Posted on 06/04/2008 8:42:01 AM PDT by shrinkermd
Hillary is speaking before AIPAC conference. I note she is subdued but speaking and behaving like a viable presidential candidate.
Sort of a surprise.
Two Questions.
Are those super delegates declaring for Barack legally bound to vote so at the convention? If not, this might be her ongoing hope. Politicians are not ordinarily strong on the honor thing.
Does anyone believe that Barack will cave and ask her to be VP or accept a forced vote at the convention for a Hillary VP nod? His first real decision as the nominee could be a catastrophe. Imagine, Hillary rolls him and secures what she wants by simply demanding it. He, then, proves he is weak and vascillating.
Looks like they really do need a uniter not a divider.
Just to clarify, you cannot “legally” bind anyone to vote other than any way that they choose.
The party *might* apply party sanctions to that delegate, but no US law can force them to do anything.
No, the super delegates are not bound to vote as they have declared.
Did you watch Obama’s speech? If so, how do you think he did and how was he received by audience?
algore to the rescue?
I thought she delivered a surprisingly strong speech— from what I heard of it. Didn’t hear Obama’s but I suspect she made him look like a tool.
Supers are not bound until thety vote at the convention. If they want to bind themselves earlier and stick tuo it , it is their choice. In fact after a couple of ballots at teh convention if there is no nominee, all delegates are released to vote as they THEN choose.
Hillary can still be made the presidential candidate at the convention.
I don’t think there’s any danger of flip-flopping superdelegates, and Obama would have to be out of his mind to pick Hillary as VP. The bulk of his support comes from Democrats who simply hate Hillary, and jumped on board with any viable Democrat alternative. Many of them would be pissed off enough by a Barack/Hillary ticket to jump to McCain in the general election. I think the senior Dem operatives know this. If they’d wanted Hillary anywhere on the ticket, they’d have arranged for her to get the Presidential nomination.
As a result of this and Hillary's refusal to concede to date, many speculate that there is a potential surpirize in the wings (like this tape everyone talks about).
Having said that, the hysteria that Obama is generating may over-ride all other concerns for the Dems.
Wet panties at the mere sight of a dildo ... he's going to **** 'em anyway, and they want it.
This is one reason Hillary is staying in - if some bombshell emerges against Obama, the delegates can vote for her.
Not sure what that bombshell might be, of course........
Pretty soon, if she keeps this up, the moonbats in the Left Wing Press will have to start saying, “As we have been telling our readers, Hillary has been forced to drop out of the race, to make way for our Glorious Leader. Now it’s time for her to really drop out. If you know what we mean.”
First, the superdelegates are not only not required to vote for the people they have pledged to, they are officially not pledged to anybody — they are expressing their current opinion, and any poll of superdelegates is nothing more than an opinion poll.
Counting them now in order to claim victory would be like polling a small town two months before an election, and claiming the results show that you already won the election.
More interestingly, the Democrats do not have a rule that the PLEDGED delegates have to vote for a particular candidate (The Republican party requires delegates to vote for their “pledge” on the 1st ballot).
Which means that a delegate could be assigned for Obama, but show up and vote for Hillary.
However, the PLEDGED delegates are mostly assigned, chosen, or “rejectable” by the candidate they are pledged to. So if a candidate thinks one of their pledged delegates is waffling, the candidate can have them removed, and replaced by a more loyal delegate.
So it is unlikely pledged delegates will switch sides. They should be people strongly supportive of the candidate.
In the Republican race, a LOT of the pledged delegates have no connection to the candidates they are pledged to. We just elected our delegates in Virginia, and only one of them mentioned being a McCain selection. For all we know, we elected a slate of Ron Paul supporters. They have to vote McCain in round 1, but realise that if there was going to be a floor fight, a candidate not only had to win pledged delegates, but then go to the many different venues where delegates were chosen and get THEIR PREFERRED slate of delegates elected.
(BTW, I am certain we did not pick Ron Paul delegates, I questioned each one on this point before voting).
I don't see this happening. I think he has an agenda that is even more liberal than Hillary's and I think he doesn't see her supporting all of it. Further, while they may voice party unity, my guess is that they both hate each other.
Actually, this isn’t really a matter of U.S. law. In the Republican convention, the 1st votes will be cast based on the numbers determined from the primary/caucus/conventions. There won’t really be an individual “casting of ballots” per see, so the delegates would really have no chance to vote against their pledge.
2nd round most of them are free to do what they want.
Nope.
They can vote for whoever they want at the convention.
Already plenty of delegates have changed sides, one of them even twice.
The speech seemed ok. I feel asleep in the middle of it—not because it was boring but because I was exhausted. I wanted to hear it. I noticed two things in particular. When he thanked his family, he mentioned his wife and children by name and then thanked his “brothers and sisters.” That surprised me because I didn’t think that he was that close to them, that any sibling was a half sibling and because he was raised by his grandparents in Hawaii, that he was not around them much. Aren’t some of his siblings in other countries? It just seemed to raise the whole global specter to me, although he might do that all the time and I just hadn’t heard it before.
Second, our local 11PM news carried the end of his speech and I noticed as I hadn’t when I watched the first time that he looked angry. He has a very nice smile, but when when he stopped speaking and smiling, he had an angry look on his face. Maybe because he was annoyed by Hillary’s speech and I can’t blame him for that. But he didn’t look like the pleasant person he normally portrays. Just made me wonder.
There is still Obama hysteria?
That was back in Feb/March/April.
The only Obama hysteria I have seen recently has been the universal disgust generated by the race-hate Obama “spiritual adviser” clips from You-tube, helped along by Obama’s ever so brave uncle “liberating Auschwitz”. Obama's halo is long gone
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.