Clinton campaign to target pledged delegates?
By Steve Benen Sunday Mar 09, 2008 7:30amAs 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.
Login or Register to post comments.
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.
GonzoD,
If it has become so, it's because of reactions to Hillary's behavior. It has never been C&L policy if you've been here a while you would know.
Would you vote for someone who trusted Bush.
Twice. So much for experience.
Go Obama
Bears Are Fat @ 56:
Nice try, but would you be hurling this if it was Edward's supporters? Matters not if it is Obama supporters. Ever thought about the fact that this backlash is a byproduct of Hillary's campaign? Naw, couldn't be. She's ran such a smooth campaign for the last 8 years or so. I see three parties in one. The DNC, the DLC, and the Clintons.
Why do Hillary supporters seem to think she deserves respect and the nomination? What has she done? NOTHING. She is no more experienced than any of the other candidates and has pointed out that McCain is actually more experienced than her or Obama. There's a reason to vote for her. Oh well, besides bringing peace to Ireland, ending Apartheid, and of course being responsible for every treaty Bill signed, next week she will claim responsibility for everything done in space up to now, and what will happen 10 years from now. Saddest campaign I've ever seen for a lifelong politician.
Hussein AND Proud @ 78:
Wow, the maturity drips off my screen! :rolleyes.:
Come on, dude, you're making your side look bad, have a little better argument than that.
Bears Are Fat @ 59:
Of course of Obama really wants to be elected - why else would one go through the personal hell that is a Presidential campaign? Not to mention the pure physical and emotional exhaustion of it all. That said, I think its pretty clear to any objective observer that Hillary is on a totally different level of "wanting it badly".
Long time senators such as Daschle and Durbin advised Obama to run this time around, because contrary to what you claim, a long distinguished senate career is not paticulary helpful for a Presidential run. If that were the case then Biden and Dodd would have been the front runners. Also if Obama has 2 seconds of experience then Hillary has about 6 seconds. And sorry, First Lady doesn't count. Thats not an elected office, and far as my reading of the constitution goes, the first lady has absolutely no role whatsoever.
Marge @ 58:
There are many sites of the "vast rightwing conspiracy" as Hillary puts it, where you can find any of the "real stuff" that Hillary has supposed to have done. Do you not get tired of making excuses and sticking up for an obviously tarnished candidate?
I just don't get it. For years all I've heard on this blog is everyones dislike (hatred?) of the republicans and their dirty tricks and how they have divided the country. Now, when Hillary does it, everything is hunky dory. For those of you that think Obama should play dirty too, that would make him the same as we've been bitching about.
Can someone please explain why, if we hated it when bush did it, it's ok for Hillary to do it.
GonzoD @ 71:
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!”
I guess your a Taylor marsh fan.
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27097
Here is a quote from Taylor "Geiist" Marsh's site.
"It doesn't matter that there is absolutely no proof of any wrong doing by Obama. It's the perception that matters."
And she's in the Democratic party.
That quote sound quite Rovian to me.
You Dems are letting your Republican roots show.
Janet Hussein @ 85:
Meh, I'm just one of those that likes dirty tricks to begin with. Matter of fact, the lack of dirty tricks is what did ya'll in last time. If ya'll can't beat McPapen, ya'll deserve to go the way of the Whigs, cuz ya'll'd be totally irrelevant.
Langx @ 86:
Doesn't just sound Rovian, to this Southerner's ear, sounds racist.
Janet Hussein @ 85:
Because her last name is Clinton, and for some reason, that justifies everything. People still defend Bill like he was some kind of royalty, but if you actually dissect his presidency, he was more rightwing than alot of Republican presidents. He carried forward alot of the same programs and legislation that Bush1 had started.
The good news is, if Hillary IS nominated and elected, at 3AM when the phone rings, if Bill is home, she can pass the phone to him.
Opinion polls show Democrats like both candidates, although they're liked on different issues.
Lighten up people.
Unless your purpose is to make the primaries so divisive that whoever gets the nomination will never be able to get the party back to together, and end up losing to the reichwing.
Finnigan @ 69:
Liberals should distrust invocations of moral purity of every sort because the politics of such purity is deeply reactionary. Look: Obama is perfectly willing to compromise in the realm of, say, health care by promoting a plan that would not actually attain universal coverage. He has shown he can be real world and pragmatic in that regard and is willing to sell-out some folks for the sake of a workable plan. He has complimented the Republicans as the 'party of ideas'. He is not a Saint. Yet, when it comes to Hillary, Obamamaniacs trot out the most intellectually lazy equations (Hillary = Bush) and insults (Hillary is a monster), which actually suggests that the purity argument is itself a pragmatic ploy that we call 'schismogenetic.' The more aggressive she is in fighting for her nomination, the more passively 'pure' he remains. The question is: Will it work? That's really the only question here. My guess is: no. It won't. So he needs to push back. Wake up people -- America won't magically change just because you hope it will. This is how politics just is in America, and, in fact, always has been.
Langx @ 86:
Taylor Marsh thinks Hillary should be elected because she's a woman. No other reason. That is the stupidest reason to vote for someone, that I've ever heard.
Let me make this ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, HILL: If you win the nom by stealing PLEDGED DELEGATES, I, along with a significant proportion of Obama voters, will STAY HOME IN NOVEMBER. I am not voting for a Bush-Style Democrat. Talk about a Pyrrhic victory. It would be counted as illegitimate as Bush's victories have been counted. You'd spend your entire ONE term desperately clinging at legitimacy, and having read your record your judgment on the issues that matter to me would be no better than Bush's has been. You'd fucking cave like all the DLC-er's do, and you'd let Rush Limbaugh run your office from his fucking microphone booth.
Think about what this style of campaigning has done for the R side of the aisle.
Bears Are Fat @ 74:
Now I know why you are a Clinton supporter - you believe the ends justifies the means. For the rest of us - 20 + years of win at all costs has gotten pretty tiresome.
uncle joe mccarthy @ 61:
Don't pay any attention to Marge, her brain is clouded by rage brought on by a chronic and acute case of penis envy.
I don't understand why blogs like this feel the need to play both sides of the fence. "It's not literally cheating". That makes it right? This is like when the AP digs up a guy who doesn't believe in global warming any time they cover climate change. Come on, C&L. Either take a stand for progressive values or step aside. Back room deals have no place in democracy, period.
As a Texas Precinct Delegate elected by my constituency overwhelmingly to vote Obama in my rural county's precinct convention, I must say that her recent statements are odious and anti-democratic.
Janet Hussein @ 85:
This is a classic Rovian ploy: equating Democrats and Republicans and saying "it's a wash" (cf. Maher). NOTHING Hillary's campaign has done can be compared to the kind of shit the Republicans pull on a regular basis. Entire conspiracies are being hinged to turns of phrase out of context (cf, 'as far as I know'). Compare this to the SwiftBoats and get back to me please.
Fighting back against the republican in the general is one thing and destroying the opposition in you own party is another. Obama won't have to mudsling in the general because the FACTS are all on his side. The republicans fucked up everything. Remember You Tube vs Feeding Tube? Which would you rather have? Obama will kick McCains ass just by being alive.
Bears Are Fat @ 98:
Did Huckabee endorse Hillary over McCain? Did John Kerry endorse Bush, over Howard Dean? Did Obama endorse Romney over Hillary? Speaking of Swiftboating.
If Hillary really wants to win then she can FIGHT by changing her policies towards Iraq, Healthcare, NAFTA and stop taking money from Saudi Arabia and China. Otherwise she can FUCK OFF AND DIE! She has NOTHING to offer but another 4 years of Bush style politic's and THAT is why people ran out to vote for Obama. He actually has STRONG CHARACTER. She is an outright LIAR and a CHEAT.
unfrozencaveman @ 94:
ConcernedHusseinCanuck @ 100:
Give me a break. Hillary making an argument about how experience will be tallied in November does NOT equal 'endorsing.' Please stop over reacting. She and Bill will fully support Obama in November if he wins the nomination.
BAF
Anything even approaching the Swiftboat mentality (aggressive or subtle lying about another candidate) is despised by a great many people. The only way to avoid being a recipient of that anger is to conduct a new-style campaign -- the old style is what ultimately led to the Swiftboating of John Kerry, and it's the Clinton campaign style. We'll have to see which style, which is more than just style, ultimately wins ethically, morally, and actually.
Bears Are Fat says....NOTHING Hillary’s campaign has done can be compared to the kind of shit the Republicans pull on a regular basis.
OK. It's ok to do it, just not on a regular basis. It couldn't possibly be a lead up to more and more. Every time bush got away with something, he did more. That's the way it works.
If you ever raised a child, you'd know what I mean.
Remember...Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely.
Bears Are Fat @ 103:
Look at this from a Republican point of view, and you will stop the "stop over reacting" spiel. You know as well as everyone else, THAT is EXACTLY how it is viewed. If her campaign is any indication of a presidency, it will be the most controversial in US history, making Bush and her hubby look downright awesome.
anneyhussein @ 104:
Actually, many of us believe that the race-baiting card played so deftly by Obama's campaign *definitely* approaches this type of politics. It's very clever. (cf. Sean Wilenz in TNR)
Like I have said all along, a vote for Clinton is just more of the same. If we want change we MUST get Obama in.
Wow. Watching Hillary operate is like watching a well staged wrestling match, I can't tell who is the Republican? McCain or Hillary? For her to actually praise McCain is insane! This is the "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" candidate. Sometimes I wish I was more like certain members of my family. Just stop reading and lstening to the news and crawl in the corner a pretend everything is OK! Sigh
HIllary said that McCain is more qualified than Obama, and that he is as bad as Ken Starr.
That's all the evidence I need that Hillary should not be president.
Obama has run a better campaign in raising money and getting people involved from the grass roots.
That kind of organization shows he is qualifed to be president.
ChrisM70 @ 110:
Anybody that supports Hillary that doesn't think that the Republicans will replay what she said, over and over and over in the runup to the election, is either seriously deluded, or not all there. Her campaign is being run like Bill's. Plan on tomorrow, and we won't worry about next week.
Haven't I seen this headline before several weeks ago when talk of the primary being decided by superdelegates first arose?
pjs @ 25:
You're right, the rules should be changed, but just because it isn't against the rules, doesn't mean it's not hypocritical of her and doesn't bring into question her honesty and integrity. I mean, it's not against the rules in hockey to check your opponent into a wall, but if you do it in a way that injures the guy you're checking badly, you're still coming out looking like a bit of prick... especially if you set out to intentionally hurt the guy.
Considering what she's done so far in the race, it's not too hard to believe she would do this to win. Tell you what though, we'll stop whining if the Clinton supporters will just admit that they're voting more for Bill than for Hillary here hoping her winning gets his policies back in the White House.
Hillary, the "Tanya Harding" of the Democratic Party.
ConcernedHusseinCanuck @ 111:
When you consider that Obama was relatively unknown and not a household name it is amazing what he has accomplished.
bobswire @ 114:
Heh. The do sort of look alike.
Even Worse
The problem is even worse than this item suggests. Very few pledged delegates have been chosen yet, even from the states that have already had their primaries and caucuses. The only thing that these primaries/caucuses did, in most cases (rules vary a lot from state to state), was to set allocations apportioning that state's delegates between the two candidates. Exactly who will fill those allocations has yet to be determined for most states. This delegate selection process usually leaves the two campaigns some degree of control over who is selected to be their campaign's pledged delegates, but that control almost never extends to actually naming these people. In VA, for example, the campaigns get to review the list of folks coming out of Congressional District conventions who file to be national delegates. After they review the lists, the campaigns return them to the CD conventions with at least 3X the number of that CD's allocation approved for the CD convention to select from to be the actual national delegates. This is fine for the campaigns only if they have on the lists they get at least 3X reliable supporters of theirs to put on the approved list they hand back to the CD conventions for final selection. But only people who were elected to be CD convention delegates can file to be national delegates. Therefore, if the local caucuses that elect delegates to the CD conventions don't send anyone to the CD convnetions that the campaign can rely on, the campaign is screwed. They have no power to insert trusted folks to be their national delegates at that point. All they can do is pick the 3X least damaging people from the list to be their delegates in Denver.
Yes, these pledged delegates, no matter what their true loyalty, will have an obligation to vote for the candidate they are pledged to. The item explores the limits of that obligation, that it is not enforceable by party rules. But the item presents the problem as if it were a matter of loyalists picked by one campaign or the other to be delegates having to be tempted into changing their allegiances. Actually, the campaigns will be limited in their ability to get even people they might think would be loyal into their own allocated delegate slots.
And even if the pledged delegates all stood faithfully by their unenforceable obligations, those obligations are strictly limited in scope. They are only pledged to vote for their candidate on the first ballot. There isn't even an unenforceable, purely ethical, obligation to vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged past that first ballot. And there is no obligation to vote their candidate's way on seating fights. A contested convention, almost by definition, is one that will have to be settled either by the results of a vote on seating a contested delegation, or will go past the first ballot. Even if the pledged delegates all voted rigidly according to their obligations, those obligations don't bind them on the votes that will really decide who gets the nomination, if there is indeed a contested convention.
We really, really need to reform this process by giving the campaigns complete control over selecting their delegates. Make that complete control, as in, no modifications or exceptions, no input from any other source on who gets to be a delegate. If that means we have to hold separate conventions, attended by party regulars rather than nominating delegates loyal to one campaign or another, to deal with the other party business aside from nominating a candidate that the quadrennial convention deals with, then that means we hold separate conventions. The most sensible approach would be to not have nominating conventions at all, and just compare "delegate" totals at the end of the primary season. If one candidate has over 50% of these nominal "delegates", he/she is declared the winner. If there is no winner after the first round of primaries/caucuses, hold a run-off between the top two candidates. Cut out the middleman in selecting our candidate, and have no actual delegates attending any convention anywhere in the process.
Much as this old, white woman really despises the course the Clintons are taking with the running of their campaign, I highly encourage everyone to vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee in November (this old white woman is hoping it's Barack Obama).
The reason? Two words Supreme Court
Oh and also 100 years in Iraq.
Bears Are Fat @ 115:
Right, and it's by the same logic that bush and his administration have handed out contracts to their pals, their exes (ashcroft) and their corrupt buddies....why not? It's not explicitly against the rules....
What people are objecting to is that if the pledged delegates switch their vote, what's the point of all the canvassing, the GOTV, the voting...why bother?
Dowd? SHe hasn't written a column worth finishing for years now.
She's a crabby old lady who lost the knack. Been inside the bubble too long.
OK, I know (now) that Hilary is a crypto hybrid vampire/republican (getting stronger each day feasting on Vince Foster's refrigerated blood) but what she said was true and according to your article consistent with DNC RULES since 1980. Campaigning by the rules is an affront if it threatens Obama?
They are for all practical purposes tied. Neither can win without something other than "the people voting" happening. Why is it that stating the obvious and "fighting" to win is evidence of Hilary's hate and disgust for democracy.
Why is it that campaigning to win (Hilary you must stop picking on poor Obama can't you see how good and pure he is!) is such a bad quality for a Democrat.
I am so glad that neither Gore or Kerry (I think he got a pass on his war vote in 2004) dirtied themselves fighting for anything. Eight years of losing "honorably" may have been tragic for the country but at least they were good men too.
This is Obama's first challenge (Allen Keyes was a formidable foe if I remember correctly) and getting roughed up by the Clintons is just a sweet pat on the cheek compared to the tsunami of RNC slime that is waiting for either of them. Does he want to win?
Hareli @ 79:
I've been here for years!
Best suggestion regarding Michigan and Florida delegates comes from John Conyers of Michigan.
Split the delegates between the two candidates 50-50.
COMMON SENSE.
End the fear or actual STEALING OF VOTES AND ELIMINATES THE NEED TO RAISE MONEY $$$$$$$$$$!
While some may not be happy, it is the quickest and most fair way to end this mess and move one.
Write your opinions to the DNC at
http://www.democrats.org
And/Or
Call the DNC Headquarters
202-863-8000
*Tell the operator why you are calling and you will be connected to the proper DNC department.
BigHurt @ 26:
Give us all a break, would you? If the rules say they can vote however they want (since 1980) then that's the rules. Grow the fuck up.
A recent poll which I am sure you all saw said that 84% of Democrats would vote for Obama and 84% would vote for Clinton.
That means that you losers who support Obama but refuse to vote for Hillary, or you Hillary supporters who refuse to vote for Obama (both of you...) - you can go suck eggs. We don't need you. We will beat McSame without your lame ass help.
This is for all the marbles you idiots - you really hate her SOOO much you would rather see McSame in the WH? Then you are truly useless and not real progressives anyway. A real progressive/liberal would NEVER vote for McSame, one way or t'other.
ConcernedHusseinCanuck @ 120:
I would like to know why no one is talking about all the Republicans who crossed over in the primaries to vote for Clinton. There were 16,000 in one Ohio county alone. Even if nothing can be done to change the outcome, this behavior should be named and shamed on national TV. Who knows how widespread this was in other counties and what impact it made, especially in Texas where it was so close. I'm glad Republicans think it's so okay to cheat. Do they really think this stuff won't eventually come out? One woman's excuse was something about politicians being deceitful, so therefore it was okay for her to be deceitful. What kind of rationale is that for bad behavior? Rush and all the right wing blowhards encourage this, and of course these mindless dittohead republican have no moral compass. It's not about cheating politicians, it's about cheating Americans, the will of the people. Well, this can work both ways if that's the way they want to play the game. Pretty soon our political system will be further broken, and we will be forced to make new rules to prevent massive cheating. Seems to me you should have to register as a D or R well of any of the primaries before either party establishes a candidate. Clearly, the Republicans have stooped to a level where we'll all have to be treated like children by having more rules.
I think Hillary has jumped the shark and knows it.
And she's not trying to win, just trying to make sure that the young kid is tested and ready for a contest with the scumbags he's gonna take on in the fall...
in fact, this last story is so absurd, I'm starting to feel she's actually falling on her sword to protect and save obama-- she is risking her legacy to make sure that the baby faced newbie won't be caught offguard and unready when he runs into slimeballs like McCain and self-hating hypocrites like Melman and Rove.
She knows history will put it all in perspective....and in 25 years they'll write about how Obama would have lost the general had he not been so thoroughly roughed up by Clinton in the primary, and how noble of her it was to play the bastard and the slimeball, to keep the contest going for the sake of Obama's preparedness, long after she had lost it.
ConcernedHusseinCanuck @ 100:
Sigh - what is with you people who simply refuse to understand the nuances of words? Hillary NEVER, EVER endorsed McCain. That is the Rovian play - to CLAIM that she endorsed McCain over Obama. How absurd.
3 A.M. Girl Wants Obama to Answer Call
Video clip at the link
Looks like the Democratic party should be cleaning up their house, as it seems that they have a system rigged to disenfranchise Democratic caucus and primary voters. Name calling, triangulation, policy put downs can be tolerated as they show the temperament and position of the candidate. It becomes more and more probable that the only "change" from the Democratic party will be the change in pledged delegates.
Since Nader has removed himself from the Green Party and left Cynthia McKinney, a fine public servant, standing, the dirty push from the right of the party may capsize the ship yet again, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
BAF
What race-baiting card? I don't read Sean Wilenz articles -- he's too willing to forgive Hillary anything. You must mean the Somali picture or the picture of Obama where his face was darkened and shortened. Or maybe you mean Bill's comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson in South Carolina, designating them as two equally-inconsequential Black politicians. Jesse Jackson wasn't even mentioned.
redjb @ 34:
Tell us the truth now - how old are you?
Dire Lobo @ 125:
I hope you're right.
I don't think people hate her so much, as they just hate this nonsense political discourse, where politicians talk in some coded dishonest language....ie... michelle obama hates america, democrats want to surrender, obama is a plagiarist, clinton is a socialist....it's just all garbage, and it's the way mccain and clinton talk.... They don't try to educate and persuade the voter, they try to confuse, dupe and frighten the voter.
I think enough people will just tune out of a McCain Clinton race to make it closer than it should be.
I hope you are right, and you hardcore partisans can win w/o us more principled voters who are willing to cut off our nose to spite our face.
Hey Hillary, won't don't you just resign now and join Karl over at Fox. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he is a behind the scenes consultant to your campaign.
I think after Senator Obama's 10 state winning streak, Hillary Clinton decided it was time to play hardball. I don't think this is a bad idea but the way she has gone about it has been totally self-centered without thinking about the American people or the Democratic Party. We need new leadership and democratic in-fighting is not going to provide that.
Clinton campaign to target pledged delegates?
Lemon or cherry scented?
Sigh, wimmin's work is never done.
MountainMan23 @ 130:
Irony
"What I don't like about the ad is it's fear-mongering. I think it's a cheap hit to take. I really prefer Obama's message of looking forward to a bright future," Knowles said. "I think that's a much stronger message."
Knowles suggests if "Hillary" answers hang up.
Login or Register to post comments.