Why are we doing this "roll call" process again? Since when does the losing campaign's need for "emotional catharsis" dictate the course of anything, let alone the convention? Is there any precedent for this?

Something makes me think that the Clinton campaign would call any criticism of this behavior "sexist" and use it as an excuse to try to lose this thing for Obama.

Yes, there are precedents. It's normal procedure. Senator Ted Kennedy THREE times. Jackson TWICE. Dean in 2004.

The problem here is that -- unlike previous races where there was a huge difference between the frontrunner and the closest runner up -- nobody got the magic number of regular delegates and the two totals were close enough to allow real suspense in terms of an outcome IF the Democratic Party had played by the rules. Instead, they forced a result (probably thought they had to) and thereby destroyed the Democratic nature of the process.

Ironically, the Republican primary produced a clear winner and a sense of the "fairness" of the process which is contributing to the minor hemmorhage from the Democratic Party in their direction. The fact that McCain has voted WITH the Democrats on several occasions, the fact that Kerry approached him on possibly running as the vice-presidential candidate on the 2004 Democratic ticket further enhances McCain as an option for disenchanted Democratic voters.

I was not aware of the precedent; I stand corrected.

However, the assertion that the Democrats "forced a result" is simply wrong. Obama earned an insurmountable delegate lead over Clinton during the primaries and regardless of the bitterness that has created in the Clinton camp, that is how you win a primary.

Am I the only one who sees Clinton as being narcissistic (spelling?). I mean, the garbage with Florida and Michigan aside, Barack won, she conceded. I mean, does she feel that important that her staff negoiated for weeks for this roll call crap? Or am I missing something important?

オーク,橡树

THE PUMAS ARE TOTALLY JUSTIFIED ...

1. Contrary to what Obamabots say ...
Obama and Hillary were in a dead heat,
when the DNC pressured Hillary into not
only conceding, but campaigning for Obama.
2. Obama is once again in a dead heat, but now
with McCain, even though Obamabots act like
Obama has already won (like they did in the
primaries against Hillary). So, this means that
half of the Democrats, and all the Republicans
(3/4 of America) dIdn't want Obama. Plus, he
didn't even win the popular vote, and refused a
revote in Michigan and Florida.
3. Obama has the thinnest resume in politics, and
he won state legislature and Senator by
disqualifications of his opponents, not by earned
experience, or votes.
4. Obama's one claim to fame is being a community
organizer, where he boasts of registering voters.
Then he took their votes away from them, by
disqualifying his opponents on technicalities, prior
to the election.
5. Obama's mentor of 20 years, was an anti-American
racist ... not to mention other unsavory associations.
6. Obama is simply buying the election, since he's
good at fund raising ... hardly a qualification to be
President of the United States.
7. The media never vetted Obama, and they are
giving him a free ride, plus more than twice the
print and air time as McCain, as they did against
Hillary.
8. 90% of blacks are voting for Obama, because he is
black, while the campaign gained ground by
accusing most opponents of racism.
9. Obamabots were, and are extremely nasty and sarcastic
towards Hillary supporters, as well as McCain supporters.
10. Pumas should be applauded for putting country before party ...
especially a party that did not represent them, and a party
which highjacked the nomination for Obama.
11. Obama added insult to injury, when he didn't even consider
Hillary for V.P. ... nor did he even call her ... even though she
got 18 million votes in the primary.
12. Obama and the DNC are now holding a gun to the heads of
Hillary and Bill Clinton, giving them an ultimatum ... either support
Obama, or kiss your future in the DNC and politics goodbye.

P.S. Michelle Obama subjected her two young children to anti-American racists ... Jeremiah Wright, Farrakahn, Pfleiger, and others
at the black liberation Trinity church in Chicago, for several years. Is this who you want for first lady ... I don't think so !!

Gina
1. FALSE. Obama was winning legitimately by winning voters. He even still won when Clinton resorted to Republican-style character assassination. Clinton's flaws are many: she voted for the war in Iraq; she ran a lame campaign until she got desperate and acted like a fear-mongering Republican. It is far from robotic to vote for optimism, hope, and integrity (Iraq). It is more robotic, as in psychoanalitically predictable, to let the tail of sour grapes wag the dog of denial.
2. FALSE. Obama is addressing the reasons for the dead heat and his supporters are rolling up their sleeves to work their heinies off for the best thing to happen to America in a long time. Also, some Republicans support Obama and plenty of Hillary supporters were not against him but for her, so your math is quite distorted.
3. Obama won the love of voters by helping people and applying his intelligence to figuring out the political process so he could be more effective. Enforcing the rules that make democracy work instead of looking the other way when people who should be accountable are sloppy is something we need in the White House. It is not petty; it is "keeping them honest."
4. See #3. Also, signature gatherers are trained in the rules and have a responsiblity to not be sloppy in generating an authentic and legally recognized record of support.
5. IMHO it is dead racist and ignorant to be shocked by anger in the African American community, and it is offensive to grant yourself the privelege of anger and vitriol while denying the right to it of a man who dealt with and helped solve painful injustices all of those 20 years. Your anger is equally alientating and counter-productive. Obama has chosen - not a robotic but a soulful thing to do - a leadership path that is not fueled by manipulating people's lower natures but by appealing to intelligence, reason, sanity, hope, and fairness - i.e. inspiring and motivating - let's just say LEADING - us to choose according to our higher natures.
6. FALSE. This is nothing but an insult to the financers of his campaign - the people - who are empowering him with money to win this election. There is nothing new about using money in an election - but it is new to make sure that money gives voice to as many people as possible so that powerful elites cannot buy the election, and disempower democracy, and discourage faith in our process (refer again to #4).
7. FALSE. It is ridiculous claim that "the media," who nearly universally looped snippets of Jeremia Wright (and usually without seriously investigating the context and basis of his words), and discuss race more than other issues, have provided a free ride.
8. FALSE. 80% of blacks may vote for Obama because they think he will make their lives better. There is nothing wrong with that. Many of us white folks know he will make our lives better too. Obama's campaign did not "play" the race card but pointed out when others did, so that rather than be manipulated we can recognize what is going on.
9. AN EXAGERATION. That immature, disrespectful nastiness can be found in service to all sides. Name-calling of people who differ with you, Gina, like "Obamabots," is a good example.
10. PUMAs are not putting country before party. If they sabatogue Obama they will hurt the country by allowing Hillary's (the Democrats') goals for the country to be defeated. The party did not "highjack" the nomination! Hilary got Iraq wrong and was a lousy campaign executive running a careless and reckless campaign. Voters made a choice.
11. I'm sure Obama did consider Hillary for VP, and validly decided that the ticket would be fraught with credibility issues, tensions, and snags. I am looking for Obama do create a brilliant position for her that empowers her to do the work of her lifetime and go down in history achieving what she works her guts out to do for people. I think Hillary would have lost the general election too, and thus the power to realize her goals. Electing Obama may very well better empower her and allow her to heal from the Republican below-the-belt nastiness she so unfortunately internalized.
12. The "gun" you speak of happens to be the well-being of the American people, and the world. Please get some perspective.

Oh, and about Gina's p.s. - if you were capable of judging Michelle Obama by the content of her character you would understand how hideously unfair this attack is. She and her children are simply members of the African-American community, and have to deal with the anger in the community anyway. If you look with clear eyes, you can see that her life story is about personal responsibility, compassionate consciousness, love and healing, and she models that for her children and for the country. Matthew 15:11: "What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "*

Michelle is a living example of what this means - the influences going in are not what make us unclean, it is what we choose to be and do. Discovering the personal, spiritual power to make that choice instead of excusing your character by the behavior of others is what this is about. It is profoundly spiritual and righteous and is perhaps the most important leadership quality. Better to look at yourself, PUMAs and Hillary with this lens. I have, and I see the spiritual testimony and beauty of Michelle Obama, and I appreciate and admire her profound example while I strive not to robotically regurgitate cultural pollution.

*http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=15&verse=11&version=31&context=verse