Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

That Pesky Pledged Delegate Question

By Anne E. Kornblut
Is the Clinton campaign planning to pursue pledged delegates - the ones awarded to Sen. Barack Obama in states that have already voted?

Officially, the campaign says it is not. But the idea keeps rearing its head -- most recently with help from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton herself, in interviews on the campaign trail. Earlier this week, she told the Philadelphia Daily News that pledged delegates "in most states are not pledged."

"You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody," she said.

Then in an interview published today, Clinton brought it up again. "Every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose," Clinton told Time's Mark Halperin. "We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment."

While technically true in most states, in fact, most pledged delegates are awarded on the expectation that they will represent voters who chose a particular candidate - leaving it to superdelegates to exercise free will. Still, raising the idea that the race is still fluid across the board is a vital part of the Clinton strategy to keep the impression that Sen. Barack Obama will inevitably win from being cemented. But the Clinton campaign does not want to emphasize the prospect of an all-out poaching war -- at least not yet.

"I don't think she floated that idea. I think she was repeating the idea," spokesman Phil Singer said in a conference call on Monday. "Simply stating a fact I don't think is a cause for hysteria."

By Web Politics Editor  |  March 26, 2008; 11:19 AM ET
Categories:  Hillary Rodham Clinton  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton Weighs in on Wright Controversy
Next: McCain Details His Foreign Policy

Comments

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-self, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 2 and 3 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton's offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama's place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | March 26, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Funny how Hillary keeps trying to blame Barack for "dienfranchising" the voter of Michigan and Florida..DESPITE agreeing to stripping their delegates...and she is here, now, basically saying that pledged delegates are up for grabs too, and in effect doing exactly what she is accusing Barack of, DISENFRANCHISING voters. If she wants those pledged delegates to come her way too..then let me ask, what the hell does our vote mean? I mean why the hell am I going to come out and vote if thats the way its going to be?

Hillary will stop at nothing. She is disgusting.

Posted by: laura | March 26, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

I cannot comprehend the suggestion made by some here that not counting the delegates in FL and MI is somehow "unfair." It may be anti-democratic, it may be politically short-sighted, it may negatively impact the prospects of one of the candidates, but it certainly not unfair. It would be decidedly unfair to count the delegates in a state where one of the candidates was not even on the ballot. It would be unfair to make an eleventh-hour decision to count delegates in states where, relying on the party's decision to strip those states of their delegates, one candidate made the strategic decision not to campaign.

Should the voters in MI and FL feel like they have been cheated? Absolutely. Is it reasonable for major donors in those states to ask for the return of their contributions? Without a doubt. Should the people responsible for this mess be held to account? You bet. Is the solution to this problem to simply pretend that there was an actual contested election in these states? Of course not.

All candidates agreed to these rules before the primary season began. If they are honorable, they will abide by those rules - regardless of the impact to their candidacy. It speaks volumes about Hillary Clinton that she only became concerned about the voters in FL and MI when her campaign started going down in flames.

Posted by: kpnbud | March 26, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

We haven't in the history of the United States political theater seen anybody play as dirty as Hillary. Hillary has literally gone cuckoo in recent weeks. Here are just a few of the Hillarious moments:

1. She wants the people to count Bill's experinece as presdent as her own.

2. While she is losing the election she offers the veep position to the winning candidate.

3. She wants to cry and put tantrums and make people vote for her out of pity.

4. Just like Bill's questioning of the meaning of the word 'is', Hillary is qustioning the intelligence of all the people who stood in line and cast their votes in the primaries. Now she says, "dont worry, it doesn't matter how many pledged delegates were awarded for each candidate, just go and cast your vote for Hillary in Denver".

5. When everything fails, she wants the Hillmafia of 12 super rich bundlers to control what Nancy Pelosi should say or do.

Bill has already shown his waging fingers and red face in anger after every win Obama had so far. One day we are going to see Bill act like Jeff Geluly and go after Obama with a stick. That would be the Tanya harding moment for Hillary's run for the white house.

Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | March 26, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

By the way, maybe this explains Sen. Clinton's turn-arounds in Florida and Michigan. You know, she signed "pledges" there indicating she'd not campaign or honor any results from those states and is now trying to run away from those pledges. Maybe she doesn't know what the term means:
Pledge: a solemn promise or undertaking.
Oxford American Dictionary & Thesaurus.
Hmmmmmm..............

Posted by: Omyobama | March 26, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

...and Shailagh Murray. She's a piece of work.

Posted by: zukermand | March 26, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

By the way, packing that much Anne sneer into one short paragraph may have set a new Anne sneer-to-words-ratio record.

There's something fundamentally wrong with a political process that relies so heavily on the tragically flawed Anne Kornblut for reliable information.

Posted by: zukermand | March 26, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Specifically, this part of her analysis is flawed:

". . . raising the idea that the race is still fluid across the board is a vital part of the Clinton strategy to keep the impression that Sen. Barack Obama will inevitably win from being cemented. But the Clinton campaign does not want to emphasize the prospect of an all-out poaching war -- at least not yet."

Posted by: JakeD
=================
Thanks. I'd have bolded "keep the impression that Sen. Barack Obama will inevitably win from being cemented" and "all-out poaching war", too.
I wish I knew how to bold.

Posted by: zukermand | March 26, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Good luck Hill ... but just remember what they do to cattle rustlers. Don't stick your neck out too far or it just might get strung up if you keep this lyin' and thievin' up, lol. This is in fact the silly season -- I wonder what Mark Penn poll indicated that Super Delegates (or PA voters) could be influenced by delegate poaching. Sad, really sad. Let's not take our eyes off the prize ... Yes we can!

Posted by: Omyobama | March 26, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Like anyone is surprised?

The word "pledge" obviously means nothing to either of the Clintons.

Posted by: converse | March 26, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

The problem here is that Bill and Hillary see themselves as the embodiment of the Democratic Party. So her ascendancy to the nomination is therefore good for the party, and the country as a logical extension. Only in the grossly megalomaniacal view of things could this be true.

Blame Perot. If Perot didn't run in 1992, we wouldn't be where we are now.

Posted by: Charlene-K | March 26, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

JakeD wrote: "Mark my words: he [Obama] will NOT be sworn in as President on January 20, 2009."

Well, JakeD, over on the online betting sites, people putting down real money seem to disagree with you. Odds of the next President being Obama, McCain, or Clinton are stacking up at 48%, 34% and 13%. For example, see:
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/

If you know so much better, you should hustle over and place a couple of long-shot bets just to make the moolah... We don't get salaries like you do, we're volunteers. Say "hi" to your boss, Senator Clinton, for us.

Posted by: zenagain | March 26, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

ejgallagher1:

Do you have a link or other source for said calls being made to PLEDGED delegates in Iowa, Colorado and/or Texas?

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

You people are operating under different definitions of "facts", "reality", "disenfranchise" and "inclusion" than I am. See you around.

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

This is true under the rules. In Iowa, Colorado and Texas the Clinton campaign called all the delegates elected at caucus to support her, even if they had been selected to support someone else for the next stage of the process. Texas is still to come as far as what will happen at County and District Conventions. Obama picked up delegates in Iowa on March 15, primarily from a number of Edwards people switching to him, although some stuck with Edwards. The first real vote for national convention delegates is on April 26 where two thirds of Iowa's delegates will be elected in Five Congressional District Conventions. The date is more interesting now than in the past since it is 4 days post the Pennsylvania primary.

Posted by: ejgallagher1 | March 26, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

jcurphy:

Same way that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is about "inclusion of all peoples" yet his attorneys have fought re-vote efforts in both Florida and Michigan. BTW: do you also think you are "disenfranchised" when the Congressman or -woman you elected votes for a certain bill that you oppose?

Mark my words: he will NOT be sworn in as President on January 20, 2009.

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Billary: thanks for providing the solution to the question. All your "pledged" delegates can change to OB and make that known - that would put him over 3000 delegates so MI and FL are off the hook and you can go back to AR, NY or wherever you want and we can focus our attention on McCain...I knew you supported the DNC...thanks...

Posted by: NativeSonofTexas | March 26, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

She's like GW Bush.

She's in her own echo chamber with her husband and campaign team, creating her own reality. The facts and reality don't matter. No one has the balls to tell her or BC It's over.

Why is the media not picking up on this parallel to Bush and his entire presidency?

Posted by: gmckinney | March 26, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Specifically, this part of her analysis is flawed:

". . . raising the idea that the race is still fluid across the board is a vital part of the Clinton strategy to keep the impression that Sen. Barack Obama will inevitably win from being cemented. But the Clinton campaign does not want to emphasize the prospect of an all-out poaching war -- at least not yet."

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

OMG people... how can Clinton on the one hand say we are disenfranchising both MI and FL voters, and then say voters don't really count because pledged delegates can change their minds?!?!?!?! Do I need to repeat this nonsense again so Hillary supporters can fully grasp the sheer irony and duplicitousness of her comments??? Ok, here it is again: Hillary says FL and MI voters are being disenfranchised and need to be seated at the convention - that their votes need to be counted [even though she agreed with the DNC to penalize these states - which is an altogether different topic], and then she says that pledged delegates can change their minds and vote differently then they were elected to - effectively disenfranchising voters... soooooo which is it Bill-ary? You can't both enfranchise and disenfranchise voters whenever it's convenient for you Hillary... Obama is about inclusion of all peoples, and Bill-ary is about whatever is expedient to her nomination... OBAMA '08

Posted by: jcurphy | March 26, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

You also asked: "what is inaccurate about Anne's analysis?" I just told you.

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: "I think the inference that her campaign is delegate poaching (or rustling) is false, especially when even Anne ELISE Kornblut admits 'Officially, the campaign says it is not.' "

But that inference is made by the reader (in this case, Zukermand), not the writer. As I said in my earlier comment to him/her, Zukermand tends to whine at the facts, not inferences. That he *infers* bad things from those facts is his problem, not the author's.

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 26, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

I think the inference that her campaign is delegate poaching (or rustling) is false, especially when even Anne ELISE Kornblut admits "Officially, the campaign says it is not".

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

"Still, raising the idea that the race is still fluid across the board is a vital part of the Clinton strategy to keep the impression that Sen. Barack Obama will inevitably win from being cemented. But the Clinton campaign does not want to emphasize the prospect of an all-out poaching war -- at least not yet.
=================

If Anne insists on clowning like this, she ought to join the circus.

Posted by: zukermand"

Zukermand,

Precisely what in Anne's comment that you quoted was untrue? You always whine when the facts aren't going your way, but you never actually refute them, choosing instead to make snide one-liners about the author. So again, what is inaccurate about Anne's analysis?

Posted by: whatmeregister | March 26, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Hang on to your dreams.
Until they are ripped away
By events beyond your control

Then settle for a
Somewhat comfortable
Alternative

Posted by: grandstreetfund | March 26, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

She is just reiterating the "rules are rules" comments heard from the Obama campaign about allowing Florida and Michigan not to revote.

Superdelegates can vote how they want, rule. Pledged delegates can switch votes, rule.

It's a private party, right? I tried to argue democratic principles for MI and FL, but it appears the chorus of "rules are rules" is louder than the spirit of the republic.

But the Obama people have a point. The Dems are their own party, they have their rules. Heck, for our sanity, on January 1 they could have sat Edwards, Hillary, and Obama in a room and picked a name out of hat, and then declared "Here's our candidate!".

And it would have been legal, if that's the rules. And we would all have lower blood pressure for it.

Hillary is not moving any goalposts as her detractors might suggest. She's just stating a rule.

Posted by: camasca | March 26, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

I will support Obama for 2008.

I believe that transparent politics is the stepping stone for public participation. It is not until we've seen and we've understood as the general public that we would even know where to begin to apply the constitution to these things.

If you think I'm calling the public stupid, don't be so easily swayed by resentment. We can't all be born with the legal and political comprehension level of our fore-fathers. I don't know everything. What I do know is that I want the ability to see the issues and raise questions and learn more so that I can be educated enough to make wiser decisions.

With the Clinton campaign, whether or not I agree with her ideas I don't believe she will afford this type of transparency, and I do not trust her enough to keep it to herself and her appointees.

Obama does not have all the right answers, but I can understand why now, because he's more open. I will vote for him, because I believe he has a better moral standard, and his decisions will be weighted appropriately.

Posted by: jennut1 | March 26, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

The Superdelegates COULD switch, but why WOULD they? Bsed on Clinton's Bosnia landing claims? Her Northern Ireland non-role? Her NAFTA position? What?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I didn't vote for delegates based on anything other than the candidate they had PLEDGED to support (assuming said candidate didn't drop out of the race).

Posted by: TomJx | March 26, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

The convention could nominate Gore & Mitchell. The party will support those two. Neither the HRC wing or the Obama wing will support the other.

Also, Howard Dean needs to be disciplined by the elders over the FL & MI mess. Those votes, and the delegates as apportioned now, should stand. HRC bow out? No way. If everything is done fairly, she is ahead!

Posted by: wendell | March 26, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Not sure if I'm correct about this, but my understanding was that one of Hillary's Iowa 'elected' delegates switched to Obama in the second phase of the caucus process there. The report said he picked up six from Edwards and one from Hillary. So it appears that what she says about delegates switching is true - though she better be careful what she wishes for.

Posted by: shannons1 | March 26, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

History will look back at the this campaign and see, with crystal clarity, how the better candidate was held back by forever having to defend himself against a bitter, vitriolic opponent who put herself and her husband before the good of the party, the nation and the world. The constant evasiveness, elaboration of the truth, shifting of the goalposts, cynical manipulation of race and religion is now a national disgrace.

Posted by: geoffreymcnab | March 26, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

It is clear to me that "Change you can believe in" refers not to changing Washington from Republican dominated to Democrat dominated. It refers to changing the Democratic Party. Otherwise, why would Obama run this season? If he truly only wanted the Democrats to win the presidency, he would have thrown his support to Clinton at the start. He is young enought to run in eight years. Why throw away Hillary's contributions?

Posted by: kmorris15 | March 26, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

TAH1
You are dreaming. No matter you Hillary guys throw dirt on Obama, he is going to win the nomination and the election.

Hillary is simply unelectable.

Posted by: bcfs | March 26, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Also, good luck with the DNC. The notion that pledged delegates must vote for a certain candidate is, according to the Democratic National Committee, a "myth."

"Delegates are NOT bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the convention or on the first ballot," a recent DNC memo states. "A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of what the super delegates do:

"Every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose," Clinton told Time's Mark Halperin. "We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment."

"Simply stating a fact I don't think is a cause for hysteria" spokesman Phil Singer said in a conference call on Monday.

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

mark.durham and marthadivision...I agree with your remarks and am going to be apart of the petition to get the DNC superdelegates to support Obama. If Obama manages to win both North Carolina and Indiana on May 6th, I will re-petition the superdelegates to move swiftly to Obama's side.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 26, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Still, raising the idea that the race is still fluid across the board is a vital part of the Clinton strategy to keep the impression that Sen. Barack Obama will inevitably win from being cemented. But the Clinton campaign does not want to emphasize the prospect of an all-out poaching war -- at least not yet.
=================

If Anne insists on clowning like this, she ought to join the circus.

Posted by: zukermand | March 26, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Same questions to mark.durham.

Also, "What" = "Why" in that last question.

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

marthadavidson:

If the super delegates decide *now* for Hillary DIANE Clinton, would that be O.K. with you too? She would be in the lead if Florida and Michigan were counted. She may take the lead once Pennsylvania votes. What can't it wait until ALL the votes are counted?

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's attempt to put the affiliation of pledged delegates in doubt is quite simply anti-democratic. Invoking the Mondale precedent doesn't change that (and as someone who worked to get Mondale elected that fall, I urge you to recall how that turned out). This approach simply has no place in the Democratic Party.

In addition, the blatant lie about her imaginary snipers in Bosnia (just one lie among many) makes Clinton unelectable aganst McCain. Honestly, can you imagine how THAT video would play in November?

I second Martha Davidson's comment: Please contact the Democratic National Committee (http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues) and tell them clearly and emphatically that we need to unite behind Obama now. Clinton may be willing to wait for 2012, but the rest of us can't afford to have the Democrats lose in 2008.

Posted by: mark.durham | March 26, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Oh TAH1...that's rich and new to me. You say "A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain."

Hillary and Bill have been making the case that McCain is most like Hillary with all this talk about Hillary and McCain being experienced enough to be Commander-in-Chief.

Hillary and her campaign are desperate. They know the argument for Obama to be the nominee is strong. He has won more pledged delegates, more states, and more popular vote. Hillary and her campaign attempts to create new delegating counting math (i.e. counting the primary results as electoral college results) and challenge pledged delegates to act like superdelegates is failing strategy in the eyes of the superdelegates.

If Obama can 6 of 10 remaining voting contests (including North Carolina and Indiana on May6th), the superdelegates will flock to him on the order of 15 per week till the final voting contest on June 3rd. That way within two weeks after June 3rd, the remaining superdelegates will endorse Obama.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 26, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

ABC's Jake Tapper reported yesterday on an unnamed Democratic Party official saying that it's not a question of *if* Clinton can somehow secure the nomination. The question is -- what will she have to do in order to achieve it? The official's answer: She will have to "break his back," to destroy Obama and make him completely unacceptable. "Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. Read full story here - http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/dnc-official-cl.html).
As the Clinton campaign spins Obama as actually being the reprehensibly negative player in this competition, and the media swallowing and regurgitating the most incendiary non-issues, (consider today's self-righteous "all I know is that if it were me personally, I would have left that church), I fear for the future of Obama's campaign, of the Democratic party, and the United States. I'm afraid we can't take another two months of the destructive Clinton ambition machine. Please contact the Democratic National Committee (http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues) and let the party leaders no that we can't waste any more time; the train is nearing the bridge that's out, and it takes a lot to stop that kind of fateful momentum. Superdelegates must decide *now*, not in August, to swing behind the best candidate in our generation so that the Democratic Party can look forward to the general election in November and beyond.

Posted by: marthadavidson | March 26, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

OHHH Goody!

Another beautiful Day watching the "ARISTOCRATS" at it! ;~)

I wonder who is going to be on top, and who is going to be getting bent today?

Let's get Howling Dean in there! ;-D

Posted by: rat-the | March 26, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Democrats are starting to really hurt in the general. A new Rasmussen polls shows McCain with big leads nationally and in Missouri. Link: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/03/genearal-election-thoughts-democratic.html

Posted by: campaigndiaries | March 26, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

TAH1:

I understand what you are saying, but do you understand that she cannot win the general election if every Obama supporter stays home (or, especially, if they vote FOR McCain) in November? In that sense, vote for Clinton is a vote for McCain. Quite a Catch-22, don't you think?

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is simply pointing out the facts regarding the delegates. She is correct.

The Obama obsessed media will continue their 24/7 villification of Hillary. It won't work. No amount of Obama promotion or money will ever make him electable.

Obama is unqualified and unelectable.

The delegates must see this and will nominate Hillary, as she is both qualified and electable.

What kind of man, what kind of father would subject his own two part white children to the racist, hateful "pastor" Jeremiah Wright or Obama's new "pastor" MOss, who is just as bad in a "church"?? These "pastors" are teaching children to hate, hate whites, hate jews, hate America and ultimately hate themselves. It's a self fulfulling prophecy. It's disgusting and calls into question the character, judgment and credibility of Barack Obama.

Why does Obama choose THIS church? There are many choices in Chicago.

Obama's failure to completely disassociate himself from this church, from "pastors" WRight and Moss are the death knell to his candidacy. Obama is choosing to attend a "church" where the pastor preaches anti-white, anti-American, anti-semitic, pro-Farakhaan, black supremecy, nation of islam support, and a pastor Wright who believes that the "U.S. Govt created AIDS to kill black people" and "the U.S. brought 9/11 on ourselves." Wow. This is never going away from Obama. It will sink him forever.

Obama's negatives are rapidly rising with the Wright, Moss, Rezko, Crown, Exelon revelations. More will follow.

A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain. The Dem delegates must do the right thing for victory in November by nominating Hillary.

Posted by: TAH1 | March 26, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Are Superdelegates the Problem or the Solution

Bredesen said superdelegates should be independent agents and noted his own case to underscore the point that superdelegates should not necessarily be guided by who only has the lead in total delegates (Obama's case) or who has won more big states (Clinton's argument).

When should Superdelegates make up their own mind?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1962

.

Posted by: jeffboste | March 26, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Hi JakeD, www.Johnmccain.com could use a lot more clicks, but I am sure he is thankful for yours! (You have to start somewhere- that is the key to the Internet.)

Posted by: davidmwe | March 26, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

HIllary and Bill must think that destroying the Democratic party is a necessary cost of regaining power. Why anyone would vote for liars and cheaters is beyond me.

Posted by: nclwtk | March 26, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

As I pointed out on a previous thread, only wild animals can be "poached" -- I think the more appropriate term, therefore, would be delegate "rustling" -- stealing or killing domestic animals is considered to be theft (i.e. "cattle rustling"), not poaching. Maybe stealing SUPER delegates should be called "poaching" as they are WILD, and regular, normal every-day delegates are DOMESTICATED?

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

IIRC, Walter Mondale poached "pledged" delegates from Gary Hart once upon a time too.

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

davidmwe:

I just checked http://www.johnmccain.com just for you ; )

Anne:

So, is it technically true in most states, or not?

Posted by: JakeD | March 26, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

It would appear that Hillary is once again on a downward spin. Just as she was gaining ground on Google Trends against Barack, for instance, the Bosnia thing has to happen... (See charts of the dramatic switch in link below.)

Pennsylvania Primary- Clinton vs Obama:
The Google Factor...

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=57

Posted by: davidmwe | March 26, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company