Much has been made of Hillary Clinton's recent comments recent remarks that "There is no such thing as a pledged delegate." She also is reported to have claimed that the term "pledged delegate" was a "misnomer." I have seen a few pundits and reporters say that Clinton's claim is technically true. It's not. It's a flat out lie.
The 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention (pdf) state:
Rule 12.B: All persons wishing to be elected to a district-level or at-large delegate position must file a statement of candidacy designating the presidential or uncommitted preference of the delegate candidate and a signed pledge of support for the presidential candidate (including uncommitted status) the person favors, if any, with the state party by a date certain as specified in the state’s Delegate Selection Plan. Persons wishing to be elected as pledged party leader and elected official delegates shall comply with Rule 9.C.(3).
Rule 9.C.(3): If persons eligible for pledged party leader and elected official delegate positions have not made known their presidential preference under the procedures established by the state pursuant to Rule 12 for candidates for district-level and atlarge
delegate positions, their preferences shall be ascertained through alternative procedures established by the state party, which shall require a signed pledge of support for a presidential candidate. Such an alternative system shall have a final deadline for submitting a pledge of support after the selection of all district-level delegates has been completed and must provide an opportunity for disapproval by the presidential candidate or the candidate’s authorized representative.
So those delegates determine by the results of the primaries and caucuses (district-level, pledged PLEO, and at-large) MUST SIGN A PLEDGE OF SUPPORT. They are pledged in a very real and literal sense. It is not a misnomer or a myth. Those pundits that say Clinton is technically correct are wrong. Even on a "technical" level she is incorrect and she knows it. What Clinton is trying to rely on is the following rule:
Rule 12.J: Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.
This rule was instituted after the 1980 convention where Senator Ted Kennedy tried to convince delegates bound to Carter to change their preference at the convention. While the new rule does provide a little wiggle room so that delegates can react to dramatic events over the summer, it does not mean as Clinton said:
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.
Rather, it requires them in all good conscience to "reflect the sentiment of those who elected them." It is not enough for a delegate to believe that the other candidate would be a better nominee--not a likely occurrence anyway--but rather they would need to believe in all good conscience that those who elected them had changed their mind in order for them to violate a signed pledge. So don't let anyone tell you that what Clinton said is even technically true. It is a bald lie that asks people to have no integrity and to ignore the electorate in clear violation of the rules of the Democratic Party. The mere assertion denigrates our good party.