Terry McAuliffe Spotted In Washington Trying To Steal Pledged Delegates

[malik flavors]

You may not have known that Saturday was the second round of the Washington caucus process, but a number of readers sent in accounts and pictures, including two from the 37th legislative district in Seattle, where Terry McAuliffe turned up to, according to a pair of accounts, work delegates pretty hard on the grounds that Hillary can win, and also mention that he expects this to be over in June, rather than at the convention.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Scenes_from_Washington.html

As mentioned in the other thread Sean Astin was also there trying to flip pledged delegates.

[loveangelc]

1. Fucking desperate!! unbelievable.

[thevoiceofreason]

2. Hey Angel! Glad to see ya!

[loveangelc]

3. thank you :)

[City Lights]

4. What a creep!

He's worse than a door-to-door salesman.

[GarbagemanLB]

5. Why doesn't Hillary want the people's voices heard?!?!?

[BeyondGeography]

6. “There is no such thing as a pledged delegate.”

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/03/clinton-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-pledged-delegate/

[dchill]

7. Looks to me like he is...

singing to those two women. Vocalizin' for votes. I'll bet he's singing "Fool On The Hill."

[sandnsea]

8. There's a post about North Dakota too

I told people that's what I heard her say. She has no respect for the voters at all.

[Ned_Devine]

9. I didn't like McAuliffe back when he railroaded Howard Dean in 2004

...I don't like him now either. He just seems like a sheister

[BlueIdaho]

10. Looks like Hillary

has released the winged monkeys.

[BenDavid]

11. one more time THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PLEDGED

DELEGATE. read the below and rest assured this is FACT and TRUTHFUL....

A pledged delegate is pledged to a particular candidate and cannot switch, right? Wrong.Pledged delegates are not really pledged at all, not even on the first ballot. This has been an open secret in the party for years, but it has never really mattered because there has almost always been a clear victor by the time the convention convened.But not this time. This time, one candidate may enter the convention leading by just a few pledged delegates, and those delegates may find themselves being promised the sun, moon and stars to switch sides.

in fact, the actual rules of the party allow for such switching. The notion that pledged delegates must vote for a certain candidate is, according to the Democratic National Committee, a “myth.” “Delegates are NOT bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the convention or on the first ballot,” a recent DNC memo states. “A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required.”

however, after the April 22 Pennsylvania primary the pledged delegate count looks very close, BOTH sides will start working all delegates.”In other words, Clinton and Obama will have to go after every delegate who is alive and breathing.

Hope this helps understand why both candidates are going after so called pledged delegates.....

Shalom
Ben David

[GarbagemanLB]

13. Please give ONE LINK, JUST ONE, that shows Obama is going after PLEDGED delegates. I'll be waiting..

[TheDoorbellRang]

14. BenDavid doesn't know how to provide links

His only skill is cut & paste -- not an original thought in his head or in any of his posts.

[MercutioATC]

15. How do you justify the contradiction in Clinton's actions/statements, though?

You're right about "pledged" delegates.

However, those delegates each represent a number of votes cast by the voters of their state.

How does a Clinton supporter justify attempts to get these "pledged" delegates to change their votes (against the will of the voters whose votes they represent) while simultaneously insisting that FL and MI delegates must be seated so the voters aren't disenfranchised?

[tabatha]

17. Well then why the bloody hell should people bother to vote?

[last1standing]

12. To me this is a big problem with the Clinton campaign, they're too obvious.

I'm sure Obama is working every angle he can to flip delegates just as Clinton is, but his team is able to do it quietly, while Clinton has minor celebrities and political hacks bumbling around the place more concerned with getting their faces in the media than actually winning delegates. This just makes Hillary look worse and Obama better.

Anyone who doesn't agree that Obama has proved that he has the best campaign team and strategy to go on to the general election is either lying to us or themselves.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

16. oh so Obama's sneaky decietfull way is OKAY?

[last1standing]

19. It's just as good and no better than Hillary's, morally.

Practically, however, it's much, much better. It's time to grow up, Elsewhere, and realize that these are world-class politicians. They didn't get where they are today riding on moonbeams of happiness while saving kittens from trees. These are people who know how the game is played and the best player wins. Period.

My candidate lost because he wasn't able to play the game at the same level Clinton and Obama are. Now Clinton is proving that she can't play at Obama's level. The whole point of having a primary system is to allow the Democratic powerbrokers see who is best able to take the white house. That's why this system was set up.

We need someone who can play the game, not someone who fucks up at every turn. Do you not agree?

[Zhade]

21. You'd have to identify this alleged sneakiness. Nothing sneaky about his steady wins.

NT!

[DerekJ]

18. k

[kevinmc]

20. If McAuliffe is as good at stealing delegates as he was as the Dem Chair

Hillary lost Delegates she had