She's just stating the rules - "pledged" delegates really aren't.  Which is why the media should refer to them as "estimates". Craig Crawford had a blog post about this on March 6th.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/200 8/03/dirty-delegate-truths.html

And, she's a politician and trying to win votes.  But you fault her for reminding the delegates of what the rules are?

Hillary also seems to forget that the Obama campaign gets to pick the "so called pledged delegates."  As a result, there is little to no chance these delegates are going to flip to Clinton.

The moral high ground has been completely lost by the Obama and his campaign.

He is refusing to allow the Voters of florida a wight to vote or to have their votes matter.

He is the reason the revotes in florida and Michigan won't happen....

The fundamental basis of democracy is the right to vote and those votes matter.  Obama is disenfranchising millions of people.  If a Republican was doing this we would be howling "Stop thief"  but since it's Obama..it must be okay.  It's not okay

Depriving people of the right to vote is morally bankrupt.

It's not that she's stating the rules that really matters here. Rather:

1. She is a total hypocrite for repeatedly suggesting that she might still be in it on the grounds that Obama voters might have their votes yanked away from them.

2.  Putting that out there repeatedly does nothing but further undermine a process already on the ropes.

3.  As McNasty notes, it denigrates the moral responsibility for delegates to keep their promises to the voters who sent them to the convention.

Just because something is within the rules doesn't make it right, or so we've been told repeatedly by Clinton supporters whining about MI/FL, caucuses, and whatever else.  Whatever else you think of the process (which is clearly fucked up in a variety of ways), suggesting that pledged delegates flip is the most reprehensible possible abuse of the rules.

Gee. If delegates, especially superdelegates, aren't allowed to have independent judgment than I would say that the beloved endorsements of Janet Napolitano and Bill Ricahrdson (just for starters here), should be, heh, illegal. Both there states went Hillary and yet they are exercising independent judgment in their support.

This won't happen with delegates belonging to Obama or Clinton, even though it's technically allowed.

But there is an inherent hypocrisy in saying "we need to count all the votes!...Florida and Michigan need to be heard!" and then making a case that "pledged" delegates aren't really pledged.  If that's the case, why do we need to vote at all?

Of course, as in most hypocrisies, it's a two sided coin, and I'm fully aware that for Obama supporters to decry this, while offering any opposition to revotes in FL and MI, is also hypocritical, in that you cannot claim that these delegates belong to Obama, thus lending weight to the voice of the people, while simultaneously preventing some people from affecting the outcome.

See what this has reduced ALL of us to?  We're all hypocrites, now.

<blockquote>News flash for Hillary: We know you think we're stupid.</blockquote>

Precisely, and that's one of the central reasons she's losing -- especially among the educated. Here's what James Fallows had to say:

<blockquote>And I do not recall Bill Clinton saying anything as flatly insulting to the intelligence as Hillary Clinton's statement about the Michigan primary during her interview yesterday with Steve Inskeep on NPR's Morning Edition.

Flatly false from Bill Clinton? Sure: "I did not have..." But flatly insulting to the intelligence, in the fashion of an old press briefing by Scott McClellan when defending Scooter Libby or Alberto Gonzales? No. And that is what Hillary Clinton did yesterday -- to the plain incredulity of the normally calm-sounding Inskeep, who kept asking things like, "But how could the primary have been 'fair' if Barack Obama's name was not on the ballot?"

Listen to the clip to hear for yourself, if you haven't already done so -- but it came down to a "how stupid does she think we are?' argument that it was Obama's own fault that he obeyed the party's rules (as other candidates did) and took his name off the unauthorized Michigan ballot. "We all had a choice as to whether or not to participate," she told Inskeep. "Most people took their names off the ballot, but I didn't. And that was a wise decision, because Michigan is key to our electoral victory in the fall."

<snip>

One of Bill Clinton's strongest and most admirable traits as a politician was that, in his prime, he never talked down when explaining his positions. No matter what the audience -- financiers, laid-off factory workers, teenagers, foreigners -- he always encouraged them to see the big picture.

And to think. He said again and again that the Republicans' goal was to keep people from thinking, because once they did start thinking clearly, as opposed to hating or fearing, they'd see the wisdom of the Clinton plan.

Agree on the merits of his plans, or disagree: You can't deny that this was his approach. He made people feel, too -- but virtually every step of the way he encouraged them to think.

As for why this has not been his wife's approach -- well, we just don't know whether it's a difference in temperament between the two of them, or difference of talent, or difference of strategies, or difference driven by the fact that this time they're up against someone (ie, Obama) who also is very good in the "making people think" approach. But the contrast in thought-content between Clinton '92 and Clinton '08 is striking.</blockquote>

I'd also like to point out that we are not a democracy, we are a republic. And if you want to continue getting up in arms about how unfair the process is - keep working towards changing that process after the election. The ONLY thing we have available to us at this point is how things are right now. Vote in your primary. Participate in your caucus. These diaries about someone stealing the election seem to be uninformed about how politics actually works in these United States. Wake up to the reality and work within it for change! If you are an Obama supporter ask him to do what you think is necessary. If you are a Hillary supporter, ask her. And that change can only come one voter at a time. If you want to have more "say", then work towards becoming a superdelegate yourself.