The first ballot at the DNCC is based on a "good faith" standard, I gather.

This is why the campaigns get the right of first refusal, to make sure they have loyal partisans as delegates.

It's all very obscure, of course.

As to county or statewide delegates, well, the thing is, if they have rules that are in disagreement with DNCC rules, DNCC rules trump.

The rules are automatically amended to be in compliance with DNCC rules.

So, technically, I would believe county and state pledges are up for grabs.

Now if the the outcome of the state convention is different than what was laid out by the state caucus rules vis apportionment, the DNCC could refuse to seat those delegates, I would guess.

But if you signed an application form to be a DNCC delegate, I do believe you are only ultimately bound by their rules.

Their rules, from what I understand, do not enforce the pledge.

Posted by me2 on May 16, 2008 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I love predictions from conservatives. Remember S. Hannity saying "you will never hear the words, Nancy Pellosi, Speaker of the House."

I nearly blew a fuse when a 50 year old white woman friend who is just like the woman in the above photo and knew nothing about obama at all - or hillary for that matter, told me she made up her mind after she heard kennedy speak about ob.

And other obamabots we know praised her.

needless to say they all thought the Race Speech was GREAT and answered all their questions.

I have several friends I no longer stay in touch with since they are out of touch.

oprah damaged the democratic party and herself.

It still surprises, and indeed puzzles me, how many allegedly progressive and educated people are voting for Obama, but they cannot discuss specifics about his proposed policies. If I ask them why they are supporting him, I get a very vague response about how he wants to change politics. In what way, I ask. And everybody here has probably experienced the huffy and defensive shift in tone that the conversation acquires after questioning "the One."

What is so disheartening to me is that many of my friends would be considered part of the left-wing faction of the Democratic Party, much more leftish than O's blogging boyZ, and heretofore have seemed to be sensible people. And these are educated people...many with Ph.D.s, J.D.s., self-taught intellectuals, etc. You know, people who are supposed to use reasoning in their decision-making! What is about Obama that ensnares these people and somehow diminishes their cognitive ability?

The bottom line is that they look at me as if I've gone off the deep end when I say that I'm supporting Hillary. Suddenly, I'm part of the 'older' white woman demographic who must have harbored latent anti-progressive tendencies, and they're surfacing now. (They don't say that--it's just the look.)

I guess that I just so tired of the labels and name-calling that has been such a central part of this campaign. And, the sexism and misogyny that appears to be endemic in the U.S. is frightening. It's almost as if I've gone back in time, and once again, have to prove my worth as a human being because I was born female. But interestingly, I don't feel intimidated personally; the anger and disgust I feel when I hear these sleazy remarks only strengthens me.

I have felt an sense of camaraderie with many of the women on this blog, especially when reading how you're not willing for women to sit back and accept the unseemly behavior exhibited by so many in the media and other blogs. I don't think many of these people really know what women can accomplish when we work collectively.

BTD, thank you for being willing to acknowledge and to oppose the sexism that has been flagrantly demonstrated during this campaign. It serves as a model for other men.

Nothing the Clintons have said have been racist.  BO MLK said the same thing about LBJ.  The BO race card is a disgrace.

I can't stand to hear blks say "That BO is a smart brother" as if no other black man is smart. His attacks on the 60's should turn blacks off.  He ignores all the progress that has been made by all Americans not just blk Americans.

The last MLK event he was absent.  HRC & McCain were there but no BO.  He doesn't want people to think that he will support issues that are related to blks.

Blk issues are American issues.  I really get upset with people that support BO because he is the so called first black with a legit chance to be president.

Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

He gets it and has seen Obama from up close.

Your candidate is the one who doesn't like the netroots,

The roolz, the roolz,  you know the rules, you just live in denial.

If you didn't want McCain as president, the rational, logical, reasonable thing to have done was support Clinton.  Poll after poll showed Clinton supporters would not vote for Obama, but you couldn't pivot and switch support.  You had to have your shiny new toy.

Here's a quote from an Obama supporter yesterday... after bragging he's apparently a multi-millionaire...

[The thing is with Obama supporters, we don't mind losing this election as much.  For example, I'd actually make money if McCain was elected.  I'm one of those latte sipping liberals who should be voting Republican anyway.  Blacks will have no favors done for them by Hillary now.  They're just as well as off w/ McCain (as you know Hillary is vindictive).  And frankly, Republicans haven't been so bad for Blacks anyways.]  

Apparently this is a big deal, as is the announcement that they expect to actually start on time.

Democrats. Like herding cats.

No one here disparages women for voting for Obama.  This is an issues-based blog (IMO) and the owner CERTAINLY doesn't allow race-baiting or sexism to be a part of the threads.

To point out that these women in CO are using race to descibe themselves in their candidates' choice, is in the words of Barack Obama, "boneheaded".

Next think ya know I will go make a t-shirt that says "Gay Mexicans For Clinton".

You, or anyone else, cannot know what my experience has been; therefore it is blatantly presumptive of you to label my post as a canard. It's clear that your comment was intended to be mocking and provocative, not empathic.  

Perhaps it would have been useful to fully read my post before making comments such as this: "But feeling like a victim (of sexism) does neither the party nor the candidate any good."

Obviously, you read cursorily through my post, otherwise you would have noticed this: "But interestingly, I don't feel intimidated personally; the anger and disgust I feel when I hear these sleazy remarks only strengthens me."  

If you interpret that statement as a sign of victimhood, you unquestionably need to spend more time with Mr. Webster and M. Roget.