Posted on 02/16/2008 2:11:10 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Top Clinton Adviser Says Superdelegates Will Decide Election, Obama's Victories 'Irrelevant'
Saturday , February 16, 2008
A top Hillary Clinton adviser on Saturday boldly predicted his candidate would lock down the nomination before the August convention by definitively winning over party insiders and officials known as superdelegates, claiming the number of state elections won by rival Barack Obama would be "irrelevant" to their decision.
The claims no doubt will escalate the war of words between the campaigns, as Obama continues to argue superdelegates should vote the way of their districts. But the special class of delegates, which make up about 20 percent of the total delegate haul, are not bound to vote the way of their states and districts, as pledged delegates are.
Obama leads handily in the pledged delegate count and has won more states but trails Clinton in superdelegates, making them potential and controversial deadlock-breakers if the race ends up a dead heat come convention time.
Harold Ickes, a 40-year party operative charged with winning over superdelegates for the Clinton campaign, made no apologies on Saturday for the campaign's convention strategy.
"We're going to win this nomination," Ickes said, adding that they would do so soon after the last contest on June 7 in Puerto Rico. "You're not going to see this go to the convention floor."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I guess the gay-sex-and-drugs-in-the limo thing must be just fer starters...
There are pics and vids of LIVE ACTION. They are waiting for the moeNee. Or maybe they is all rety getin de moeNee..
Isn’t that a crack-up. Wouldn’t you just love to be a democrat with those two leading your party, Hillary and Bill. “We don’t need you, we’re going to steal this thing fair and square.”
Bubbafucco was in the Panhandle of Texas today kissin sheeple butt (all 20 of em) for votes for his 3rd rate prostitician wife.......
Presstitutes will no doubt count the protestors as those who turned out too greet him !
Holy crap!! A ton of stuff I never knew about, although I’d heard of Icky. Many Thanks.
No doubt. That reminds me of a 2000 protest we held in Westwood to support Bush over Gore. We had 297 people out there with signs, flags and bullhorns. It was a great sight.
On the opposite side of the street were about 20 wigged out liftists with bongos that looked like a cross between Harry Krishnas and the homeless.
That night the local ABC affiliate covered the event by showing the twenty dead-beats on video, and mentioning that there were supporters out there on the other side as well, as if they 20 were the majority, or at least a better showing that the other side put out.
That’s the way it goes when we get covered by the media at all.
This may turn out to be a lot of fun. Democrats are going to accuse Democrats of stealing the election. LOL big time
This whole election is getting curiouser and curiouser.
McCain will choose Obama as his running mate!
I have said before-repeatedly-this is NOT going to happen. They(Clintons) DON’T NEED blacks-blacks make up about 15% of the population,and ALWAYS vote at least 98% dem. They only need the Spanish and womens’ vote. I’m still saying Richardson, if she gets the nom. My second guess is Bayh. Third would be Guv of Ohio. Besides, for once, I agree with Bill Maher, who also has said repeatedly-”A woman AND a black on the SAME ticket? In 2008? Are you nuts? AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN. “ FAR too radical. Maybe not in your eyes, but I’ll bet in enough. It would be seen as “too much, too soon.”
Bill will go down with her.
A poor choice of words there. :^D
If goes past 2 votes, look for Al Gore to be the compromise, if he wants it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Al might be crazy enough to want it but he would be some kind of fool, he has made a fortune off nonexistent global warming and I don’t know why he would want to tackle all the real problems this country faces now. He certainly wouldn’t do it out of patriotism, maybe ego.
Would you care to explain which hat you pulled that bunny out of?
How do you figure that?
“The 22nd Amendment prevented Bill Clinton from being placed on the ticket as Kerry’s vice presidential running mate just as Article II of the Constitution prevents Hillary Clinton from constitutionally assuming the job. In fact, for precisely the same reason that Bill Clinton couldn’t serve as vice president, neither can Hillary.”
I suggest that before you accuse me of wizardry, you should delve into the study of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. For you own personal edification (not part of the vernacular, therefor for your understanding I have provided a definition ... n. meaning to improve one’s mental, spiritual or intellectual capacity), knowledge is a far more powerful tool than blind accusation.
A complete analysis of the 19th Amendment and the history of its application in modern American politics is available at: http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon217.htm
I was only speculating about the convention.
The bulk of the “superdelegates” are Demodog insiders: senators, congress, governors, etc... think of all the political favors that this type asks and gives... They all know that the superstars of fundraising for the Demodogs for well over a decade has been the Clintoons. They aren’t going to be happy about weakening them.
The only thing I can see in Article II which would suggest that the President must be a man is the extensive use of the pronoun "he". I would hardly suggest that as being meaningful evidence, especially given the use of the gender-neutral "person" rather than "man", and the use of the pronoun "he" in many other situations, such as:
Would not a conservative be interested in exploring any possible means of insuring that the Clintons not be once again placed in a position of power, even if said conservative does not agree that the proposed legal exception may/may not be applicable?
I presented the opinion merely as a point of interest. You seem to be taking it as a personal attack on your familiarity with Constitutional Law, which if indeed it may be your area of expertise, is not a justifiable point of debate, as the Constitutional application of this matter is something that you will not have the opportunity to decide outside of this virtual realm. Though you obviously disagree, in my opinion, any methodology which may prevent Mrs. Clinton from acquiring the office should be explored, not ignored.
I read the article you linked in post #213. Nothing there cited any specific language in the Constitution that would forbid a woman from becoming President. He refers to gender distinctions in Article II.1, but I hardly consider those evidence of anything unless females are supposed to be exempt from extradition (see Article IV) but also exempt from some of the protections in Amendment VI.
Consider the Second Amendment. Even setting aside the questions of militia, arms, etc. consider the basic phrasing "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A hyper-literal interpretation would be that it protects those people who have a right to keep and bear arms (their right shall not be infringed). Presumably some person or group of people has the right, but the Constitution doesn't explicitly say that any particular person or group has it.
Or consider the Sixth Amendment: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." If a city were to take someone's property and give it to someone else without any compensation, would that violate the Sixth Amendment? Since private property would not have been taken for public use without just compensation, there would be no violation.
Do you want to encourage such hyper-literalism? I for one do not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.