FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Hillary Clinton probably doesn't like the message coming from some of her supporters, who are now questioning her reliance on superdelegates in order to beat Barack Obama.
New York Congressman Charlie Rangel, who is one of Clinton's top African-American allies, insists it's the people, and not the superdelegates, who will select the Democratic nominee for president. Rangel adds, "The people's will is what's going to prevail at the convention and not people who decide what the people's will is."
Then there's New York Senator Chuck Schumer, another big Clinton supporter, who doesn't seem pleased with Clinton's willingness to fight it out with Obama on the floor of the convention in August. New York's senior senator is calling on both Clinton and Obama to agree on a winner after the last caucus in June. He says, "I don't think either candidate wants, or can even get away with, forcing their will down the throat of the other."
Meanwhile, Clinton shows no signs of letting up. She's been calling on superdelegates to make their own decisions about whether to support her or Obama. She says they should "exercise independent judgment" and should not just anoint the candidate who is leading after the primaries. Sure, why give the nomination to the candidate who has the most support from the people?
Obama has won the last eight Democratic contests in a row and leads Clinton among pledged and total delegates. However, he still trails her among superdelegates.
Here’s my question to you: What does it mean if some of Hillary Clinton’s allies are now questioning her reliance on superdelegates to win?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Eric writes:
Jack, As a lifelong Democrat and a two time Clinton voter, I have to say I'm unnerved by the prospect that the Republicans could be right about something. If Hillary is willing to manipulate the superdelegate system to her advantage, then the Clinton-hating Republicans could be right, "The Clinton machine will do whatever it takes to hold onto power." It's a shame.
Glenn writes:
Hillary's quest to have superdelegates act independently of the voters is an act of desperation and will fail. She has a fair and equal opportunity to impress the electorate. If she fails to do so, this says that the other candidate is the choice of the people. A "brokered" solution will ensure a defeat for the Democrats in November.
John writes:
I think it's fair to say that the Clinton campaign just doesn't get it. They are like generals fighting the last war. They don't understand Obama's appeal; consequently they don't understand how to fight it. Repeatedly, they make statements which they believe are hardball, but turn out to be lowball. It's a combination of poor judgment and blind ambition that has become so obvious that even some supporters are taken aback.
Patricia from Pittsburgh writes:
Contrary to the "Evil Hillary Tries to Steal Nomination!" story that some talking heads have flogged for weeks, the truth is that the superdelegates are primarily loyal to the Democratic party–not to specific candidates–and therefore they will support the candidate who has the best chance of beating McCain in November. That more are leaning toward Obama is an indication that party leaders are lining up behind him as the new "establishment candidate."
Lyn from Johnson City, Tennessee writes:
If you were in Clinton's shoes, after all you've put in your campaign, would you dismiss the superdelegates? You'd be a fool. This was a stupid question