Originally Posted By: the G-man
Having now read the entire NY Times article, the other thing that strikes me is that it's yet-another example of Hillary thinking that Bill's presidency and experience were really "her" presidency and experience.

Many of the people named in the article were people who worked for, or with, BILL Clinton when he was president. These people are now "expected" to support Hillary, simply out of loyalty to Bill.

Why does loyalty to Bill demand supporting Hillary?

How would people in "real life" feel if faced with a demand that, if you once worked for a guy, you must support his WIFE in whatever she did later? I think most would feel the former boss was very unrealistic.


Many people do look at the Bill Clinton's two terms in the White House as a co-presidency. While I agree with you that still doesn't mean these superdelegates have to support Hillary I can understand why they or anyone running for office would try to use that connection for their advantage. I think Obama has even used Hillary's co-presidency to his advantage when it suited him. Either way these delegates are free to choose who they think will be the best candidate & it's not like Obama isn't calling them up trying to sway their decision.

Fair play!