Top Clinton Adviser Says Superdelegates Will Decide Election, Obama's Victories 'Irrelevant'

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."

Then let us hope, in the event that Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination, that if this not be the means of halting her ascent to power, another means will present itself ...

Though, quite honestly, I believe the point will be moot as Mr. Obama will likely be the one who fills the post.

Then let us hope, in the event that Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination, that if this not be the means of halting her ascent to power, another means will present itself ...

Is there anything in the Constitution to preclude a woman, other than the use of a male pronoun? Given that the Constitution uses exclusively male pronouns even in language which is obviously applicable to women, I see no honest way to read such language as disqualifying women.

Had the Constitution said "Only a man aged 35 or older...", one could argue for the clear literal meaning. If it said "No man shall become President who..." one could argue that the meaning was clearly intended to restrict the Presidency to males, though one might argue that while it restricts which males may become President, it leaves females completely unrestricted (so a 12-year-old illegal alien girl could take the job, for example).

As it is, it uses the term "person" along with the pronoun "he", which is as close to gender-neutral language as would have been used in the 1700's.

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.