This went around a time back, and her campaign mentioned that they were not suggesting that they would try this. Well, once again, they allude to this without specifically mentioning it. The squirming they are doing around this issue is getting very tiresome
From: http://blogs.abcnews.com/...
First there is this from Hillary:
"I just don't think this is over yet," she said, "and I don't think that it is smart for us to take a position that might disadvantage us in November. And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates."
Then there is this:
Clinton senior adviser Harold Ickes said, "No delegate is required by party rule to vote for the candidate for which they're pledged. Obviously circumstances can change and people's minds can change about the viability of a candidate."
But, of course there has to be this...
Clinton campaign deputy communications director Phil Singer then added: "We are not seeking or asking pledged delegates for Sen. Obama to flip over . . . We are not engaged in any efforts (to flip Obama delegates)."
This is all very disturbing. How can they talk about disenfranchising voters in FL and MI on one hand, and then suggest that delegates changing their minds from the will of the people can or should happen? Obviously, this is way more disenfranchising than seating the FL or MI delegations as is, and yet another example of the Clinton campaign talking out of both sides of their mouth.