Clinton campaign to target pledged delegates?
By Steve Benen Sunday Mar 09, 2008 8:30amAs campaign observers certainly know by now, Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s campaigns are, and have been, in the process of wooing superdelegates. It obviously makes sense — these party insiders will likely be in a position to ultimately choose the Democratic Party’s nominees.
But targeting pledged delegates is something else entirely. These delegates were chosen through primaries and caucuses, and voters have reasonable expectations that they will do what they were chosen to do.
The notion that the Clinton campaign might try to peel off Obama’s pledged delegates first came up as a rumor a few weeks ago. Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer responded to the talk with a rather unambiguous denial: “We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama."
So, everyone’s in agreement? Nothing to see here? No such luck.
A few days ago, Ben Smith reported that during a conference call with reporters, top Clinton aide Harold Ickes noted that pledged delegates aren’t formally bound to vote for the candidate they’re elected to support. “That binding rule was knocked out in 1980,” he said. Ickes didn’t actually say the Clinton campaign would start pursuing pledged delegates, but the fact that he would highlight the rule raised eyebrows.
Hillary Clinton personally sparked new speculation about this in an interview with Newsweek. Asked how she could still win the nomination given Obama’s delegate lead, Clinton said:
“[The math] doesn’t look bleak at all. I have a very close race with Senator Obama. There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates, all for different reasons, and they’re all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to.”
Those last 16 words have stirred quite a bit of controversy in Democratic circles over the last 24 hours.
t’s worth noting, of course, before Obama supporters completely freak out, that this would be hardball, but it’s not literally cheating. Ickes and Clinton are right — pledged delegates are not, in fact, required to stick with their candidate at the convention. The point, though, is that it feeds the perception of “stealing” votes — voters participated in primaries and caucuses, chose delegates to represent their preference, and now one campaign might try to undo the primary and caucus results by targeting pledged delegates.
If this is the strategy, Clinton is, in effect, saying she wants the delegates from the states she won and the delegates from the states she lost. (If you’re a Clinton backer, you might like this fighting spirit. If not, it seems like a controversial way of undermining the party.)
It’s possible, if not likely, that Clinton’s off-hand remark to Newsweek was not intended to be a hint about a grand campaign strategy. For that matter, it’s equally possible that the Clinton campaign is simply trying to create more uncertainty about the process (in other words, “Note to superdelegates: don’t commit now; anything can still happen”) and won’t follow through.
I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
It seems that anything it takes to win is okay.
The Delegates should tell Hillary to GO FUCK HERSELF. McCain used her words against Obama on 60 Minutes. This fucking slime would rather hand the White House to that demented old cocksucker then let Obama win. Oh but he'd a a really neato VP. Hillary Clinton can ROT IN HELL!!!
How could anyone vote for a campaign that openly says it will undermine the will of the people. This is undemocratic and makes the Democratic Party look rotten. Any real democrat could not vote for Hillary now. This is very sinister indeed, and just goes to show you the spirit of the Clintons.
This woman is going to fracture the Democratic party. Her approach? "If I can't have it, nobody can."
If this happens, forget the invigorated youth vote. Forget the change vote. Forget my vote.
Does she really want to split the party?
That anyone should be able to do this is undemocratic, and the rules ought to change back to reflect that fact. That someone *would* do it is disturbing. I am beginning to lose what little respect I had for Sen. Clinton.
She'll be the first to bitch if her delegates jump ship toward Obama.
What the heck happened to "Every vote should be counted" The people of those states voted to tell their delegates how to vote. They, and she need to respect their wishes. If she doesn't, she's no better then Bush!
Why oh why Lord? george bush has convinced 81% of America that his way is the absolute wrong thing for America. The republican candidate is parroting a president who is already referred to as "WPE" and the only thing that can stand in the Democratic party's way...is the Democratic party.
Time for me to start investing money in the defense industry. Looks like we'll be at war for at least the next 5 years.
I will tap the eloquence within me to state my feelings:
Fuck you, Hillary. Yeah, Fuck You!
And BTW, does any Dem really want Hillary to run for Prez while Mark Penn's firm is also involved in McCain's campaign. I don't trust that SOB. He will ditch Hillary like a bad lover if he thinks McCain can give him a better rep. Screw Penn and the rest. And if she tries to peel off commited delegates, does she honestly believe people are not going to be pissed, especially with the attention this Dem primary has been getting and the amount of newfound political interest this primary has spawned among Dems, many who have never had that much interest in politics before?
What the fuck!?!
I don't care what the rules are, that's fucking cheating!
Sunnyside @ 3:
And when she loses it will be NADER'S DAMN FAULT!!!
Slaw @ 5:
Yes - she does want to split the party, in hopes that she can reform the Democratic party in her own image and win in 2012 after four years of McCain. There is absolutely nothing a Clinton won't do for power.
http://www.236.com/news/2008/03/06/inappropriate_hottie_rundown_c_1_4966.php
link didnt show up
Well, she certainly deserves all the pledged delegates. After all, she brokered [cough] peace in Ireland and...and...and Bill HUSSEIN Cunningham endorsed her along with A. Coulter. Plus th bonus endorsement from rush L.
It's not like Hillary accidentally let something slip in that interview. She just floated the idea to see how it would go over. If this trial balloon gets shot down (as it should), she'll move on to something else.
The Obama camp has to smack this bullshit down as soon as it comes up.
ANYBODY TALKING BAD ABOUT HRC IS A DELUSIONAL IDIOT!
Does that about cover it you neo-cons in disguise that are supporting HRC? I'm sorry if I'm not using the right terminology I didn't get the talking points memo
ggg @ 15:
You keep spamming threads with that garbage website of yours. Enough!!!
Yes, it would seem HRC is stating that her delegates are free to go over to Obama.
ggg @ 14:
Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to.”
Doesn't sound like the uncommitted to me.
"How do we beat the bitch?" (honestly... )
ekwhite @ 13:
14All @ 6:
Slaw @ 5:
Sunnyside @ 3:
sadsad @ 2:
sadsad: Calm down, it's not worth having a stroke over. It's just another example of amoral politics, assuming the story is correct, a rather big assumption given the Clinton rules.
Sunnyside: Let me guess, you believe she murdered Vince Foster, too, eh? No. As I said to sadsad, this is just regular business, but since it's Hillary's actions, not Joe Blow White Guy, it's plastered all over everywhere.
Slaw: You sound like a Bolshevik in the Purge, asking if those traitors against Comrade Stalin really wanted to wreck up the U.S.S.R. Hillary's just especially skilled at politics, which has. never. been. nice.
ekwhite: Numbnuts, Hillary isn't even that stupid, she is extremely skilled at politics. Splitting the party doesn't sound like her.
To all: Are you sure you're on the right sight and not Townhall or Redstate or FreeRepublic?
I'm really getting tired of the Hillary hatred. Everyone should be happy that she is competative and understands the rules of the party. She didn't make them up. She just understands how to play hardball. Attributes, I for one, would love to have in a candidate for president. Quit whining. If you think the rules regarding delegates are wrong, use your Hillary bashing time more productively and work to change them.
OK...who is with me in meeting up in Denver to join the outrage if she does play the system and comes out on top? If she won straight up I would happily support her...if she pulls the SOS...I will pass!
Betcha' all you who jumped on Hillary over this remark really disliked her to begin with and using this to shore up your dislike. What did she say that isn't true and isn't the way it is? And by the way, hasn't this been the system since the '70s? Has any one of you objected to this system before? I agree that the Democratic Party needs to revamp their primary process. Not just over the superdelegates but a myriad of things. Republicans can vote in Democratic primaries in Texas, caucuses held during the day when everyone doesn't have equal access to attend, just go on and on. Maybe the people who jump over the line at the last minute shouldn't be qualified to vote. Maybe your rancor should be directed to the national Democratic party and not be put on Hillary's back.
Ultimately, where these delegates go is up to them and their sense of decency, fairness, and whatever. That is a good thing or not, depending on the delegate, but there has already been some switching of pledged delegates, such as John Lewis. So the notion that a delegate might change his/her mind is not a new one. Whether or not a candidate can make a case for a delegate to switch is up to how that delegate sees that pledge. Is it based on representing voters or based on that delegate's assessment of the candidate. So although Hillary or Barak can make a case to a delegate, that delegate will ultimately make his/her choice.
And the level of integrity or lack thereof will inform, to some degree, the decision made. However, again, that is on the delegate and not the candidate. So, if a delegate switches, hold him/her accountable.
General_Rennenkampf @ 24
Numbnuts, are you sure you're not a Hillary staffer?
Bzzzt, wrong on 2 counts Bart. John Lewis is a super delegate. His district went Obama.
General_Rennenkampf @ 24:
You sound like a blind Hillary supporter. Looking to call people names if you don't like what they say about Hillary.
Where is the ejector seat for this creep?
blue balls @ 30:
Not wrong. Lewis supported HRC and changed his mind. His district did go for Obama, but he chose to change his pledge. He could have gone either way. And I do know he is a superdelegate. In this case one could argue Lewis should pledge as his district voted or he should have honored his earlier pledge. Either way, he gets to choose. So do other delegates.
[Deleted. Please don't post in ALL CAPS here-Sitemonitor]
pjs @ 25:
It's Compet i tive NOT compet a tive.
Too bad you can't spell.
She's not competitive, she's sneaky, cheap and dishonest. Do you really want her for president? Four more years of Bush style politics.
Sunnyside @ 31:
And....you would be wrong. My preferred system of government is an absolute despotism/monarchy. I, however, will handily support American oligarchy because it is what I have grown up knowing. Now, as for being a blind Hillary supporter, I am not. I simply will vote either Democrat in the general, despite being a registered Republican, simply because the Republican nominee sucks balls. I admire Hillary's ruthlessness and political skills. That does not equal blind support. Got it?
Floyd @ 29:
Here's where I reveal my political affiliation: Democan (i.e. a Republican looking to vote for either Democrat because the Republican party has been broken for a while, a long while.)
jon @ 359:
Misogyny, much?
General_Rennenkampf @ 356:
natisman @ 363:
Ben Says:And I guarantee you that if Obama does not get the nomination HE WILL SUPPORT HILLARY. Because he is smart enough to know that Hillary is a better choice than McCain.
Why has it not occurred to anyone that if the nomination is stolen, Obama has one winning card left that would destroy both McCain and Hillary with one blow: He could go Independent and win in a landslide. No one would blame him for standing up for the voters, they would instead admire him for not caving in like Gore did in 2000. The move would show the strength and leadership this country needs in the White House.
It would also be a death blow for the Democratic Party and change politics in America forever. We may be seeing the end of the status quo in larger ways than anyone could have anticipated.
General_Rennenkampf @ 362:
This is a Clintonista projecting their perceived sexism on BO supporters. Nobody could be this dumb to actually think like this and then post it online..
WRG @ 300:
Then you're a big fucking baby. Aren't you ashamed of parroting that Naderite "they're no different!" bullshit?
BigSky @ 229:
Good lord, I'm choking on the self-righteousness over here. You've learned nothing from the last eight years, have you?
Ben @ 221:
If the Democratic voters act like grown ups and stand behind their nominee, regardless of who it is, then they will win an overwhelming electoral, if not popular, vote. If they act like spoiled children who scream and cry when they don't get their way then I would suggest they get used to the words "President McCain".
Fucking BRAVO! I'm cheering over here!
Diana @ 365:
Excellent point, and it has occurred to me too. It would be brilliant.
TheEnticer @ 366:
If someone referred to Senator Obama like this you'd scream "racist!!!!" Since it's Hillary, I guess it doesn't count.
R. Sidney Shackleford III @ 361:
Swell, but we'll see. Next time, maybe their right hand will figure out what their left hand is doing.
[Deleted-Sitemonitor]
Dharma Pup @ 4:
Of course, that means she can run again in 2012. If Obama wins she'll miss her opportunity of continuing Bush's agenda. She'll be too old in 2016. [Deleted-Sitemonitor]
I'm begining to think a lot of you guys frequent misogynistic parlours.
Bart, show me where Lewis pledged to cast his super delegate vote Clinton.
OMFG...Hey Logan, this is (again) what I'm talking about.
Bash the Clintons for 'pursuing' delegates.....but no mention of the hugely lopsided cash Obama has spent on wooing the SDs.
But no, can't talk about that....
/door slamming
Obama supporters: Look, Hillary is pointing out a strategy that OBAMA could well use to get more delegates HIMSELF. Why all this wimpy whining and groaning? Instead of all this entitled bitching and moaning, why not just actually fight for the nomination? The second Hillary shows she's iron-willed, the Obama supporters have a freak out and start bawling like a bunch of babies.
Myself, I love them both but I do think that the last two weeks have shown that Dowd's "Obambi" neologism may actually have some truth to it.
Dharma Pup @ 4:
Actually, it's "If I can't have it, no Democratic candidate can."
Hillary is lil Bush.
What's the point in having people vote if the delegates that are pledged don't have to abide by the vote. It makes no sense.
meh @ 39:
Funny how Hillary supporters throw a hissy fit whenever she's criticized, kind of like Hillary herself often does. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR2omQsvdcA
Perhaps no humans beings in the history of mankind have wanted something so badly as the Clintons want back into the White House.
bart
John Lewis switched his superdelegate vote to reflect the will of his constitutents who support Obama. That's quite different from a pledged delegate who gets to be the delegate to represent the actual votes cast in primaries and caucuses.
And there's this from Wikipedia. Note the bolded qualifier.
So it appears to me that any kind of vote-changing by the pledged delegates would have to be a back-room deal, secret, or the candidate can simply replace that person. I think the Convention in August would simply dissolve in chaos if a a block of pledged delegates were to vote differently than they're pledged to vote. Individual pledged candidates have occasionally done this in past primaries, but not in blocks with great enough numbers to affect who the candidate is.
"I pledge alliegence to the flag"
Actually, my lawyers told me that my pledge wasn't binding and that all those moments in childhood with my hand over my heart were all for nought... I can change my pledge.
Attention ladies and gentlemen:
Something is terribly wrong in the Democratic Party. What I am seeing come of our primary races this year is a sickening series of revelations that the DNC isn't very democratic after all.
Many of us where shocked - SHOCKED - to find out how many superdelegates there were in the Democratic system. I consider myself fairly astute politically, but it was a surprise even to me. And to think that the votes cast by myself and other lay members of the party could be turned upside down by superdelegates makes me question why we have them in the first place.
Now we find out that even if we vote for a specific candidate and delegates are awarded to that candidate, the delegates don't even have to vote for the candidate that their state selected?
On top of all that, the DNC is seriously considering giving Florida and Michigan a "do-over" and to allow them to circumvent the punishment handed out when these states moved their primary dates.
Hear me know and believe me later: I will indeed leave the party over this nonsense if the nominee is decided by superdelegates or traitor-delegates who switch their votes. I will leave the party if Florida and Michigan's delegates are allowed to cast votes at the convention. I will leave the party if something is not done so that we never, ever have to deal with this nonsense in future elections. And I am sure I am not alone.
unfrozencaveman @ 44:
No, I think Casanova in his banging hundreds of people kinda qualifies as well.....
Well, I guess there are some people who think that a woman can't be as ruthless as a man. Hillary's sure proven them wrong. Her Rovian tactics and "win at any cost" strategy is seriously hurting the Democratic Party and will make it even more difficult for the Party to unite after the nomination. Can't anyone talk sense to her?
I'm finally beginning to understand why Bill desperately sought blow jobs from those different women. Being an evil nasty bitch is not a turn on.
Quit infighting !!!
McCain/Hagee '08
ggg @ 14:
Ever thought about taking a reading comprehension course?
Bears Are Fat @ 40:
You mean like how Bush fought for Florida in 2000? Obama campaign has worked much harder which is why they've won more, votes, states and delegates. The Obama campaign has worked hard within the rules that were setup. The Hillary campaign has been working hard to try and make up their own rules.
Jonathon @ 47:
This hasn't exactly been new. Where were you in past elections, hmmm? This shit went on in every election prior, now are you going to admit that this is how John Kerry, Al Gore, Clinton in both terms, Michael Dukakis, and all the way back to Carter were nominated? :crickets chirping.:
Who let the trolls in this morning?
jeb @ 27:
Agreed. Obama supporters want a new kind of politics, ostensibly, but hurl the most pathetic insults at Hillary because she has the temerity to fight for her nomination. Hillary becomes a 'monster,' 'Rovian,' 'Nixonian,' 'lil Bush,' 'repulsive,' etc. This is the new politics that Obama engenders?
I see articles and articles about negative stuff about Hillary. But I have watched and watched and have never seen one article you posted about the crookedness of the caucus in which by the way OBAMA ALWAYS MANAGES TO WIN.
In Texas for instance, which the MSM and articles in the male blogs never picked up. obama campaign workers walked around thru all the districts and gathered SIGNATURES ON caucus cards. Then those same cards were presented at the caucus. The also managed to cage the control cards of 2/3's of the caucus. That way they controlled the caucus and could record what they wanted.
If seems that no matter what obama and his crude crew manage to do nothing is said.
And all the other articles...the governor of Pennsylvania sat down with the TV commentators and explained why Clinton can win and obama couldn't. Clinton in the states she has won has gotten 260 electoral votes...obama with his caucus (wins) and the rest well he would receive on 190. Seems most of the obama states he pointed out are republican red states also...
I just read the most disgusting post from left and left. If any Hillary supporter posted such hate and vile against obama they would want to have them banned. It just goes to show the absolute hate and vile of the type of people who support obama.
WHERE- JUST WHERE IN THE HELL ARE ALL THE REAL STUFF THAT HILLARY CLINTON HAS BEEN SUPPOSED TO HAVE DONE...only the manufactured crap like that poster.
unfrozencaveman @ 44:
So are you saying that Obama really doesn't want to be elected? That he's just, like, giving it a shot but that he doesn't ultimately care? "I lost. Big deal."? To my mind, Obama's 2 seconds of experience in national politics suggests that HE is the one who is just ITCHING to get into the White House... could he have not waited and put together an impressive Senate career?
Once again. Superdelegates and caucus delegates are different. Repeat! Caucus delegates are what you have from the peoples vote. Super Delegates, for lack of a better word, are independent and can chose to follow the will of the people or not. In other words, delegates (not super ones) are the result of voting. You think its ok for your vote to not count?
For those of you that think that "win at all costs" makes her look tough, I will have to disagree. It makes her look like a republican.
Marge @ 57:
male blogs????
huff post....run by a woman
this blog....many female contributors
if you think that men dont like hillary cuz she is a woman, you havent been paying attention
This is a silly post. The Clinton campaign wouldn't dare attempt what this post is suggesting. Let's all calm down.
And let's pay attention to what the Republican governors of Michigan and Florida are going to do with regards to the potential Democratic primary do-overs in each state. We're hearing that the Florida primary might be open to all voters and be a snail-mail based election? That would play to Obama's advantage in a big way, as his base is more motiviated and ironically includes republicans. The sooner a new Florida primary happens, the sooner Clinton is out of the race.
Marge @ 57:
Sources?
im sticking with my scorched earth theory
the clintons are so intent on regaining power, that they are willing to give up the wh to st john and then in 2012, ride in on a white horse to save the country
the fact that there wont be a country by then bothers them not
eff hillary
Bears Are Fat @ 56:
If the jackboot fits ...
I'd think they'd prefer Neiman & Marcus over Target blue light specials.
I prefer red light neighborhoods myself.
As we watched Bush destroy the Republican party who knew we would also witness the Clinton's destroying the Democratic party.
Only in America
Marge @ 58:
its 3am
its 3am
its 3am
hillary is starting to sound like rudy 9/11 guliani
vile???
sorry, but this woman stated on 3 occasions that st john would be a better pres than obama
she has now gone into leiberman territory
and just like lieberman, she needs to be shunned
Bears Are Fat @ 40:
How ignorant and morally obtuse of you Bears. Obama deserves the nomination BECAUSE he has consistently tried to run a clean campaign that transcends the old-school political bullshit and mudslinging. Many of us thought that was the difference between Democrats and Republicans prior to this primary season. As it turns out, it's just the difference between ethical and courageous democrats and desperate, power-hungry democrats/republicans like Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush.
Every new outrage floated or perpetrated by the Clinton campaign has her supporters shouting "Obama can fight back" or "Obama should use the same tactics instead of complaining". He doesn't want or need to use the same tactics because he is better than that. Because he is better than Clinton. He exists on an entirely different moral plain than Clinton and he does not need to bow to the altar of corruption or compromise his entire ethical makeup to stoop to Hillary Clinton's subterranean level. Fuck off Hillary and take your supporters with you to the republican party where you all belong.
I posted this lower down on a thread that's dying.
For a site with so many self-professed atheists I've never seen so many Hillary Haters and Obamanators.
It's an election people, not a cosmic battle between Ahura Mazda and Aryman (or even Toyota.)
So much for staying above the fray, John.
Oh, wait. I guess if you don't post the rumours, you can still say you are above the fray.
C&L has now officially become the "I Hate Hillary Club!"
Then, of course, you have this white woman who is trailing the black man in votes and delegates saying she would permit him to occupy a place at the back of her bus.
FWIW, many states haven't assigned individuals to the delegate positions yet and probably won't until after June, so any wheeling and dealing can happen only after they're all known.
I've noticed one characteristic that Clinton and Bush share. Have you ever noticed that Bush has almost always telegraphed ahead of time almost everything horrible he plans to do, and in spite of the outrage it causes, he does it anyway? I think the Clintons have taken lessons from him.
unfrozencaveman @ 53:
This is a false analogy, but suppose for a second it isn't. The point would be precisely that Obama should fight back harder than Gore fought back in 2000. Moreover, if Obama's campaign has worked 'much harder,' their lead continues to be paper thin -- so if they have worked so hard, they really should have more to show for it. This race is neck and neck. He's going to have to fight even harder.
The point is that whining doesn't really do much. Obama needs to push back.
Harold Ickes...another oldtime political hack with a dubious reputation from the Clinton years.
I guess Obama picked up all the reputable ex-Clintonites, and left Hillary with just the political hatchetmen and backroom guys.
Jake @ 55:
They never left.
Is Newsweek the mag whose columnist said HRC should just drop out completely the week before Texas, Ohio, RI & Vermont even voted because "everyone" knew her candidacy was dead? Just drop out the week before she won 3 of those 4, right. How many delegates & votes separate the 2 candidates? Can either one win 2025 delegates by her/himself? What's next on the Obama whine list for this week? This is already lame, given what it says in the last part of the topic.
I know Lewis switched support from HRC because of his district. That is not my point. I merely mention him to show a delegate or superdelegate can change his/her mind. My point is there is no hard and fast rule that says a delegate MUST vote a certain way. We expect they will vote as we indicate, but that is not a lock.
Even in the general election, you don't actually vote for president and vp. You vote for electors who will then cast a vote for pres. and vp. Those electors are not bound to vote as their states do although they always do. I believe the DNC has arranged the primary delegates similarly. So, it is not outside the rules to try and change their minds although it would be not necessarily the norm.
The flexibility for the delegates and/or electors is probably a good thing in case something extraordinary occurs. (Wonder what would happen if the popularly elected pres/vp died before taking office????) If they were absolutely bound, there would be no good reason for having them in the first place and their existence would just be a bureaucratic function and we waste a lot of time.
It just seems to me that the very flexibility built into this system also allows for an argument to them to switch. Again, as I said before, whether or not a delegate, superdelegate or anyone else switches is a function of their ethics, idea of what their vote/pledge means and how they see the system run. A candidate can say "vote for me," but all a delegate has to do is say, "no."
Again, whether HRC would be successful in MAKING delegates switch is, I believe, a function of the delegate's integrity or sense of what is right. A delegate who believes his/her vote reflects his district should not switch either way. A delegate who believes s/he is elected to vote an assessment just may switch. It depends on the delegate.
And I think this is a result of the rules and the system, not the perfidious character of one candidate or the whining of another. It's simply the system and you must make your case and keep supporting your position. Although some maturity would be appreciated. Think your delegates may waver? Call them.
GonzoD @ 71:
Call another waaaahmbulance.