Hillary Clinton to Super Delegates: Ignore the voters. Do what you want.

Listening to the radio last night, they played a clip of Hillary Clinton basically saying this. She basically said, to the Super Delegates, to ignore the voters who you're there to represent, and go with you own accord.

'Who cares that the people are expecting you to vote one way, do what you want. The voters opinions don't count, and I could care less about them.'

Is it just me, or does this seem a little jacked. This is just another example of how low Hillary will go to win this election. She will do whatever the hell she wants.

Obama also made a statement regarding the subject, but I liked his much better. He said that it would be morally wrong (which it would be) for the voters to send a Super Delegate to support their chosen candidate, and then have the Super Delegate stab them in the back. Cheers to Obama.

Is there any moral level Hillary will NOT swoop to?

That was a rhetorical question right?

There is, apparently, no level to which Ms. Clinton will not stoop. OK, so that was a bit over the top, but she is the mean one of the Clinton team...Bill wants people to like him, so he's a bit more careful, but Hillary? She plain doesn't care if people like her or not.

I don't like her, and I don't trust her. If she is the Dems selection, I'll have to vote for some independant candidate, 'cause McCain won't get my vote either.

reply to post by seagull

That was a rhetorical question right?

I love it! I just can't believe that I'm one of the few who has kept watch on the debates and the candidates, and gets this notion that Barack has much stronger morals, and Hillary will do ANYTHING to win.

Thx for the post! It's so friggin' hard to get a thread going in this forum, it's ridiculous.

reply to post by bigbert81


I think Mr. Obama is a bit more honest than Ms. Clinton, but that's like saying I'm taller than a hobbit, kinda like duh. I just don't think he's qualified to be President. A neophyte as President? Nope, sorry. But I don't want another Clinton either...(shudder).

Honestly, I've no idea who I'm finally going to vote for...I'll just keep my ears and options open. Going to be a long summer.

reply to post by seagull


If you don't mind me asking, why do you not think Obama is qualified to be president, and what qualifications are you looking for?

reply to post by bigbert81


Don't mind you asking at all.

Unless I'm badly mistaken, he's a first term Senator, two at the most. He simply hasn't the experience to deal with ingrained bureaucracy that prevails in Washington. I know there is a fine line between experience, and being jaded into going along to get along. Does that make sense?

What am I looking for...

Strong on defense. Notice I said defense. There's a fine line between defending ourselves, and being, for lack of a better word, imperialistic. That's not the word I was looking for, but it gives a hint of what I mean. Smaller gov't., less taxes, less gov't intrusion into any facet of our lives. Did I mention less gov't intrusion?

reply to post by seagull


Hmmm, it seems like most of what you said seems to fit Obama pretty well. I WILL say that as far as defense, he hasn't said too much, although that is a very touchy subject when comparing with freedom. Lots of cross-correlating issues.

And as far as Senate term, he's been in the U.S. Senate for 4 years into his first term; however, he was a full 8 year term Illinois Senator. He has MORE senate and legislative experience than the 'super-experienced' Hillary Clinton.

reply to post by bigbert81


State senator, that's what I was trying to remember and couldn't. "super experianced?" Not even remotely. Only one of the reasons I won't vote for her, that and I just plain don't like her, and I can't really pin down a reason. Other than I think she's a crook who gotten away with it, and now thinks she's a lot smarter than she really is...I love her.

reply to post by seagull


Huh, I starred your post because I liked it.

You don't come across too many people that can see right through Hillary like that. It's nice to see someone else has done their research.

reply to post by bigbert81

This is beginning to feel like we're in chat...

Oh well, maybe somebody'll join in in a while.

I've been following Bill and Hillary for a while now. Since they came into national prominence back in the '80's, at least when Bill began his quest for the White House.

There's a lot of people who are onto her, but for lack of a better choice, they'll vote for a yellow dog...

The other day I heard an interview with Obama in which he said "superdelegates need to vote as their states vote." Then he was asked "So Ted Kennedy should vote for Clinton, because Massachusetts voted for Clinton?"

His response? "Well, you can make arguments either way on that."

Barack Obama hardly has any monopoly on virtue in this race.

Superdelegates should vote however they want. That's the right they have. If you want to change it, join the party and lobby for it.

But something tells me that if this were reversed, and Obama would win solely because of the superdelegates, people would have suspiciously reversed opinions on this.

[edit on 2/12/2008 by Togetic]

reply to post by Togetic


You do make a good point there, but there is a slight difference. Morally, Obama is correct, but he was basically asked to denounce Ted Kennedy's endorsement publicly. That would've not been too pretty. At least he did say that it could be argued.

Hmmm, how strange to find this quote from Hillary Clinton:

"But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary," Clinton added. "I believe in the Democratic Party, and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters."

SRC: www.washingtonpost.com...

Wow. Could it really be any more black and white? This I'd say, is 100% absolute proof that my OP was correct in saying that this crazy lady will stoop to no level.

Oh yeah, and yet ANOTHER example of her lying.

If anyone actually supports this person, let's hear it! Or are you just trying to save face?

She'll support the democratic nominee as long as it's her...

I can not for the life of me see her as the number two on the ticket. She's been aiming for this moment since the day her husband left the Oval Office.

Don't be surprised if she attempts to sabotage the Democratic Convention...she's that spiteful.

reply to post by seagull


Yep, I don't doubt that at all.

This lady is ridiculous, a liar, a misleader, and a huge hypocrite, yet people are still supporting her.

This lady seems to stop at nothing to get the election, and now that she's planning to go AGAINST the popular vote, she is only demonstrating how much like Bush she really is.