Clinton: Pledged Delegates up for Grabs
Posted: 3/26/08 at 5:13pm
But, this is not the way to unify the party and win in November. And, though I am a Clinton supporter, I am growing more and more frustrated with her tactics and explanations.
Release your tax returns already.
Posted: 3/26/08 at 5:24pm
Posted: 3/26/08 at 11:50pm
Posted: 3/27/08 at 7:52am
Neither candidate will have 2,024 delegates.
The delegates will have to do what their job is in case no winning candidate emerges: broker the convention to choose the strongest possible candidate for the Democratic Party.
I hope it's Al Gore.
Delegates are only committed to vote for their candidate on the first ballot--and that "committment" is not iron clad.
Clinton is being demonized yet again for saying something that is in no way demonic.
Posted: 3/27/08 at 8:30am
Six months of painting her with a far worse brush than the Republicans ever used have embittered 28% of her supporters.
I blame Obama--and the media. Actually, I blame Obama's supporters. What happened to the "New Politics"?
Or does that hold only toward the Republicans he has vowed to appoint to Cabinet positions?
Posted: 3/27/08 at 8:32am
With Ms. Clinton's negative at 48 and positive at 37 -- about what, 5 points above W's? -- and Obama's church becoming the ball and chain that will drag him under until November, we need an Etch-a-sketch moment that allows us to erase everything and start the f--k over.
Posted: 3/27/08 at 8:39am
And yes there are systems in place that allow that manipulation for valid reasons, like if Obama were so horrible that she needed to save the people from themselves. But using those systems just so you can win is wrong. That's what this is all about, not math. You can keep saying it but it doesn't make it true. What she want's is more important than what the people want.
And bottom line, it's not gonna happen. She's using this to cast doubt on the outcome and as an excuse to stay in the game in hopes that some disaster will befall Obama. But pledged delegates aren't just random people. They are chosen to become a particular candidate's delegate because of their own hardcore support for that candidate. These are not just ordinary supporters. They are extraordinary supporters who have to go through a big deal to become a particular candidate's delegate. I'd be surprised if she gets even one to switch.
But let's remember this when she (or her supporters) talks about disenfranchising FLA and MI voters because apparently, it's only disenfranchising if it hurts her:
- She'd be happy winning by super delegate, even if it went against the will of the people.
- She wants to use the electoral college as a measure of winning despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the nomination process, plus the fact that she denounced the electoral college process in 2000 saying “I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.”
- She wants to convince pledged delegates, who are MORALLY, but not legally pledged to vote in line with the will of the people who elected them, to change from the will of the people to vote for her.
It's not so much that Clinton is a monster, it's that she's hard core old school politics as usual. She may have the same policy stances as Obama, but if she becomes POTUS, her bulldog, manipulating, double-talking, maneuvering will keep us in the same standstill we've been in for years. And none of those policy stances will matter, because nothing will ever get done.
And PJ, that business about paint brushes and her polls is just laughable. Are you saying that the general public are that stupid to be so easily fooled into hating Clinton? Are you the only one that can see Obama's evil mind bending death rays?
Updated On: 3/27/08 at 08:39 AM
Posted: 3/27/08 at 8:40am
but technically she is actually right. they arent really "pledged". we can thank ted kennedy for that. so to be fair, she makes a valid argument. and neither candidate can reach the magic number, so she's making bold statements here. i just think she needs to stick to her strengths and keeping pulling for the superdelegates which she's still leading with. at this point, to start pulling for pledged delegates would really hurt the party in my opinion.
but its definitely a really interesting argument shes making.
anyone else just want to have this whole damn election thing be over already?? i'm exhausted from it all.
the good news is, i was watching MSNBC last night, and for us obama supporters, it seems the pastor wright controversy didnt do much to hurt obamas campaign after he gave his great speech. polls showed he only dipped about 4 points.
and even better news, their polls still showed that clinton and obama would beat mccain by a very small and narrow margin, but they'd beat him!
we know polls dont mean anything, but i thought that was pretty cool.
Posted: 3/27/08 at 8:41am
Posted: 3/27/08 at 8:50am
they both do it. everyones guilty. we need to unite.
atleast i can admit they've both played dirty. wake up and smell the sniper fire... get with the program.
Posted: 3/27/08 at 9:01am
Posted: 3/27/08 at 9:14am
Pab--i will admit that both sides have campaigned negatively--THAT'S POLITICS!--but will you and Artscallion admit that Art's words above--"desperation" and "override the will of the people"--are ALSO true of both of them.
NEITHER ONE has the "will of the people." NEITHER ONE.
Only a "desperate" campaign would have its lawyers push to disenfranchise two states.
The ONLY way either of them can win at this point is in a brokered convention.
Updated On: 3/27/08 at 09:14 AM
Posted: 3/27/08 at 9:30am
and keep in mind that clinton signed off on michicagn and florida just like everyone else did... she agreed to the terms when they were set... she only cares now that she needs them to help close the gap between her and obama.
i personally think the DNC needed to figure it out and make sure those votes counted, but at the end of the day Michigan and Florida was not Clintons fault or Obamas fault. it was the states fault. they ****ed up.
so is obama wrong? yes. is clinton really fighting for MI and FL because she wants the "people to be heard"? hell no. she wants to win and catch up to him a little more.
its politics. i agree. its a mess... i just wish they'd ****ing team up, Obama / Clinton, and get this mess over with.
Posted: 3/27/08 at 9:38am
And only a "smart", not "desperate", campaign would have their lawyers push to make sure any mid stream rule changes were fair. They only blocked the proposals they considered unfair. And again, as CPab said, it was the states themselves that decided not to pursue it. Everybody knew the rules going in and she didn't complain about them until she needed them changed in order to win. In fact, she signed in agreement that they wouldn't count. 48 other states managed to play by the rules. Fair or unfair, those are the rules ALL agreed to play by, including Hillary.
eta: MI and FLA signed their "will of the people" away, taking it out of the equation. And it seems unfair, to me, to fight to reverse that only when you need it to win.
Updated On: 3/27/08 at 09:38 AM
Posted: 3/27/08 at 10:11am
There was a letter in the Times this morning that really frightened me. A woman from PA said "The primary means much more to me than the ultimate goal of electing a Democratic President..." HUH? More than electing a Democratic president?! So wait--this is a season of symbolic votes that become more meaningful than who we put in the White House?! This is yet more proof of how easily this party opts to shoot itself in the ass. We have ample evidence from the past that Democrats can destroy their chances all the way to the fall election.
Posted: 3/27/08 at 10:21am
...global warming can manifest itself as heat, cool, precipitation, storms, drought, wind, or any other phenomenon, much like a shapeshifter. -- jim geraghty
pray to st. jude
i'm a sonic reducer
he was the gimmicky sort
fenchurch=mejusthavingfun=magwildwood=mmousefan=bkcollector=bradmajors=somethingtotalkabout: the fenchurch mpd collective
Posted: 3/27/08 at 10:32am
Statements like that are just spin.
There are 10 states to go, there is no ultimate difference between pledged delegates and superdelegates, and there is absolutely no basis for the popular vote to exclude Michigan and Florida. Only the pledged delegate count can exclude them, due to Howard Dean's stupid gamble.
The popular vote does not figure into the party rules, so there is absolutely no reason for a popular vote count to exclude Florida and Michigan.
Posted: 3/27/08 at 10:41am
Updated On: 3/27/08 at 10:41 AM
Posted: 3/27/08 at 10:55am
It's only spin when you don't agree with it; it's point of view when you do.
"so there is absolutely no reason for a popular vote count to exclude Florida and Michigan."
Except that pesky signed agreement. And the fact that it's disingenuous to pick and choose which rules (or parts of rules) suit us and which don't towards an end of manipulating things to our advantage when it's clear we can't win any other way.
Updated On: 3/27/08 at 10:55 AM
Posted: 3/27/08 at 11:11am
...global warming can manifest itself as heat, cool, precipitation, storms, drought, wind, or any other phenomenon, much like a shapeshifter. -- jim geraghty
pray to st. jude
i'm a sonic reducer
he was the gimmicky sort
fenchurch=mejusthavingfun=magwildwood=mmousefan=bkcollector=bradmajors=somethingtotalkabout: the fenchurch mpd collective
Posted: 3/27/08 at 12:01pm
The popular vote in Michigan was 238,168 for "Uncommitted" and 328,309 for Clinton.
BUT...Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine have not released popular vote totals.
So every time you hear someone talk about the "popular vote," they are only estimating those 4 states based on caucus results.
The system was never intended to use popular vote as a rubric. With a clear delegate winner, there would be no problem.Without a delegate winner, how do you define "popular vote"?
Posted: 3/27/08 at 12:31pm
Then why does Hillary say she can use it to persuade supers to switch to her side? Or ignore it if it doesn't fall on her side? Again, she walks on the side of the street that benefits her. And SHE's the one that brought "popular vote" into the conversation. So can we get her to give us an answer to your question, or will her answer depend on the moment in which you ask it?
There will be a clear delegate winner. The question is if someone keeps darting around trying to manipulate things in order to become that delegate winner, against those three standards, which Clinton herself brought into the picture, it can certainly carry. But the stink of it will make Mrs. Lovett's pie shop seem like a perfumerie.
Posted: 3/27/08 at 12:58pm
And all your purple prose about parfumeries won't change that.
Posted: 3/27/08 at 1:21pm
Yes, that's the standard I was using. My prose was but a gift to you, intended to illuminate the facts, not twist them.
BroadwayWorld TV