Clinton earned a roll call

If members of the Democratic National Committee think their national convention is going to be a nonstop celebration of the nomination of Barack Obama, they need a reality check.

On Monday, a "527" nonprofit called The Denver Group publicly reminded the Obama campaign that Sen. Hillary Clinton and her supporters shouldn't be brushed aside. In an ad published in Roll Call, the group demanded that the New York senator's name be placed in nomination and that a roll call vote be held.

If the Denver convention turns into a "coronation," the ad states, "then the party will have a much bigger problem -- a genuine revolt of more than 18 million voters."

In truth, these voters aren't going to revolt, but the Democrats and the Obama campaign should give Clinton supporters their due.

Throwing them a symbolic bone by having her address the convention on the 88th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment (which guaranteed all American women the right to vote) isn't enough.

Although placing Clinton's name in nomination won't change the outcome, it's hardly symbolic. It would be a fitting conclusion to the work, money and dedication that went into a groundbreaking political campaign.

As actions from like-minded Democrats such as those in The Denver Group demonstrate, Clinton delegates aren't traveling to Colorado to hear her give a speech. They're going to Denver to put a few cracks in the presidential glass ceiling.

Denying Clinton her electoral due and relegating her to yet another speech about the future smacks of -- I never thought I would write this -- sexism.

Think about it. Had Obama come in a close second to Clinton for the nomination, would his supporters settle for a second-night-of-the-convention speech about how far we've come? Heck no. And given the historic nature of Obama's campaign, they'd be right in demanding to cast a vote.

l l l

CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN WAS NO LESS GROUNDBREAKING THAN OBAMA'S, and she was competitive to the very end. During the six-month primary season, more than 35 million people came out to cast ballots for Obama and Clinton, with the Illinois senator coming out on top by a mere 41,622 votes.

That's a 0.1 percent margin of victory. More important than the popular vote is the electoral count. Adding up the electoral votes of states the candidates won via primary (instead of those goofy caucuses), Clinton actually leads Obama by a healthy 61 votes. That total doesn't include the disputed primaries of Florida and Michigan.

How Democratic superdelegates can pass over a candidate who won the popular vote in Ohio, California, Texas, New York and Pennsylvania is beyond me, but it's their funeral.

That's the empirical case for placing Clinton's name in nomination. There's also an emotional one.

I feel sorry for Mrs. Clinton, and it goes beyond the sympathy extended to her and to Elizabeth Edwards for being married to low-down, lying cheats. In her own way, Clinton played by the political rules and essentially got beat by fate.

I'm not misty-eyed enough to forget that the main reason Clinton is considered presidential material is because she's married to a former president. She used that fame to become a senator from New York, a state with a track record of electing Democrats from politically powerful families who barely live there (Robert Kennedy, 1964).

But unlike Obama and our own former presidential wannabe, John Edwards, who used their Senate seats primarily as a ladder to gain higher office, Clinton has become a capable and formidable senator. And though there is little doubt that she aspired to the presidency within hours of taking the oath of office, even her detractors admit she has put in the work and long hours to learn about legislating and governance, two skills that could come in handy as president.

A year ago, Clinton looked like a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination, but that was before she ran into the Obama phenomenon. Make no mistake, Obama won the nomination fair and square by out-organizing, out-smarting and out-fundraising his opponents.

But in Clinton, Obama beat a political warrior who deserves the respect of a roll call vote, not a cheerleader tasked with firing up the crowd.