<p>“There is no such thing as a pledged delegate,” Clinton said at a news conference in California, where she has been fundraising</p>
<p>If this isn’t evidence of do anything to win, i don’t know what is.</p>
<p>Whole article: <a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080403/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_delegates[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080403/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_delegates</a></p>
<p>Does that mean she has decided to release the delegates that were pledged to her? I’m sure there’s a few who wish at this point they could change their minds…</p>
<p>She’s married to the master of situational ethics, nuance, smoke and mirrors and the lessons are not lost on her. </p>
<p>It’s all in how you define it when it comes to the clintons and how you can confuse the issue. Sorta like Bill’s statement:</p>
<p>“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not–that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement…Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”</p>
<p>Look at past conventions- after the first vote anything can happen (yes, I know you are thinking of the first one). Remember, the Democratic party will be choosing their candidate, this is not an official US election.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha, that’s true! It is arrogant of her to think that if delegates are freed from representing their “constituents’” votes they would necessarily vote for her. Perhaps Obama would in fact pick up a bunch. </p>
<p>The superdelegates, on the other hand, are of course supposed to vote whatever way their consciences dictate; that is their role. On a daily basis, Obama’s picking up more and more of these.</p>
<p>It is for all practical purposes impossible for Clinton to win the nomination. For awhile, I thought she might be holding out to have more influence in the future of things, as many candidates attempt when they know they are going to lose. This works, though, for instance, when a Mike Huckabee can help McCain get nominated by drawing away support from Romney. He forms an explicit or implicit alliance with the winning nominee and gets back respect and clout that he can use in the future.</p>
<p>I think Hillary’s gone beyond this possibility; the longer she stays in before losing, the more washed up she’s going to appear.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha!—You haven’t seen the half of it yet…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>“Does that mean she has decided to release the delegates that were pledged to her? I’m sure there’s a few who wish at this point they could change their minds”</p>
<p>Governor Corzine seems to be making that contingency plan.</p>
<p>“Ha!—You haven’t seen the half of it yet.”</p>
<p>Isn’t it fun?</p>
<p>I’ll give Hillary a pass this time. 
Perhaps she simply ‘misspoke’ about this, while she was dodging sniper assault, riding through New England crying, ‘the recession is coming, the recession is coming’!!! She has likened herself to Rambo, Rocky and now ‘Paulette’ Revere in the past 2 weeks. Maybe she’s just confused and needs some rest. </p>
<p>She is paaaaaathetic…</p>
<p>So when pledged delegates switch their votes, doesn’t that “disenfranchise” the voters who chose them to support a particular candidate?</p>
<p>I think you are overestimating how much franchise the voters currently have. The popular vote doesn’t mean much, it’s all how it’s sliced and diced.</p>
<p>Hillary should think about what she is doing to the party - this is morally difficult territory.</p>
<p>Grejuni, I was being sarcastic. We’ve never had a presidential primary where every voter had an equal say, but Hillary is raising all kinds of hoo-ha about how terrible that is. So where’s all that concern for the voters when it comes to this particular form of “disenfranchisement”?</p>
<p>Hanna, didn’t you know that Janus can talk out of two sides of her head?;)</p>