2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWas Sexism at Play During the DNC Roll Call?
Instead, as a possible example of soft or ingrained sexism, I offer the occurrence of the roll call vote to nominate Hillary Clinton for president at the Democratic National Convention.
Copyright Jenny Warburg
Clinton earned 3.7 million more votes and 1000 more delegates than did Senator Bernie Sanders. And yet, since wounds among the Sanders supporters were fresh and unity was the partys main goal, the campaigns engaged in a negotiation over how the roll call of states would play out. As a comparison, in 2008, when Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, the orchestration of the roll call had the delegation from the state of Illinois pass on its turn to cast delegate votes in favor of letting the New York delegation go out of order. To that point in the roll call, the delegate count had not delivered the required number of votes to then-Senator Obama for him to officially become the nominee. Instead, then-Senator Clinton stepped to the microphone and asked for a suspension of the roll call so that Senator Obama could be named the partys nominee by acclimation, essentially suspending the rest of the roll call and nominating Obama immediately. The convention chair moved to suspend the rules, the delegates cast a lusty voice vote in favor of nominating Senator Obama and celebrations broke out in the hall, which were covered live on television.
Contrast that to how the roll call vote for Hillary Clinton took place. The states and territories went through the traditional process of announcing their votes for both Clinton and Sanders. There was no official marking of the totals in the arena, so no one really knew that South Dakotas vote made history by putting the first female major-party nominee over the top. There was no cutting short of the roll call to declare Clinton the nominee by acclimation. Instead, Vermont, the home state of Senator Sanders, went last and Senator Sanders asked the convention to declare Hillary Clinton the nominee, but failed to call for her to be nominated by acclimation. And since the entire roll call had played out and she had already secured the delegate votes needed to win the nomination, Senator Sanders action amounted to a somewhat hollow symbolic attempt at unity.
From the perspective of politics, this is what the campaign negotiated. Party unity of Clinton and Sanders supporters was seen as paramount and the Clinton campaign appeared to have been willing to accept less than she granted President Obama in 2008. But to some observers, the fact that the United States had just made history by nominating the first woman major party candidate for president actually got less attention than it might have if so much attention had not been paid to making Sanders supporters, and perhaps Sanders himself, feel better about things.
On a day that should have been a crowning achievement for Hillary Clinton, a significant amount of attention went to Bernie Sanders. And so the question remains: Was this sexism at work?
. . . .
http://msmagazine.com/blog/2016/08/01/was-sexism-at-play-during-the-dnc-roll-call/
stopbush
(24,396 posts)Sheesh!
4139
(1,893 posts)democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)Why they didn't have New York pass and then go back to NY for the votes that put her over.
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)Except for this year.
LisaM
(27,813 posts)Considering that when Hillary was nominated, most papers showed a picture of Bill Clinton instead of her, and that I actually read a headline (online) that said, "Bernie Sanders Nominates Hillary Clinton", I'd say yes.
But we're in a little bit of uncharted territory (sadly), so while I do think there was sexism, I think it's fair to say that some of it was unintentional, and that it clearly jumped out at some people more than others (those who aren't seeing it).
I like articles like this that ask questions without really answering them, because then I get to think out both sides on my own.
niyad
(113,353 posts)BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)She appeared by video, while Bill was there to give his speech. So newspapers trying to report on the convention had the option of running a photograph of Bill Clinton, who was at the convention, or a picture of the video screen that displayed HRC. It makes sense why most papers went with the photo of a live person instead of a photo of an inanimate object that was merely displaying a person.
I agree that it looks sexist, but from an editorial standpoint, it actually does make sense.
niyad
(113,353 posts)LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)and being very aggressive about it.
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)A+!
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)(content removed for violating the Terms of Service)
niyad
(113,353 posts)democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)Are people really still harping on this? Bernie had the right to the full roll call, as did Hillary in 2008. She chose to end it and call for nomination by acclamation. Nobody forced her to do that.
An article on Politico the other day described the negotiations between the Clinton and Sanders campaigns over the roll call, and one of Clinton's people said that Sanders did "everything they asked of him."
niyad
(113,353 posts)LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)I assume that the Clinton side worked out the agreement with the Sanders side to bring together all of the delegates.
You will always find an ism if you want to. This is making a mountain out of a molehill.
niyad
(113,353 posts)LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)I rejected it.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)The staffs for both campaigns worked together throughout the convention to keep the protests under control and project unity. As part of that, they negotiated the mechanics of the roll call. In the end, Clinton's aides said that Bernie did everything we asked of him. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-2016-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-supporters-226415
I thought it was a great moment when he moved to suspend the rules and nominate her, and I fully felt the historic nature of the nomination. If anything, I think it was better for her that the roll call showed that she won, and pretty decisively (especially since most of the supers voted for her too). As a woman, I felt proud, even though I supported Bernie in the primaries.
Just because they did not do things exactly the same way as 8 years ago doesn't make anything sexist. There is plenty of legit sexist coverage of Clinton, and stories like this just undermine those who call out legitimate sexism.
LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)In fact, during the primaries got into a discussion on this site whether or not it is sexism to say that the only reason Hillary has come as far as she has is because of her husband. I maintain that it is a perfect example of sexism.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)And completely untrue. She would have gotten where she is with or without Bill. If anything, he wouldn't have become president without her.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)She had already long passed the requisite numbers for nomination, so she was already legally nominated before the Vermont delegation, which went dead last, offered their votes.
There could have been a withholding of the Vermont votes and a call for acclamation, and although that would have been merely symbolic, it would have involved a very minor suspension of the rules.
Instead, what was called for was for all the votes to be recorded as such (which of course occurs anyway, without anyone calling for it), after the unanimous vote for Sanders in Vermont was called out.
I squirmed when I saw it, because it seemed to me to be a play for several things only: having the last word and the spotlight, and an unnecessary call (given the refusal to release delegates and the failure to call for a vote by acclamation) for all the votes to be recorded as they stood, which I found to be rather egotistical. I realize it was a sop to quell the Bernie or Bust people, but it didn't even work. They were not appeased in the least.
It was weak tea. And yes, if not overtly sexist, it certainly represented a double standard for how these things are done when a candidate is already the presumptive nominee. It was a "protest" roll call.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)They asked him last minute to play a bigger role than originally planned in hopes of quelling his supporters, which did work for about 80-90% of his delegates. They told Politico that Bernie "did everything they asked of him". So if you don't like the way it was done, blame Hillary's people who orchestrated it.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)I guess there were some formalities they would have had to go through if he had not said that.
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)whistler162
(11,155 posts)way they did so Bernie's delegates get to vote and Bernie was able to do what he did? All part of the politics of nominations.
niyad
(113,353 posts)BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)Especially because the ending was bungled so badly by the person it was arranged to placate in the first place. Bernie had one job, to say "nominate by acclamation," and he blew it. Now it's a media talking point forever, a petulant stain on the whole convention.
LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)the only ones who will ever even think that are hardcore political junkies. Heck, I'm one and a huge Hillary supporter and I was pleased with how the roll call played out.
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)So there's that too.
LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)Because South Dakota did exactly what to earn that "historic vote" other than coincidence?
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)just to make the candidate who didn't win feel a little better about not winning. Thank god we don't have to put up with any more bullshit demands like that going forward.
LoverOfLiberty
(1,438 posts)it was hers, and she did what she felt was best for the party.
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)Who cast the historic votes that put her over the top: "Thank you, South Dakota!"
I thought it should have been arranged so NY is who put her over, like always does happen, but in lieu of that not happening, I though SD's vote should have been marked in some way before the vote continued.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)When it happened, most of the Hillary supporters on here were moved, excited about the moment, and expressed gratitude to Bernie for being a class act. Why people are retroactively picking it apart is beyond me.
brooklynite
(94,601 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Buzz cook
(2,472 posts)Before it started I thought a call for nomination by acclamation would be a good idea. But as the roll call went along it became a cathartic experience as Bernie and Hillary supporters were able to cheer each vote. As it went along both candidates got cheers from the entire stadium.
By the time Bernie called for the suspension of the rules there was more unity than when it started. That's because everyone was involved. Everyone had, had their say.
And I especially would not call it sexist, because this is the way Clinton wanted it to happen. She is not vindictive and is inclusive, that is the way the roll call worked out.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)Given the state of things at the convention, I think not allowing the full roll call to play out would have been a disaster. Better to let everyone see that she legitimately got more delegates. And like you said, it was cathartic. At least, it was for me as a Bernie supporter. I can't say how Hillary supporters (or other Bernie supporters, for that matter) felt about it, but I recall almost everyone here on both sides being happy at the time.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)You can bet that Clinton had the final say on the delegates' order and roles.
niyad
(113,353 posts)Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)That's still allowed.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)niyad
(113,353 posts)Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)Moving on.
StraightRazor
(260 posts)just as there was racism AND sexism when Hillary nominated Obama in 2008.
lapucelle
(18,276 posts)The 2016 roll call played out well, and the Vermont delegation swallowed hard and did the right thing. It was a classy move, not quite as classy as 2008, but classy nonetheless.
And to be frank, I generally look to the woman to be the bigger man.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Was not something I would have noticed, but now that you mention it - Hillary's supporters were important to unity back then, too.
lillypaddle
(9,581 posts)"poor old guy."
In this day and age, amazing ... can you imagine had Hillary been a man?