They are playing with fire. Hillary's pledged delegates could just as easily hear this and switch for Obama.

I know there's always a temptation to read something into everything, but simply stating a fact is not a cause for hysteria.

Fine. I agree. I am not hysterical, and doubt that I will become hysterical no matter how many times the Clinton folks remind us of this chapter and verse of the rules. That said, one rather wonders why they bother to remind us of this fact so continuously if they do not plan to try to poach delegates.

Incidentally, all I can say on this point is that it is all for the best that they are not planning to try such an approach, because it has not a snowball's chance in Hell of working. I could see Obama's pledged delegates voting for some third candidate (Gore?, Edwards?, Richardson?) long before I could see them voting for Clinton. Mutatis mutandis the same goes for Clinton's pledged delegates.

It's time for the DEM establishment to GIVE UP and demand Hillary quit.

We all know if the situation were reversed, obama would have been OUT by now (in his case, he would have volunteered to leave - he loves his Party).

The establishment has given Hillary every logical chance to catch up - she hasn't.

I say, if Hillary can't win Pennsylvania by at LEAST 20 pts -- she needs to withdraw IMMEDIATELY!

I also say, whatever happens with Florida or Michigan -- their delegate or popular votes should not EFFECT the outcome of this race -- that would be unfair to those of us that followed the RULES.

Methinks Singer protested a bit too much that they weren't trying to turn Obama delegates to Hilary.

That's exactly what they're doing - is what that says to me.

Singer added later in the call, "I know there's always a temptation to read something into everything, but simply stating a fact is not a cause for hysteria."

And their reason for stating that fact was ... ?

It's obvious they had a reason for stating the fact, and it's obvious that the reason wasn't simply to remind everyone of a rule that would be completely irrelevant unless some candidate tries to make it relevant by flipping delegates. Do they think the party leaders are stupid?

But it's perhaps a helpful thing for them to be floating this idea. The party leaders aren't stupid, and the more the Hillary campaign shows the degree to which they are prepared to rip the party apart, the more likely it is that they won't be allowed to do so.

Ok, it is time for the Democrat establishment to rebuke Mrs. Clinton. As for the rules, perhaps it is necessary to write every single implied rule that people know so that these SOBs on Hillary's campaign can't argue against them. The idea that the voters voices do not count is just plain absurd. We could call the redefined rules the Clinton Clause so all know exactly what sparked them to be put in writing.

This exactly how they talked about the Michigan and Florida primaries before the South Carolina primary. First they float the idea while denying any intention of pursuing it. Inject the idea that its possible into the MSM's meme vocabulary so that when she actually does it, their response will be "well, of course. We always knew this was her plan," rather than "damn, what an outrageous position to take."

Unspoken, thus far, is that her little scheme to steal pledged delegates from Obama only works if continues firing off bursts at his kneecaps every single day between now and the convention and manages to get a hit and doesn't get hit by ricochets.

Oh, but, hey, don't worry. She's totally loyal to the party, has a firm grasp of the realities of the situation and would never, ever, ever do anything to undermine Obama's chances of winning the general election.

“The math argument has been turned on its head,” he said. He went on to hint that one of the ways the math is changing or might change is because “new information” is coming out or might come out about Obama, Ickes said.

Sounds sinister.

Sounds like Karl effing Rove.

Perhaps Clinton's reason to not give up is religious.

We've heard about "Black Liberation Theology", which basically says you have to be an oppressed minority to be virtuous. The white equivalent is the "Prosperity Gospel", which says that if you are rich or powerful, that is proof you are virtuous because God has showered blessings on you.

So Hillary has to fight for power, because if she doesn't have power she is damned for all eternity.

Oh yes, pledged delegates can switch.
The ability for pledged delegates to switch candidates was demonstrated at the Iowa Democratic County Conventions. I was an Obama delegate and convinced two Clinton delegates and several Edwards and Richardson delegates to come over to Obama. Obama netted a total of 10 new delegates statewide. Take note that this was when the Wright controversy broke. Next up is the Iowa District Conventions followed by the State Convention.
Those Clinton delegates who switched told me that they were completely turned off by Senator Clinton's treatment of Iowa following the Iowa Caucus. Her belittling of our process and the processes of several states that she deems unimportant will come back to haunt her. As you know, according to the Clintons, the only important states are the ones she carried. I think there will be a trend at the convention level of all those "unimportant" states of Clinton delegates switching to the viable and respectful candidate. When, by the way, did Iowa become unimportant. Bush barely carried it in 2004. Polling shows Obama crushing McCain here where McCain soundly defeats Clinton.
Her treatment of Iowa and its process has not gone unnoticed. Dare I say, her chickens will come home to roost.

So essentially, it's "Let's enfranchise Michigan and Florida, and then disenfranchise all the other voters who didn't vote for me."

Message being, don't count us out, because we'll game the system to win.

The bottom line is that Obama is afraid to let Michigan and Florida vote for fear Clinton will reveal the full breadth of Obama's Wright catastrophe. He simply can't afford for it to be revealed what Wright will cost going forward in states like Michigan and Florida, especially in the general election. He's putting himself above counting the votes. It's not shocking, because he wants to win, but it is short-sided.
Sen. Obama is turning the Audacity of Hope into the audacity of nope.

Yes the rules in the Democratic Party is that all individuals to vote their conscience, meaning they are not actually absolutely committed to vote one way or another based on a Presidential Preference....but the reality is that national delegates are in fact nominated by the both the party and the campaign...meaning they are loyalists...to a candidate.

What Clinton people think, breath and believe is that they are in fact entitled and that like a Star Wars Jedi Knight they think they can wave their hand to place a "spell" on the minions of their Empire....they tell the superdelegates how to vote but when they actually show independence they now move to pledged delegates...they will move to voters and then they will move to the rules committee....

The thing is Hillary is scorching the earth underneath her....where she could have carved out a great Senate Majority Role for herself....making Pelosi and Clinton two woman in charge of the legislature, one wing of the government but no....she is self destructing her political legitimacy.

Singer added later in the call, "I know there's always a temptation to read something into everything, but simply stating a fact is not a cause for hysteria."

I tire of this game of pretending that statements by Clinton and her representatives have only literal meanings and that drawing implications from them is "hysterical".

Ickes said, "I think what Mrs. Clinton was trying to make clear is that no delegate is required by party rules to vote for the candidate for which they're pledged."

This may be perfectly factual, but why would Mrs. Clinton feel that it's her job, as someone particularly interested in the outcome, to enlighten us on the delegate rules? Does she benefit in any way from pledged delegates' discovery that they can vote for whomever they choose?

Consider two alternatives: 1) A job recruiter, trying to poach you tells you that the non-compete agreement you signed is unenforceable, and 2) Your lawyer tells you that the non-compete agreement you signed is unenforceable. The statement is no more true coming from your lawyer than from the recruiter, but there's a very different implication. Your lawyer is offering you legal advice. The recruiter is trying to get you to leave your job.

That is the thing with robots. You think you are their masters, but they evolve, and pretty soon there's an intergalactic Cylon war. The robots have a plan.

Actually laws in a lot of states rquire that they stay with their candidate for the first one or two ballotings.

It is my fervent hope that all pledged delagates are Democrats first and vote for the good of the party.

Another hope is that Clinton, like the rest of the Republican Party becomes a footnote in history.