Clinton campaign targets Obama's pledged delegates

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination.

This strategy was confirmed to me by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday. And I am not talking about superdelegates, those 795 party big shots who are not pledged to anybody. I am talking about getting pledged delegates to switch sides.

What? Isn’t that impossible? A pledged delegate is pledged to a particular candidate and cannot switch, right?

Wrong.

Pledged delegates are not really pledged at all, not even on the first ballot. This has been an open secret in the party for years, but it has never really mattered because there has almost always been a clear victor by the time the convention convened.

But not this time. This time, one candidate may enter the convention leading by just a few pledged delegates, and those delegates may find themselves being promised the sun, moon and stars to switch sides.

“I swear it is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody’s delegates,” a senior Clinton official told me Monday afternoon. “All the rules will be going out the window.”

Rules of good behavior, maybe. But, in fact, the actual rules of the party allow for such switching. The notion that pledged delegates must vote for a certain candidate is, according to the Democratic National Committee, a “myth.”

“Delegates are NOT bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the convention or on the first ballot,” a recent DNC memo states. “A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required.”

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer told me Monday he assumes the Obama campaign is going after delegates pledged to Clinton, though a senior Obama aide told me he knew of no such strategy.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html

[GaryC 7]

The whole idea of "superdelegates" is counter to the concept of the people picking the candidates. This seems like a slippery slope where the elite picks who we have to choose from. IMO it's a step away from real democracy.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The whole idea of "superdelegates" is counter to the concept of the people picking the candidates. This seems like a slippery slope where the elite picks who we have to choose from. IMO it's a step away from real democracy.

Gary, the posted article refers to pledged delegates - not superdelegates.

[GaryC 7]

The whole idea of "superdelegates" is counter to the concept of the people picking the candidates. This seems like a slippery slope where the elite picks who we have to choose from. IMO it's a step away from real democracy.

Gary, the posted article refers to pledged delegates - not superdelegates.

Ok, I missed that. This is even worse then.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Ron Paul's delegates are probably going to take part in a walk-out at the national convention, as well. The way the Louisiana primary was handled is disgusting. Huckabee won the vote count, but McCain was handed the delegates. That doesn't even begin to mention the issues with the Louisiana caucases.

[Sister Fracas 5]

Can you wonder why some people say "why bother voting?"

Edited February 19, 2008 by Sister Fracas

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

Can you wonder why some people say "why bother voting?"

i'm voting for bugs bunny

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Can you wonder why some people say "why bother voting?"

i'm voting for bugs bunny

I'm voting for Ziltoid

[almaty 19]

Can you wonder why some people say "why bother voting?"

i'm voting for bugs bunny

#######!!!!!! where is the scooby support////

what would scooby doo!

[Caladan 19]

The whole idea of "superdelegates" is counter to the concept of the people picking the candidates. This seems like a slippery slope where the elite picks who we have to choose from. IMO it's a step away from real democracy.

It's always been that way. Not that I don't agree that it isn't real democracy, but it's not a new development.

[Dan J 277]

The whole idea of "superdelegates" is counter to the concept of the people picking the candidates. This seems like a slippery slope where the elite picks who we have to choose from. IMO it's a step away from real democracy.

Superdelegates came in at a time when the turnout in the primary process was really low. Mostly to prevent a candidate from forcing him or herself into the nomination. Since its easier to influence an election when not many people show up.

Now this year, Hillary is trying to use the superdelegates to get herself the nomination.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The whole idea of "superdelegates" is counter to the concept of the people picking the candidates. This seems like a slippery slope where the elite picks who we have to choose from. IMO it's a step away from real democracy.

Superdelegates came in at a time when the turnout in the primary process was really low. Mostly to prevent a candidate from forcing him or herself into the nomination. Since its easier to influence an election when not many people show up.

Now this year, Hillary is trying to use the superdelegates to get herself the nomination.

Exactly.

[mawilson 2,133]

The whole idea of "superdelegates" is counter to the concept of the people picking the candidates. This seems like a slippery slope where the elite picks who we have to choose from. IMO it's a step away from real democracy.

I agree. I find it very ironic that the Democratic party nomination gets decided in a very undemocratic fashion.

[metta 0]

The whole idea of "superdelegates" is counter to the concept of the people picking the candidates. This seems like a slippery slope where the elite picks who we have to choose from. IMO it's a step away from real democracy.

I agree. I find it very ironic that the Democratic party nomination gets decided in a very undemocratic fashion.

There would have been no problem had the results been clear cut. It is only because the race is too close and apparently neither one of the candidates could garner a clear lead in the number of pledged delegates that the superdelegates become so important.

In any case, this is only the primaries and looking back , the election of 1800 was a far greater mess than this one couldpossibly turn out to be.

The Presidential Election of 1800: A Story of Crisis, Controversy, and Change

"Nasty political mud-slinging. Campaign attacks and counterattacks. Personal insults. Outrageous newspaper invective. Dire predictions of warfare and national collapse. Innovative new forms of politicking capitalizing on a growing technology. As much as this seems to describe our pending presidential contest, it actually describes an election more than two hundred years past.

The presidential election of 1800 was an angry, dirty, crisis-ridden contest that seemed to threaten the nation's very survival. A bitter partisan battle between Federalist John Adams and Republican Thomas Jefferson, it produced a tie between Jefferson and his Republican running mate, Aaron Burr; a deadlock in the House where the tie had to be broken; an outburst of intrigue and suspicion as Federalists struggled to determine a course of action; Jefferson's election; and Burr's eventual downfall. The unfolding of this crisis tested the new nation's durability. The deadlock in the House revealed a constitutional defect. It also pushed partisan rivalry to an extreme, inspiring a host of creative and far-reaching electoral ploys. As a sense of crisis built, there was even talk of disunion and civil war, and indeed, two states began to organize their militias to seize the government if Jefferson did not prevail. "

[Dan J 277]

The whole idea of "superdelegates" is counter to the concept of the people picking the candidates. This seems like a slippery slope where the elite picks who we have to choose from. IMO it's a step away from real democracy.

I agree. I find it very ironic that the Democratic party nomination gets decided in a very undemocratic fashion.

The Republican party has a similar thing, unpleged delegates. But since all the Republican races are winner takes all, you can run into a similar situation as the electoral college. Where one candidate may win the popular vote, but doesn't get enough electoral votes.