambinder's credibility (none / 0)

I would love Clark as VP, but I'm thinking it's Bayh.  However, Obama and his campaign have been real good at being tight lipped and only giving the media what they want them to say.  Could be in for a surprise...

Bayh does shore up the Midwest though, puts Indiana in play and enforces Obama's message in Michigan and Ohio.

I really don't know...


Toot, thank you for raising such a terrific person...You done good and we will have you in our hearts.
by hootie4170 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:11:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Marc Ambinder's credibility (2.00 / 1)

Didn't Bayh drop out of the race because he had only 2-3% support? He seems like a poor choice even if he does help in Indiana and the surrounding states because in the rest of the country it seems like he'd just be dead weight.

Don't get me wrong, I think he's a great senator from my state, but he doesn't seem like vice-presidential material to me.

Just my 2 cents.


Blogging politics and life in general at jimmy.bouma-holtrop.com
by forecaster15 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:15:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 3)

I see very little upside to her putting her name into the ballot, and quite a lot of downside.  It would, quite literally, be like fighting the primary all over again.

Her giving a speech at the convention is cathartic.  Delegates haggling over votes is just going to rip the scabs off.  And for what?  "Oh look, she lost again."


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 04:12:00 AM EST

And by a larger margin (2.00 / 0)

How many of her delegates are really going to vote against the possible next President? Certainly that number is much smaller than it was a few months ago. I mean, what's their upside?


by Neef on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:09:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (1.00 / 1)

Will the Democratic party convention acknowledge in its vote that HIllary ran? It is important. The convention is a reflection of the primary and hillary and Obama did not win unanimously. It would be sexist to have Obama win unanimously.


by whothere on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:14:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 0)

Careful with the allegations of sexism there.  It's Clinton's decision whether or not she's on the ballot.


by randomscientist on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:42:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

I suppose when the Giants get their Super Bowl rings they will have to inscribe something about how the Patriots almost won. Same kind of logic.


by wasder on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 02:48:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (none / 0)

GMAB. After one team loses to the other do the players endores that team and say they are the best.


by whothere on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:44:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 2)

Well, generally the losing players admit that the winners were better than them.  At least, classy ones do.  Whiners complain about the refs.


If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.
by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:37:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (none / 0)

"but Clinton should just put her name into nomination"

Is she resisting this idea? I thought it was more the DNC who were resisting her name being in the running at the convention.


Blogging politics and life in general at jimmy.bouma-holtrop.com
by forecaster15 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:57:14 AM EST

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (none / 0)

No: all she needs to do to put her name into nomination is to say "I want to put my name into nomination."  The rules are clear on that point.  The party has no more power to keep her from entering her name than they do to keep Obama from entering his.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:16:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (none / 0)

Interesting. Thanks.


Blogging politics and life in general at jimmy.bouma-holtrop.com
by forecaster15 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:17:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 2)

Yes, one would think that, wouldn't one?

Sorry, I'm just annoyed and frustrated by all the conspiracy theorists out there pushing the idea that Obama and Dean are trying to force Clinton out of the roll call at the nomination.  There is exactly one person who has the power to decide whether she's put in nomination or not, and that is Hillary Clinton.  But all the same, they've managed to get their conspiracy theory accepted as the conventional wisdom.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:15:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama said directly (2.00 / 1)

Nevertheless,

all she needs to do to put her name into nomination is to say "I want to put my name into nomination."


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 01:38:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (none / 0)

I'm not that familiar with Mark Warner why do people admire him so much?


by Politicalslave on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:16:06 AM EST

Re: Because he donated $$ to yearly kos (none / 0)

You 2 seem to have a lot of insight about the Democratic party.

You deserve each other.


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:35:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Catharsis or not? (2.00 / 0)

I dont think there will be a catharsis. The diehards like Bill C are really just competitive people who cannot abide that their candidate lost in the primaries. Some of them may have been promised positions of prominence in the Clinton administration to be.

They may get over it but that is purely a personal realization and on their own timelines.
A roll call during the convention has the potential for disruption/rebellion resulting in a fracture within the party.

I still cant believe that there are so many Democrats who wouldnt mind seeing John McCain in the White House in the 4 yrs when the Supreme Court is most likely to see some turnover, the economy is in tatters and the Republicans are lurching from one war to another.


by ozeki saketini on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:33:13 AM EST

Look... (2.00 / 2)

it's a bit of a slight. Mark Warner is great and all, but the Obama campaign and the DNC isn't exactly doing a fabulous job of promoting unity.

Egh, who cares at this point? To be completley honest, the GOP nominee is forcing us to vote Obama--the DNC and the Obama campaign knows this, so they know they don't really have to "work" for our votes. I've put myself at rest on this one.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:41:00 AM EST

Re: Look... (none / 0)

So if it was different GOP candidate you might consider a Republican after all Bush has done? How are we being forced? Thanks


by Politicalslave on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:39:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Will Warner speech even be broadcast? (none / 0)

Assuming Clinton takes up the whole 10:00 hour. I don't think Warner's speech, will would likely be at 9:00, will even be shown by the broadcast networks.

Remember, they didn't show Obama's keynote in 2004 either.

It's still Clinton's night.


Matt - DemConWatch
by msn1 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:01:46 AM EST

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (none / 0)

Strategic. He is running for Senate, VA. Obama wants to pick up VA.


by Debojg on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:09:05 AM EST

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (1.00 / 0)

Sure you're "past" the primary, Jerome.

Every post I've seen of yours since then has been designed to dampen enthusiasm for Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate, and this is no different.

How many people here doubt that your posts on this site will relentlessly express concern and disappointment about Obama's decisions after he's elected? It's crystal clear. I bet you'll be fighting the 2008 primaries until 2012.


by JoeW on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:14:52 AM EST

jerome is NOT over the primary (2.00 / 0)

it's actually pretty sad, but what can you do.


by highgrade on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:49:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (1.00 / 0)

one could only imagine how rah rah Jerome would be if Clinton was the nominee.

seeing how similar the two were on policy, you'd think that there would be more of an evenness of how  he would have covered Obama in the end.


!
by alex100 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:18:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

The same, Clinton only became interesting once it became obvious she could beat McCain handily. I don't see that yet with Obama.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:19:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 0)

Hillary could have beat McCain but she had been underperforming Obama up until it became clear that Obama was our nominee. You were a strong advocate for her long before it was ever clear that she could beat mcCain and Obama could.

but putting that aside, I'll vote for the person I would think is the best candidate, not who has the best chance of winning. It's why I voted for Edwards.

And I certainly wouldn't disparage the other candidates after the fact on anything other then merits and policy (I voted for Edwards). Obama has been a disappointment in expected and unexpected ways (FISA) but he has been a solid candidate and came from a campaign team that was so solid it made Hillary's staff look awful.

In fact, her campaign team would be a huge liability moving into the general, where 43% of the nation is a GOP lock.

It is very interesting however that you say it "only became interesting once it became obvious she could beat mcCain handidly." That's wonderful and all but I always thought it was painfully obvious she would have walked away with the primary.


!
by alex100 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:55:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (none / 0)

No, I wasn't a strong supporter of Clinton. I had more lukewarm support for Edwards, and would have voted for him had he made it to the VA primary in Feb.  

Whats amazing is all the history re-write about how Obama would be as the nominee. There is just as much (and probably more) a negative Republican pulse for Obama as there would have been for Clinton.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:06:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 0)

Regarding your first paragraph; I don't agree with your assertion nor do we need to relive it.

your second paragraph; what makes you think that Obama would have a more negative GOP pulse then Clinton?

I can't say I see it. Even when thinking about race, those Republicans who are in fact racist would also be sexist, no doubt. So I'm genuinely curious to how you're thinking about this topic.


!
by alex100 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:45:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (none / 0)

Huh.

Who got banned this time?


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 01:43:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (none / 0)

I guess one person's 'obvious' is another person's 'obviously not'.  I believe it was also 'obvious' that Obama would lose all sorts of voting blocs that lean toward him now.  Apparently, it was not 'obvious' that HRC's complete mismanagement of her campaign and campaign team was a bad omen for the general.

To me, it was always 'obvious' HRC would have been toast in the general.  Isn't it fun talking about 'obvious' things that will never happen?

Let's face it, our country would be a lot better off if everyone used your metric for voting.  Choosing the best candidate, not who has the 'best' chance of winning later.  And no, I don't give a sh*t that Edwards would have imploded this summer.  That's a risk for all the candidates, HRC included.


If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.
by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 07:49:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (none / 0)

Well, I'd suggest taking a look at your electoral map at the top of the page.  Seems like a pretty sizeable victory to me.


by bottl4 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:03:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

Well see, John Kerry led by even more at this point. I think it'll come down to a win by either candidate of 1-2 states, in terms of the EV threshold. I'd beet on those being CO, NV, and MI right now.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:08:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 2)

I would bet strongly that Obama wins CO and MI. There are so many macro conditions here that favor Obama. I also disagree that the level of Republican vitriol against Obama is anything like what they would have thrown up against Hillary. You are kidding yourself if you think this is bad compared to what they would have done to HRC. Its their only chance to win. Funny and sad that Mark Penn was right about Obama's vulnerability to the charge of being Unamerican (whatever the eff that means). The Republicans are shameless enough to do and say whatever it takes but I don't think there is anything they can say to get John McCain into the White House. The headwinds for the Republicans are just too strong for any candidate, let alone the oldest one in history.


by wasder on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:14:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Even you know (2.00 / 2)

Jerome that at this point in 2004, the Democratic Convention had just ended and the GOP Convention hadn't happened yet.

We haven't even had our convention yet.

But Good of you to leave that out.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:20:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Even you know (none / 0)

lol, its always something...


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:22:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Even you know (1.00 / 1)

That's a pretty significant something.

I guess I'm not allowed to rate comments now.  Oh goodie.  Seeing Jerome's backbiting for what it is must've led to this.

All class all the way, eh Jerome?

You can call the rest of us "deadenders" if it tickles your fancy.


Obama/Sebelius '08
by evantakesall on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:32:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Even you know (2.00 / 1)

I admit, the thought didn't come to me to think of an excuse.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:25:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

Wow, you don't think the fact that he had chosen a VP and already had finished the convention had something to do with that?


by rfahey22 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:35:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

This is a content free post


by duende on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:05:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (1.00 / 0)

Hey hater, try and get over your bitterness, its a dead end.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:18:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 2)

Dude--your chutzpah in calling someone else a deadender is breathtaking.

But that being said we are all acting like deadenders here (myself included) by continuing to fight about the primary. Perhaps we should stop with all of this, including front page suggestions about roll calls.


by wasder on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:51:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 3)

Catfish (gatopescado) you are going up and down this thread troll rating me which is TR abuse and just stupid as well. Will anyone that agrees with me on this issue please rate me up to not let this troll win this silly game? Thanks.


by wasder on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:15:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

True. (1.00 / 0)

The Clintons are full of "hatred and paranoia."


by Bush Bites on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:20:03 AM EST

Obama proves to be a small man (1.66 / 3)

I am sorry to say this but Obama proved to be a small man. He could not eat his ego and allow Clinton to give a major speech.  
   
by ann0nymous on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:44:31 AM EST

Re: Obama proves to be a small man (2.00 / 2)

I don't think you have trouble saying it at all. Ha Ha


by Politicalslave on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:56:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama proves to be a small man (2.00 / 0)

She will get the final spot of the evening, that is always the biggest. What are you talking about?


by RandyMI on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:24:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

But if this is fully played out and ended, does this mean that Jerome will stop sniping, snipping and snarking at Obama after the convention?

Does it mean Armando will stop?  Stoller?

Just let it go, guys.  Let. It. Go.


by megaplayboy on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:04:29 AM EST

Overblown? (2.00 / 3)

Some key points:

1. Nedra Pickler wrote the article, and she always tries to sew doubts and/or dissent over Obama.

2. The Keynote speaker has not been the most prominent spot of the night in a long time now (not since 1988). Who remembers Harold Ford from 2000? Even though Obama launched is career from that platform, the biggest speech is always the final speech of the night, which wil likely be Hillary. She will go last, in prime time. She will get the balloons and confettie and the long ovation.

3. Everyone relax.


by RandyMI on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:23:26 AM EST

Again I repeat (2.00 / 1)

The keynote is NOT the headliner of the night. Will some folks please quit acting as though they have never watched a convention before?


by RandyMI on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 09:33:52 AM EST

Re: Again I repeat (2.00 / 1)

All I know is whatever night that Hillary speaks she will be the Headliner...


by Check077 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:17:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again I repeat (none / 0)

this is extremely true.

The media will fixate on her portion of the night.

What this move does is give more exposure to an extremely gifted politician that might have gotten swept under the rug if Hillary was given the keynote.


!
by alex100 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:21:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (1.00 / 0)

oh jeez.

"and the Clinton hatred & paranoia needs to end too"

no it doesn't. Just like the "hatred & paranoia" you hold against Obama doesn't need to cede, neither should someone elses.

okay, enough of this silliness, got to get my olympic fix.


!
by alex100 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:09:15 AM EST

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (1.00 / 1)

Hey deadender, get over it.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:20:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (1.50 / 2)

take your own advice.

you've been running into walls since the primary was over.


!
by alex100 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:21:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 4)

Generally speaking, one should worry when the only mojo received is from catfish.

Just sayin'.


by Kysen on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:25:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 2)

Stay classy Jerome.

( of course, you'll say it is snark...when it's not)


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:39:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not ended (2.00 / 1)

Unless Clinton is VP- I predict Obama will be in a major squeeker of an election this fall.  All of the "swing states" are looking very swingy already- at a time when even John Kerry had higher polling numbers than Obama does now.  Yes Obama puts some new states "in play"- but again, just barely.  I think Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Penn., Colorado will make or break Obama.  McCain and Obama have been statistically tied in VA/ North Carolina.  Sorry- if O is not further ahead in those states already- he's not gonna win them.  His numbers in those states will only slip as Repubs "come home" to McCain in the fall.  That leaves the above mentioned states as the swing states.  Look at current polling in each of them- they are all basically tied.  I just feel as though those Clinton Democrats have not and likely may not come home this fall- and even if they only equal 1% of the voting block (I believe it's much larger)- that could be problematic for Obama.  Who is at fault here?  
Personally I blame the DNC for handling this situation in the worst way possible.

Now, go ahead and skewer me for having an opposing opinion (if it makes you feel good- I can take it)....


by easyE on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:47:05 AM EST

When was the last time (2.00 / 1)

Indiana, Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina were all in play for the Democrats?

Thought so.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:16:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well she won't be (2.00 / 1)

If Obama's presidency relies on whether or not Hillary Clinton is Vice President, then this is one SAD FUCKING COUNTRY.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:19:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Specifically, the line between (2.00 / 2)

"Catfish demands Hillary as VP!1!!" and "If Hillary isn't VP Catfish will be very upset!!1!1!"


by JJE on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:40:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What you're saying is (2.00 / 1)

millions upon millions of people will only accept Obama as President if their girl gets second fiddle. Only then will they have confidence in Obama's leadership? I think not.

Therefore, millions upon millions of people know Obama is the better choice but won't vote for them unless their list of demands are met.

No wonder America is in a death spiral.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:55:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What you're saying is (2.00 / 1)

Or the correllary - millions upon millions think that Obama is the WORSE choice, but will vote for him if their egos are rubbed.

Either way it's screwy.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 01:54:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not ended (2.00 / 1)

John Kerry already had a VP and had been through the convention by now.  Polls from the 2004 race are terrible comparisons.


by rfahey22 on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:27:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Everyone pile on Jerome! (1.66 / 3)

What's the big deal?  Neither "catharsis" nor a unanimous Obama vote are going to do anything for unity.  But Alegre's tears will be quite delicious when Clinton's name is placed in nomination doesn't win, so let it happen!


by JJE on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 10:50:01 AM EST

Alegre is a stand-in (1.50 / 2)

for all the idiots.  Catfish tears will be quite tasty as well.


by JJE on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:28:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Says the person (2.00 / 3)

who had to create a sockpuppet because one troll handle just wasn't enough.


by JJE on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:37:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok Catfish (2.00 / 2)

But why aren't you outside playing instead of playing Internet Hero defending the fair Lady Alegre from my e-assaults?


by JJE on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 12:00:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Warner to keynote on Tuesday (2.00 / 1)

Will this ever end?

The Obama hatred and paranoia has to end too Jerome.


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 11:31:54 AM EST