It's not official. Clinton is NOT releasing Delegates

I thought it was important to set the record straight. Another diary stated that Clinton was releasing her delegates; she's not.

A Clinton spokesman said that Clinton is not technically releasing her delegates -- doing so would cause many of them to be dropped from the slate -- but noted that both Bill Bradley and Howard Dean did not formally release their slates until their conventions. http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arch ives/2008/06/clinton_asks_pledged_delega tes.php

Tags: Convention, delegates, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Comments

111 Comments

Good correction

These people who were selected to be delegates for her deserve to go to the national convention.

by Student Guy 2008-06-10 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Good correction

this is getting to be a joke. why is her releasing her delegates even worthy of being debated.

tactically it gives her a mandate to use as a bargaining chip to see some her agenda being implemneted i.e universal healthcare.

what's the hurry here folks? what diff does it make... she can't force her delegates to vote for him anymore than edwards did. small portion of his still went to hillary...

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-10 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Good correction

Release the hounds!!! :)

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-10 10:54AM | 0 recs
NSFW

gets a 0 rating from me.

by Student Guy 2008-06-10 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: NSFW

what could possibly  be a reason for 0 . Not that I care much. It was a humorous video out there... light hearted moment.

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-10 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: NSFW

you cant even see anything let alone  some bare back , which one sees on regular TV shows...

talk about being uptight.. there student guy

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-10 07:35PM | 0 recs
ack - sorry

please disregard any rating I made on this comment. I zeroed by mistake, tried to undo, ack.

I would have to watch the video to really rate it fairly - apologies.

by OtherLisa 2008-06-10 11:40AM | 0 recs
Hang onto your hounds!

You don't want them to go crazy sniffing all those bicycle seats after the race.

by Dumbo 2008-06-10 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Good correction

"small portion of [Edwards' delegates] still went to hillary"

Name one.

by nwodtuhs 2008-06-10 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Good correction

huh-- his florida ones... sorry I dont write down names or even rememeber if they MSM reported actual names..( but they reported some of his delegates went for clinton).. feel free to look it up.

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-10 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Good correction

Hmmm - I doubt that.  Technically they're not allowed to.

by Jess81 2008-06-10 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Good correction

care to cite that technicality?

by zerosumgame 2008-06-10 07:50PM | 0 recs
further statement from a delegate

I was on that conference call and there was nothing in Hillary's comments to indicate that she was releasing her delegates and urging them to vote for Obama on the first vote in Denver. In fact what Harold Ikes said was that the campaign would like to keep Hillary's delegates together so that she can more effectively fight for issues like universal health care to make sure it is included in the party platform.

Link here.

by OtherLisa 2008-06-10 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Good correction

Agreed.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-10 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Good correction

Basically she is releasing them POLITICALLY... so no repercussions if they vote obama.

by yitbos96bb 2008-06-10 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official. Clinton is NOT releasing De

Oh well, back to bad Clinton for Obama supporters!

by superetendar 2008-06-10 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official.

if we want Barack to win (I do, do you?) we need to not make up these kinds of rumors. this is only at TM and she printed a retraction. come on guys, we want the fellow to win the GE, he already has the nomination.  

by anna shane 2008-06-10 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official.

I'm assuming the original diarist was unaware of the  technical difference of actually releasing delegates vs. asking them to support Obama (much like suspending vs. ending a campaign has similar ramifications).

By the way, I'm very glad you're still here and supporting the nominee, even if he wasn't your choice.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-10 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official.

i like you too, but some of your 'friends' are pug operatives, trying to piss me off by calling me bad names.  Go figure.  

by anna shane 2008-06-10 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official.

Both candidates got around 18 million votes each. Even a small site like this one probably has a few hundred active members at any one time. In other words, there are tons of supporters out there and online, and with varying temperaments. Not all of them are 'friends' by any stretch, as I'm sure you would agree that both sides have their share of name-callers, bomb-throwers, instigators and flat-out trolls.

But even when certain Clinton supporters here did things that I would consider untoward, I still didn't hold it against Hillary--it's not like she or Obama stands for insulting and attacking other Democrats. Frankly, I'd bet both would be pretty dismayed about what went on between their online supporters during this election.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-10 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official.

i don't hold it against Barack, but I think he has some pug operatives pretending. He's won it, what justification can there be for any of his supporters calling me ugly names now?  Makes no sense, and I think this is the time to find the pug trolls, they're now obvious, the rest have realized he's won and there is no profit in telling me my vote for him isn't good enough, don't you agree?  McCain will try to piss off women even more, and he hired the swift boat team five or more months ago, some of them are here.  

by anna shane 2008-06-10 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official.

I'm assuming he's a pug operative. They're tricky and will report on anything and everything Barack says or does that could be considered an insult, and if he doesn't give them fodder, they'll make up stuff.  

by anna shane 2008-06-10 10:17AM | 0 recs
Serious question

What's a "pug"? Is that like the "rat" that Freepers refer to?

Does using these kinds of dismissive monikers help forge the group identity, and insure recognition with the group?

It's interesting to me that, while we decry juvenile name-calling, we engage in it all too easily when it serves our purposes.

by BobzCat 2008-06-10 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Serious question

It's a cute little dog with a pushed in face.


by Travis Stark 2008-06-10 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Serious question

I've repeatedly asked this mydd-er not to use the "pug" term. There's no good to being offensive regarding people with whom we disagree. If you get into the habit of doing that with people in some groups, it's too easy to start doing that with others as well.

And there's no reason to write off potential members of our coalition.  A whole lot of Republicans are quite unhappy with the direction Bush has taken us.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-10 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Serious question

Not to mention no reason to offend cute little dogs with pushed in faces!

by Travis Stark 2008-06-10 12:41PM | 0 recs
Serious answer

repugnant republicans = pugs

by Is This Snark 2008-06-10 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Serious question

pug is just an abbreviation for repuglican. I'm not sure if the origin of that was the dog or the term "repugnant," but it's kind of fun to say.

Rethuglican is also used.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-10 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Serious question

I get it. Actually, I knew the answer, I just wanted to see where the discussion would go.

It may be second-nature to long-time bloggers on the left, but I see it used most often as a badge of belonging, or as a kind of "insider lingo" by people who want to prove their bona fides on a liberal site.

It's interesting as a function of language to define in and out groups. We call them pugs and thugs, they call us rats. I guess it's fun, for some, but also seems to serve a social purpose.

And an asocial one, too: during the primary people here would call each other bots and aniacs and trons and any other epithet that would deny both the humanity and integrity of their opponents.

Personally, I find that problematic, at least in terms of our long-term goals to stop the insanity, throw away the wedges, heal the divisions, and come together as a country.

by BobzCat 2008-06-10 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Serious question

yes, insult people, that should unite us.  

by anna shane 2008-06-10 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Serious question

it's a Republican infiltrator, we don't want any unity with them, do we?  

by anna shane 2008-06-10 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Serious question

I find your absolute certainty in the face of the inherent ambiguity of the medium somewhat unconvincing in and of itself, and given your aversion to name-calling, the use of a derogatory term is, at the least, inconsistent.

by BobzCat 2008-06-10 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Serious question

i find you weird.  Why blog about me, there's a how to beat mcCain diary that garnered seven comments, and three were from me, and here you are, being weird.  Are you a pug?  Tell the truth, you're trying to make Barack's supporters look nutty, no? Well, it won't work, go back to your pug world and take your fellow pugs with you.  

by anna shane 2008-06-10 09:25PM | 0 recs
No. And try not to give ammo

to anti-unity crowers like anna and soyousay.

From Armbinder's original:

Clinton's decision to release her delegates to Obama suggests that she opposes grassroots efforts by some of her supporters to hang on until the convention and submit Clinton's name for president or vice president.

And anna, you damn well need to get yourself in order before referring to slinkerwink with such an epithet as "pug". He/she is a hardcore activist Dem, an early member Kossack who has much more formidable bona fides than you - a person who runs in the company of such egregious anti-dem sites as No Quarter.

I still make the point that all this arguing over the meaning of release has now somewhat sullied the gracious act by Clinton. For anyone who has misgivings about her intentions, or has glommed onto negative perceptions about her character, the war over words has done nothing but damage to an otherwise honorable act. I'm beginning to wonder if there are some long term trolls amongst the Clinton supporters who are fomenting this ugliness for an ulterior purpose.

by Poor Yorick 2008-06-10 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: No. And try not to give ammo

long term trolls amongst the Clinton supporters who are fomenting this ugliness for an ulterior purpose.

Deadenders.

"This is how you want unity?!?!?" they say while smearing Obama in every other post.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 02:54PM | 0 recs
And then she downrates me

for calling her out for referring to good Dem slinkerwink as a "pug."  Nice anna. You really have the best interest of the party in mind, no?

by Poor Yorick 2008-06-10 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: No. And try not to give ammo

Mojo'd simply because there was no reason for this to be hidden.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-06-10 04:41PM | 0 recs
Thanks, CDG.

You're doing your best to fill the void for Jerome.

by Poor Yorick 2008-06-10 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks, CDG.

Mojo'd simply because there was no reason for this to be trolled.

Ratings abusers should fear my copy-paste-fu!

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-06-11 06:32AM | 0 recs
Good to see you back, Campskunk,

abusing zeroes with no repercussions.

How can they even refer to themselves as administrators? This is like daycare by drunks.

by Poor Yorick 2008-06-10 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official.

anna, please stop with this fake I'm supporting Obama, crap. You post on NoQuarter, an ANTI Obama site.

by venician 2008-06-10 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official.

Why the troll rate?

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official.

for personally calling  me out, it's against site rules. Also, anyone who tries to say that you can know someone by their associates is a pug troll, trying to say in a left-handed way that we can know Barack through his associates, (like Wright and Rezco). that's wrong for him and wrong for anyone else, if you try to put forth that argument you're working against our Democratic nominee and you deserve to be outed. I've explained it to you many times, Barack has won, and if we want our kids back from Iraq we need to get him elected. Go back to your pug swift boat team home.  

by anna shane 2008-06-10 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official.

To be fair, a quick google search seemed to show that she hasn't posted anything (positive or negative) about Obama on NoQuarter since May 30th.  So I don't know if you can still say she "posts" there, as much as she used to post there.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-10 10:59AM | 0 recs
A person can't change her mind?

A lot of people were very anti-Obama as long as Clinton was still in the race, and are now pro-Obama.

by kydoc 2008-06-10 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official.

Dude, it's amnesty time here. Linfar also used to post some pretty aggressively anti-Obama things, but that's in the past. If someone is still here and is trying to be productively pro-Democrat (as opposed to some others who are still bashing Obama daily), then that's all we should ask.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-10 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official.

chill.... not very magnanimous and NOT the way to win supporters for Obama!

by swissffun 2008-06-10 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official. Clinton is

Marc Ambinder reported that she's told at least some of her delegates that she wants them to vote for Obama.

Just sayin'.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 10:12AM | 0 recs
The sad thing is that if she did release them

It would probably help her prospects of getting the VP slot. It would also pull the rug out from under all the McTroll's trying to stir up resentment by pushing the idea of a convention floor fight and go a hell of a long way towards healing the rift in the party since there is still a lot of suspicion on the Obama side of the rift over what she plans to do.

by Skex 2008-06-10 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re:

so she is URGING her delegates NOT to vote for her and vote for Obama, but she won't offically release them so that the can still go to the convention.

the point is that she is not still fighting for the nomination, nor does she want these delegates to vot for her anymore when it comes to the convention thats the point.

the word "technically" says it all in that quote. she has "unoffically" released them but won't do it offically so they can still go to the convention, but she doesn't want them voting for her anymore.

by TruthMatters 2008-06-10 10:12AM | 0 recs
My beef

The Title of the Diary is "IT'S OFFICIAL..." The diary also insinuated that she was technically going to do so immediately. She's not, it's as simple as that.

by soyousay 2008-06-10 10:15AM | 0 recs
No. It's not simple. that's the point.

by Travis Stark 2008-06-10 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: No. It's not simple. that's the point.

Is it official? The answer is no.

by soyousay 2008-06-10 10:59AM | 0 recs
That's correct. Is she holding her delegates to

their commitments. The answer is apparently also no, or at least that's the way I'm reading it. She's not officially releasing them, but she's encouraging them to support Sen. Obama. Hence, it's not as simple as either you or the other diary poster have made it.

by Travis Stark 2008-06-10 11:11AM | 0 recs
exactly

by slinkerwink 2008-06-10 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: exactly

Your diary is deceptive. IMO, you should at least revise the Title...It's not "official."

by soyousay 2008-06-10 10:40AM | 0 recs
I'll do that in a minute

by slinkerwink 2008-06-10 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I'll do that in a minute

great.

by soyousay 2008-06-10 10:54AM | 0 recs
just edited the title

by slinkerwink 2008-06-10 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official. Clinton is NOT releasing De

The point is that this way these folks get to go to the convention. She expects them to vote for Obama.

As I've said other times, the kind of people who jump through the hoops of what's required to go to the national convention are not folks who are going to launch protests on the convention floor.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-10 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official. Clinton is NOT releasing De

OK

by soyousay 2008-06-10 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official. Clinton is NOT releasing De

If not releasing them is the only way to ensure they can attend, then I agree with the decision completely. It would be very sad if after all that effort they had this last bit taken away from them. I also think you'd want staunch Clinton people at the convention to share in whatever magic we might pull off.

by Mobar 2008-06-10 11:09AM | 0 recs
So?

Honsetly, what difference does it make at this point?

by fogiv 2008-06-10 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: So?

My sentiments exactly. Aren't there more important things to deal with? Um I dunno maybe like beating Mr. McLieberbush

by jsfox 2008-06-10 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: So?

The difference is important to anyone who still believes that Hillary is the better GE candidate (roughly half the Democratic party).

BO may be the presumptive nominee, but I'm glad Hillary is waiting in the wings just in case he's not looking quite so viable come August, for some reason.

by leisure 2008-06-10 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: So?

Uhh, my understanding is that delegates can still vote HRC at the convention (assuming a catostrophic Obama collapse) wether she releases her delegates now or not.

If I'm correct, it doesn't matter either way.  "Holding" them at this point is merely symbolic.  What the act symbolizes or means, is another topic altogether.

In the end, I'm surprised her releasing (or not) delegates is news, or a topic of debate here.

by fogiv 2008-06-10 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: So?

Releasing the delegates does not make a diff. If she does release them she is doing at as unity gesture. All of her's plus Obama's could vote for her come the convention released or not. They could also vote for someone completely different should the need arise.

by jsfox 2008-06-10 10:44AM | 0 recs
Nope -- this is precisely NOT the difference

Distinction might be relevant to two sets of people:

1) anyone academically interested in technicalities of party procedural mechanics

2) as a personal matter, each of the individuals that had been given the tremendous personal honor of attending convention as part of her delegation.

Anyone imagining that Hillary is "waiting in the wings" or otherwise has not fully ended her viable candidacy will be sorely disappointed by either headline.

by YuedoTiko 2008-06-10 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Nope -- this is precisely NOT the difference

That's okay... I'm used to disappointment.

Never stops me from hoping.

If you truly believed that Hillary is our best candidate to beat John McCain, and that Barack Obama has a high risk of losing, you'd be hoping for the same thing in the best interests of our party and our platforms.

by leisure 2008-06-10 01:23PM | 0 recs
What would be the point?

She shouldn't give them up. What would be the point of that? She did ask them to do whatever they can to support Obama. That is enough.

I think the majority of Obama supporters don't want Clinton to be crushed. We are happy that she recognizes that she lost the delegate race and is supporting Obama.

by vcalzone 2008-06-10 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official. Clinton is NOT releasing De

So?

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 10:47AM | 0 recs
So????

Most people want to be well informed, not ill-informed.
by soyousay 2008-06-10 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official. Clinton is NOT releasing

Clinton shouldn't give them up.
Clinton shouldn't let them down.
Clinton oughta bring them round
to Denver.

'Cause we gotta unify
'Cause we gotta fortify,
'Cause we gotta stop the lies,
and win now.

by really not a troll 2008-06-10 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official. Clinton is NOT releasing De

It doesn't matter!  Unlike for the Rs they aren't required to vote for their candidate on the first ballot, it's more a moral and ethical issue than antyhing else.  As the Clintons said back when they were trying to take some of Obama's pledged delegates, they are free agents once they are picked.

by skywaker9 2008-06-10 11:02AM | 0 recs
This is REALLY simple.

There is a REALLY simple explanation for this. She CAN'T officially drop out of the race and release her delegates. She can't because she needs to raise 30 million plus dollars to retire her campaign debt. Once she drops her campaign, she can't raise money anymore.

So, she SUSPENDED her campaign and endorsed Obama. Now, she's telling her pledged delegates and superdelegates to vote for Obama at the convention.

This is not the same as RELEASING her delegates, they are still pledged to her until she officially drops out. Which she can't do before she raises enough money to retire the debt.

Clear?

by EvilAsh 2008-06-10 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: This is REALLY simple.

Damn you and your FACTS and LOGIC!

by BrighidG 2008-06-10 12:12PM | 0 recs
Obama people seem pretty unsure

that he can hang onto the nomination through Denver. That must be the reason for this hysteria.

Or they just love talking about Hillary and find Obama boring.

by catfish2 2008-06-10 11:19AM | 0 recs
Did you make this comment:

Yep that's me. (0+ / 6-)

I'll vote downticket Dems and depending on McCain's veep I might vote for him.

by catfish on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:04:38 AM CDT

[ Parent | Reply to This | RecommendHide ]

Over at Dkos:

Linky to TU's

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/6/ 10/103755/999/20#c20

McCain agitprop isn't cool.

by Student Guy 2008-06-10 11:28AM | 0 recs
Off topic?

What is your point. Were you the one that got me banned from there?

by catfish2 2008-06-10 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Off topic?

I don't think Student Guy can get you banned from Dkos.

You did that all by your lonesome.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you make this comment:

I'm sorry, Student Guy, but bringing people's comments from other blogs to try and shame them here is one of the lowest forms of attacks on other posters.  It's low, and noones business from one blog to the next.  Beside the fact that saving comments and throwing them in people's faces at DKos is one of some of the posters favorite ways of harrassing users there.  I hate it and it's a personal attack.

by Scotch 2008-06-10 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you make this comment:

It is not a personal attack. What you say and do anywhere reflects on who you are. On the internet it becomes even more important when striking up debate to know where exactly the person stands. If you comment and voice your opinion you should be able to back it up or apologize if you don't feel the same way anymore.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you make this comment:

I am sure that there is a comment on some other blog in the universe of yours that I could go and find and post here, because I don't agree with it.  You are wrong.

by Scotch 2008-06-10 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you make this comment:

I am wrong?  Riiiiiight buddy.

If I argue a point and you find a comment that completely contradicts my position and casts doubt over my argument it would make complete sense.

That is exactly what Student Guy did.

Please try to stay on topic here kid.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you make this comment:

Your buddy, and a kid.  I am neither.

by Scotch 2008-06-10 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you make this comment:

I'm glad to see you agree with the rest of my statement.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you make this comment:

So if comments are so portable, then how about defending why you troll-rated my comment earlier today?

The one that called Obama the "presumptive nominee" and said "We'll see what happens in Denver."

Let's hear it.

by leisure 2008-06-10 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Did you make this comment:

Sorry bout that. Meant to counter t'rate. Mojo x 2

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama people seem pretty unsure

Hysteria?  What hysteria?

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-06-10 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama people seem pretty unsure

Please link me to this hysteria. Because I hate to think you completely pull things out of your bum.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-10 11:54AM | 0 recs
So you clamored for her to get out of the race

and you're still talking about her. Does Obama bore you?

by catfish2 2008-06-10 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama people seem pretty unsure

I could fill an encyclopedia with what you don't understand about campaigns.

She can't release them because she hasn't dropped out and she hasn't dropped out because she needs to raise money to make up for the $30 million + she lost.

But you keep believing in your fairy tales.

by BrighidG 2008-06-10 12:14PM | 0 recs
I assume you're talking to the slinkerwink

I know there is no floor fight planned for Denver. But why did slinkerwink feel the need to post that original diary? Hillary's speech was not enough?

Go to hillaryclinton.com. She's urging people to support Obama. So why the need for slinkerwink's diary?

by catfish2 2008-06-10 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: I assume you're talking to the slinkerwink

It's newsworthy and relates to Democrats?

What more of a reason to post a diary on My Direct Democracy is there?

by BrighidG 2008-06-10 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama people seem pretty unsure

"that he can hang onto the nomination through Denver. That must be the reason for this hysteria.

Or they just love talking about Hillary and find Obama boring."

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]

by kydoc 2008-06-10 01:35PM | 0 recs
Releasing delegates

If she "releases" now, does it mean she forfeits the right of her slate of delegates to be seated?  I imagine it's the difference between having Hillary-supporting-delegates voting for Obama vs. Hillary-supporting-delegates being replaced by Obama-supporting-delegates.

by DaveOinSF 2008-06-10 11:23AM | 0 recs
Released.. Not Released... it's all irrelevant

Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee. Hillary Clinton is doing the right thing by endorsing him.

All these other issues; whether or not she's releasing her delegates, not releasing them, or whatever means absolutely nothing.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-10 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Released.. Not Released... it's all irrelevant

Presumptive nominee.  

We'll see what happens in Denver.  :)

by leisure 2008-06-10 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Released.. Not Released... it's all irrelevant

This did NOT deserve a troll rating.

Slinkerwink, you ought to lose your rec abilities permanently.

by leisure 2008-06-10 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Released.. Not Released... it's all irrelevant

And spacemanspiff ought to lose his too.

Troll rating abuse is not tolerated here.

by leisure 2008-06-10 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Released.. Not Released... it's all irrelevant

Why was this troll rated?  Troll rated for speaking the truth?  Are the two of you ones who got their ratings back in the last day?  No wonder they were gone to begin with.

by Scotch 2008-06-10 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Released.. Not Released... it's all irrelevant

Presumptive nominee.  

We'll see what happens in Denver.  :)

I agree. A meteorite could strike Obama as he's crossing the street.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-10 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official.

it just doesn't matter anyway.

by citizendave 2008-06-10 12:37PM | 0 recs
You got that from the same article...

um...okay, she didn't formally release her delegates.  But there is a reason for that.  In order for her to formally release her delegates, she would have to drop out of the race.  She can't do that at the moment, she can only suspend her campaign because of the amount of debt that she put herself in.

But that doesn't not change the crux of the article.  She will not create a brokered convention.  It would be without purpose, there is no way superdelegates would support her in the effort.  So if your suggesting there is hope for her to become the nominee, you're one hundred percent wrong.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-06-10 12:51PM | 0 recs
Comment Part I

I was a DNC convention delegate in 2004, and 2000. My candidate did not win the nomination in either case. Such is how Democracy plays itself out, in a rather sophisticated dance with democratic traditions helping to guide an orderly process. That process was grossly attacked and abused starting with the impeachment of Bill Clinton and ending with the determination of the Presidency by the Supreme Court. Since that time it has been one insult after another as the Executive Branch has and continues to usurp the power of the other branches of government as well as the will of the American people. It is incumbent upon us all to rid the government of the Bush/McCain/Cheney/Ashcroft/Gonzales/Rov e/DeLay stank and push back in the name of restoring our Democracy to what it should be.

by Jeter 2008-06-10 01:16PM | 0 recs
Comment Part II
Candidates owe their supporters, especially pledged delegates, the courtesy of communicating with them after the primary. Senator Clinton has taken the opportunity to not only communicate with delegates "pledged" to her, but to personally let them know she is fully supporting the Obama candidacy.

Pledged delegates are almost always people who have done quite a lot of work for the Party, and their candidate. They deserve this level of respect, and they also deserve the opportunity to provide feedback to their candidate. Hillary reinforced her support for the Obama campaign, and I'm sure all her pledged delegates were pleased with this.

Although the entire process of delegate selection is not based on popular vote, some Clinton delegates certainly felt that they represented the will of those voters who voted for Hillary. If she says she would like them to support Obama, it gives them another layer of confidence that they are not in any way going against the wishes of voters who chose Senator Clinton. It also gives them a nice but not required permission to seek out both new and old dance partners. It brings closure to a significant relationship.

Many will continue to harbor a deep respect and admiration for Senator Clinton, even as they develop new relationships. Those who are actively campaigning against Hillary to be the VP selection might do well to consider that for many delegates and certainly many voters, this appears as directing negativity and demeaning someone who has already graciously and repeatedly endorsed the person who is the nominee. Most Americans are not hard core political operatives, although Hillary can obviously tangle with the best of them.

by Jeter 2008-06-10 01:38PM | 0 recs
*yawn*

by annatopia 2008-06-10 01:58PM | 0 recs
Comment Part III

So the reality is that even once "pledged", any delegate can actually change their mind anytime now until the convention. No one is actually locked into their position. Those are the rules. But to avoid a pedantic discussion of de jure versus de facto, Senator Clinton has been very clear and gracious about communicating to her delegates that she would like them to not vote for her and vote for and support Obama.

There may be a passionate discussion and some people may get embroiled in a raging discussion about sexism or classism or racism or ageism or earned or entitled consideration. I have no problem with debate and discourse

Sure, a tussle amongst former dance partners when someone has had a bad day or has a few drinks, but the nomination and Senator Clinton's declared support for Obama is not going to change. That is completely irrespective of who gets chosen as VP. That is just not how a person such as Hillary acts or encourages others to act.

There will not be a convention uproar - maybe some valid symbolic acts of protest which the media will gladly cover - encouraged or led by Senator Clinton to dispute the nomination. The two campaigns are already working together, as are both Hillary and Barack. We will win because not winning would truly harm us all in ways even the wisest amongst us has not even thought of yet. But we will. There will be no Blood.

by Jeter 2008-06-10 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not official. Clinton is NOT releasing De

So, who did those delegates vote for?

by Jeter 2008-06-10 02:08PM | 0 recs
Following history

When a person has a large amount of delegates, it is common practice that they not release them at least until the convention so that they have the greatest leverage on the platform and on promoting their issues and what they stood for.  Besides the fact that their delegates represent the people who voted for them and all of those people don't want their votes to go to an opposing candidate this early if at all.  This has always been very common.  The trouble is,  that the Obama campaign supporters are very often novices at politics, have never payed attention to a campaign, and don't know the ins and outs of things.  Their demands are unrealistic.  Enough rules and past practices have been made up and twisted in this campaign, there is no reason for trying to have Clintons delegates, too.  Afterall, if Obama won with delegates, why would he care if he has them now or not.

by Scotch 2008-06-10 04:54PM | 0 recs
This is NOT a Big Deal

Yawn!

by Lefty Coaster 2008-06-10 06:05PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads