DNC "Renewing America's Promise" 2008 Platform: FORWARD...INTO THE PAST!

[derby378]

From what I've seen of the draft platform for 2008, Barack Obama deserves better than to be represented by such a piece-of-shit platform. I'm sorry if that grates against some DUers' sensibilities, but I thought the objective was to win in November.

It all starts with the Preamble, weakly stating that "It is time for a change" and "We can do better" while bleating how America "defeated fascism," blissfully unaware that a fascist has been occupying the Oval Office for around eight years now, with an even bigger fascist is destroying our energy policy and serving as the PNAC's mouthpiece for Bush's delicate ears. And the platform calls the occupation of Iraq "ill-considered." Somewhere in the corridors of power of the Democratic Party, the balls never dropped like they should. (Lest you think that comment sexist, may I remind you that Cindy Sheehan has always spoken about Iraq with more conviction and forthrightness than most elected Democrats ever have?)

Okay, here we go. Right into Chapter I, "Renewing the American Dream:"

For months the state of our economy has dominated the headlines–and the news has not been good. The sub-prime lending debacle has sent the housing market into a tailspin, and many Americans have lost their homes. By early August, the economy had shed 463,000 jobs over seven straight months of job loss. Health, gas and food prices are rising dramatically.

But the problem goes deeper than the current crisis. Families have seen their incomes go down even as they have been working longer hours and as productivity has grown. At the same time, health costs have risen while companies have shed health insurance coverage and pensions. Worse yet, too many Americans have lost confidence in the fundamental American promise that our children will have a better life than we do.

We are living through an age of fundamental economic transformation. Technology has changed the way we live and the way the world does business. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the advance of capitalism have vanquished old challenges to America’s global leadership, but new challenges have emerged. Today, jobs and industries can move to any country with an Internet connection and willing workers.

Leadership on these issues has been sorely lacking these past eight years. In the 1990s, under Bill Clinton’s leadership, employment and incomes grew and we built up a budget surplus. However, our current President pursued misguided policies, missed opportunities, and maintained a rigid, ideological adherence to discredited ideas...blah, blah, blah...will the Platform Committee PLEASE get to the fucking point, already?! Don't they realize how little time we have to effect any real change in how America does things? Enough with the spiel of telling the party faithful what every single American who isn't a moron already knows, people. Give us the plan so we can get on with our lives.

Now we come to the statement on "Affordable, Quality Health Care Coverage for All Americans." Paragraph after paragraph dealing with health insurance, and only a pittance of support for medical research that might actually cure diseases and disorders so we don't have to keep paying more and more co-pays into our health insurance plans. Ritalin is not a cure for ADHD, nor is insulin a cure for diabetes. Could the Platform Committee please see the forest for the trees, here...?

And here we have the energy policy. 25% of our electricity from renewable sources by when? 2025? Sorry, that's too long. The Chinese will already have a moon base by then. Speaking of the Chinese, while they try in their own ham-handed way to deal with their own greenhouse emissions, let alone clearing Beijing of smog so our Olympic athletes don't start coughing and wheezing, our government needs to start taking the lead on global warming and pollution and making corporations fall in line instead of dictating policy. And I don't want to see any mention of cellulosic ethanol when we're starting to see food riots in some corners of the globe because impoverished moms can't buy corn to feed their babies due to the corn being converted into ethanol to go into some Republican soccer mom's Ford Excursion for $3.80 a gallon. At least the platform mentions a desire to "crack down" on energy speculators, but it stops short of outlawing the practice. You cannot kill the Hydra by merely chopping off a couple of heads and crossing your fingers.

Looks like firearms have their own paragraph. Have Democrats on Capitol Hill learned their lesson since DC v. Heller? Let's find out: We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals... Say goodbye to all those electoral votes in the southern and western states, Platform Committee - you've just branded as a criminal or a terrorist any law-abiding American who owns a semi-automatic rifle or pistol that holds 11 shots instead of 10. Great job! Ever hear of the PUMA acronym? You've just introduced us to SAMA - Second Amendment, My Ass!

The paragraph on "Faith" makes no explicit mention of preserving separation of church and state. Enough said on this topic.

Immigration. Okay, here we go: For the millions living here illegally but otherwise playing by the rules, we must require them to come out of the shadows and get right with the law. We support a system that requires undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens. They are our neighbors, and we can help them become full tax paying, law-abiding, productive members of society. So now we're buying into the "English as our official language" meme that the Republicans have been harping on for so many years? Sure, I want to see illegal immigration reduced, but the Founding Fathers never mentioned anything about making all Americans learn one common language.

I think my rant has gone on long enough for now. This platform, as it currently stands, is repeating the mistakes of the past while making too many concessions to the Republicans. Is it too much for me to ask that the Democratic Party produce a DEMOCRATIC platform?!? I want Obama to win in November - and this draft platform is nothing but an impediment for him.

:rant:

[derby378]

1. Kick!

[Occam Bandage]

2. The Democratic party represents far more than just the netroots.

[derby378]

3. There's still a lot to be said for simplicity

Even if I agreed with every item in the platform, at least they could tighten it up by eliminating a lot of the back stories. Again, we all know the score, and I think most of us would rather see the Dems talk about how to fix stuff rather than rehash the past.

[Ken Burch]

5. That doesn't mean the rest of the party wants a plaftorm that's less different than the GOP

Single-payer has majority support.

So has a quick Iraq pullout. People aren't even that enthusiastic about staying in Afghanistan.

And we wouldn't lost votes anywhere by backing electoral reform.

[Two Americas]

7. true

There are the corporations to consider.

Too bad they still haven't considered representing the people.

[bertman]

4. Yo Derby!! You got it right. Here we go with another BAD DREAM of a Democratic attempt

to win the Presidency.

Nothing's going to change. The DLC is rabidly intent upon making our party the only-slightly-less-than-Republican Party.

Follow the money.

[iconicgnom]

6. I can't say how strongly I disagree with your rant.

I don't think it'd be either a winning plan, or good for the USA, for Obama to go totally negative and describe Bush, and McCain, as fascists. There's a difference between truths that one knows, and truths that one says outright. The difference between Obama and Bush/McCain should be implicit in policy and attitude - and the namecalling can be let alone.

ANYBODY can namecall.

One cannot WIN against fascism by adopting the tactics of fascism, because once one has adopted the tactics of fascism, one is acting as a fascist acts. One has become what one began by fighting against.

I agree with Obama that there should be a high moral tone to this campaign. It should be positive, and about the future, not the past.

ON THE OTHER HAND
I think politicians that break constitutional law should be impeached, if it can be proven. If there are no inquiries or unequivocal promises of inquiries in face of clear and obvious evidence of criminal behavior then there's collaboration, pure and simple.

I think the other hand should slap hard!

[derby378]

13. It isn't name-calling if it's the honest truth...

Fascists have been trying to take over America since the failed coup of the 1930s that Gen. Smedley Butler blew the lid on. As of 2000, however, they succeeded. Let's be honest with what we are dealing with. Give it the name it deserves. This isn't Republicanism - this is fascism.

[Gabi Hayes]

8. this is important:

[jmowreader]

9. Isn't that George Bush's immigration plan?

The platform you described is a good sound one, and any Republican could easily win by running on it.

Back to immigration: If I was an illegal immigrant would I even WANT to "come out of the shadows and get right with the law"? There are a lot of advantages to living illegally in the US--no taxes and easy access to jobs.

[ieoeja]

19. "no taxes and easy access to jobs"

Actually, it is becoming harder and harder for them to find jobs. And they only pay no (income and payroll) taxes if they are working under the table for cash.

There are a lot of advantages to coming out of the shadows. Most people here illegally are not here illegally because they prefer to be undocumented, but because the wait to get her legally is longer than they can afford.

Put it this way, if living here undocumented is so great, why aren't those here legally doing more of it? Why don't you quit your job and find one where you get paid cash instead with no income or payroll tax deductions?

Certainly the proposal of asking them to turn themselves in to pay a fine and leave the country to get in that very long line is rather idiotic. The fine they might go for. But knowing they will have to leave the country and wait a long time before they can get their lives back in order will surely prevent them from coming out of the shadows.

[wyldwolf]

10. LOL

Just another netrooter telling Obama and the Democratic Party what it means to be a "REAL Democrat." :eyes:

[derby378]

12. I've been talking with a Platform Committee member about the content...

I hope you've been doing something similar?

Obama needs to win in November. This platform, as it currently stands, will not help him.

[wyldwolf]

14. um, sure

We were able to set those up locally.

Obama needs to win in November. This platform, as it currently stands, will not help him.

Says you.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

15. 99.9% of the electorate will never actually READ this document

So calm the hell down...

[derby378]

16. That platform is how Democrats are expected to present themselves to America

Why the hell do you think we bash Republicans about what's in their platform? :shrug:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

20. Nobody gives a shit...

If you think for one minute that a voter ponders deeply the Republican or Democratic platform before making a vote, then you really don't know much about voter behavior.

[benEzra]

24. On *this* issue, you are quite wrong.

This is ALREADY all over the gun boards. By the time I wrote a letter to the platform committee, there were big threads on it all over the gun enthusiast community.

The problem is, the repubs and the NRA are trying to resurrect the "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme to use against Obama. Then the platform committee comes along and promises to outlaw the most popular rifles in America. You tell me, does that help Obama, or help the repubs?

[AllentownJake]

33. umm even if it wasn't in the platform

The NRA would have said we plan to take away assault weapons...because we do.

[benEzra]

39. "Assault weapons" ARE the most popular centerfire rifles in America...

more people own them than hunt. You've been spun, and badly.

This is an "assault weapon," FWIW:

[derby378]

41. So you are actively working to defeat Democratic candidates in November?

Supporting unconstitutional gun bans is a surefire way to get McCain in the White House. Wake up.

[benEzra]

17. >90% of "assault weapon" owners will...

and they outnumber hunters. It is all over the gun boards at the moment.

I wrote the platform committee and asked them to please excise the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch from the final version.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

21. We never had their votes in the first place...

I say again, calm the hell down.

[derby378]

22. "Their?"

"They" is "us." Howdy, neighbor! :hi:

[benEzra]

23. Ummm, half of U.S. gun owners are Dems and indies...

and a lot of DU'ers own guns, including those the repubs at the Brady Campaign wish to ban.





Here's how the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch played among rural Dems in '94, '00, and '04:

Alienated Rural Democrat



"Assault weapons" is the gun-ban-lobby term for the most popular centerfire rifles in America, and more people own them than hunt. Roughly half of us (not "them", us) are Dems and indies. And that's not even getting into the 19th-century magazine capacity restrictions that the gun controllers are pushing.

We don't have to guess; we know. Because this same approach was tried in 1994, 2000, and 2004, and bombed in heavily gun-owning swing states. Gore lost his own home state in 2000 over the issue.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

25. What flavor of crack are you smoking?

If you think the NRA is going to embrace the Democratic Party, then you know absolutely nothing about American politics. If you think that the redneck vote is going to swing Democratic on the basis of a plank in our platform (which they haven't read), then you know absolutely nothing about the American voter. And if you think that half of all gun owners are Democrats, then I'm pretty sure that the folks back on the mother ship are wondering where you got off to.

[benEzra]

26. No, you're wrong.

What flavor of crack are you smoking?

If you think the NRA is going to embrace the Democratic Party, then you know absolutely nothing about American politics.

I didn't say the NRA would embrace the Democratic party. I said the NRA is trying to paint Dems as wanting to ban popular guns.

Plenty of GUN OWNERS can, and do, vote Dem. For many, that vote is contingent on the candidate not fighting to ban their guns.

The NRA is 4 million gun owners out of 80 million. The other 76 million are the ones you should worry about.

FYI, my anti-AWB Dem governor (Mike Easley) did receive the NRA endorsement in 2004 over a pro-gun repub, and defeated him handily (55%/45%) even as the SAME voters rejected the stridently pro-AWB Kerry/Edwards ticket 45%/55%. Was the gun ban the only issue in play? Of course not. But it was a big one.

If you think that the redneck vote is going to swing Democratic on the basis of a plank in our platform (which they haven't read), then you know absolutely nothing about the American voter.

If you think gun owners and enthusiasts are predominately "rednecks," you know absolutely nothing about the demographics of U.S. gun ownership. Gun owners tend to be somewhat more educated than the population at large, are more likely to have finished college, and have slightly higher incomes than the population mean. That's because someone flipping burgers at McDonald's isn't going to be able to drop $1500 on an AR-15 like a college grad or union worker can (i.e., selection bias). And only 1 in 5 gun owners hunts; the vast majority of us are nonhunters.

This gun owner is a college grad with some master's work, and I work as a technical writer in the aviation industry. My gun-owning sister double majored in engineering and mathematics and works as a professional engineer.

And if you think that half of all gun owners are Democrats, then I'm pretty sure that the folks back on the mother ship are wondering where you got off to.

I said half of all gun owners are Dems and independents, which is true. The most recent data would be from the Nov. 2005 Gallup poll "Gun Ownership and Use in America." They work it from the front end, e.g. percentage of registered repubs, Dems, and indies who own a gun, but I have also seen it worked from the back end, i.e. what percentage of gun owners report repub, Dem, or indie affiliation.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=20098

Registration is required at the Gallup site, but a summary is available at various places on the 'net, such as http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article2844.html

According to those figures, Repubs are slightly more likely to personally own a gun than indies and Dems (41%, 27%, 23%), due largely to the way urban areas bias the figures against Dems, but if you apply those percentages to the number of registered repubs, Dems, and indies nationwide, Dems and indie gun owners equal or slightly outnumber repub gun owners. And in less urban swing states, Dem and indie gun owners probably outnumber registered repubs by a significant margin.

Editor and Publisher reported on a different Gallup poll in early 2005 and gave slightly higher numbers:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000745373

Press Image of Gun Owner Not Far Off, Except for All Those Women

By E&P Staff

Published: January 04, 2005 10:00 AM ET

NEW YORK A Gallup Poll released this morning reveals that the average American owns 1.7 guns, with the average gun owner possessing 4.4 of them. The press is quick to promote stereotypes of the average gun owner as a white male, most likely Republican, living in a rural area or the South. But how well does reality match the image? The new Gallup Poll shows that the stereotype is not that far off, but with several twists.

For one thing, one out of three American women say they own a gun. That's not much below the overall mark of 40% for all American adults.

As for other elements of the stereotype: More than half (53%) of Republicans own guns, compared with 36% of political independents and 31% of Democrats. Whites are more likely than nonwhites to own (44% and 24%, respectively), according to Gallup.

It appears you have bought into Karl Rove's stereotype of Democrats as gun-fearing and gun-hating, which is most assuredly not the case.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

29. Here's a suggestion

The next time you're trying to make a point, try to avoid using statistics that utterly and completely deny the point you're trying to make. Trying to convince me that nearly as many Democrats as Republicans own guns, and then citing a statistic that show Republican gun ownership AT NEARLY TWICE THAT OF DEMOCRATS is, well, let's just say that it's somewhat less than convincing.

Here's the good news. You're not a Democratic campaign operative, nor are you in any way connected to the Obama campaign.

So there's a chance we may win anyway.

[benEzra]

30. Yes, your approach worked SO well in 1994, 2000, and 2004.

And you are apparently having some trouble with reading comprehension, since I said that half of gun owners are Dems and indies. The other half are repubs. Yes, repubs own guns at a somewhat higher rate than Dems, but they account for only half of gun owners. Around a quarter of Dems personally own a gun.

If you think you can kick a quarter of Dems out of the party, tell a quarter to a third of indies to get lost, and still win, you have another thing coming. That strategy cost us the whole damn trifecta 1994-2000, and unseated the sitting Speaker of the House for the first time since the Civil War.

Can Obama win in '08 even if the DLC corporatists revive the "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme? Probably; McCain is no friend of gun owners either (he was briefly a spokesperson for a gun-ban lobbying group), and is running the lamest campaign since Bob Dole. But it will hurt us in Congressional races and state races, and if the DLC'ers do succeed in their quixotic attempt to get another gun ban through Congress, it will be a repeat of 1994 in 2010 or 2012.

But, if you want, you can keep propping up the corporatists at the DLC who have obsessed about banning people's guns since the '90s; there are a lot fewer of you now than there were in '94, thank God. The rest of us will try to build a party focused on the issues that have been traditionally considered more important.

FWIW, a history lesson for those who support re-running the 1994 let's-outlaw-people's-favorite-guns strategy:

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life

Make no mistake--even requiring minor cosmetic changes to popular civilian guns cost at least 20 of the 54 House seats lost in 1994, including the Speaker's. Mr. Clinton badly miscalculated the backlash against the 1994 Feinstein non-ban, because he was misled by the DLC zealots into believing that the gun issue was somehow about hunting guns rather than target/defensive style guns.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

35. You seem to have forgotten 1996

You suggested earlier that Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee over the assault weapons ban. But the ban was signed by Bill Clinton in 1994, who went on to win Tennessee (again) in 1996. Did the voters of Tennessee suddenly decide they were upset about the AWB and take it out on Al Gore six years later? Or is you thesis that voter behavior begins and ends on the subject of assault weapons is somewhat flawed.

Did the NRA target congressional Democrats in the 1994 Election? Yep. Did they target them in the 2006 Election? Yep. The NRA always targets Democrats because THAT'S WHAT THE NRA DOES. It's an industry lobbying group that ensures that the pro-business Republican Party is in power.

And when you cower in the corner in fear of what the NRA might do to us, you're doing their work for them.

[benEzra]

36. Gun owners picked up seats in 1996...

and Dems got lucky when the Bobdole unit decided to run on the platform you are advocating and carpetbomb gun owners, and it blew up in his face.

The NRA pointedly refused to endorse Dole in '96; their slogan that year was "Elect a Clinton-Proof Congress" instead, and they did it. A number of anti-gun Dems got replaced by pro-gun Dems, a few anti-gun Dems got beat by pro-gun Repubs, and the NRA got most of what it wanted.

You can also contrast 1994 with 2006, when the party mostly dropped the "assault weapon" fraud, "no new gun control" was the order of the day, and Congress was turned blue by PRO-GUN DEMS. So were a number of governorships, very notably Ohio.

Jim Webb would not have beaten George Macacawitz Allen had he run on a DLC I-promise-to-outlaw-your-favorite-guns platform. Instead, he actively courted the gun vote, seriously undercut Allen, and won with the help of moderate and left-leaning gun owners.

And when you cower in the corner in fear of what the NRA might do to us, you're doing their work for them.

LOL. I'm saying take don't give the repubs ammunition to bash Dems with by passing idiotic gun bans, and you say that's doing the repubs' work for them?

Newt Gingrich wanted Dems to pass the Feinstein ban in 1994. He goaded Dems into going as far out on that limb as he could get them to. He could have killed it in conference committee, and didn't--because he knew he would be able to ride the backlash into the Speaker's chair. And that's the approach you are advocating AGAIN. Keep falling for the same idiotic bait-and-switch, over and over, endlessly trying to "reframe" a sweeping ban into something that would be inoffensive to those who are pro-choice on the issue.

It's people like you that keep validating the "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme, by supporting sweeping new bans on some of the most popular and least misused civilian guns in America. I'd appreciate it if you would leave that issue to the states instead. Around 45 of the 50 states have considered and rejected such bans multiple times over the last decade and a half, and California-style bans will NOT fly nationally, as much as you would like to believe otherwise.

[AllentownJake]

34. Sorry

We aren't going to win on the gun issue. Even if we remove the language that offends you from the platform, the NRA will still spend 10 million dollars to tell every gun owner in America the democrats want to take away your guns. We'll say its not true and people who are single issue voters on guns will still vote for the GOP candidate no matter who that person happens to be because the NRA told them to.

[benEzra]

37. The NRA represents only 4 million gun owners out of ~80 million.

You should be much more worried about the 16 to 40 million who own guns affected by "assault weapons bans" that I would the 4 million members of the NRA.

The defeat of NRA-endorsed (R) George Macacawitz Allen by pro-gun Dem Jim Webb in Virginia in 2006 shows you're wrong. So do the wins of pro-gun Dems at the state level in many swing states, including my own (NC).

Had the NRA tried to paint Jim Webb, Ted Strickland, Bob Casey, etc. as anti-gun, they would have failed, because they are not; they are strongly pro-choice on the issue, oppose the "assault weapon" fraud, etc. But when a Dem candidate promises to outlaw the most popular civilian rifles in America, we have a problem.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. Obama is RESPONSIBLE for this piece of shit platform

Either that, or Howard Dean perjured himself: http://www.youtube.com/openprocess

Dean says several times that the platform is dictated by the nominee. With this platform, the nominee is Barak Obama.

[benEzra]

18. No, the platform committee is responsible for it, IMO.

Obama has the power to change it. We just need to let him and the platform committee know that the gun-ban thing is a problem and needs to be changed.

[liam_laddie]

27. It must be clarified; the right language

AND policy must be supported. benEzra, a few months ago, you helped me develop some language for a Dem candidate in Ohio. Appreciate very much your trying to get some sensible language and terms into the platform. As it stands, no good. Obama needs to know about this mistake. I'm with you...
:kick:

[benEzra]

32. Thank you. I've emailed the platform committee

and intend to follow up ASAP with snail mail. I know a lot of others have as well.

I am hoping that if they hear from enough of us on this, they will reconsider.

[jody]

28. 8:00 PM, Tuesday, 12 August 08 and only 27 posts on a thread discussing a topic that will be used

against Dem candidates in some races.

My Dem candidate had to publicly repudiate parts of the draft Dem platform to be competitive.

[AllentownJake]

31. The people that take the time to read the platform

with an open mind are already voting for Obama.

Freepers don't read and independents will be swayed by tie colors at the debates.

[GOPBasher]

38. I'm sorry , but I don't see why this is so bad.

I agree with you on support for medical research, but other than that, I think it's a pretty good platform. I don't have time to get into every point, but there's one thing I want to say: although I'm not a fan of ethanol for many reasons, feedstocks for cellulosic ethanol (as opposed to corn-based)do NOT compete with land that can be used to grow food, so it won't cut into the food supply. They can also make cellulosic ethanol from food waste.

By the way, doesn't the presumptive Democratic nominee have a big influence on the Democratic party platform?

[derby378]

40. Not necessarily - that's what the state conventions are for

The members of the national platform committee are elected at the state level. They are often party stalwarts (such as Tom Blackwell, one of our Texas platform delegates and a heckuva guy), but this year you'll find plenty of Clinton delegates as well as Obama delegates taking responsibility for the current platform.