Clinton: Pledged delegates are "like superdelegates"

[SoFlaJet]

http://www.attytood.com/2008/03/clinton_pledged_delegates_are_1.html


One final note from the Daily News editorial board session with Sen. Hillary Clinton today: Near the end of the session, I had the chance to ask her what essentially was a two-part question, based on recent stories in the Politico and elsewhere that have crunched the pledged delegate and popular vote numbers and found the odds that she can pass Sen. Barack Obama are very slim. I tried to ask her 1) What she would do if Obama still has more delegates and votes when the primaries end in June and 2) What argument could she make to the unpledged superdelegates to give her the nomination if Obama does end up the choice of primary voters and caucus goers.

To be honest, I didn't feel she answered either question and she also made an odd statement that I hadn't heard before, insisting that pledged delegates are free to vote for any candidate, just like the superdelegates. She said, "We don’t know what’s going to happen between now and early June," and she went into a riff about the unfairness of the Michigan and Florida situation. Then she said:

I just don’t think this is over yet, and I don’t think that it is smart for us to take a position that might disadvantage us in November. And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They’re just like superdelegates.
But what, I asked, would she say to a pledged delegate to convince him or her to switch:

I just think it’s a very dynamic process, and all these people haven’t voted – most importantly Pennsylvania hasn’t voted, so why do people want to shut it down? My husband didn’t wrap up the nomination until June, and in June he was running third behind President Bush and Ross Perot – elections are dynamic and the idea that you could make some decision now...and furthermore superdelegates are just as legitimate as any other delegates. I mean, they’re there for a purpose, they’re not just window dressing. They re told to exercise their independent judgment, you know. Some support me in states I didn’t win. Some support Senator Obama in states he didn’t win. So you could argue that you can’t do that, that Governor Richardson shouldn’t be supporting him, that I won New Mexico – under the Obama theory, right?

But I still wanted to know her case for switching. She went on:

There are different ways to become a delegate, there are delegates from caucuses, there are delegates from primaries, and there are the appointed delegates, they’re all equal, they all have an equal vote – those are the rules of the Democratic Party. Now if you don’t like the rules, change them going forward but those are the rules. And they are there for a purpose, because if you go back and look 30 years ago, people were elected to Congress said, 'Wait a minute, this party is not running winning elections. We need to have a say, with all due respect,' so, they have a say. You know, the goals are very conveniently being interpreted, you know – Michigan shouldn’t count because of the rukes and and we shouldn’t count the superdelegates even though the rules…You know, I think that doesn’t make sense.
I'm not sure her plan for pledged delegates make sense either. It's true that many are not legally bound, but the candidates go to great lengths to ensure that pledged delegates are loyal and enthusiastic supporters, in part for just that reason, to prevent switching. Clinton's statement didn't directly say that her campaign would go after Obama's pledged delegates, but it sure implied that, and that would be a switch from their earlier position. Just two weeks ago, Clinton's campaign aides denied to the Politico's Ben Smith that there was any plan to poach Obama's pledged delegates.

So what was the senator talking about, then, if not that?

I have no idea.

[virtualobserver]

1. that cuts into her "disenfranchising" argument pretty seriously.........

but then if Hillary gets the delegate vote, it is the right kind of "disenfranchising".

[Jack Rabbit]

2. Senator Clinton has crossed the line

The case she is presenting is necessarily based on two premises:

• Pledged delegates aren't pledged to anything;
• The expressed desire of the voters and caucus goers don't count.

It is as if she is being reminded that Senator Obama has won primaries and caucuses from one end of the country to the other, many more than she, and her response is, "So?"

Both of these premises are false in a democratic universe.

I am a believer in democracy and in representation and leadership chosen by the people in free and fair elections. Hasn't America had enough of "leaders" who think they are entitled to power and simply assume it by refusing to count votes or disenfranchising voters not likely to vote their way? That is authoritarianism, not democracy. Hasn't America suffered under the misrule of "leaders" who make up rules to convenience their circumstances as events move forward? That is tyranny, not leadership.

Mrs. Clinton has never been my favorite political figure. To me, she has always been a finger-to-the-wind politician who finds ways of saying nothing in 500 words or more in order not to be pinned down to a specific position. She can vote for Bush's wars and pretend she didn't know she was doing that; she can stand for fair play for working people after firing the White House travel office to make room for her cronies; and now she can pretend to be a leader of the people while suggesting that means ignoring what they say.

Enough of Bush and Cheney already. What the American people want is real change, not a kinder and gentler authoritarian who thinks she knows best and asks the people, "So? Who cares what you think?"

[BadgerKid]

3. Worthy of a separate thread.

Warning: put on your flame-retardant suit! ;)

[LiberalFighter]

4. It's not mandatory for pledged delegates to vote for the candidate

Not even on the first ballot.

The likelihood of the pledged delegate voting for that candidate is probably 90% or higher due to the manner in which delegates are selected.