it's not as though these "pledged delegates" were put into their position by voters to ensure that their decisions are represented fairly.

i'm beginning to wonder who those 40-45% of Hillary voters are. are they paying attention?

Wow, I'm confused. I thought she was all about not disenfranchising voters????

GREAT! Well then we just found a solution to Florida and Michigan. Seat them and let them vote for you whoever they want.

Isn't it odd that she is worried about disenfranchised voters in Florida and Michigan but doesn't think the delegates should actually have to listen to the voters?

They are all free to vote for Obama. Thanks for the heads up Hill.

I'm a pledged delegate for Obama.

My vote for Obama at the Vermont state convention is not in doubt.

I'm just going to say this one last time--don't piss off the robots. Battlestar Galactica is a cautionary tale, my friends.

Is that sniper fire I hear? Oh, I'm sorry, I misspoke. It wasn't sniper fire, it was a little girl reading a poem.

getalife -
Care to actually respond to the post rather than just copying and pasting some wingnut talking point?

Um, Hilary, no the superdelegates are not. They are supposed to reflect the votes, i.e. "the will of the people."

I got an email this morning from Chris Bell, who is the Democratic candidate for Texas gov. I suspect they went out to registered Democrats all over the state. Bell's email was a defense of Barack Obama and Rev Wright and a condemnation of this kind of campaigning and of the Clintons specifically.

This isn't playing well with Democrats. At all. The only people who think this is ok are the people who are so hell bent on seeing Hilary nominated that they are more than willing to tear the party apart to do it. And what's more, they are willing to throw the election to McCain, cause that's what they are doing.

I have never been so disgusted.

Hillary is willing to fight tooth and nail for those poor disenfranchised voters of Florida and Michigan. But as soon as it looks like that tactic won't produce the result she wants, she is now willing to suggest that we could disenfranchise EVERYONE?

I have to say, I used to be a Hillary supporter and even recently I was willing to accept that she would be a fine president if somehow pulls this out. I don't think that anymore (especially in the light of this increasingly ridiculous Bosnia story).

I now think she would be a bad president, and that she is actually not very qualified at all. She is not Bill.

I think if they intended to try to convert pledged delegates, they would not keep floating the idea; they would just do it. I don't think they are capable of switching pledged delegates, who tend to be more loyal (because they are unlikely to be offered a ambassadorship for their switching) than supers. Further, their best chance would be for those caucus delegates who are still moving through the county conventions to the state conventions. But, as usual with caucuses, Obama is in a better position here as well. For example, in my precinct convention (in Texas) Obama won the majority of delegates, but Clinton did win some. However, not enough Clinton supporters hung around for the whole process to actually fill those delegate slots. In the end, one of the Obama supporters volunteered his wife (who voted for Clinton), just so they would have enough delegates to go to county. On the other hand, the Obama group not only filled their more numerous Obama slots, but had plenty of alternates volunteer as well. Now several of the Clinton delegates have said they can't make it to the county convention, so they really could lose delegates going forward.

I think it is actually likely that the opposite will happen: in caucus states Obama will end up with more delegates than the initial projections indicated. That's why I'm glad Clinton keeps floating this idea. It will make it less credible when they complain that it's unfair that Obama switched some of their pledged delegates.

But that invites the question: why are they floating this idea? I think it is a message to the supers--that even if large numbers of supers come out for Obama now--she intends to go all the way to the convention, on the thin premise that she might be able to change the outcome on the convention floor. This is in keeping with my other belief that she is still in the race, not because she believes she can win, but because she is blackmailing both Obama and the party that if they don't agree to make her VP, she will do her best to make him unelectable.

Don't you have some travellers to waylay or a bridge to go live under or something?

If all delegates can do whatever they want, then everyone's a super delegate. Isn't it about time somebody with some interest in the survival of the Democrat Party did something to fix this, uh, loophole? If the rules say it's okay for a delegate to ignore his/her mandate and vote one's conscience (regardless of how [mal]formed that might be), then why bother securing pledges in the first place? Shouldn't the Rules Committee be taking a look at the value of such an undemocratic rule with the same scrutiny that the rest of us interested parties are? You would think that the Democrat Party would want to be really democratic, yes? So, howsabout we close the loophole and tell delegates that from now on, you do what the voters tell you to do?

I wonder how she stays so close to viability while saying stuff like this.

Yeah. Hmmm.

I think Hilary is the Republicans' choice to run against.

boo, it seems at this point all they are doing is robocalling to switch people. I wonder if it's just trying to make things look more in flux than they are, muddying the waters...

Can you post the e-mail from Chris Bell here?

Just saw this - I'll go get it. I'll warn you - it's kind of long for an email.

Here's the body of the email:

Religious Guilt By Association Card Being Dealt Unfairly
By Chris Bell, The Examiner, Tuesday, March 1, 2008

Joe Reynolds is the dean at Houston's Christ Church Cathedral, and he's one of the most courageous individuals I've ever met. It would be an understatement to say the Episcopal Church has endured a bit of controversy over the past few years. Before our rather diverse congregation, many of the members quite conservative, Joe has met the controversy head-on. Without mincing words, he has shared and explained his views, and his courage in doing so is what I admire the most.

There are certainly those who would take issue with some of Joe's positions. However, when I was in politics, I was never once attacked or held personally accountable for any of his statements made either from the pulpit or in his Sunday school class. I can't even remember anyone ever asking me anything about Joe or, for that matter, my church.

But, of course, I'm white, and part of a mainstream denomination so sedate that Bill Clinton is said to have called us "the frozen chosen." Not much of a story there and, besides, in this day and age, it seems questions regarding religion are reserved for those who fall outside the mainstream or who attend a predominantly African-American church.

Do you know where George Bush or Bill Clinton attended church before they became president? Do you recall ever reading anything about their pastors? I didn't think so.

I write all of this because I'm torn. Like a lot of others, I started out being shocked, maybe even a little appalled. On the radio, I heard clips of Jeremiah Wright and they had their intended effect.

I read Barack Obama's original explanation that he had not heard his pastor make such controversial statements and I questioned the veracity. After all, this is the same man who inspired Obama to join a church. He obviously listened to him closely.
In his first book, "Dreams from My Father," Obama writes movingly about visiting Trinity for the first time and his reaction after hearing Wright's sermon, The Audacity to Hope: "… I felt a light touch on the top of my hand. I looked down to see the older of the two boys sitting beside me, his face slightly apprehensive as he handed me a pocket tissue. Beside him, his mother glanced at me with a faint smile before turning back toward the altar. It was only as I thanked the boy that I felt the tears running down my face."

I'm not going to defend Pastor Wright's outrageous statements, nor shall I pretend they paint the entire picture. I know a lot of people who have never set foot inside a predominantly African-American church and have no grasp of the culture, context or anything else, now want to sit in judgment and condemn. They should read that whole first sermon that produced Obama's emotional reaction. It makes everything more confusing.

Pastor Wright's sermon is every bit as beautiful and touching as the senator proclaims in his book: "… with her clothes in rags, her body scarred and bruised and bleeding, her harp all but destroyed and with only one string left, she had the audacity to make music and praise God." It's quite easy to see how a somewhat confused young man in his 20s would have been inspired by such preaching. It's quite easy to see how he would grow to love that man, the one who spoke those words.

Why didn't he leave when the words became so inflammatory? Perhaps the answer lies in his original admiration for the man. I know the feeling.

I remember when I first starting really learning about the electoral and nominaton processes, and truly dug deep into the rules. I remember when I realized that the people weren't actually casting direct votes for their candidates, but rather making public the will of their region so that they're regional representative would cast the proper vote.

The loophole was obvious, and I remember thinking that, technically, if after all the votes were cast and before the convention ... if every single delegate became aware of some rock-solid information that one of the candidates was guilty of some extreme crime (ie, manchurian candidate, secret pedophile, etc.), the rules were actually DESIGNED as so the nomination can be rescued. If the public became fully aware of this giant loophole, and started to really examine the ease at which it could be manipulated, it would certainly throw the already lingering faith in the process out the window in the minds of many voters.

So, that is their only true system of checks and balances. The only thing holding them back from exploiting that loophole is the blowback it would cause for electoral integrity. And the only way a candidate could (or would attempt to) pull this off, would be if they were only trailing by a small margin, so as the effectiveness of the exploitation wouldn't be so large as to cause scrutiny, or if a candidate were truly desperate and previously held the support of the majority, in which case an effective smear would erase the opponent as a minor blip in the historical radar (thus not damaging democracy for all time).

It seems we may be approaching a perfect storm in this campaign season. The only saving grace can be either an intervention from the party in some way, or large scale public education on the process, this loophole, it's designed purpose and weak points (which we no doubt can count on our media for).

Hopefully Harry Reid's recent statements will prove the former is true, and the Dems will find a way to refocus their energies.

The president isn't chosen by 'voters' in early November. (s)he is chosen by enlightened electoral college representatives. We don't really know the election result until they decide. And they should exercise independent judgment.

This is just so funny, honestly. How disingenuous are some of these comments? If the shoe was on the other foot, you'd be screaming like a stuck pig to follow the rules.

We aren't to the November general election yet, so your comment is way off in the first place. And of course it's way wrong, in the second place.

So again I say - LOL!

gotalife is the same person who writes Hillary Clinton’s spins. Hillary Clinton's spins have the same unhinged, severed from reality quality that gotalife's posts have. Now we know. Idiotic has it right. As always.

Just came back and saw I was fooled by sarcasm and I apologize for being slow on the uptake.

Sorry Storm.

Adam, I think my other reply to you got eaten by the comment monster. The gist was this: IF Hillary could switch pledged delegates, she wouldn't need the help of the press to do it and in fact would be better served by having Bill/roboBill call up pledged delegates and try to convince them. Then she could point to the result and say, "Look, they decided on their own that they like me better." Bush didn't publicize his signing statements and that's why he got away without scrutiny for so long.

Besides, as I said in my eaten comment, pledged delegates are so called because they have to sign a pledge that they will vote (in the first ballot) for the candidate whose delegates they are. A pledged delegate who exercises "independent judgement" in the first ballot, opens him/herself up to a lawsuit for breach of contract.

Her only chance is to get delegates in caucus states as they move up through the conventions but the opposite will likely happen--not because Obama's camp will lobby people to switch, but because she has trouble getting her people to show up.

100 % agree that its all about setting the stage for continuing on until the convention even once the supers have put Obama over the 2025 hump, as I noted yesterday on this blog.

Cliging to the notion that pledged delegates are a variable allows her more time to tear down Obama, and denies Obama the time between the last primary (assuming that is when the supers make their moves) and the convention to heal the Democratic Party in time for the general election campaign.

It's completely transparent that this is the purpose of all this "pledged-but-not-committed" talk from her campaign.

If she doesn't acknowledge 2025 delegates for Obama within 48 hours, her Senate colleagues should just start denying her positions of leadership on all committees in the Senate. There has to be some way to bring pressure to bear on her when the time comes.

You're right, serenity now - and it's VERY good advice and I'm going to try to follow it. (But glad I got that one last 'snarky' comment above....) ---------- Seriously, we should do just that. Except for those who live in one of the upcoming states, there isn't a darn thing we can do (except donate) that's going to affect the outcome.

So we may as well assume that Obama is going to win the nomination which, by all accounts, he will and start looking toward the general election!!!! I do believe that the general will be more issue-oriented, because there will be clear contrasts and because of who McCain and Obama are. The 527s will get active, probably, but if the two candidates themselves stay away from all the personal and the 'drama' it will help tremendously.

Very good advice.