I sincerely hope this post is satire. Hiliary came very close to getting the nomination, she is a respected member of the US Senate for the Democrats, and he is also a former first lady. Any and all of those reasons are sufficient for her to speak at the convention. Why exclude her from speaking? As for her name still being on the ballot, I also think it's a silly idea, but it is about giving sufficient recognition to the closeness of the campaign. This allows her supporters to vote once for her, and for her to officially decline and for her to turn and officially vote for Obama. Seems reasonable, though not really necessary. Hardly "white privilege" from my perspective.

While I'm sure Senator Obama is not involved in every detail of convention planning, I do not believe that he didn't make the choice to have Hillary speak. It may be (probably is) mostly a political rather than personal choice, but at any rate----it almost sounds like you're saying that Obama didn't want her to speak but was forced to do so because of her race. I don't believe that. If Obama decided she shouldn't be there, she wouldn't be there. He's not allowing her on the stage because she's white. He's allowing her on the stage because she broke a lot of barriers in her campaign and it was an extremely close race. And, as Kari points out, it's not unusual for the losers to speak. I don't see white privilege here.

If the victor(s) needs the support of the loser(s), the victor(s) must treat the looser(s) great with courtesy and care.

The fact that she won more than 18 million votes says a lot about her candidacy. I think it would have been an insult to all her delegates (which makes up a sizable chunk of the delegation) to not allow her some time at the convention.

you know what i find to be an insult? This whole 18 million cracks meme. That they added language about the "18 million cracks in the ceiling", insinuating that the rest of us women who didn't vote support hillary are bupkis. No, Senator Clinton is NOT some big advocate for women, because she stood by the Men in her campaign. Fired the woman campaign manager who was urging her to apologize for her iraq vote and not go racist and negative. Instead, she kept the five million dollar man, Mark Penn. I graduated from high school in 1977 and only now, in 2008 are women making 77 cents to the dollar. Hillary Clinton ruined her opportunity to stick with the women and do the right thing....be humble about killing thousands of iraqi children for no damned reason.

As a woman who represented a male candidate who lost the nomination after winning the Oregon primary, I think Hillary had better be very careful. She is not the nominee but is getting 2 speeches (hers and Bill's), the role call vote, and a lot of attention. Why should she also be considered as VP given some of the things she said about Obama during the primary?

At some point, the "our candidate should have won" attitude grates on women who were saying this Spring, "Yes, I want a woman president, not necessarily this one". Turns out she was wise not to take some of the advice she got from Mark Penn.

The Washington Post has a column from a black journalist with an interesting take on Hillary and Mark Penn:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081502825.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Memo From a Poison Penn By Colbert I. King Saturday, August 16, 2008; Page A15

Let us note that Hillary Clinton did not take Penn's advice, though she continues her association with him.

Clinton did make much of her Middle American birth into the middle class, and she did pretend to be as one with the white working class, as Penn instructed in his strategy memo.

But she did not launch a frontal attack on Obama's life in Hawaii or on his diverse background or charge -- as Penn had urged -- that Obama is not "at his center fundamentally American."

The Clinton campaign made misjudgements from acting like the inevitable campaign before the voting started, to being a top-down campaign which didn't seem to understand grass roots organizing. They had internal campaign debates according to recent reports, and alienated people who might have originally been disposed towards her but came to a point of "Sorry, Hillary, but the way you are running your campaign...".

In 1984, Hart and Jackson each got major speeches. The 2 menin total had about 80% of of the number of delegates needed to win the nomination--what % of the final number did Hillary have? Don't tell me that popular vote figures into this equation. They thought the process had been unfair and pushed for the "Democracy Package" which led to the Fairness Comm. and rewriting of the delegate selection rules.

Hillary doesn't seem so much interested in that sort of thing as much as walking a fine line--supporting Obama while saying her supporters deserve "catharsis". OK, what do they want, a demonstration at the convention and then they will stop saying Hillary should have won and anyone who says otherwise doesn't support women?

I've got news for Hillary Clinton supporters: Mondale did not win the Oregon primary, but there were Oregon Democrats who'd supported Mondale in the primary and from the moment the convention was over started pushing the "REAL Democrats supported Mondale from the beginning!". That is not a way to win friends and influence people--or haven't the hard care Hillary supporters thought that far?

Which is why I came to the point of saying in 2008 (when someone asked why as a woman I didn't support Hillary) that I would respond, "Sorry, but she is running the Mondale campaign all over again, and I was a Hart delegate". No one argued with me about that reason.

Obama won in Oregon and won the nomination fair and square. There are many things at stake in this election, not the least of which are Supreme Court nominations. If we hear "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" many more times, a lot of us will start saying "Oh, grow up! She's not the first woman to lose a primary and she won't be the last. She was defeated by a more powerful, better organized campaign.".

Call that attitude anything you want.

Jenny, I agree that she should speak, sorry if I came down hard, just really annoyed about the 18 million deal. So glad that we're going with a 50 state strategy instead of Penn's schlock.

What I see is a smart politician (Obama) courting and bringing his adversaries (read Hillary supporters) into the fold. Would it be better to leave Hillary out in the cold, offend many significant Hillary supporters (who could potentially help Obama win in the fall) and instead go ahead and maybe lose in November? That doesn't sound like smart politics to me!

Look, I'm sorry to have to say this, but your post is pretty blatant racism. Hillary isn't being allowed to speak because she is white. She is speaking because she is a close second in the vote total for the democratic nomination.

Hillary voters have a right to have their votes represented and to hear their candidate speak at the convention. It is after all, the DEMOCRATIC convention--not the Obama convention.

I wonder what you would be saying if the opposite situation had occurred.

FIGHT THE POWER! Vote Green: Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente for President and Vice-President.

Why not vote for TWO WOMEN OF COLOR instead of choosing to vote for the lesser of two evils?

We would do well to recall that neither presumptive nominee has in fact been nominated, be they rich white frat boy or up-by-the-bootstraps halfbreed. The Clintons are of the Bilderbergers, card carrying members of the vast reichwing conspiracy, and though not as notorious her family (the Rodhams) are every bit the dynastic old money as Bush, and her ardent supporters the Rothchilds.

Nothing, surprises me.

Choosing the lessors of evil, is never-the-less choosing evil

As someone who admired Rep. Bowman's work in the legislature, I have a clue about what she is trying to say.

Maybe if you listed the prime time speakers at the last 50 years of Democratic conventions, you'd find lots of people who ran for the nomination and lost. That is not the point. To the best of my knowledge, none of them bragged that they got so much of the popular vote that they should have as much respect as the candidate with the most delegates.

However, flip the situation around. Suppose Obama had gotten 18 million votes, but Hillary had gotten the nomination by earning the most delegates. Would Hillary have been as gracious or would she have given Obama a speech that was not in prime time and no roll call vote?

The people who suspect the latter might be true are the ones Hillary has to worry about alienating if she doesn't walk a very fine line at the convention.

Are we no longer relying on the premise that if one candidate gets more delegates than needed before the convention, that candidate can make decisions on how the convention is run (much as Kerry chose Obama to be the Keynote Speaker in 2004)? Of course Hillary should be speaking at the convention just as Jesse Jackson spoke in the 1980s when he ran. He came closer to winning the nomination than any African American except 2008 Obama.

What I think rubs some people the wrong way is the attitude of some Hillary supporters (more than the attitude of Sen. Clinton herself) that gender tops race, and every female should be more excited at how well Hillary did than inspired by Obama.

I don't think Hillary should stay home (she's married to a former president as well as being the runner up), but I do think Rep. Bowman has a right to express her opinion.

Seems to me that Rep. Bowman is not only entitled to her opinion, but perhaps also pushing back on things like this:

http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/obama-bullying-hillary-out-of-convention/

THAT is what is unprecidented--the runner up's supporters pressuring the presumptive nominee. I think the salt being thrown is from the folks at websites like that.

Hmm, So you're "not suggesting Hillary should not speak at the convention" but in your original post you say "Hillary should just stay home!"

Perplexing.

Kari, yes, Hillary should speak at the convention. But if there are any "spirit of Senaca" Hillary delegates in the Oregon delegation, the delegation meetings in the HQ hotel every morning (do they still pass out the delegate credentials every morning at those meetings?) should be very interesting.

Anyone know who the Oregon delegation chair, Obama and Clinton caucus chairs are this year?

This PUMA claims to be a liberal. WOW http://madamab.wordpress.com/

Jo Ann,

I think it's more of the Clinton's "Me me me me" attitude then white privilege. There's no doubt that both Clintons should be allotted some time to speak at the convention, I personally think both of them should have been put on the first night. Highlight and celebrate what they've done and then move on.

Personally I haven't seen the schedule, but I have heard quite a few Clinton supporters insist that Obama can't win without them. That I do have a big problem with. I've supported Obama as a candidate for almost a year and a half (yes, back when everyone was laughing at his chance of winning). Those who say we need the Clinton's to win in November are just delusional.

This author's posts started at the ridiculous and went downhill from there.

Why are we still having this argument? Are not Obama and Clinton now united against McAncient?

Please save it for the Republicans.

Joanne I have long admired your work, your passion and your unwillingness to compromise. I choose to believe you misspoke and may be misunderstood.

Having said that I want you to recall another wonderful candidate that did not prevail. Perhaps you remember him. The Reverend Jesse Jackson. Who after receiving rousing support and a lot fewer votes than Senator Clinton was not a selected speaker. Was not going to be allowed to address the Convention. However he too had delegates, some from Oregon. Perhaps you remember some of them, Richard (sorry I forget his last name) and Ron Herndon (when he was still a radical) and Dick Celsi the Chair of the Demo Party of Oregon. When we were in Atlanta at another D Convention there was an effort to keep him from speaking. However, we all (YES ALL) joined forces to demand that Jesse be allowed to deliver what was feared to be a divisive speech. The leadership of the DNC tried to silence his message as well. It became clear that it would be more decisive to keep him from the podium. There were accusations of racism for not allowing him to speak. I for one am tired of the race card when in fact we have just witnessed the most outrageous sexist conspiracy against a great woman leader ever witnessed.

If unity is wanted then perhaps it is time to get over the name-calling and prejudice accusations and get on with defeating McCain. You, none of you, will defeat McCain if this does not stop and stop now!

For now I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and thinking that maybe you just were not involved or aware of the history, ugly as it is when it was a wonderful black leader who was the victim of a established leadership afraid of a little truth telling.

Hillary, Like Jesse has earned her right to speak. To be listed as a candidate and then to step aside as Obama is nominated and selected as our Nominee.

Kari, I was at that convention ane the chant was NNOT let Jerry speak it was let Jesse speak.

This isn't about black and white. It's just about the oversized ego of a certain family.

I may be a Democrat, but that doesn't mean I have to be able to stomach the Clintons. Sixteen years ago I was fan. Now? I just want them to go away.

And for those who defend them, just look at how little the Clintons have done for Barack these last two months -- bupkus! You don't think Joe Scarborough would have welcomed Hillary if she asked to go on the air and then took some pointed shots at McCain for his offensive Moses/Paris ads? Of course Hillary would have been an opportunity to do that. But she had better things to do instead -- like tending to her own ambition.

Spare me with these people.

Jo Ann, for an obviously wily former politician, that was an unbelievably poorly-reasoned post. How is it you wrote such an incendiary article without conducting any research?

In case you haven't noticed, the race has tightened considerably. Obama is going to struggle to win states where Clinton has a huge and loyal following - PA, OH, WV, etc. Let's just hope Hillary and her devotees in those states aren't hearing commentary like yours.

You have had many debates with friends over the primary season with Hillary supporters? Does that include the time when you endorsed Edwards?

I agree with most of the comments criticizing Jo Ann's ridiculous post. Her brand of reactionary, black-and-white, 3rd grade analysis doesn't belong on Blue Oregon. Can we take a vote to remove her from "contributor" status? I know she's a former "State Rep." but can she be relegated to the regular reader/poster status with the rest of the crazies?

Oh and I'm dead serious about taking a vote to remove her. People (journalists, Republicans, etc.) look to Blue Oregon to get the Democratic perspective. Jo Ann's stuff is embarrassing and not a reflection of Democratic values. I know we're a big tent party but seriously, her stuff is embarrassing.

As Kari's first comment shows, I think Jo Ann's post overlooked the historical precedent for the runner up to speak. No harm done or intended obviously.

As one of the most ardent Obama supporters in Oregon, I am pleased that the spotlight will be on Hillary for a portion of the Convention. She deserves it. Without question, her campaign made history and broke down walls for women everywhere.

This was an extremely close primary battle and her supporters are a valued members of the Democratic Party.
All of us in Denver will be celebrating Hillary's candidacy with them and giving her the recognition she deserves.

This will not detract from Barack's nomination or his time in the spotlight. It will only build unity and underscore the grace and class of our nominee.

"..the choice is between a black man (yes I know he is mixed race but he is still a black man in america) and a white and has nothing..."

It's between a black man and a "white" what?

Seriously, JoAnn, hating people because their skin is white is no better than vice versa.

Joanne, be assured there was every effort to place his name in formal nomination and yes moves were made from the floor. but you miss my point. This is about candidates who were serious primary contenders and had a message to deliver that all americans needed to hear.

I am sure you are NOT suggesting that Hillary as the 1ST SERIOUS woman to run for President should not be afforded the same oportunity that Jesse, the 1ST SERIOUS african american has had. Also, when Jesse came to the convention - prominent black leaders were appointed to the DNC to represent him as SUPER DELEGATES. Many of which hold those positons still today (because no one has the courage to remove their delegate status) and will be in Denver as Super Delegates. I think we should do the same for HilLary, give her special super delegates, they could all be women...not in my lifetime I am sure.

Goes to show you that it is OK to be a Sexist but NOT a Racist at the DNC. Neither should be OK and that should be our message! Bella Abzug where are you when we need you?

At a time when most Americans agree that those of African descent have been victimized by racism, I see the "white privilege" contention as a loser. If you want to lose this election, you should continue to tell poor and working class whites who are losing their homes and jobs that they are "privileged".

Furthermore, the argument that black people cannot be "racist" (as doretta seems to claim) because of a technical reading of the term is misleading. We need to confront the existence of bigotry in all forms, much of which is on display on BO. Although I have been treated better by black people than by white people all my life, I would never argue that blacks cannot be racist. That argument may satisfy those with elite educations, but it will enrage those "privileged" white people who are otherwise ready to support a black candidate.

I oppose banning someone like Jo Ann from BO as a contributor. I rarely agree with her, but she is no more in need of psychotherapy (really, Steven) than most other posters to BO who claim to be "progressive".

Thank you Chris Corbell for balancing the crazy. Now both the Obama and Clinton camps are well represented in the unstable wing of the democratic party.

Seriously, we need to move past this. The Clinton's have not demanded anything of Obama, and Obama has given them only respect. This whole fight is trumped up by McCain supporters who want to see the battle re-ignited. Yes, there are some on both sides who would like the same, but the vast majority of Obama fans appreciate the magnitude of Clinton's accomplishment, and the vast majority of Clinton fans are ready to elect Obama. Refocus, people.

Posted by: BadumBadum | Aug 17, 2008 9:42:03 AM What have you done to advance the Democratic Party?

I'm a big fan of what Rep. Bowman did as state rep. and I believe she brings a great perspective. Not always what I agree with, but diverse opinions should be welcome among Democrats.

It strikes fear and loathing into my heart to admit I agree with Harry Kershner. Only on the specific points he made five posts above. And never again, I hope.

Some of the best convention speeches have been by the losers, and, and it only makes sense that she is given a prime time slot. JoAnn, how would you feel if Senator Obama wasn’t given a slot? There would be a huge floor fight, and I would totally take his side.

To the best of my knowledge, the tradition of the losing candidates speaking started in 1976 when Mo Udall was allowed to speak right after his name was placed in nomination. He had agreed to release his delegates and endorse Carter, so Chairman Bob Strauss was happy to have him speak. Jerry Brown, who wasn't as cooperative, wasn't given the chance to give a formal speech, but was allowed to speak after the balloting to ask that Carter's nomination be unanimous.

In 1980, Ted Kennedy dropped out on Monday, but on Tuesday gave what is considered one of the best political speeches ever, and , although his name was not placed in nomination, most of his delegates stuck with him on the roll call. Jerry Brown, who ran that year, spoke on Wed night. Oakland Congressman Ron Dellums, who had not been a candidate, was allowed to place his name in nomination and then withdraw, and he essentially endorsed Kennedy.

In 84, runner up Gary Hart spoke before the Wed balloting, and Jesse Jackson gave a widely acclaimed speech the night before. George McGovern, who dropped out early in '84 but had a block of delegates, placed his name in nomination but then withdrew and endorsed Mondale.

Kari already cited those who spoke after '84.

JoAnn, I don’t think that Hillary and her core supporters, women, have historically considered themselves privileged.

Jo Ann's post is predicated on the assumption that the losers don't typically get to speak at the convention.

Kari, Pat Ryan, Jenni and the rest of you ignoramuses:

Never has an opponent who alleged the eventual nominee would not be elected because he was an African-American, and encourage racial animus, been given a featured role at a convention.

In fact, seldom has an opponent that alleged the candidate was not competent to hold the office been given a significant role with a free hand. The most notable example being in 1980 when Democrats vowed the Kennedy example would never be repeated again. The Republicans told Reagan he WAS going to accept Bush as VP, and Bush was did his part to publicly pay penance by making public confession he was wrong about Reagan and begged apology.

Are people asserting here the former was the way to go or that the Clintons will do the latter?

Schott, your textbook recitation of history is correct but bloodless and superficial, Kennedy gave a great speech, I know because I was applauding. But I also was in the company of local party officials where I lived a who were Carter supporters, and who were livid. To this day, they blame Carter's loss in 1980 on Kennedy's campaign and how they felt he snubbed Carter on the podium in front of the TV cameras.

Now Kari, you were saying?

Ms. Bowman's posts on BlueOregon seem to be composed mainly of rumors, word-of-mouth, and absolutely unfounded personal assumptions which are then processed into a screed which quite agressively announces hard evidence of racist plots.

While we should be ever vigilant in rooting out racism and bringing perpetrators to light, the outlandishness of these posts may very well undermine actual incidents.

A person so historically significant as Hillary Clinton will of course speak at the Democratic Convention... and sometimes the restaurant overcooks my food, too. Blaming this kind of thing on race relations is an absolute satire of progressive civic-mindedness.

Biqc ... Carter's loss in 1980 had a whole lot more to do with 20% inflation, a snarly middle-class that was losing jobs, and hostages in Iran than it did with Kennedy's speech.

 The Presidential race has tightened considerably.  If you don't believe it, go to <a href=http://www.electoral-vote.com>electoral-vote.com</a>, which shows the current status of the horse race in each state.  If Ms. Bowman wants to see McCain elected, she should be rooting for the Obama folks to treat the Clintons as though they don't exist, or as pariahs and deny them any presence at the convention.  Should that happen, I would guarantee a McCain victory this fall.  It won't take a large percentage of Hillary's supporters sitting on their hands to move a couple of swing states into the McCain column.

 As for the ridiculous idea that we don't recognize the other people who ran for the party's nomination by having their candidate's name placed in nomination and their delegates voting on the first ballot, this has only happened since we started choreographing conventions.  Which, strangely enough, is about the time that the public lost interest in watching them and the media largely relegated them to second-tier coverage instead of major political and media events.  I can remember many conventions from the time I started watching in the early 1960s where one of the most interesting parts of the whole event was watching the vote tallies mount until a winner was decided -- even when it was perfectly obvious months before the convention who the winner would be.  Ms. Bowman needs not only a lesson in political relations, but one in history.

Jo Ann is correct, this is another classic example of white privilege asserting itself, and her point is well taken that if the roles were reversed Obama would likely not be given similar consideration. Yep, political science students will be dissecting this one for years to come.

But that alone does not account for the depth of my nightly laugh upon reading Chris Corbell's posting calling Jo Ann's post "reactionary." This on behalf of the campaign of the woman who voted FOR the Iraq war, who never apologized for that vote, whose campaign dropped all kinds of subtle "don't vote for the black guy" hints, who owes her entire political existence to the reactionary DLC? Great god, do you know right from left?

Now, in my opinion Obama is very far from an unadulterated prize, but anyone who wants to argue that he is the "reactionary" candidate - with the possible very very very slim tip-of-the-needle category of health care, where neither Clinton nor Obama have had the moral clarity to come out and support single payer - Barack has aligned himself to the left of Hillary Clinton symbolically and literally on all the questions I can think of.

Not very far to the left, I'll grant you.

Still, ask yourself:

Do you WANT eight more years of "the era of big government is dead" and "the end of welfare as we need it" and oh god I'm going to open an artery if I have to relive those memories . . .

See it's one thing to live with Bush and Cheney. They are corporate fascists and proudly advertise themselves as such. They are the party of business and militarism. You get what you paid for.

When the other party, the Democratic party, weak and timid as it is (partly from having been rolled so many times, but more from having given in so many times) kisses off the poor, flushes the schools, makes prisons the national growth industry, turns on immigrants, and finally admits that yeah, we'll be reasonable about that drilling stuff . . . well that's when it hits you that, in the words of Kurt Vonnegut, "Things are bad, they're gonna get worse, and they're never gonna get any better." And the sickness in our collective soul deepens in a way that Bush, Cheney, Scalia, et al. could never accomplish.

There are some people on here that have argued that Jo Ann's original post was "racism." I think somebody even referenced Dr. King. Jesus! Do you have any idea how tiresome, how beyond childish, how bone-wearying tedious, nigh on to comically loathsome it is for privileged people to type out accusations of racism and lectures about Dr. King to Jo Ann Bowman? Do you have any conception how that appears to actual adults in the world?

There are some here who argued that Jo Ann should not be on here, Perhaps someone found it offensive that what she wrote was in some wise deeply true and it offended your carefully wrought fantasy that keeps it together for you on some non-trivial level. The thing about the world is, if it weren't her and if it weren't here, it would be somebody else and some other venue. If you need to block out the truth of all of our complicity in the existence of other people's pain, then it sucks to be you.

Full disclosure: I don't know Jo Ann Bowman. Wouldn't know her from Eve. She seems smart. Keep writing, please.

Jo Ann Bowman - You have the option to not live in a black and white world, I don't have that option.

Jo Ann, you have the option to live in what ever world you choose to live in.

Mr. Tee said, "It strikes fear and loathing into my heart to admit I agree with Harry Kershner. Only on the specific points he made five posts above. And never again, I hope."

Now this is cognitive dissonance. I must have been wrong on those specific points.

OMG this still rages on...

Joanne, Give it a rest.

Joanne rather than quieting this raging debate over racism you encourage its continuance through antagonism and ignorance. Yelling louder does not make you right or your position correct.

So many of us tried to live above the accusations you through around like some raging screaming,b crazed and angry lunatic. You do nothing to promote mutual understanding and tolerance you seem only intent upon creating a more divisive world. Take it somewhere else – some of us really want to focus on a better tomorrow not dwelling in your world of hate and anger.

Kari - surely you aren't arguing (what am I saying, of course you are, but you shouldn't) that Dennis Kucinich's treatment in 2004 is akin to Hillary Clinton's intended role (intended by her and her coterie) in Denver?

Wow. I've tried to stay away but it's nice to see Corbell back posting and showing why we all ignored before...blowhard. Ahem...

Jo Ann, nice post. I love how you seem to get under everyone's skin and make them talk about things they wouldn't normally. I disagree on white priviledge rather I think it's about as close a tie in a primary as it could be.

Corbell OUT! What a worthless blowhard.

Kari, that's not how I read Jo Ann's post. We should ask her, but absent that, here's how I see it.

The relevant passages are her claim that it is not usual to allow "so much airtime" to a defeated challenger and "they (i.e. defeated candidates) were not expected to have their caucus votes counted on the floor." The gist of the argument is that the Hillary Clinton campaign is being afforded unusually generous "airtime" which means not only a prime time speaking position but having her name placed in nomination, having demonstrations with signs etc. on the floor which some kind of negotiated content, having all this happen on the anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment so that she becomes more or less conflated with that achievement in the public mind (I can think of plenty of people - Eleanor Holmes Norton, for example, who would do a far better job at this), and lots more folderol. In the weeks and days and hours before the convention, she will be the most compelling part of the narrative, unless Obama chooses a VP out of far left field.

So: we're far, far away from Dennis Kucinich in 2004. Far away like we were when Bill Clinton referenced Jesse Jackson in South Carolina to similar purpose.

You're right. If Hillary's not getting special treatment, then the argument's moot. I think that Hillary IS getting special treatment. She's getting it because her campaign is unwisely strong arming Obama's campaign, and that it will fall into a familiar Democratic convention narrative - they're weak, they've caved to a pressure group, they're disorganized, they're not in control of their message. There are segments of the Clinton campaign that will not oppose this narrative too strenuously, I think.

Is this a case of white privilege? Well, it's happening to the first black nominee of the Democratic party. It's happening awash an aura of resentment from the Clinton campaign, some of whom thought they were owed this nomination, some of whom thought that gender should trump race this time, some of whom thought it was important that that Obama did not come with as many years of national experience as Hillary Clinton. Does that add up to white privilege? There's your Rorschach test.

Um, you do know that Barack Obama is the first African-American nominee, right?

Yes Kari, I do. That's the point. Are you really that dense? Wait, you actually asserted Obama would have gotten a similar role if Clinton had won because Kucinich spoke in 2004 after being a non-factor in that race! Yes, you really are that clueless (and perhaps worse.)

What happened in this primary, and in particular the facts I cited, are a unique and shameful chapter in Democratic Party history. Which is why your assertions about the past when white guys played fake nice with other white guys for the television cameras are irrelevant and an embarrassment to any decent Democrat.

Biqc ... Carter's loss in 1980 had a whole lot more to do with 20% inflation, a snarly middle-class that was losing jobs, and hostages in Iran than it did with Kennedy's speech.

Yea, "rural resident", I'm well aware of why Carter lost in 1980 --- I was there. Read my comment again because you obviously are too dense to have understood it.

Kari, you just dig yourself a deeper hole because your ego is too big to let you shut up.

In 1988, Dukakis did not assert Jackson couldn't win because he was an African-American as a strategy in his campaign.

In 2000, Bradley was white: And still is, white and having privilege being something a person doesn't shake. And refresh our memories with a reference to a campaign appearance in which Gore said Bradley couldn't win because he was a middle-aged white guy.

In 2004, Dean was white. And medical science still had not found a cure for being a white guy with privilege. While your searching for the cite about Gore saying Bradley couldn't win, find us a cite to a campaign appearance where Dean said Kerry couldn't win because he was a white guy, or say, a Vietnam Vet. (Who knew the Swift Boaters could make that last one true, even if they had to lie? Well actually I remember telling two Kerry supporters it was a mistake nominating Kerry if it was out of the belief that as a vet he would be immune to Rove's attack tactics as was being argued at the time.)

Kari, your refusal to acknowledge that the fact that Clinton and her surrogates made a not too clever appeal to racial animus in the primary, and has never apologized for that, makes this year different is an attitude that is exhibit A of white privilege: You suggest you have no appreciation for why it is offensive or show any respect for those who quite rightly find it offensive.

(That is, if you actually believe what you say. However, since you and Charlie are paid political flaks there is absolutely no reason for any sensible person to think you actually believe much of anything you say, at any time.)

Hillary's speaking slot really isn't a big deal. (And remember, I'm talking here as someone who never supported her in this presidential race.)

How do you know? Do you have advance text of her speech? Is she going to make a heartfelt apology for what she did and ask her supporters to apologize? On the other hand, if your position is that for the good of the Party she is going to just make false nice after what she did, and that it will in fact be good for the Party, aren't you actually saying in that utterly condescending way of a political flak that her supporters are dumb enough that they won't catch on they are just being thrown a bone to shut them up?

Garrett said: "Jo Ann, nice post. I love how you seem to get under everyone's skin and make them talk about things they wouldn't normally." I wholeheartedly agree. BO can only benefit from these kinds of discussions. Thanks, Jo Ann

This black vs. white thing has to stop in this race. It was one historic candidate against another historic candidate. Saying anything less just trivializes the struggles of women and African Americans

Women are a majority in this country, not a minority. Women could use their majority to elect women to every elected office and an honest intellect deduces that the facts on their face show that has nothing to do with money or access. At the same time, women were admittedly facing genuine legal and social obstacles to political power, white women like Clinton (who started out as a Goldwater Republican as a corollary of her privilege by the way) have enjoyed a level of general class and social privilege that was denied minorities.

As a white woman, Clinton resorted to stoking racial animus and in the process showed she personally has no right to leadership. Hopefully she'll make publicly make amends with the unearned chance she has graciously been given, but because of her shameful behavior that brought dishonor to our Party we are under no obligation to give her respect unless and until she earns it back. Jenni's argument is morally vapid when we set it against the clips we saw on our TV of white women during the primary saying they just couldn't vote for a black man, obviously without making any reference to his positions on the issues or even his party affiliation.

Your post was a true example of speaking truth to power Ms. Bowman, something privileged Blue Oregonians smugly believe only they have the franchise on, and yet very seldom do. I'm guessing the responses from the not-so-progressives here was pretty much what you expected because you seem like a pretty sharp thinker. Sadly, I was not at all surprised. Shame on them and gratitude to you for your genuine courage.

Jo Ann, while there may be something to what you are saying, I've noticed that your last 3 posts have all been about how bad white people are! Either it's a white guy getting better service at a restaurant, someone charging you more for a cab ride (must be because you are black of course!), or now the white dem's tyring to f*ck Obama by letting Cilton speak...

At the best, I hope there is more to you then a daily perception of white people trying to keep black people down.

At the worst, I fear that you are becoming the black woman who cried wolf. Real racism should be pointed out, analyzed for motive, and never tolerated. The sh*t that you bring up and the fact that it's all you have to say is dissapointing and I hope that you can get over whatever it is that makes you think all white people are out to get the black people!

As a supporter of Senator Clinton, The original post and this crap spewing from "Bicq" is really making me feel like I did a couple months ago, not wanting to support Mr. Obama because of some of his jackass supporters.

Hell, Hillary should get a speaking spot for enduring the "iron my shirt" idiots during her speeches. Bicq, what's the point of saying one group has been more discriminated against than another? You really need to get over it and realize that your candidate won the election and help him get elected, nobody yelled at Mr. Obama to shine their shoes. Senator Clinton isn't just "a white" as Ms. Bowman calls her, she's the first woman to make it that far in a presidential race and of course that is something to be celebrated and broadcast to the rest of the country during our party's convention. Stop being so dumb about this, please?

When talking about privilege, I think the broader issue here should be voter access for all and questioning how we pick our nominee. We still scream about FL in 2000 and OH in 2004, but we continue to tolerate our archaic nomination process of voting for pres. indirectly by delegates. At least with primaries, everyone can vote. With caucuses, however, there are long lines, a limited time frame to be let in the door, often confusion, no secret ballot and no absentee ballot. The Obama campaign issued formal complaints after the NV caucuses, as I beleive did CLinton's after TX. I think if we are serious about all voters being able to participate and not be discriminated against, we should scrap the caucus system that so many Western states have, and require that every state have a primary, either state run or party run. That is of far greater concern to me than who speaks on what night.

Crying 'racism' all the time will become like crying wolf. It will have a very detrimental effect on the democrats. Most democrats are not racists, and most racists are republicans (not the same as most republicans are racists) You will drive off potential allies by your accusations ("white privilege at its WORST??) then when the republicans cannot be guilt tripped, and laugh at your accusations, where will be your allies?

Also, I thought the convention for for the purpose of nominating a candidate. Obama has actually not been nominated. He is still the "hopeful" nominee. How often has a candidate discouraged from allowing their name to be put into nomination when the vote was essentially split? Now, you say it is because of racism that a valid candidate is allowed to speak too much? You expect to build a coalition with that? Or to gain credibility?

Electing a president should not be like electing a dictator. The democratic party is not Obama's party. He does not own the democratic party. He does not make all the party decisions. If the party goes that way, then it will reflect the republicans who have morphed into the neocon party, and will become the neodem party.

Re: the suit against the DNC for not pursuing fair representation of GLBT in the organization because certain powerful AAs don't want it, Donna Brazile saying not to add numbers of GLBT because it would be offensive to the "civil rights movement". Where's your post saying this is Black Privilege at its worst?

Bicq continues to get everything backwards.

Jo Ann's original post was founded on the idea that Hillary was getting special treatment.

Yes indeed, Hillary is getting special treatment because her resort to stoking racial animus during the campaign was qualitatively different from what losing candidates had done in previous races, and is in fact repugnant to what we profess to stand for as Democrats.

Moreover, I have no problem demanding the treatment candidates receive be based on their behavior and that they be repudiated when they cross the line that the Clintons crossed. (I'm wondering why "Please Stop?" didn't just go all the way in that fit of childish pique and that s/he is going to vote for McCain if s/he isn't kowtowed to?) Hillary did something quite "special" in the worst sense of that word that is unique in our Party's modern history by stoking racial animus, and she is receiving special treatment due in no small part to white privilege in still being allowed to participate so prominently .

So here's a little challenge: I dare Kari and the rest, you who are so connected to the DPO to get Woods and other DPO luminaries to publicly, unambiguously, and resolutely state:

1) Clinton did not stoke racial animus during the primary,

2) that even if she had she should be given an honored role in the DNC Convention as she has been given "just because" as Kari argues,

3) that it had nothing to do with white privilege --- hers or the biggest block of her supporters' --- and

4) that people who say precisely what I've said here, in exactly the pointed and accusatory way, should leave the Democratic Party and the DPO.

Beyond that for anyone so egotistical as to think this is about defending "your (my) candidate", you couldn't be more laughable. Although I'll definitely vote for Obama, it will not be with enthusiasm because as we saw with his FISA vote, his values and goals are well within that faction of the Democratic Party who have been willing enablers of the destruction of our Constitution and country by the Republicans. (Just how many filibusters has Obama led over any issue? And I'll remind everyone Joe Liebermann was his mentor and that he didn't endorse Lampson until his political career depended on it.)

I will vote for Obama precisely and only because his age and his status in the society in which he exists will cause him to be agent of positive change despite himself. And that would be very good for the Democratic Party and the country.

And by the way, in line with dismissing the claim that this is about defending "your (my) candidate" and as someone else has said, I don't know Rep. Bowman and I'm quite confident she's glad she can honestly say she doesn't know me. I respect the truth and courage of what she has said here, and it is inconsequential to me whether she or anyone else embraces the arguments I've made.

The "race nuts" in the Democratic Party are the dingbat equivalent of the religeous nuts in the Republican Party. Lucky for the Ds the race nuts are few in number.Unlucky for the Ds is that the religeous nuts have lots of money. Of course that's what makes politics interesting.

Fortunately, in the long run, education will take care of both breeds of nuts.

The DPO is comprised, entirely, of grassroots activists.

Kari, our electeds are not grassroots activists, paid DPO executive staff are not grassroots activists --- they are paid political professionals by definition --- and Meredith Woods-Smith, wife of a former elected is not a grassroots activist.

So I'll repeat, if you think your views represent the morals and beliefs mainstream of the party, you should have no problem getting a statement from Woods-Smith and other DPO luminaries like Kulongoski, Wyden and Merkley to publicly, unambiguously, and resolutely make what should be a perfunctory statement for the record that:

1) Clinton did not stoke racial animus during the primary,

2) that even if she had she should be given an honored role in the DNC Convention as she has been given "just because" as Kari argues,

3) that it had nothing to do with white privilege --- hers or the biggest block of her supporters' --- and

4) that people who say precisely what I've said here, in exactly the pointed and accusatory way, should leave the Democratic Party and the DPO.

If it is the mainstream position of the prominent Oregon Democrats who have gotten themselves elected to leadership positions because they have stated they stand for Democratic Party values, say like being just absolutely miffed that the Republicans they have enabled have torn up our Constitution, a paid political mouthpiece like you should even be able to draft such a statement and have them agree to let you post it here under their names. Charlie, former paid mouthpiece for Kulongoski, can help you with that.

And if the actual grassroots of our Party, or at least those of social privilege, want to get together and pass a resolution stating that, I encourage them to do so. That might be the best thing that could happen in this state and country, it might induce people with moral character to finally come together as a principled new party that actually stands up for simple decency, civil rights, and social justice, and reduce the perverted, venal remnants of both the Republican and Democratic Party to permanent minorities. Now wouldn't that be something?

The "race nuts" in the Democratic Party are the dingbat equivalent of the religeous nuts in the Republican Party.

I'm not sure who "Patsy Cline had a song" is talking about because all s/he can do is snark like a grade-schooler, but you have to be proud Kari that you have created a space where people actually equate Democrats who demand social justice with right-wing religious fundamentalists who have come to stand against social justice. Hat's off to you for such a truly outstanding accomplishment.

I don't have any idea what "views" you think I have

Your views on display, which is all that has been asserted, are that you steadfastly assert Clinton deserves to speak at the convention --- and therefore her primary campaign tactics of stoking racial animus in a way that is repugnant to Democratic Party values is irrelevant --- because all that matters is that in previous conventions losing candidates who had done comparable were invited to speak. Quoting your very first comment:

Jo Ann's post is predicated on the assumption that the losers don't typically get to speak at the convention.

Her post in fact asserts losers don't automatically deserve to speak.

The fact that in your argument what Clinton did is irrelevant in the consideration whether she should be allowed to speak IS your view. Instead of saying she doesn't deserve to speak because of what she did you instead said:

Your concern that somehow the rules are different for Barack Obama's losers is misplaced.

The rules are different in an even worse way than Rep. Bowman probably would assert:

It is because of white privilege that trivializes and overlooks what Clinton did that allows people like you to not be ashamed of even suggesting that she should be treated exactly like candidates in the past have been treated, because there is nothing she did that rises to the level that has caused you so far to say here she should be treated differently.

"because all that matters is that in previous conventions losing candidates who had done comparable were invited to speak."

should have read:

"because all that matters is that in previous conventions losing candidates who had done NOTHING comparable were invited to speak."

Interesting perspective. Why do you think Obama was a keynote speaker at the convention in 2004 when he had not even served on the Senate yet? I guess they invited Hillary to speak because 18 million Democrats cast a vote for her during the primaries.

Interesting perspective. Why do you think Obama was a keynote speaker at the convention in 2004 when he had not even served on the Senate yet?

Obama was invited to speak in 2004 because, as has become custom at Democratic conventions, and to a lesser degree at Republican conventions, the Party highlights promising "up and comers" who have the potential to become the next generation of leaders. One of the givens to be offered an chance to be introduced to the public like that is that the individual hasn't taken positions repugnant to Party values.

I guess they invited Hillary to speak because 18 million Democrats cast a vote for her during the primaries.

Your comment is (deliberately?) ambiguous. Is it a just a snark or is it a question?

Are you saying that the cast of prominent, but cowardly, Democrats who actually choreograph these things had no choice except to lay down to some large percentage of 18Mil people who see nothing in what she did to stoke racial animus rises to the level of being repugnant enough to the values of our Party that she should not be invited to speak?

Or are you saying that Democrats who choreograph these things actually agree with the 18 million Democrats who see nothing in what she did to stoke racial animus rises to the level of being repugnant enough to the values of our Party that she should not be invited to speak?

Clinton DID receive special treatment. She was pushed out of the primary by the DNC! Obama is not the winner and she is not the loser. Not at this point in time. The convention is actually the nominating convention and if it was actually a fair and open and democratic play by the rules convention she has a 50-50 chance of winning.

How dare the DNC decalre him the winner and then say that he "graciously" "allowed" her name in nomination? If Obama wins the nomination are you going to also delcare the election is not necessary and everyone can stay home and not vote? That's even more effective than republicans rigging voting machines.

Yes, the rules were changed, by the DNC to favor one candidate- Obama. And you then call racism when Clinton is "allowed" to speak. Unbelievable.

Mark Crispin Miller today on Thom Hartmann's program claimed that primary vote tabulations were manipulated in Clinton's favor through rigged machines so that the Republicans could run against a more vulnerable candidate in the general election. Here's the Miller site on Rove-directed election stealing: The RoveCyberGate Campaign.

"Rove’s Cyber Guru, Michael Connell, has worked for the Bush family for over 20 years and helped Bush Sr., Jeb and Bush Jr. 'win' their elections using his computer skills. Whistleblowers, including Republicans, say that several of these and other national elections have been rigged through various invisible and illegal means, including vote tabulation manipulation, improper partisan use of the Justice Department to target Democrats and uncooperative US Attorneys, and the laundering of hundreds of millions of corporate dollars funneled into fake advocacy groups directed against Democrat candidates running for public office...Corporate sponsors of this strategy, such as tobacco, energy, telecom, and pharmaceutical companies are rewarded with hands off government: deregulated oversight, stringent limits on class-action damages, the stacking of high courts with pro-business/anti-consumer Justices etc."

So Clinton's legitimacy is further weakened, regardless of her white privilege.

Again: Why won't DP elites, including Obama, speak out about this? Can it be that the DP candidates are in bed with the same corporate funders as the RP, and they don't want to rock the boat, even if it means "losing" another election? You can always blame Nader again, can't you?

Let's be very clear, Jo Ann Bowman endorsed and supported John Edwards in the primary. So this whole thing is a little embarrassing.

Ryan: That you believe that "Obama and the DP elites...are in the tank for the corporations" is "yet another outburst of pure white logic" is a bizarre contention. Are you saying that it is racist to say that a person of African descent can be a corporatist? How can anyone be ignorant of the corporate funding of the Obama campaign at this stage? I would post my massive list of links to such information if typepad would let me. (There is a thing called a "search engine" into which you can insert "obama donors", if you care.)

Regarding, "...why would all of these nefarious entities and groups try to thwart Clinton if Obama's as bad or worse, and why would anyone support the Theoretical Clinton Coup if she's no better than Obama?":

Answering this seems even less formidable a task than the above. It's hard to believe that you don't see it already, but:

Those Republicans who may have rigged the machines to support Clinton did so because they thought Clinton would be easier to beat. Those who in good faith believe Obama to be a superior candidate and those who in good faith believe Clinton to be a superior candidate are wrong. Neither is a superior candidate.

Obama and the DP elites are not "loosely defined as everyone who disagrees with Nader", but rather are those who support corporatism and state hegemony to the detriment of the American people and the rest of the world.

I ask you to tell me which of these centrist Nader positions (all of which are opposed by Obama and Clinton) are too "far left" for you: impeachment of Bush and Cheney; single payer national health insurance; six month withdrawal of all US personnel from Iraq to home; cutting the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget; no to nuclear power, solar energy first; aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare; carbon pollution tax; end corporate personhood; Wall Street securities speculation tax; Defend, Restore and Strengthen the Civil Justice System; even-handedness on Palestine/Israel; Fair Tax Where the Wealthiest and Corporations Pay their Share; Tax Wealth More than Work; Tax Activities We Dislike More than Necessities (Issues that Matter for 2008).

Re: rigged machines....rumors rumors rumors. Want some actual fraud then check how Obama machnie handled the caucuses.

Re: "Birth right". hahahaha. Really? Hillary has worked her ass off and has won seniority. True she still had to fight for it, which she did. Now, we are on the eve of the Dumbocrats nominating a weak candidate. His most effective stragegy so far has to guilt trip people into voting for him (when he was not disqualifying them by noodling the rulz). This will NOT work with republicans. The actual racists are actually republicans and if you call them names or guilt trip them by saying the republicans are not "nice" enough they will laugh. And we have people like the author of this post who are more intent on guilt tripping their own party than winning the election. I have to think we Dumbocrats simply love to lose.

If we lose then we can:

1) yet again avoid actually taking responsibility and can spend lots of time blaming and complaining.

2) feel very superior

For the record I remain a strong supporter and admirer of Ms. Bowman and think she gave her honest opinion.

The misdirection that I perceive is in venting her justifiably seething anger at the racism that pervades under the surface of this presidential election against dear Hillary, my old property law prof.

Wake up! The Republicans are the Dixicrats! Or should I sam Dixiecans or maybe Dixiecups.

The campaign they are waging against Obama is rife with racial innuendo disguised as polite condescention. I point this out in greater detail in my epistle, "Playing The "You're the Race Card" Race Card"- if only Karl will have the good taste to print it in these hallowed precincts.

Get pissed off about that, Jo Ann. That is the real fight!

Well this time last year I supported Al Gore knowing full well that either Obama or Hillary could lose to that loose cannon, warmonger McWorse who I rightly predicted we would face.

Now I am ready to fist it up for Obama. Clinton/Obama is yesterdays fight.

And give Obama some credit for making a savvy choice here. We need the Clintons to win- BIG PERIOD.

So listen to her speech and I bet it will make you want to slap someone.

Time to quit slapping mama and start slapping Republicans.

Will, it is good to hear of your strong support for Ms. Bowman. I am certainly looking forward to hearing more from her and agreeing with her on many issues. But on this issue, in light of how the convention played out, I think this post of hers is not just ungracious, but is highly divisive and uninformed. The Clintons and Al Gore all delivered. They and Obama all had the effective speeches. But life is more than a speech (at least in most lives, maybe not in politics), and now it is on to the GE. Let's see if we can win our senate seat!