look at what the Hill campaign was saying about delegates

[gabeana]

when they were in the lead

January 9, 2008:

WOLFSON: I guess one other thing I'd add is that, as you know, this is a race for delegates. And we currently enjoy a lead in delegates, thanks to the great -- some of the great super delegates that we have on this call and around the country.
See, it mattered because Clinton then led in delegates. Same day:

MCAULIFFE: <...> I've said from day one, and this is the point I tried to make yesterday on television when everybody was asking me questions about after Iowa and New Hampshire what happens, I've always viewed it sort of as a 27-state contest.

But, listen, I always said we're going to win some, we're going to lose some. And at the end of the day it's getting a basket of delegates.
January 25, 2008:

WOLFSON: Well, you know, as you know, all of the polls have Senator Obama ahead. I think he has run a strong campaign in South Carolina. He began there ahead; he remains ahead.

And we have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates. It's a race that we are ahead in. We have more delegates than Senator Obama.
February 6, 2008:

CECIL: Well, our goal at the end of last night was to be ahead in super delegates and overall delegates. And, in fact, this morning, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama in delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
... We think that we are in the poll position because we have a lead, overall, in delegates. We think it is going to be very difficult for Senator Obama to make up that lead because of the way in which the party allocates its delegates proportionately.

So we feel very good about that. But this is going to be a neck-and-neck contest for the foreseeable future.

Senator Obama does enjoy some advantages in the contests in the rest of February, but not in a way that should permit him to overcome our lead in delegates.
WOLFSON: And overall, we have a significant lead among delegates, overall, which, obviously, at the end of the day is what is going to positively determine which Democrat is our party's nominee.
Ha ha, Wolfson said it was "obvious" that the delegate race would determine the nominee. But that was when the Clinton campaign still had the lead. Then the lead disappeared, and it became about the "popular vote", and about "electability", and about IF, IF, and IF.

Mark Nickolas, who compiled these quotes, says:

Maybe it's hard to blame Wolfson, McAuliffe and Cecil for pushing these story lines, as they know too well the media isn't going to spend a minute holding them accountable for anything they say.
Maybe. Sure, they get away with what the media lets them get away with. But regardless, note how the Obama campaign never disparaged the system or the role of the delegates while they trailed in those metrics. They knew the rules of the game, and decided to operate within their confines. They have never attempted to rewrite them for their own benefit. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, appears to have as much respect for the rules (and reality, for that matter) as the Bush administration they are seeking to replace.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/24/132543/942/817/502592

disingenuous just like their supporters on DU

[LakeSamish706]

1. Well thats just crazy cause that was way back then, and now is now.....

Don't you understand the difference in that? :sarcasm:

[gabeana]

2. this just pretty much sums up Hillary and her supporters

say anything

[onenote]

3. I believe the term is those statements are "no longer operative"