Hillary: Pledged Delegates Can Switch Candidates
A few weeks ago the Clinton campaign shot down a report that they would seek to entice Barack Obama's pledged delegates into flipping over. Now the idea is being floated again — by Hillary herself.
"There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and super-delegates, all for different reasons, and they're all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose," Hillary told Newsweek, when asked how she can win the nomination despite the current delegate math.
"Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to. This is a very carefully constructed process that goes back years, and we're going to follow the process."
(Via Mark Halperin)
Late Update: Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer e-mailed Election Central to say that his previous statement on this — that the Hillary camp has not and will not pursue Obama's pledged delegates — is still operative and that there's been no change of position. It's worth noting that in the Newsweek interview, Hillary didn't say outright that she would be pursuing them, and merely stated what the rules governing the delegates are (which can be read as implying possible pursuit of them later, of course).

Comments (275)
Pledged delegates don't matter.
March 9, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Especially the ones in Florida and Michigan.
March 10, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about the rest of the states? Do they not matter?
How about we try to NOT run using Republican tactics from 10 years ago?
March 10, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
FL and MI broke the rules. Ask Hillary supporters MI Gov. Granholm and FL Sen. Nelson why they did so.
I honestly think Hillary would be better off using Mike Huckabee's line:
"I believe in miracles."
March 10, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
Our Poll is Refreshed Every Week to give you the most accurate poll.
March 10, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Notice the rhetorical framing she is pushing here. "Elected delegates and caucus delegates". As if delegates elected by caucus are not really elected. Working the audience to delegitimize the caucus results, which of course she does poorly in.
March 9, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only superdelegates who have passed the Commander-in-Chief threshold should be able to elect the next nominee for the Democratic Party.
Clinton/Sinbad '08 - Get our your Hammer pants!
March 9, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Except for the ones in Florida and Michigan, who don't count under any circumstances.
Peace out.
March 10, 2008 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, ryotsu, I am going to assume you are not a troll and respond to your terse comments.
If Hillary distracting the media from her impending scandals doesn't bother you, fine.
If Hillary disenfranchising ALL primary and caucus voters by claiming the super-delegates need to make a decision regardless of how their districts voted does not bother you, NOT fine.
Don't make the case for two states if you are unwilling to respect the choices of ALL states.
March 10, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh lord.
Another mistep by Clinton and just flat wrong in some many ways. The obvious contradiction being tha she's "fighting for rights of MI and FL voters" and then says something like this.
Obama camp needs to hit hard back on this stuff - start calling her out that she want sto undo the will of the voters. I'd be out there every day asking "Will Hillary accept that the Democratic nominee is the person with the most delegates and the most popular votes"?
Make her defend a position that pits her against the will of voters. That could turn off people who have yet to vote and who will decide this election.
March 9, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that it is weird to come out and say this (twice!).
I am beginning to think the strategy is to create a reality where she is, in fact, inevitable and thereby, to suck the wind out of Obama's sails. His voters, turned off and disgusted, don't bother to vote since Hillary has shown she will grab this thing in the end anyway.
Horrible prospect but not hard to get to -- her campaign may have thought, "What if the Obama voters got disillusioned *before* the general and left the process to us? That would be great."
As a fierce Obama person who is more involved, active, and convinced she must not be the nominee every day, I am betting it won't work (and could backfire badly, as others have noted). But it is the type of supposedly genius (but actually reprehensible) move that the Clinton myth supports.
March 10, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
nothing matters to the Clintons except the Clintons
Remmebr that people looking for the NY senator to deliver on anything she has promised
Like an Obama VP-
They say anything to get elected
as someone said
gives monsters a bad name
March 9, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing matters to the Obamas except the Obamas.
See how easy that is to post?
March 10, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I'll spend the time to argue this:
Nothing matters to the Clintons than the Clintons.
1. Clinton willingly says caucus states and the states she loses don't matter - thereby insulting the voters in those states. Obama has never said this and in fact goes out of his way to call his state a 50-state strategy.
2. Clinton willingly uses the negative kitchen sink method of campaigning. While okay when you're using it against a Republican, not okay when using against a Democrat.
3. Clinton puts a Republican ahead of a Democrat in crossing "the threshold" to be CiC. I don't even need to explain how insulting that is to some people.
4. Clinton labels Obama voters frequently - calling them latte liberals and such. I don't see Obama saying anything about Clintons' voters. Nice way to alienate the party Hillary.
I could go on and on... but I won't. I don't blame you for voting for Clinton. You can do what you want. I'm just here to make the points to support my argument. Take it for what you want.
March 10, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I posted about this on my diary on Dailykos as slinkerwink. It's a very disturbing prospect for me in the sense that Clinton isn't willing to honor the democratic process in order to steal the nomination.
March 9, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The MSM is on HRC's side. It's all Clinton talking points, all the time.
March 10, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to."
Honestly, I'm having a hard time thinking anything in response to this, except, simply, "Scum."
March 9, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll give Hillary credit--she is one relentless bitch. But honestly, none of this is going to work. She's not going to pick up a single delegate with this crap.
March 9, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's my understanding that elected delegates are free to choose who they want, but only on a second ballot. Senator Clinton isn't technically wrong, but she risks a significant backlash. If the voters of the upcoming primaries begin to think that she will ignore their votes, they will make sure to send her a message. There are many Democratic voters who won't stand for that type of disenfranchisement, no matter who they support.
I don't believe the Democrats have gone to a second ballot in many years, but it's a real possibility this year.
March 9, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no way it will go to a second ballot. it takes three candidates to make it go to a second ballot. With it being just Sen's Obama and Clinton one of them will get a majority. Unless you think some delegates are going to vote undecided just to see the drama unfold.
March 10, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
mark halperin is a tool ...
ahhhhhh ..... i feel better.
March 9, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incorrigable skank-biscuit? I'm not entirely certain what that means, but she sure seems like one to me ;)
March 9, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like that....since SC I've been calling bill the red-faced manwhore. that's a great partner to incorrigable skank-biscuit.
March 10, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am a STRONG Senator Obama supporter (and delegate to the county convention) in a caucus state and in fact Senator Clinton in correct. Delegates elected in the precinct caucus are not required by any rule other than their sense of what is correct to stay with the candidate they supported in the caucus at the county convention. In Iowa the county convention is 15 March. Last week I received a call from the Obama campaign (a real person) making sure I was going to the convention and still supported Senator Obama. Later in the week we received a robo call at our home from the Clinton campaign stating if your are going to vote for Senator Clinton push 1. Do not know where the call would go from there because 1 was not pushed; however, the implication was clear - the Clinton campaign will pursue all delegates until the final vote has been taken.
March 9, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should have pushed one just to fuck with the delegate count.
March 10, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The once and future Senator Clinton said: "This is a very carefully constructed process that goes back years, and we're going to follow the process."
Have your ears heard what your mouth has spoken?
I mean, you would think that the incalculable ironic force of those words coming from her mouth would strike either her or her conversation partners dead.
Unbelievable.
March 9, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to try to find some way to deal with the immense gall it takes to announce you are going to try to woo the pledged delegates and then frame it in terms of obeying the process, but I couldn't really have said it better than this.
March 9, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
they probably have dirt on certain delegates they can use to coerce their vote. i mean hillary hired a team of private investigators to dig up dirt on her husband's opponents and lovers and blackmailed them into silence.. i dont see how she could throw a wrench into obama's delegate lead otherwise.
March 9, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama can switch up his delegates whenever he likes.
March 10, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
It started already. Obama replaced the whole slate of delegates at the state convention in Alabama, on March 1.
March 10, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you tell us a little more about this, please?
March 10, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her candidacy is starting to remind me of John Turturro's character in Miller's Crossing.
March 9, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bernie Birnbaum!
March 10, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well put! I actually have been toying with the idea of presenting the '08 race viewed through a Coen Brothers frame, and all I've sadly got is:
- HRC's attempts to paint Barack as a faux-fellow traveler hiding his substantive vacuum behind an oh-so-self-possessed and rhetorically gifted yet naive Barton Fink exterior, a facade that ultimately culminates in a crassly commodified deal-with-the-devil.
- The money-hemorrhaging Clinton campaign as the hard-up car salesman Jerry Lundegaard, an otherwise well-meaning, affable loser turned downright monstrous as a result of poor fiscal foresight and foolishly short-sighted decisions. Eventually brought to justice on grounds of criminal incompetence, more than anything, he unwisely underestimates the importance of Minnesota and North Dakota with respect to the presidential primary.
- HRC as Maude Lebowski isn't terribly creative, but I think one could develop a John Goodman-as-Mark Penn reading of The Big Lebowski. Hillary's corporate donors could be the Flea-led nihilists as they, after all, "believe in nah'-sing."
- McCain fancies himself a Tommy Lee Jones worldly, weary-wise sheriff, but in the end he's just The Man Who Wasn't There in a country that's No Country for Old Men.
- Ron Paul is The Hudsucker Proxy, hands-down, for reasons that the free market won't permit me to go into at this very moment, but His Invisible Handedness assures me it's for the very best. That is, the very rich.
- Finally, and most easily, Raising Arizona is the dingle-jingle for McCain's post-failed-presidential-run-and-Bob-Dole-inspired Viagara endorsement ad campaign.
March 10, 2008 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
As someone should explain to Hillary:
"Smokey, this is not Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
March 10, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny enough, I said the exact same thing after New Hampshire.
"I dunno...admittedly, I'm feeling rather Menckenesque at the moment. Still, I'm reminded of Bernie Birnbaum, John Turturro's character in Miller's Crossing: 'What were you gonna do if you caught me? I'd just squirt a few and then you'd let me go again.'"
http://www.ghostinthemachine.net/005189.html
March 10, 2008 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not quite sure of the character per-se, but she's been giving us the High Hat for a while now ;)
March 10, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
She may be correct but given with how the pledged delegates are chosen (they are generally VERY committed to the candidate) I am willing to bet she can't get any to vote for her. This is silly.
March 9, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me again how calling her a "monster" is inaccurate?
March 9, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I guess you must be kind of angry. I'm supposed to be gone, far away. I guess it seems sort of irresponsible, my being here.... And I was gonna leave. Honest I was. But then I started thinking. If I stuck around, that would not be good for you. And then I started thinking that... that might not be bad for me."
March 9, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: Miller's Crossing...
The more I think about it, the more I think HRC is Jon Polito's character, Johnny Caspar:
March 10, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Hillbots have the nerve to be offended when people call Shillary a scumbag? I'm sure there are quite a few scumbags who are upset with being likened to Hillary.
March 9, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who has honestly studied the numbers knows Obama will be the Democratic party's nominee. It's time to train our attention on how Obama can beat McCain. Linking the faltering economy to Iraq seems like a good place to start.
March 10, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
It may be too optimistic to assume she is preparing for her less than graceful exist after April 22; but she certainly knows how to influence other to tell her to ended on April 1. And who is the fool?
Can somebody tell me where is idiotic when needed!
Please help!
March 10, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary Clinton is involved in anything it is probably crooked. Her only rule in life or in politics is "I win or I destroy."
How are so many fooled by her? Or is that merely another media myth? I note that her big victories in her Firewall States were brought about by a well timed false leak by the Neocons in Canada. Don't most people yet see how those crooks work? And our media joyfully jumped on the false story, discussed it loudly, but after the correction came out (the day after the vote) they have been as quiet as mice.
March 10, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
She is a bad girl.
March 10, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
This makes perfect sense..by Clinton logic, it all depends on what your meaning of "pledged" is... not to be confused with what your meaning of "is" is. When will these menacing and uncouth characters leave us alone?
March 10, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Simple Question:
Why is Senator Obama being treated in the media lately as if he were in second place to Senator Clinton?
Mr. Obama is WINNING in … as you know, in:
Pledged Delegates, Popular Vote and Overall States !!!!
And for Senator Clinton to suggest that the SUPERDELEGATES should select her because she won MORE BIG STATES
in the PRIMARY and therefore … ONLY Senator Clinton can claim those same states in the GENERAL ELECTION is … FALSE!
Trust me … with the record turnout of Democratic voters this Primary Season,
If Senator Obama should ultimately become the Democratic Candidate for President …
he will SURELY get a majority of the democratic voters in the General Election in the states that Senator Clinton won in the Primary Election.
Why? Because all of us Democrats want CHANGE and we want it now!
Let the pledged delegates … popular vote … and overall states speak for themselves NOW (as in, Today)!
Senator Clinton really must step down! And the Democratic Party needs to get UNITED if it wants to win this November!
March 10, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I feel like in 1992 the U.S. stepped in dog shit and we can't scrap it off our shoe.
March 10, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I teach people to think critically about language and even I cannot stand all of this semantic parsing. Ahem, depends on what the meaning of "is," is. When will someone step in to stop the madness?
Thanks for this anecdote. It would be good to hear more of these stories.
March 10, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Its so painful. Its as if you have to dissect every goddamn word they say. I mean, they mean what they mean... as far as I know.
March 10, 2008 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was seriously thinking about the Miller's Crossing analogy myself -- especially in regards to The Tears.
"What are you gonna do? Shoot me? I'll just squirt out a few more and you won't have the heart."
Paraphrased, I know, but I'd really been thinking about that for some time as I just saw Miller's Crossing for the first time about four or five months ago. Fantastic movie.
March 10, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me that should say "I feel as if"
March 10, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillery is like anthrax, ebola, the henta virus, dengue fever, and the black plague all rolled up in one. I'm pretty sure she and Bill drink the blood of orphaned infants. She should be pumped full of effluvient and released into deep space.
March 10, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think its time again for another fun game of spot out the hypocrisy.
Now compare those quotes up above to these.
''I have thought about this for a long time,'' Mrs. Clinton said at a rally in an airport hangar in Syracuse. ''I've always thought we had outlived the need for an Electoral College, and now that I am going to the Senate, I am going to try to do what I can to make clear that the popular vote, the will of the people, should be followed.''
''We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago,'' Mrs. Clinton said. ''We have mass communications, we have mobility through transportation means to knit our country together that was not conceived of at the time of the founders' proposals about how we elect our presidents. I believe strongly that in a democracy we should respect the will of the people.''
and for bonus points read the rest of the article and point out how she didn't live up to her promises.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E2D81538F932A25752C1A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
March 10, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neck-Snapping Spin.
To woo the Supers and Caucus Delegates, Hillary will need to wound Obama so badly he won't be viable any longer as the nominee....A truly inspiring strategy that is sure to attract voters, youth, underrepresented groups and even Republicans and Independents.
March 10, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Considering all of the superdelegates who have switched from Clinton to Obama, and the zero delegates who have switched from Obama to Clinton, maybe Hillary should just worry about keeping the pledged delegates she has already. If she keeps talking nonsense like this, she'll begin hemorrhaging pledged delegates and Obama will hit 2025 well before the convention.
March 10, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Geez real shocker....
1. Why do you think she wants mail-ins for florida and mich....she can stuff the mail and highjack the mail truck....
2. I feel bad for the delegates...imagine being harrassed at home by th clintons....I wonder if they have a door knocking campaign...
3. Why are they complaining about the caucuses...because they did not realize the cheating value in advance....
4. God bless the party elders...great job Gore, Edwards and Carter...where is Pelosi...come on....does she have to shred the constituion b4 these fat cats get off their rumps and get the off the stage....they are really on their last breahes...stop acting like tinman from oz....
5. Is she the american Putin? I won michigan is like barry bonds saying he is the home run champ...
6. Will they wait until next week to start back with the hate-filled foreigner smears, the subtle muslim hate attacks...looks great to our country and the world...great role models...party elders do you have a fucking pulse?
7. What will be the subtle pro white...dont vote for the uppity well spoken brother? In south carolina we had the jesse comment, among 3 or 4 more...they were dismissive of Dr King...I knew white guys were responsible for the entire civil rights movement...scaring ohio jews with farrakhan and ohio working class with anyone nonwhite....it was like a yummy race/class highball setting back ohio progress by 40 years....
please unite behind BO so we can handle the business in front of us: McCain and taking the bottom to the top of the ticket blue...please stop looking back...they are behind us and we need to let them go. We cant suffer thru 8 more years of the above craziness...please someone make it stop....
March 10, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a bad move by Hillary imo. But it should be noted that it was Ted Kennedy who made it possible by changing the rules after his loss to Carter. He tried to do exactly what Hillary is talking about at the convention but the rules wouldn't allow it. After the election he changed the rules to allow it.
March 10, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
That sounds right about the second ballot.
So she's telegraphing the strategy which would be to use whatever strategies are available to prevent a first round ballot decision.
Probably it is not that hard... and then once you not only do that, but demonstrate the level of influence you have in the party, you can scare up enough pledged delegates to switch their affiliation.
Now do party rules require a majority? Plurality? How do you ensure that the first ballot fails?
March 10, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have an idea for the next SNL opening. Obama is elected President and sitting in the Oval Office. Hillary is outside attempting to climb over the iron fense screaming "but I am the President, I am the President," as the guys in the white coats come to take her away. She obviously has absolutely no respect for the voters, the voting processs or democracy. It's all about her.
March 10, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey she has a lot of Favors to pay back. You have any idea how pissed all those people will be if she cant pay them back.
March 10, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to see a show where they throw dog poop on Hillery's pantsuit and whack her in the head with a canoe paddle. Over and over. Then they lock her in a cage with rabid weasles and make her defend herself with a plastic spork. Yeah, that would be great.
March 10, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I rather just see her sit in a jail cell along with the entire bush administration.
March 10, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
O and will someone at TPM please Ban this fake Obama supporter.
March 10, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who you calling fake, you poser. You're probably another one of those closet hillbots. Otherwise why would you keep bringing up the Hussein thing? FO Hillary lover.
March 10, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its a statement of support for Obama, the idea came from a post on huffington post, and yes you are a fake.
March 10, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
O pleez. Its a statement of support? Just like your buddy Hillary's statement that Obama wasn't a Muslim as far as she knew. Can't you see you Hillbot scum aren't welcome around here? Go away.
March 10, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK..TPM has now turned into a myspace blog. Geez, there goes the neighborhood.
March 10, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what would be ironic? If enough of Senator Clinton's pledged delegates, recognizing that she simply can't win the nomination, take her message to heart and switch to Senator Obama.
I'm just sayin'.
March 10, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also from the interview:
"His campaign then ran a very vigorous effort to try to defeat me with uncommitted delegates [in Michigan], and he lost. So it wasn't as though there wasn't a contest. There was a contest. And I won."
That's not the case. On the day of the primary, the Obama campaign sent out a memo about how the primary was meaningless.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/01/team_obama_mich.html
"All of the Democratic presidential candidates publicly pledged not to campaign in Michigan, none have visited the state, opened offices, hired staff or communicated with voters through television, mail, phones or otherwise...Our position and the position of the DNC is clear – neither the Florida nor Michigan primaries are playing any role in deciding the Democratic nominee and we are not campaigning in either state."
March 10, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
O wow she just is really losing a grasp on reality isnt she.
March 10, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, Hillary. The paragon of honesty and democracy.
March 10, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the Beer Hall Putsch was just a procedure set up in 1923 in Munich . . .
ve are only following ze procedures . . .
March 10, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Obama decides not to disenfranchise millions of voters in 2 important general election swing states, then the once and future Senator from Illinois can take the high road regarding voter disenfranchisement. Until then he should know better than to broach that subject.
March 10, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could you help me understand how the FL and MI situation was Senator Obama's decision?
March 10, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because he is an evil, evil man who DARES challenge Hillary, who has worked so HARD and done so MUCH and it's her TURN and her husband was such a PIG and those other men are SUCH PIGS too, always trying to bring her DOWN.
March 10, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
It wasn't Obama's decision originally, but if you have listened to his surrogates over the past few days, it is painfully apparent that they do not want to have do-over elections in Florida and Michigan. Surely you would agree that's not being very democratic, as counting votes is THE core democratic principle.
March 10, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I WOULD agree that counting the votes is THE core democratic principle. That's why I'm confused about your willingness to accept Senator Clinton's assertion that the only votes that matter are the DELEGATE'S votes, despite the will of the people that elected them.
March 10, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
My willingness to accept Senator Clinton's assertion that the only votes that matter are the DELEGATE'S votes? Can you point out to me where I made this assertion?
You are the one who sounds confused.
March 10, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Clinton is encouraging pledged delegates, the delegates elected by voters in primaries, to ignore the popular vote and vote anyway they like. There's only one reason to encourage this: to gain more delegates despite the results of the popular vote.
In response to this you said:
Your response says that Senator Clinton's plan is acceptable.
March 10, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never made an argument with respect to the original post. Again, please show me where I did? I just stated Obama has no moral high-ground for voter disenfranchisement.
Please try to pay attention more closely to what I actually SAY. It might help you overcome some of your confusion
March 10, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS, I said I was confused.
March 10, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're just wrong.
Obama's campaign has said it will go along with the decision of the party (a position that he has held all along). Senator Clinton, on the other hand, has imperiously said that she "will not accept" a fair election, but prefers to hold on to the results of the Soviet-style election that has already occurred (disenfranchisement be d**mned).
Somebody needs to inform her that she is not currently "el jefe" -- the candidates are members of a party and do not determine the rules. If she does not "accept" those rules, my opinion is that she is free to join a party that she actually likes.
March 10, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You couldn't be more wrong. Her campaign is willing to front 1/2 the cost of do-over primaries in those 2 states the DNC/Obama (I get those 2 confused sometimes, so I just lump em' together) have disenfranchised via unfair and biased application of their own rules. Please try and pay attention.
March 10, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The DNC is totally biased for Obama, just like most democratic voters.
It's totally unfair that the democrats nominate the candidate they like the most as their presidential nominee!!!!
March 10, 2008 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't seen that commitment from the Clinton camp--please post a link.
March 10, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
He hasn't done anything wrong. He's followed the rules that were accepted by all parties involved, including Clinton, Wolfson, McAuliffe et al. All of a sudden, it became an issue. It wasn't an issue before the campaign when Clinton released a press statement supporting the DNC's decision.
I agree with you, it was a dumbass move from both the state's DNC and the national DNC. They should have thought this through before the knee jerk discipline. But to label this as somehow Obama's fault is misguided.
March 10, 2008 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
He hasn't done anything wrong. He's followed the rules that were accepted by all parties involved, including Clinton, Wolfson, McAuliffe et al. All of a sudden, it became an issue. It wasn't an issue before the campaign when Clinton released a press statement supporting the DNC's decision.
I agree with you, it was a dumbass move from both the state's DNC and the national DNC. They should have thought this through before the knee jerk discipline. But to label this as somehow Obama's fault is misguided.
March 10, 2008 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do hope the Obama campaign will make some hay of this. They need to respond to these sorts of things, use it to reinforce the narrative that Hillary will do anything to win. How would you do it? Something like, "While we understand that Senator Clinton has to come up with alternative strategies since she cannot realistically overcome our lead in pledged delegates, we cannot believe she would seriously attempt to overturn the will of the voters in her desire to be president. The principles of democracy are far more important than any one candidate, and we call on Senator Clinton to pledge she will not interfere with the pledged delegates."
Or...something?
Time to go on offense again.
March 10, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
>The principles of democracy are far more >important than any one candidate
You mean like counting votes in ALL 50 states?
March 10, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton had no problems with FL and MI not counting but that was before she was losing.
March 10, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Caught on tape by Keith Olbermann:
Interview on MSNBC after Hillary’s self proclaimed Victory in FL. She vowed to use every backroom arm twisting tactic she has in her arsenal to make sure Florida delegates counted. This exchange is particularly telling, it happens at about 6:10 into the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxlaayFMBZA
Keith asked her about a statement from the Obama campaign -
Olbermann: (reading from the statement)
When Sen Clinton was campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire she said that states like MI and FL that wont award delegates quoting you “don’t count for anything”
Now that Sen Clinton has lost badly in SC she is trying to assign meaning to a contest that awards zero delegates and where no campaigning has occurred.
Hillary: Cackle, Cackle, Cackle
Olberman: beyond the laughter, what is your reaction to that?
Hillary: Well you know, that’s typical campaign jargon.
(then blah blah blah – never answers the question)
If Hillary thinks breaking the rules is typical in campaigning, will breaking/bending the laws of our nation as president be typical leadership? We have one of those, don’t we?
March 10, 2008 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Diebold Clinton strikes again. I tried to vote for Obama but somehow my vote ended up in the Clinton column!
March 10, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is obviously a great way to become president. I guess the money she and Bill got will come in handy for this.
They should just remember not to spend all of it in the primaries, she will have buy enough electoral votes in the general election so that she'll get her 270 votes.
A faithless elector can be punished, but only after they already have voted, and that's not a problem as long as she can pardon them when she becomes president.
And they said that Obama was the innovative candidate...
March 10, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that analogy to the Turturro character in Miller's Crossing is apt. I had been thinking of an older analogy - Hillary as Mike Fink the tall tale teller of Ohio and Mississippi flatboat legend, especially regarding her claim to have had a hand in ending the violence in Kosovo and Northern Ireland.
March 10, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't believe that she solved the refugee crisis in Kosovo?
Sinbad needs to smack some sense into you!
SINBAD AND HILLARY ALSO TORE DOWN THE BERLIN WALL, LOOK IT UP!
Clinton/Sinbad '08 - Somewhat involved with politics for over 35 years!
March 10, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink