The extended comments on Lux Veritas' blog are an outstanding analysis. How can the press let her say she is so concerned about voters AND let her say that delegates can rightfully ignore voters? I'm concerned not just that it's doublespeak, but that she's not being called on it.

Posted at March 26, 2008 4:03 PM in response to In Letter, Top Clinton Donors Chastise Pelosi For Statements About Super-Delegates

Building on StlMoDem's point - could someone please ask the HRC campaign this:
The campaign says that if superdels make a decide a winner now, this would subvert the election process because their votes should be counted and therefore their pledged delegates chosen. BUT, if, regardless of the lead in popular vote or pledged dels come June, it would be fine thine for superdels to choose the winner. What's the difference? What is the logic behind ignoring votes later being somehow better than ignoring votes now? If superdels do not have to support whomever leads in pledged dels, then why does the campaign argue that it is wrong for them to make that independent choice now?

Posted at March 26, 2008 3:58 PM in response to In Letter, Top Clinton Donors Chastise Pelosi For Statements About Super-Delegates