Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Isn't It Ironic?
Senator Clinton has been down in the delegate count, and as such has been pulling out every stop to say that she should be the nominee instead of Senator Obama. To me, the message I'm getting is that she's desperate.

One of the things she has been saying is that she's the more electable candidate, and that the "pledged delegates" aren't actually required, by Democratic Party Convention rules, to vote for the candidate whom they "pledged" for -- therefore, Obama "pledged delegates" should vote for her because she's more electable.

While technically true, in much the same sense that members of the Electoral College aren't required to vote for the candidates they are pledged to vote, it certainly goes against the spirit of the "pledged delegate" system. The Obama Campaign has been crying "foul" over this pitch as being dirty politics and stressing that pledged delegates should, in fact, honor their pledges.

However, now that it's in the air, you know someone is going to act on it. In the last week, two "pledged delegates" have announced that they are not going to honor their pledge, and are instead going to vote for the "other candidate".

Both Jack Johnson from Maryland and Jack Evans from DC announced, in so many words, that they didn't have faith in the electability of their pledged candidate and were going to vote instead for Obama.

This isn't good for Clinton: She said pledged delegates could switch -- and they did, away from her. If she tries to get them replaced, it undermines her "switch to me!" pleas; if she doesn't, she loses delegates.

Obama's campaign, for the most part, seems to be ignoring the issue. When asked about Jack Johnson's switch they said he did it on his own; they has nothing to do with it, and that Clinton said they could. They also aren't counting Johnson in their tallies of pledged delegates for Obama.

  • 1

If anything, the "pledged can vote their conscience" is going to backfire

  • 1