"For the second time in three days, Sen. Hillary Clinton told reporters that the pledged delegates awarded based on vote totals in their state are not bound to abide by election results. It's an idea that has been floated by her or a campaign surrogate nearly half a dozen times this month.

"Every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose," Clinton told Time's Mark Halperin in an interview published Wednesday.
"We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment," she said.

Clinton's remarks echoed her Monday comments to the editorial board of the Philadelphia Daily News.

"And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged," she said Monday. "You know there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates."

And yet she was practically apoplectic about letting the voice of the people be heard in FL and MI..... not a case of mis-speaking

Integrity = Zero
Will do/say anything to get ahead = Endless

sucks to lose....must be an especially bitter pill for the 'entitled' one...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/26/clinton.delegates/index.html

As if she didn't seem underhanded enough. Being "technically correct" about something like this doesn't make her right. Suggesting that delegates circumvent any resemblance of the democratic process that we have left to give her the nomination does not bide well for someone who already seems to enjoy the shadier side of politics.




joe

As if she didn't seem underhanded enough. Being "technically correct" about something like this doesn't make her right. Suggesting that delegates circumvent any resemblance of the democratic process that we have left to give her the nomination does not bide well for someone who already seems to enjoy the shadier side of politics.




joe

stick a fork in her...she's done....

Plus, her cankles more resemble thankles (thighs & ankles).

If she makes it past this round, perhaps she will try a similar tact with the electoral college.

Plus, her cankles more resemble thankles (thighs & ankles).


Way to raise the bar :rolleyes:




joe

Way to raise the bar :rolleyes:




joe

I gave it a [ golf clap ] .... serious discussion to ensue soon on the cankle vs thankle debate

"For the second time in three days, Sen. Hillary Clinton told reporters that the pledged delegates awarded based on vote totals in their state are not bound to abide by election results. It's an idea that has been floated by her or a campaign surrogate nearly half a dozen times this month.

"Every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose," Clinton told Time's Mark Halperin in an interview published Wednesday.
"We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment," she said.

Clinton's remarks echoed her Monday comments to the editorial board of the Philadelphia Daily News.

"And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged," she said Monday. "You know there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates."

And yet she was practically apoplectic about letting the voice of the people be heard in FL and MI..... not a case of mis-speaking

Integrity = Zero
Will do/say anything to get ahead = Endless

sucks to lose....must be an especially bitter pill for the 'entitled' one...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/26/clinton.delegates/index.html

She's got a very harsh dose of reality coming her way when the system runs its course, superdelagates follow Richardson's example, and abandon her. The leaders of the Democratic party are neither intimidated by her, nor do they feel any sense of obligation or loyalty to her. If they did, you can bet Florida and Michigan would be setting up their re-vote right now and you'd see new faces coming out to help tip the delegate balance to make it look like a tight race TODAY. Any delay only hurts her.
The leadership does care about her supporters. So they'll let Hillary lose on her own, fair and square.

Her hijinx re FL and MI were what totally set me off against her. It was well before the Ohio/Texas votes, so well before she brought the campaign into the gutter. Seriously, after what happened in the general election in Florida/2000 and Ohio/2004, do we really need a DEMOCRAT trying to disenfranchise voters?

WTF? Double post. Sorry.

[QUOTE=Jesse D Smith]She's got a very harsh dose of reality coming her way when the system runs its course, superdelagates follow Richardson's example, and abandon her. /QUOTE]

Bill Richardson will probably commit suicide in the next few months. Cause of death, self inflicted gunshots to the back of the head.

[QUOTE=Jesse D Smith]She's got a very harsh dose of reality coming her way when the system runs its course, superdelagates follow Richardson's example, and abandon her. /QUOTE]

Bill Richardson will probably commit suicide in the next few months. Cause of death, self inflicted gunshots to the back of the head.

hopefully he avoids potomac park for the next few months....

She's even threatening Pelosi over it.

From http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080327.htm


Top Clinton Backers Threaten Pelosi

The Washington Post reports this morning that 20 "top fundraisers" for Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign yesterday "upbraided" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for suggesting last week that Democratic superdelegates "should back the candidate with the most pledged delegates and urged her to respect the right of those delegates to back whomever they choose at the end of the primary season." The AP reports that in a letter to Pelosi, Clinton's supporters "said superdelegates 'must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party's strongest nominee in the general election.'"

The New York Times adds that the letter, "which carried threatening overtones in noting that many signatories were major Democratic donors, highlighted the deepening rift inside the party among supporters for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama." Roll Call reports the "donors also pointedly noted their own contributions to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. 'We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August.'"

"Brazen" Move Said To Have "Stunned" Democrats The New York Daily News reports that the "brazen move by Camp Clinton stunned veteran Democrats, particularly because at least eight of the letter's authors have not donated to" the DCCC since Pelosi became speaker. One unnamed Democrat is quoted saying Clinton "looks desperate. There is no way they should have threatened to do this. It is terrible. ... I am sure Obama is raising money off of it already."

Page Not Found!

* Article Index
* Subscribe

USN Current Issue
Home > Page Not Found!
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080327.htm: cannot be found!
An external source has linked you here.

Unfortunately we cannot control who links to us but you may wish to inform forums.roadbikereview.com about their bad link.

Please use our search box below to find the information you are looking for.
Search U.S. News

Or visit our site map.

Go back to http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=126056



Here's a link to a Washington Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602918.html

And this apparently is over superdelegates being told to respect voters' decisions.



joe

[QUOTE=Jesse D Smith]She's got a very harsh dose of reality coming her way when the system runs its course, superdelagates follow Richardson's example, and abandon her. /QUOTE]

Bill Richardson will probably commit suicide in the next few months. Cause of death, self inflicted gunshots to the back of the head.

speaking of, did you see the pic of her sitdown with Richard Mellon Scaife, the primary figure behind the vast right-wing conspiracy to get the Clintons, the leading voice of the "Vince Foster was murdered" meme, and all the other crap we had to live through during that time.

And now she's catering to him to help her get the nomination?

The only people who count are the ones who show up and vote. I don't see how you can claim that either candidate doesn't have a majority of the support because of the turnout. How much support can you expect from someone who doesn't bother to vote? Answer: not much.

You can play with numbers all you want, but elections only count actual votes, not potential votes. Actual votes = actual people who cared enough to express their opinion. Anyway, satistically, the results are going to be pretty much the same even if you got 100% turnout, which never happens. The 2004 election was the highest turnout since 1968, and it was only 60%.

[quote=Jesse D Smith]She's got a very harsh dose of reality coming her way when the system runs its course, superdelagates follow Richardson's example, and abandon her. /QUOTE]

Bill Richardson will probably commit suicide in the next few months. Cause of death, self inflicted gunshots to the back of the head.

"He fell on a knife six times."

"Well accidents will happen."

/Running Scared? Anyone...anyone...

speaking of, did you see the pic of her sitdown with Richard Mellon Scaife, the primary figure behind the vast right-wing conspiracy to get the Clintons, the leading voice of the "Vince Foster was murdered" meme, and all the other crap we had to live through during that time.

And now she's catering to him to help her get the nomination?

desperation knows no bounds....hubris, irony and hypocrisy, an interesting trifecta

I am no friend of the Clintons. But Hillary does make a great point here. On average, only 30% of the registered Democrats have participated in their state primary elections. Voter turnout has been quite low on both sides. With 30% participation, Hillary are received about 15% of the votes and Obama the same. So whoever the winner will be, they will have only received support of about 15% of the registered Democrats. That's not a mandate and it means that 85% of registered Democrats did not support the eventual nominee.


"There's a WHOLE lot of figures to pass around on just your word. I don't think it's too much to ask for some source for the figures. I'm especially interested in how you define "quite low" for voter turnout."

Ouch!

I'm especially interested in how you define "quite low" for voter turnout."
If you Google voter turnout 2008 primaries (or something like that) just about every article says turnout has reached record highs, and that it's so bad that some districts are concerned about being able to handle the turnout in November.

desperation knows no bounds....hubris, irony and hypocrisy, an interesting trifecta

what is it we've been hearing? "you're defined by the company you keep'?

If you Google voter turnout 2008 primaries (or something like that) just about every article says turnout has reached record highs, and that it's so bad that some districts are concerned about being able to handle the turnout in November.

That's why I felt he was obliged to provide the source.
Didn't Hoo have a conversation with someone about this in another thread? Déjà vu I guess. Of course CY is new to the board, so maybe he didn't know how much we value credible support for assertions.
I figured it would be more difficult to find a concensus of sources indicating "low" turnout. I could easily google a sources like each state's figures like this:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/06/democrats-shatter-turnout-primary-season-records/
STATE: MISSOURI

PREVIOUS RECORD: 528,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 778,000 (98% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +47%

–
STATE: ILLINOIS

PREVIOUS RECORD: 1,504,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 1,809,000 (91% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +20%

–
STATE: NEW YORK

PREVIOUS RECORD: 1,575,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 1,744,000 (99% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +11%

–
STATE: NEW JERSEY

PREVIOUS RECORD: 654,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 1,104,000 (99% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +69%

–
STATE: MASSACHUSETTS

PREVIOUS RECORD: 793,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 1,170,000 (98% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +48%

–
STATE: ARIZONA

PREVIOUS RECORD: 239,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 314,000 (67% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +31%

Turnout for Republican contests, rounded to the nearest thousand:

STATE: MISSOURI

PREVIOUS RECORD: 475,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 576,000 (98% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +21%

–
STATE: ILLINOIS

PREVIOUS RECORD: 859,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 825,000 (93% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: -3%

–
STATE: NEW YORK

PREVIOUS RECORD: 772,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 604,000 (99% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: -21%

–
STATE: NEW JERSEY

PREVIOUS RECORD: 310,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 551,000 (98% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +78%

–
STATE: MASSACHUSETTS

PREVIOUS RECORD: 503,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 462,000 (95% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: -8%

–
STATE: ARIZONA

PREVIOUS RECORD: 347,000

VOTES TONIGHT SO FAR: 398,000 (67% reporting)

% CHANGE OVER PREVIOUS RECORD: +15%

That's why I felt he was obliged to provide the source. I figured it would be more difficult to find a concensus of sources indicating "low" turnout. I could easily google a sources like each state's figures like this:



those are just numbers....

I am no friend of the Clintons. But Hillary does make a great point here. On average, only 30% of the registered Democrats have participated in their state primary elections. Voter turnout has been quite low on both sides. With 30% participation, Hillary are received about 15% of the votes and Obama the same. So whoever the winner will be, they will have only received support of about 15% of the registered Democrats. That's not a mandate and it means that 85% of registered Democrats did not support the eventual nominee

If Hillary ends up with say 14.4% and Obama ends up with say 15.6% of the vote for all registered voters then does that mean that Obama wins because he got a few more votes than Hillary. I think not! Neither candidate will have the majority of the support for registered Democrats and that means that the race is wide open.

The Democrats have gotten themselves into a real pickle with these two lightweights. Perhaps those 70% of registered Democrats who sat it out in the primaries should have gotten off of their a$$e$ and voted. It's too late now. The Democrats are stuck with these two winners and there is no way out of the situation.

or as Obama would spin it "over 84% of registered Democrats won't vote for Hillary, who is bringing new life to the party?" Not the old establishment so why would they get to decide who gets the nod over voters who chose to vote. Hillary is shanked.

Stick a fork in the libs. They're done. Not a chance in the general.

How come you guys are just learnin' about the Clintons? Hmmm?