With the heated claims about whether the DNC/Howard Dean might prevent Clinton's name from being placed in nomination, it's time to review some basic rules that will be followed at the convention.

A name is placed in nomination if there are

  1. signatures from 300 delegates
   2. those delegates have to be geographically representative
   3. the nominee signs off on being placed in nomination

NONE of that is up to Howard Dean -- it's up to delegates and a candidate.

Do those agitating about Clinton's name being placed in nomination have 300 delegates on a nominating petition, from the different areas, and Senator Clinton's signature?

That's what you need.  If you do have that, Clinton's name will be in nomination. If not, it won't.  

And keep in mind that delegates can vote for whoever they want on the roll call - the person doesn't have to be placed in nomination. Delegates have voted for all sorts of folks.  

Barack Obama is going on a big international trip next week where he'll speak with foreign leaders, talk to public audiences, and get huge press coverage there and at home.

But how big a deal is it?  McCain went to Europe, Israel and Iraq and it wasn't all that huge.

I think Obama's trip will be a bigger deal and so do the networks.  They're sending some of their top folks who will be interviewing Obama along the way.  According to The Page and the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz, "NBC's Brian Williams, ABC's Charlie Gibson and CBS' Katie Couric will meet up with Obama on his swing through Europe and the Middle East next week."

"Sources in both television and politics confirmed that the Williams, Gibson and Couric interviews will be parceled out on successive nights in different countries. That means the Obama camp will have drawn the anchors halfway around the world by offering access. (Correspondents could have done the interviews instead, but a certain competitiveness sets in once one or two anchors agree to go."
http://thepage.time.com/2008/07/16/netwo rk-anchors-pack-their-bags/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/07/16/AR2008071600758_ pf.html

What do you think?  Might this have a big effect on the race?  Is it a sign of media savvy or too much risk-taking on behalf of the Obama campaign?

For anyone who has ANY doubt about McCain's position on abortion, check this out.

He and his campaign are so anti-choice -- and so want to impress the Republican base that he has no chance of changing his lifetime position on abortion and reproductive rights -- that they wouldn't let people with pro-choice t-shirts into a campaign event.

Heather Brewer, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice New Mexico, said today that three pro-choice New Mexicans wearing NARAL Pro-Choice New Mexico T-shirts were denied access to Sen. John McCainâ?Ts town hall meeting at the Hotel Albuquerque on Tuesday even though they had tickets to the event.

"Our folks had tickets, followed the rules and were waiting in line just like everyone else," Brewer said. "I can only assume that it was their NARAL Pro-Choice New Mexico T-shirts that inspired security to single them out from the hundreds of other people there and to threaten them with arrest. If Sen. McCain has a problem with women accessing birth control, he should state that publicly. His voting record makes it clear that he does not support access to birth control, so why is he ducking the issue at his own town hall meeting?"
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 708/Naral_Prochoice_tshirtwearers_barred _from_McCain_event.html

Thanks for making it clear, McCain --

You're going to follow Bush in trying to keep out folks who don't agree with you.

You're so committed to curtailing reproductive rights that you don't want people with pro-choice t-shirts at your events.

We got a choice, people -- between a candidate with a zero percent rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood and one with a 100% lifetime rating.

Keep your eyes on the prize - and work your hearts out to put a Democratic, pro-choice person in the White House.

With the FISA bill and other issues that have arisen (vp vetting, public financing), some folks have been quick to jump on Obama. The anti-Obama folks have said, oh my, you see, he isn't perfect. Others have been very critical.

Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing our Democratic leader. In fact, raising our voices is a fundamental way of showing our patriotism.

Those who are anti-Obama seem to think that Obama's imperfections somehow mar what Obama supporters saw as his flawless nature.  But I never did see him as perfect and I never expected any politician or person to be perfect.

We are all perfectly right to express ourselves.  But let's not fall into the purity mold which led some to vote for Nader in 2000 and get W. into office.

One of my favorite expressions in policy circles is "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

My vote decision comes down to the policies they'd pursue. They both have track records. McCain's lifetime rating on abortion rights from Planned Parenthood is ZERO, Obama's is 100.  And of course there are many other differences, on health care, environment, the war, taxes, etc.

Again, no politician is perfect. I've voted for plenty of people with whom I had disagreements. Bill Clinton was more moderate than I liked and certainly had his issues but I voted for him twice. I'm just not into needing a pure candidate.

So, let's keep our critical edge but also keep in mind that there are two clear options and one is clearly superior.  And let's work our hearts out to make Senator Barack Obama our next president.

Larry Sinclair, a fellow with a rap sheet as long as your arm, and toast of the anti-Obama blogosphere, went to a rented room at the National Press Club today to spread his smears.

Before, he went, he had a pretty good takedown by Politico
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/060 8/11164.html
and Greta on Fox told her readers that she wasn't going to help him get his BS heard http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/06/18/ here-is-why/#comment-1216701

Now there's an on-line report that Sinclair was arrested by the DC police. He has an outstanding warrant in Colorado on fraud charges. You can see what the Pueblo County sheriff's office's WANTED notice here: http://www.co.pueblo.co.us/cgi-bin/webpu rbroker.wsc/mostoff.html?name=135062

And the story of his arrest is by Dave Weigel who says

I attended Larry Sinclair's press conference today and was confused when he concluded by rushing out of the room, taking no more questions. The reason? He was arrested by the D.C. metropolitan police. I called the First District station where he was being held and confirmed that Lawrence Wayne Sinclair was charged as a fugitive from justice based on his outstanding Colorado warrant.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/18/ 185659/039/915/538089

Has anyone else seen anything about this?

Here's a report from Blogger News Network: http://www.bloggernews.net/116292 [UPDATE at 6:53: Sinclair was arrested by DC Police after 2 US Marshalls showed up and presented a warrant from the State of Delaware for Sinclair’s arrest. Montgomery Blair Sibley, who’s had his law license suspended by the District of Columbia and Florida, and who was previously Sinclair’s attorney, reviewed the warrant and then Sinclair was led away.

Last week Obama met with a group of evangelical leaders.

Tonight he's meeting with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and on Thursday he'll be meeting with member of the Congressional black caucus.  http://thepage.time.com/2008/06/17/obama -to-sit-down-with-hispanic-leaders/

As far as I'm concerned, all of this is good. It's important to make the rounds, to connect with people who don't know you that well and those who already do.

But who should be next?  I tend to think Obama should meet with a group of women elected representatives.  This would fit with the congressional groups he's meeting with this week and would be a positive signal to Clinton supporters who have committed to Obama without much enthusiasm or who are persuadable but haven't been willing to commit yet.

As I've said here before, I'm a 50 year old woman, a life-long feminist and a union member. I used to support Clinton until the Iowa caucuses and then switched to Obama. I think Obama's doing just fine in the current polls and I do think that even more of the Clinton supporters will be voting for Obama than currently say they will.  But I also think it would be worth doing some events and having some meetings with women political leaders.  

Should those be scheduled? Or is the timing not quite right?

Here's some news to pass along to anyone who thinks one Justice on the Supreme Court doesn't matter.

The Court ruled today - 5-4 - that prisoners at Gitmo can appeal their convictions to civilian courts.  This means that the US can't detain people indefinitely and that the people swept up and sent to Gitmo will have an outside review to ascertain their guilt or innocence.  This brings the US back into compliance with very old Anglo-American principles and the approach our country helped establish in international law.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Sc otus-Guantanamo.html

Let's elect a president who believes in the rule of law and who will appoint judges who care about the Constitution and fundamental rights -- Senator Barack Obama.

Tomorrow night it will be one week since Barack Obama clinched the nomination.

A lot of us seem to have plenty of stuff to say about the nomination fight.  And I admit that I've joined in, whether it was about tactics, policy, or even about what happened and by whom at this site.

One diary I've thought about writing is that the nomination contest was over once it was basically mathematically impossible for Clinton to overtake Obama in pledged delegates. While some kept saying that the superdelegates might do anything, as recent reporting had indicated, that just was never so. Unfortunately, there is a lot of unhappiness from people who thought the superdelegates might do so and they now say "the DNC" or "the party" gave it to Obama. Actually, the party did no such thing -- it just ratified the pledged delegate contest.

But enough about that.

What I've really written this diary to say is -- After tomorrow night, can we stop looking backward?

As Hillary Clinton said:

Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward.

So, will you join me tomorrow night to look forward - together?