<p>First it was about seating the Florida and Michigan delegates. Now it is this. I cannot believe it. They are actually talking about going after the PLEDGED (not Super, the pledged) delegates at the convention. </p>
<p>Even if they do get the nomination, do they really think they would win in November after resorting to such win-at-all-costs tactics?</p>
<p>I bet if they lose the nomination fair and square, they will try to work against Obama just so that Hillary can have another shot in 4 years.</p>
<p>I saw this story this morning. If it is true, then it’s appalling. But I wonder how many of the pledged delegates they would be able to sway. After all, they were selected by the Obama campaign and would be expected to be strong supporters.</p>
<p>I learned something this morning. I had been under the impression that pledged delegates were required to vote for their candidate at the convention on the first ballot (although on subsequent ballots, anything goes). Apparently this is not true, and they are free to vote for whomever they please even on the first ballot.</p>
<p>That Hillary – how dare she follow the Democratic party rules for the convention and try to win! St. Obama doesn’t care about winning, he’s just running as a favor to the peasants.</p>
<p>Yeah, the rules do allow it. You could say Hillary is going to try and find every loophole in the rules to win and then say that she just played by the rules.</p>
<p>Playing by the loopholes of the rules still doesn’t make it playing fair.</p>
<p>The Republicans would just love it, wouldn’t they, to get a chance to crush Hillary in November.</p>
<p>I say that if she does it, and it works, and she gets the nomination by those means - she should be president. It’s an ugly world, in DC and around the globe. No place for amateurs.</p>
<p>So will it be the politics of 51% and “a vast right wing conspiracy?”</p>
<p>I am one of those who do not think Republicans are evil. If Hillary wins fair and square, I will willingly vote for her. If she wins by working the loopholes, I will probably stay home.</p>
<p>Most people would see her manipulation of the superdelegates and insistence on counting Michigan and Florida as cheating, even if she calls it a “loophole”. The irony is that even if she cheats and wins, she will most likely lose the general election, because most people would be so disgusted. All the polls that she used to her advantage over the past few years are now saying that she would lose to McCain, but Obama has a chance to beat him.</p>
<p>If Hillary is really a good Democrat and interested in what is best for the party (not what is best for the Clintons), shouldn’t she just concede and go graciously away as a party Senator, and continue to save the world like she has done for the past 35 years ?</p>
<p>If Hillary chooses to use loophole tactics, then we can count on John McCain as our next president. Many voters would either stay home as marite suggests or vote for McCain as a statement against Hillary’s choices.</p>
<p>I would probably support John McCain. He needs the support of independents. A McCain victory would go a long way towards marginalizing the right wing extremist fringe that has dominated the Republican party lately. Unless McCain starts pandering to the agents of intolerance. In that case, I may vote for the independent candidate Ron Paul if he is running.</p>
<p>Going after pledged delegates is not, apparently, against the rules. It is going against the will of the voters, though, and if she tries this there will be consequences.</p>
<p>Going after the MI and FL delegates is really dirty pool.</p>
<p>I am sure this will not be the end of this thread, but…
ABC News’ Teddy Davis, Eloise Harper, and Mike Elmore Report: Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said Tuesday that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., will not go after Sen. Barack Obama’s, D-Ill., pledged delegates after an unnamed Clinton official told Politico that both campaigns would pursue such a course if there is a “stalemate” between Clinton and Obama going into this summer’s Democratic convention. </p>
<p>“We issued a very Shermanesque statement earlier today,” said Wolfson on a conference call with reporters. “We have not, are not, and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. We think Sen. Obama’s campaign owes you all a clear answer as to whether they will pursue our pledged delegates.”</p>
<p>“We think Sen. Obama’s campaign owes you all a clear answer as to whether they will pursue our pledged delegates.”</p>
<p>This is so silly. I never saw that anyone in Obama’s campaign said they would pursue the pledged delegates so why so they owe anyone anything? Think this is another Clinton parsing? By getting him to say he won’t go after pledged delegates, will she twist it to include the superdelegates? Or “her” Florida and Michigan delegates?</p>
<p>The DNC absolutely should seat the Michigan and Florida delegates. Millions of people went out to vote in those two states and you guys are just sore losers that Hillary won both states. In Florida alone there were 1,737,197 democrats voting in a primary that wasn’t supposed to “count”. That’s way more people than voted in the Republican primary in Florida, which did count. Are you going to tell almost 2 million Florida democrats they don’t count? What do you think they’re going to do to you in November if you keep them out of the convention?</p>