Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Hillary Clinton’s parade of serial exaggerations/lies continued today. In her desperate attempt to appeal to gun owners in Pennsylvania and Indiana, she was out touting her "experience" with guns:

Hillary Clinton appealed to Second Amendment supporters on Saturday by hinting that she has some experience of her own pulling triggers.

“I disagree with Sen. Obama’s assertion that people in our country cling to guns and have certain attitudes about trade and immigration simply out of frustration,” she began, referring to the Obama comments on small-town Americans that set off a political tumult on Friday.

She then introduced a fond memory from her youth.

“You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” she said.

“You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.”

…

Noting that many hunters and gun collectors want to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, Clinton referred to her positive childhood experiences with firearms.

"As I told you, my dad taught me how to shoot behind our cottage,” she said. “I have gone hunting. I am not a hunter. But I have gone hunting."

Clinton said she has hunted ducks.

As in the case of her Bosnia fable, she has taken her "experience" with guns as a child and stretched it into "experience" to pander for votes.

Perhaps the gun owners who Hillary Clinton is pandering to should watch the video from the MSNBC Democratic presidential debate from April 26th of last year. It makes for a revealing moment. Brian Williams asked for a show of hands with the following question (at 11:10 into the video) : "How many of you in your adult lifetime have had a gun in your house?". Three candidates did not raise their hands. Amongst them was Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton, not a gun owner, but a gun panderer. It is sad to see Hillary Clinton grasping for straws, but at this point, her campaign is left with little else.

 UPDATE (from the comment by ptw): Hillary Clinton back in 1999 pandering to New York voters who are for gun control:

Stepping up the Clinton Administration’s campaign against gun violence, Hillary Rodham Clinton used an emotional White House ceremony today to call on Americans to press Congress to ”buck the gun lobby” and pass several gun control measures.

…

The Senate is to begin debate next week on a number of gun control measures, some of which mirror proposals offered recently by President Clinton. ”The senators need to hear from all of us,” Mrs. Clinton said. She urged voters ”to give them the encouragement to do what they know is right and to remind them that there are many, many millions of American voters and citizens who will stand behind political leaders who are brave enough to buck the gun lobby, wherever that may take us, so that they will vote for the measures that we know will save lives.”

…

Mrs. Clinton was as careful as her husband has been to say that there are many causes of violence and that parents need to take responsibility for their children’s behavior. But Mrs. Clinton, who is considering running for the Senate from New York, where gun control is popular, has also been more forceful than the President in directly taking on the powerful gun lobby in the aftermath of the Littleton killings.

It is ironic that the Hillary Clinton campaign is hitting back hard against Governor Bill Richardson for endorsing Barack Obama. Attack dog James Carville has called Richardson a "Judas" and disloyal. Bill Clinton has said that Richardson told him "five times" he would not endorse Obama. The Clinton campaign is up in arms because they perceive Bill Richardson as somehow disloyal.

Yet, on the same day the campaign was making these attacks and the candidate was fielding questions about Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton had this to say about the Democratic Party’s nominating process:

"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 a "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."

The Associated Press article goes on to helpfully note:

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.

Hillary Clinton says that there is no such thing as a "pledged delegate." Perhaps, Mrs. Clinton needs to refer to the Democratic National Committee for a refresher on the rules of her own party – the party whose nominee she seeks to become.

The Democratic National Committee, committed as it is to electing Democrats to public office, has rules and bylaws that govern their nominating process. These rules and processes are published in official documents. For our purposes, the three relevant documents are:

• How to Participate in the 2008 Delegate Selection Process
• Delegate Selection Rules
• 2008 Democratic National Convention – Delegate/Alternate Allocation

The DNC publications, which Hillary Clinton would be well served to read, explain the types of delegates – both pledged delegates and unpledged delegates. According to "How to Participate in the 2008 Delegate Selection Process", they are:

• "District Level" Delegate:  Each district-level delegate pledges support to a presidential candidate of his or her choice (or no specific candidate – which is known as “uncommitted”).
• “Pledged Party Leader and Elected Official” Delegates: Some delegate positions are reserved for Democratic Party leaders and elected officials who pledge support to a presidential candidate (or “uncommitted”).
• “At-Large” Delegates. These are pledged delegates.
• “Unpledged” Delegates. Some individuals in each state will go to the convention known as “unpledged” delegates, because they are not required to officially support any presidential candidate.

The first three types of delegates are pledged delegates. The remaining type, "unpledged" delegates, are commonly referred to as "superdelegates". The first three types – the pledged delegates – are chosen as a result of the votes in primaries and caucuses according to the will of the voters. For example, the "District Level" Delegates are allocated in primaries as follows:

Democratic voters cast their ballot for their presidential preference in the primary election. Based on the results of that election, district-level delegate positions are allocated proportionately to the presidential candidates. For example, if a candidate receives 50% of the vote in that district, he or she will get half of the delegates.

It is quite clear, contrary to Hillary Clinton’s observation, that pledged delegates are part of the DNC’s own lexicon. In addition, not only are pledged delegates fiercely loyal to their candidate, the DNC rules require pledged delegates to provide a "signed pledge of support for the presidential candidate (including uncommitted status) the person favors." So not only are there pledged delegates, there are pledged delegates who pledge in writing their support for the candidate.

We are all familiar with Hillary Clinton’s tenuous relationship with the truth, but we must now also question Hillary Clinton’s understanding of loyalty. When a superdelegate like Bill Richardson, who is not pledged to a candidate, uses his judgment to choose the candidate he wants to endorse, Hillary Clinton and her surrogates suddenly become married to the principle of loyalty. However, when pledged delegates who are chosen by the will of the people are rightfully pledged to the winner of a primary or caucus, Hillary Clinton suddenly loses her grasp on the concept of loyalty.

Hillary Clinton is fond of raising questions about Barack Obama’s "electibility". Behind on votes, behind in delegates, and behind in states won, her own electibility is seriously in question. The Bosnia fibs showed that there are real questions about her credibility. Now her un-democratic position on pledged delegates and her public attack on a prominent superdelegate call into question her own understanding of loyalty.