More finagling.

Do we really think that this women would be a good President at all?

Now she is claiming that the pledged deligates are not really pledged at all. Right or wrong, we know if the shoe were on the other foot she would claiming that they were pledged.

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

And a quip:

“There is no such thing as a pledged delegate,” Clinton said at a news conference in California, where she has been fundraising.

Pledged delegates are “misnomer. The whole point is for delegates, however they are chosen, to really ask themselves who would be the best president and who would be our best nominee against Senator McCain,” Clinton said. “And I think that process goes all the way to the convention.”

While the DNC has no rules requiring pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses to vote for the candidate, the people who serve as pledged delegates are selected by the campaigns who won them and loyalty is a key qualification.

 

I have an irrational loathing for this woman - she epitomises all that I think is wrong with US politics.

 

The usual thing to do on a forum like this would be to point out where you are wrong. So I will:

What makes you think that is irrational?

 

That was one of the comments left by a reader of the Foxnews article linked above..... I was under the impression that this was part of the job desription