Clinton-Obama Compromise: Clinton’s Name To Be Placed In Nomination

Marc Ambinder reports that not only is it now likely that Senator Hillary Clinton’s name will be placed in nomination at the Democratic convention but some of the conventional wisdom floating around the Internet and media has proven to be flat-out wrong:

1. In reality, reports of “strife between negotiators for Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are exaggerated and the two sides are nearing an agreement on how Clinton’s delegates will participate in the formal nominating process at the Democratic National Convention, according to advisers to both Democrats.”

2. Those who saw a Clinton conspiracy to try and push to be nominated were wrong. That includes a lively New York Times columnist named Maureen Dowd. In fact, Clinton herself wasn’t too sure she wanted her name to be placed in nomination.

Although Clinton had resisted pressure from donors, allies and supporters to accept demands to allow her name placed in nomination, she and aides to Obama seemed to realize independently that doing so would be the best way to incorporate and welcome Clinton’s supporters into Obama’s general election campaign, both symbolically and practically.

According to several people who have spoken with her, Clinton originally believed that if her name were included in the roll call on Wednesday, August 27, she would inevitably wind up with fewer delegates than the 1896.5 she earned from the primaries. That would look bad and could demoralize her supporters.

In negotiations this summer with Obama’s campaign, Clinton’s team did not ask for Clinton’s name to be submitted.

So the clamor and demand for Obama to put her name in nomination, and the claims that Obama’s side had been arrogantly insisting her name not be placed in nomination proved as accurate as the assertion that ” just buy an SUV and it’ll save you lots of money on gas!!”

But, Ambinder reports, there was a major Clinton change recently:

But within the past week, Clinton advisers informed the Obama team that many of Clinton’s staunchest supporters felt strongly that something had to be done, and that Clinton had concluded that, in part for the sake of unity, their wishes ought to be respected. They heard back immediately: the Obama campaign had always been open to having her name placed in nomination alongside his.

If Ambinder is to believed — and he rightfully enjoys credibility as a solid reporter –the pressure has come from Clinton’s supporters. So the theory that the Clintons were planning to use the convention spotlight on them to implode the Obama campaign looks more limp every day. In theory, Obama’s delegates could be stampeded away from him and nominate Clinton. But if you believe that, I can sell you THIS for $75.00. (Hurry now, these prices won’t last!)

Moreover, Ambinder reports that Clinton never used her clout with delegates to try to bargain with Obama.

Ambinder’s post is eye-opening because it shows just how easy it is for new and old media to get caught up in the conventional wisdom of the moment and write about what other people are writing about as fact. He offers this:

On August 6, Clinton told donors at a private fundraiser that she thinks “that people want to feel like, O.K., it’s a catharsis, we’re here, we did it, and then everybody get behind Senator Obama. That is what most people believe is the best way to go.”

The reality, he says, is that talks between the two sides have been “as relatively free of acrimony. Obama’s convention managers and his political are acutely aware of the fact that at least 45% percent of delegates were stalwart backers of Sen. Clinton during the primary.”

All of this is not small potatoes.

Given how Republican John McCain is now effectively-rallying his political base, and his continued strength in battling Obama for critical independent “swing” voters, there is no way in you-know-where that the Democrats will prevail if Clinton backers sit on their hands or vote for McCain.

That attitude remains curious for people who profess to be partisans. In 2000 some Democrats were mad at Al Gore and accepted third party candidate Ralph Nader’s line that there was no difference between the two parties. That proved false. Some argued that, after one term of George Bush, it’d be easy to defeat the Republicans and regain the White House. For many reason it didn’t happen but a key one is that incumbent Presidents usually have a big, fat political advantage.

Meanwhile, as has often been noted here and elsewhere, if Clinton and her supporters don’t solidly back Obama, his supporters will battle to ensure she doesn’t get the nomination in 2012 if he loses. If Obama loses, he must lose due to lack of support from independents, running a poor campaign, effective negative campaigning by the GOP, a gaffe or due to his race. If it turns out it’s due to anti-Obama Clinton voters, Clinton won’t get the nomination in 2012 — and, if she does, she’ll face the same problem with party unity and won’t win in 2012. (P.S. All the talk about her being too old in eight years is balderdash if you look at other countries’ leaders..)

Skillful Clinton strategists and surrogates going fishing during the campaign won’t be lost on Obama supporters or members of Congress who have a stake in a big win at the top of the ticket. If the Democrats want to win, the party will have to be truly unified with a burning desire to win the White House back. As Republicans rally to McCain, they’re showing they have they have a burning desire.

A McCain win in 2008 could mean another 8 years out of the White House for the Demmies. McCain is highly appealing to many Americans, knows how to manage his image, and given the right set up knows how to use the TV tube. The question is if he gets in will be be Bush III or be more like the 2000 maverick?

McCain today seems to be the candidate having the most fun with his campaign while Obama often seems defensive and surprisingly low-key. And some Clinton supporters? They’re coming across as wanting to use November as political payback, rather than advancing their own candidate’s political agenda — which is more similar to Obama’s than to McCain’s.

SOME RELATED READINGS:
–E.J. Dionne: Never-say-die Clintonites evidently didn’t get memo
--Some Clinton backers won’t go quietly at convention
–Clinton Rallies Planned for Convention
–The Clinton Restoration Project