This just in a couple hours ago, to Clinton supporters... Terry McAuliffe explains the "misconceptions" about the delegate situation:
Dear QuickSilver,
You've probably seen some of the news about the delegates it will take to win the Democratic nomination, including discussions about pledged delegates and automatic delegates, or so-called "super delegates."
There are a number of misconceptions about the role that delegates will play in this election, so we've launched a new website, the Delegate Hub, to help you cut through all the myths about the race for delegates.
Did you say misconceptions? Anyway, Terry, go on...
The three most important things to remember are:
- A candidate needs 2208 delegate votes to secure the nomination with Florida and Michigan included.
(If you get HRC supporter e-mail, you won't be at all surprised by Michigan and Florida. She declared "victory" immediately following each primary.)
- After weeks of voting, the race is a virtual tie, with Hillary and Senator Obama now separated by little over 2% of all the delegates to the Democratic Convention.
A virtual tie? Are they really separated by just 2%? If Terry could show us the math, why, he probably would. But I digress...
- Both Hillary and Senator Obama will need automatic (super) delegates to win the nomination.
Senator Obama has aggressively courted automatic delegates, while his campaign has simultaneously tried to discount their role in the process.
Are you irritated, as I am, by the re-branding of "superdelegates" as "automatic" delegates? [NOTES from comments: they are called "automatic" delegates in the rulebook. I know that. My point is this: why is she trying to dispose of that "superdelegate" word, which is pervasive in the media, and replace it with "automatic"? Is it to say "automatic" in the same breath as Michigan and Florida as much as possible?]
As an Obama supporter, I will say this: there is a stark contrast between Clinton and Obama in the tone of e-mail sent to supporters, particularly in recent weeks. Obama invited his supporters to contribute stories to help convince superdelegates, and did it in a way that flattered his supporters.
By contrast, while she may have once asked nicely, Hillary is now using a surrogate to paint her opponent as "aggressive," and to manufacture some ugly, divisive myth about her opponent's courting of "automatic" delegates which she no doubt thinks should automatically go to her.
This is like the e-mail equivalent of a push-poll. Does Hillary really want her supporters to pass on that tone in their letters? I think she does...
But let's hear out Terry's sales pitch:
It's important that we respect the independent judgment of automatic delegates, who have the responsibility of casting a vote for the candidate they believe is best qualified to be president. And we want to make sure that they have a chance to hear from our supporters.
Click here to send a note to local automatic delegates telling them why you support Hillary, and why you think she will be the best leader for our party and our nation.
Forward this email to your friends, family and co-workers to tell them about the Delegate Hub. Let's get the truth out.
Thank you for everything you are doing to help Hillary win!
Sincerely,
Terry McAuliffe
Chairman, Hillary Clinton for President
(For what it's worth, I firmly believe that if you use that link to flame Hillary, no delegate will ever see what you write.)
So this is how Hillary inspires her supporters?