Now Hillary Eyes PLEDGED Delegates.
Sometimes Hillary says things and I think I am living on a parallel universe.
Here's one of her latest ramblings:
Q: You ' ve been advocating seating delegations from and . But Senator Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Does making this argument risk alienating voters who think you're breaking the rules or changing the rules?I personally consider it disgraceful that Hillary chose not to take her name off the ballot after the other candidates had done so for the simple reason that taking your name off the ballot is a way of stating that you are not fighting for that state.
HC: I don't think so. I mean, he had a choice to be on the ballot. He chose not to be. I chose to stay on the ballot. So that was a choice he made.
Hillary could easily have argued at the time that she felt that the Democratic party was being unfair to Florida and Michigan, she did not. She went along with the decision. For her now to make the argument that Obama chose to take his name off - so that's his fault - is simply fantastical.
But then she goes even further in her quest to become presidential nominee by any means fair or foul:
Q: How can you win the nomination when the math looks so bleak for you?Did you catch that? "Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to." Is she for real? Is there nothing she won't stoop to?
HC: It doesn't look bleak at all. I have a very close race with Senator Obama. There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates, all for different reasons, and they're all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to.
She's making this kind of insane argument at the very moment that she's arguing that the voters of Florida and Michigan mustn't be disenfranchised! Now it's not merely super delegates she's after, it's any bloody delegates, no matter how the electorate voted.
Why did they bother having an election at all? It's quite obvious in Hillary's mind that she's the best person for the job and that she must be given it, no matter how those pesky voters cast their ballot.
Click title for the whole interview.
Tags:
4 comments:
Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my site, it is about the CresceNet, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://www.provedorcrescenet.com . A hug.
I've given you a link!
up until even last week, I was leaning towards Obama, but thought that Hillary would be just fine also. After a week of mud-slinging I'm of the opinion that Hillary's no better than Joe Lieberman. I certainly see no sign that she has the good of the country in mind.
What should have been a horserace to find out who was in the driver's seat and who rode shotgun has been twisted into something ugly and the longer it goes on the harder it will be to reconcile. Between them, had Hillary played nice and both of them gracefully accepted either winning or losing, I think the Democratic Party could have been poised for a landslide victory, sweeping the Republicans out of office everywhere.
Now, not so much, I think, especially if Hillary wins the nomination.
I have one worrisome thought: suppose Clinton loses, and McCain offers her the VP. While much of the Party would hate that, I can imagine it her bringing enough votes over with her to swing the election (especially if there are other shananigans in the voting).
Dave,
Like yourself, I was of the opinion that either Clinton or Obama would be great, so I was avoiding saying anything on here which favoured one candidate or the other. But Obama started performing very powerfully and was generating an almost palpable excitement. Even then, I still avoided saying anything negative about Hillary. However, her behaviour over the past few weeks has been nothing short of disgraceful and she clearly puts her own advancement ahead of the party or even the democratic process.
And the McCain VP slot has occurred to me as well, though surely even Clinton couldn't inflict that damage on the Dems?
The Dems were set to walk away with the election come November but there is now such bad blood between the two camps that I find it hard to see how their supporters will manage to align themselves behind the eventual winner.
Clinton winning Texas was the worst possible result as this will now drag on and on....
Post a Comment