Clinton Plans to Target Obama's Pledged Delegates...(outrageous!)

[catgirl]

Sen. 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," Roger Simon reports.

"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."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/02/19/clinton_plans_to_target_obamas_pledged_delegates.html

Wow.

[my3boyz]

1. I hope the rest of the super delegates

jump ship now! I hope the rest of their donors jump as well. People don't like desperation. I also hope the voters are listening to this too. I know deep down voters don't like someone who will do anything and change any rule simply to win! This proves that they will do absolutely ANYTHING to win! I see no way for this party to be put back together after this...............

[Skwmom]

2. On dkos someone wrote a diary about a caucus. They were

uncommitted and won the right to represent Obama. I believe they were a faculty member. They said that someone said they didn't like Clinton's health plan and that person set them straight. Sounded more like a Clinton supporter than uncommitted or an Obama supporter (but I could be wrong).

[tekisui]

3. Good luck with that, Strongarm Clinton.

[ShortnFiery]

4. Beyond outrageous! Shameless and morally bankrupt.

:puke: :grr:

[Kittycat]

61. Well, this is a Clinton we're talking about.

I think Morally Bankrupt comes with the territory.

[SKKY]

5. Clinton would never do this...

...she may be desperate, but she's not stupid, and this would be a very, very stupid thing to try and do.

[burythehatchet]

44. She's not stupid but she is tone deaf. Sometimes that looks just like stupid. n/t

[Obamaniac]

119. You give the Clinton's way too much credit...

They'll do anything.

Never has someone fallen so far and so fast in my estimation of them than Hillary Clinton.

[CookCountyResident]

121. Desperation may trump stupidity.

The Clintons have the long arm of party history behind them when it comes to digging deep within the party for support. It ain't over 'til it's really over!

[BigDaddy44]

160. Sure she would

Why wouldn't she? This is politics, not tiddlywinks. Everyone seems to think that you have to play nice to win, but sometimes you have to get down in the gutter and brawl. The one thing about a political campaign is that there are no prizes for second place. She's counting on the fact that no matter how she gets the nomination, once she gets it Democrats will rally behind her. This might not be the smartest of calculations, but right now its a fight for delegates. She'll fight to get them however she can.

[lapfog_1]

6. Details

This is a very serious charge.

It may well be an "open secret" that pledged delegates are not really pledged even on the first ballot, but I would like to see more information on this than a short blurb in politicalwire.

First, the DNC rules on pledged delegates.

Second, what evidence is there (other than unnamed sources) that Hillary is going after pledged delegates.

Third, what is the quid pro quo for these delegates... money? a chance to run for national office themselves? An invite to sleepover in the Lincoln bedroom? What?

Forth, is it possible that she is simply reaching out for second or third ballot votes? (btw, that would still piss me off)

Fifth, If substantiated, what can be done about this?

[Shrek]

25. Here's a link with more info

Link

For those of us who have been around a while, the last time a Democratic Convention had even a little suspense was 1980, in Madison Square Garden, New York. Ted Kennedy was making a last attempt to try and get the nomination from President Carter. The problem: Rule F(3)(c), which officially bound delegates to the candidate they had been elected for on the first ballot. But with a weak Carter campaign on the horizon, Kennedy thought that if the delegates were released from their pledges, he could get enough votes to get the nomination. The problem was, Carter still had a majority of the delegates, and they voted not to overturn the rule, and Kennedy's campaign was over.

But subsequently, the rules were changed, and now convention delegates are free to vote for whomever they want to. The Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention states:

VIII C(7)(c) Delegates may vote for the candidate of their choice whether or not the name of such candidate was placed in nomination.

The Delegate Selection Rules state:

12 I: No delegate at any level of the delegate selection process shall be mandated by law or Party rule to vote contrary to that person's presidential choice as expressed at the time the delegate is elected.

12 J. Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.

But nowhere does it state that delegates are bound, either legally, or by rule, to vote for the candidate they were elected for, whether on the first ballot, or any subsequent ballot.

[lapfog_1]

28. I remember the rule in 1980...

this sucks.

I hope to hell she isn't really trying this crap.

I'm sure one of her apologists will be along shortly to explain how it's all just "politics" and "perfectly within the rules".

[Tellurian]

53. As you know, Politics are a Bloodsport..

and this is WAR and all the candidates are inittowinit!

Wait and see how creative Obama and Axelrod become over the next few month..From what has been rumored, they may attempt a Race War!

[Lerkfish]

66. STOP IT WITH THIS BULLSHIT RACEBAITING

jeebus, you clinton supporters turn my stomach.

race wasn't anywhere near the topic, but you know what, I can always count on a clinton supporter to drop it to that level

shameless, transparent, pathetic, desperate.

[lapfog_1]

94. wow, the responses here are almost enough for me to bother

to look at the "ignored" poster and view his/her message. Almost.

RACEBAITING... RACE WAR... WTF???

How did it go from talking about a story on flipping pledged delegates at the convention (and I'm still waiting on more details!) to RACE BAITING.

Ok... tell me who the poster is... I have a few guesses?

[sniffa]

123. I was going to ask who you were responding to

but I can probably guess who based on the, "your website sucks" comment below.

[Tellurian]

159. Oh- I see another Obama supporter who knows nothing of the undercurrents swirling around them..

and is always willing to bash a Hillary supporter when their predigested thoughts are contradicted before they have the facts in hand:

Just remember something, the Obama Camp initiated the Race Baiting NOT the Hillary Camp...and now you'll know their dirty little secret!

Apparently the CBC is mounting an agenda of it's own ...

that will dovetail perfectly into a natural defense for the GOP and the "Great White Hope McCain".. to thoroughly dismiss Obama as a Racist in the General Election. Do we really want to go there? I know, I don't!


Donna Brazile is saying: the African American community will outraged if Hillary wins the nomination

"Donna Brazile"

You may not be understanding the implication of that statement and what she means. She is saying that African American community will outraged if Hillary wins the nomination due to Super Delegates.

This is about the Congressional Black Caucus. Back on September 29, 2007, It was a CBC sponsored round table on CSPAN in which Donna Brazile, Arthur Davis and about three others were in a panel discussion. We didn’t get to see the whole thing but saw and heard enough. Unfortunately there is neither a video (even though it was obviously on tape) or transcript from the event.

It was the same weekend event to which Hillary was an invited speaker but which caused an uproar because Obama supporters in the CBC objected.

http://www.thehill.com/leading-the-news/cbcs-event-for-clinton-prompts-grumbles-2007-09-20.html
Davis’s speech at the weekend event was pretty much the same one he had delivered at other annual events about the “glass ceiling” (see the problem coming here?)

http://www.house.gov/arturdavis/2004press/glass_ceiling...

Artur Davis RW Power Broker

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=886

The particular round table was about the future of African Americans in politics.

Not to stretch the details in the discussion beyond memory, the gist was this — everybody just couldn’t wait, including Donna and Artur, for Barack Obama to be president so that FINALLY AAs would be able to enact all the plans waiting so long for “the one” to lead.

It was a chilling undercurrent coming from Brazile and if you can't see the implication coming from Brazile on an Obama presidency, then take a step back and think a minute..

CBC’s BrainTrust’s Mission: Strangely enough, it's not about a better Life for AAs..It's about Capitalism in the Global Economy..

http://www.slepton.com/slepton/viewcontent.pl?id=891

The Racebaiting coming from the Obama Camp is setting the stage for the volatility of Race relations within the Black Community. If you think using Race against Hillary is fairplay, you have no idea, the impact the behavior you are condoning could have on our country's stability..

[Lerkfish]

162. when you deserve to be bashed, yes.

there are other respectful Clinton supporters that are NOT stooping to racial remarks like your own.

so, sorry, this is just me saying your post was beyond the pale.

and, not that you care, I'm not an absolute Obama supporter, though I will vote for him by default. Its possible to object to reprehensible tactics without being a supporter of the opposition.

my two best choices are no longer in the running.


However, keep it up, the more you needlessly racebait, the worse your candidate plummets in the public perception. so, GOOD JOB! you're sinking your own candidate. You should be proud.

[mckeown1128]

74. Do you realize the crap you are spewing?

This is a democracy not a bloodsport. Your are sounding like a freeper with this(anything goes as long as my candidate is winning) crap. I hope you are being snarky with the Race War stuff.

[yourguide]

85. rumored where?

In your brain, the same brain in which Hillary is a good and moral leader? I wish this story would get this in your head. Those guys will cheat and steal to get the nod.

[angie_love]

115. btw, your website sucks, you're an obsessed little Hillary freak

very disturbing. "race war", you know these ugly words aren't surprisng coming from you

[Tellurian]

153. When are you going to educate yourself?

You mean to tell me you know nothing about the CBC's threats and intentions if Obama isn't the nominee?

[Lerkfish]

155. wow. just wow.

the laundry called, your sheets are ready.

[Mme. Defarge]

149. I'm for Obama,

but he would lose my support if he engaged in any form of dirty tricks -- including subverting the will of the voters.

I want a candidate who is in it to win it -- not steal it. Haven't we had enough of that the past 7 1/2 years?

[Renew Deal]

150. And voters will be alienated

And Hillary will lose 49 states in November.

[D23MIURG23]

166. Good thing all of HRC's blitzkrieg strategies drive people away.

Delegates are people too, and some of them might even have a sense of fairness. HRC can keep plotting to use every underhanded tactic there is to overthrow the will of the voters. The more she reeks of entitlement and dishonor, the fewer her allies will be.

Obama doesn't need to start any war. HRC is digging her own political grave.

[Hepburn]

59. If she does this, I can guarantee that I will NOT vote for her...

...if she becomes the Dem nominee in such an unethical fashion. I will vote, but I will write in Edwards as my choice for POTUS.

I always thought Hillary to be under-handed and untrustworthy. If the info in this OP is correct, then it totally fits with my worst thoughts of her.

JMHO

[Tellurian]

154. Well, here you go..

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/clinton_spokesperson_we_will_n.php

FYI, Hillary has never been underhanded or untrustworthy and if you choose to believe the worst in someone, especially Hillary, you will be found to be mistaken. You got yourself all upset before waiting to hear her Camp's intentions.

[LiberalFighter]

75. Needs to be read carefully

First, under Rule 12 candidates have the right to accept or reject candidates to be elected as delegates to the convention prior to the state convention or method used to select national delegates. If a potential delegate has been fundraising or started a county or district group supporting the candidate then the candidate is likely to approve that delegate candidate over others.

They may not be bound by rule 12I to vote for the candidate their spot was created but they do have an obligation when considering both 12I and 12J.

And in all likelihood considering that any potential delegates will be vetted before they are allowed to be placed on the ballot at their state convention they all will be voting based on who they were supporting at the time of their state convention.

[LiberalFighter]

84. How many delegates have been elected or selected already?

Not the spots but the actual individuals that fill those spots?

[CookCountyResident]

122. Wow!

The fine print comes to light. Good job!

[caseycoon]

7. K&R But we need more info on this. n/t

[Azathoth]

8. This is beyond desperate; it's outright insulting

Hillary is gonna become a pariah in her own party if she keeps going down this road. She will be lucky if she can hold on to her senate seat.

[The Ghost]

13. Exactly

When one thinks the job is just owed to them cause of their 'years of service' and that assumption is not coming true as they thought, you start to go crazy and do whatever you can at any cost to win and prove yourself right.

If she did this, it would seal the deal for me ---> NONE OF THE ABOVE in 2008!

[Tellurian]

58. It is? How so...

When the movers and shakers of the CBC threaten "trouble" IF Obama doesn't get the Nomination; yeah I'll say thats pretty desperate and insulting..

[mckeown1128]

81. Tellu. you have always over the last year been a LOUD

Hillary supporter... but you are on the verge of being batsh%tF&cking crazy. How could you possibly be defending this?

[Tellurian]

152. Look, I'm as sick of this infighting as everyone else..

and I want it to be over. The Clinton camp just put out a statement saying they WILL NOT seek to woe Obama's delegates away from him which they legally are entitled to do..(their statement after I made my declaration and someone posting the legitimacy of such)

So lets just see how Obama operates under the strain of according the Clinton Camp the same courtesy and NOT going after Hillary's delegates! I see it as a warning to Obama. If he issues the first shot over the bow, all bets are off!

I hope he doesn't disappoint you. Whereas, the righteous indignation will fall back on yourselves and you'll try spinning it as OK because Obama is doing it!! I can live with it either way..

They don't call it "The Battle for the White House" for nothing!

The Clinton Camp statement re: not wooing delegates:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/clinton_spokesperson_we_will_n.php

[psychopomp]

93. Your appeals to fear are what are "desperate" and "insulting"

Oh, "the CBC threaten 'trouble'" you say... pu-leaze, enough with the weird 80's-style attempts at raising the "black menace." :eyes: It is pathetic and looks outright strange. Nobody here is buying what you are selling.

[TexasObserver]

9. She's gone stark raving mad. This happens when a candidate can't face they're losing.

She's run a terrible campaign, and she's going to keep going until she's shredded the last bit of respect she and Bill have. Delusion dies hard in the untalented ambitious politician.

[oasis]

10. "I'm in it to win it"--HRC. It would be "outrageous" for Hillary to let up

and allow the lesser qualified candidate to battle John McCain for the presidency.

[pampango]

21. Does not "letting up" include efforts to flip pledged delegates, even though this

makes a mockery of the process of selecting pledged delegates through primaries and caucuses?

While Hillary undoubtedly believes that she is "better qualified" to battle John McCain, she should leave the final judgment on this to the collective wisdom of the voters in our primaries, caucuses and convention without corrupting the process by flipping pledged delegates.

[oasis]

33. The "collective wisdom" of voters was corrupted by Obama's swiftboating of

the Clintons on race. The "fair play" genie is out of the bottle.

[pampango]

Ahh, the "he did it first" card. I guess that resolves everyone of having to play by any rules,

if "he started it". My mother never let me get away with that excuse, so I allow neither Obama nor Clinton to use it.

The only ones who believe that Bill didn't play the race card are internet Hillary supporters. In the real world Democrats from Kennedy to Sharpton realize Bill's role in "card playing".

Is your belief that Hillary would have "played by the rules" if not for the "nasty" Obama playing "hard ball politics"?

[oasis]

46. That's my point. Hardball meets hardball. (eom)

[lapfog_1]

40. Uh, no...

you make your case to the voters that Obama "swiftboated the Clintons on race" (actually, I thought it was only Hillary that is running...whatever). you make your case and if the voters agree with you, then your candidate wins.

What is being done here is saying "screw the voters... we don't care how they voted, WE know what's best" and that's a much different animal than one accusation or another.

This, if true, IS enough to destroy the party.

[Window]

145. It certainly destroy the Democratic party because

she will lose an awful lot of votes and hand the GE to McCain.



Peace:thumbsup:

[burythehatchet]

45. You're not very bright, are you?

[oasis]

48. How "bright" must one be to meet your standards?

Not that I really give a good goddam.

[City Lights]

56. But Hillary promised she wouldn't allow herself to be swift-boated!

And here you are claiming she was. And swift-boated by a newbie to boot! Someone with no experience! How embarrassing for her!

[oasis]

69. Hill said that she'd fight back if she was swiftboated. Get your facts straight.(eom)

:dunce:

[yourguide]

71. she wasnt swiftboated idiot

Politico broke this, with words out of senior clinton official's own cheating and stealing mouths.

[oasis]

89. Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment was not racial. It became distorted

by the Obama camp. That's called "swiftboating".

Duh.:dunce:

[yourguide]

104. No

But that Jesse Jackson crack certainly reeked of it.

[karynnj]

135. I don't think it was racial - I think it was a lie about his Iraq position in 2004

The biggest lie that kind of floated below the surface was the quote taken out of context that Obama said his view of what to do going forward was close to Bush's The entire paragraph completely disagreed with what Bush was doing and went further to even say that Bush could not do the diplomacy that was not needed because he did not have the credibility to do so.

Instead people went after the word "fairy tale" and the comment on voting on the IWR. I think the other comment that was largely ignored was the worst because it was patently dishonest.

[City Lights]

90. Get your fact straight. She wasn't swift-boated.

She's run a horrid campaign and her supporters are desperately looking for someone to blame. :nopity:

[oasis]

92. What's your take on Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" remark? Was it racial?

[lapfog_1]

99. It was not racial

It was, however, a lie.

What Bill Clinton was referring to, quite clearly, when he said "fairy tale" was the story of Obama's opposition to the war, not Obama's candidacy for President. However, Barack Obama is on record, since before the war, as being opposed to it. So the "fairy tale" remark was, at best, disingenuous, and at worst, a lie.

[oasis]

103. As you know, the Obama camp distorted "fairy tale" into a racial remark.

That's called "swiftboating" nowadays.

[lapfog_1]

111. Yes, a few of his surrogates did that.

and when the whole tape was played of Bill Clinton's remarks, it was evident that he was not talking about the Obama campaign.

However, this isn't the best news for the Clintons either...

Bill was clearly trying to paint Obama's Iraq war opposition as a "fairy tale", when, in fact, it was not.

The opposition to the Iraq War is one of the central themes that drew me to support Barack Obama over Hillary and even John Edwards.

At least John had the decency to apologize for his earlier support for the war. Hillary never has.

And it's a big issue... because it is my firmly held belief that the Iraq War may the largest foreign policy blunder in our nations history.

[City Lights]

107. The Clintons' fall from grace in AA communities is based on more than

one comment from BC.

[oasis]

110. So you say. (nt)

[CookCountyResident]

126. But that's just it.

The super delegate structure was put into place because the party "elites" didn't trust the "little people" to pick the "correct" candidate.

[yourguide]

34. what would be outrageous

is her trying to steal pledged delegates after the will of the people has been heard.

arent you the same HRC supporters that keep talking about disenfranchising voters in FL and MI? but you find THIS acceptable. Hypocrites!

[oasis]

52. Better a winning "hypocrite" than a losing "HOPEocrite".

;-)

[yourguide]

55. by any means necessary, cheating and stealing

I agree with another poster, you arent very bright.

[oasis]

64. You Obamamite HOPEocrites are by far the "brightest" beings. Thanks for

imparting your wisdom to us dummies. :dunce::woohoo::dunce: :woohoo:

[yourguide]

70. you think it's smart

to vote for a candidate who steals votes? then you must have voted for bush in 2000.

If you think there is ANYTHING good or right about this you are not only not bright but are stupid you actually belong in the bush administration.

Brainwashed Hillbot.

[catgirl]

73. Nothing wrong with having hope

after these years with the Bush administration. And this new Clinton tactic
proves that we need to go in a different direction. Any voter, even Hillary's,
should be alarmed at this prospect. If you're not, then you're a hypocrite.

[Coexist]

62. this sounds like a power-mad move

without thought to the incredible blow back that this will invite.

[jefferson_dem]

11. Nah. She wouldn't...

would she?

...


Of course, she would.

[vi5]

16. She would because she's selfless..

...her love for this country and what's best for the country and the democratic party and it's constituents is so selfless and without a shred of personal motive or gain that she'd have no choice but to do this in order to save the country because what's best for the country is to have Hillary Clinton as president. Can't you see that the only way this country can be saved from the abyss that Bush and the republicans have plunged us into is to elect Hillary Clinton?

[karynnj]

20. Isn't that a long version of her emotional words in NH?

That the country was slipping back - or something similar - where what happened was the threat of her losing. That is true narcissism.

[vi5]

22. Yeah. Exactly (nt)

[Firespirit]

12. Excuse my French, but why the FUCK are they leaking this to the press?

Are they really so out-of-touch to think that this impresses anyone?

Or are they really so disorganized that they have no control over what gets out?

[Ian_rd]

29. It's common for pols to test public opinion of actions before they take them.

This could be a strategy they're considering, and deliberately leaked it to see what kind of outrage would occur, and if it was too strong to allow such an action. If the outrage appears manageable, they'll proceed and spin spin spin. If the outrage is too great, they'll deny the report altogether and claim it was a vicious lie designed to smear the Clinton campaign.

(I have no idea as to the veracity of the claims, but such apparent self-deprecating leaks are very common and have strategic benefits despite their initial appearance).

[yourguide]

36. well considering how pissed...

people are at the THOUGHT of the superdelegates changing the will of the voters I cant imagine this is their strategy, however considering how poorly run both her campaign and judgement have been I wouldnt put it past them

good for obama, glad this broke on the day of wisconsin. I hope he wins yet again.

[beezlebum]

65. i thought she had so much experience

why would this leak today if they were just testing strategy? and more, how on earth could they expect anyone to accept this? surely she knows after all that experience that this won't fly, unless she thinks democrats have turned into bushlings. i'll bet if true it would even piss off her own supporters.

speaking of pissing off her supporters, yesterday, my neighbors told me they voted for clinton in the primary, but are now supporting obama after plagiarism-gate- they said it was the last they could take in of dirty politicking they were hoping hillary would end. but i know i know, i know this guy who knows this guy who knows this guy. i am sure there is no one else out there who is tired of the victimhood and entitlement. :sarcasm:

[CookCountyResident]

131. And that would a classic Clinton tactic.

This is a "trial balloon".

[Ian_rd]

143. THAT's the term I was trying to remember. Thank you.

:toast:

[lapfog_1]

32. Someone inside the campaign is maybe a bit troubled by this tactic??? n/t

[jefferson_dem]

14. More on the ClintonInc strategy here - - “All the rules will be going out the window.”

Clinton targets pledged delegates
By: Roger Simon
February 19, 2008 06:56 AM EST

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.”

<SNIP>

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=2EC0F60E-3048-5C12-00410E5BC5CFBB24

[Apollo11]

17. "everybody will be going after everybody’s delegates"

Sounds like a free-for-all, or what Jon Stewart would call a "CLUSTERF***"

[catgirl]

77. She wants to go after PLEDGED delegates

The ones that were amassed from the voters themselves. Why bother
having elections than?

[Apollo11]

100. You don't know that

This whole story depends on believing that Obama's pledged delegates are dumb enough to consider switching to Hillary Clinton at the Convention in Denver.

If you don't believe they will switch, then you have nothing to worry about.

[catgirl]

140. Hopefully that is the case

but I also believe that the Clinton's will do anything in their power
to win, and strong-arming is not beneath them.

[CookCountyResident]

134. And why bother spending all that money in the primaries?

Just so we could get to this point? Stealing pledged delegates?!

[pampango]

27. Sounds like the definition of "pledged" delegate has some wiggle room in it.

Does anyone here wonder which campaign will focus on this wiggle room in the definition and use it to their advantage? Working behind the scenes to overturn the results of primaries and caucuses will weaken the party and our nominee since it will be apparent that our nominee was chosen by means of backroom deals.

At least the Clinton campaign isn't excusing attempt to flip pledged delegates by claiming the "everyone does it". Instead they are apparently going with the "everyone will be doing it" even if no one else has done or is doing it yet. Once again, assuming that everyone will act as you do assumes that your ethics and principles are shared by everyone else. We will see.

[City Lights]

47. The key words are "a few."

If Clinton is still in it by the time the convention rolls around, she'll be down by more than just "a few" pledged delegates. If she plans on going after Obama delegates in order to win, she's gonna have to go after hundreds of them.

I find even the thought of doing this disgusting. And if she does it and is successful, turn-out in the GE will be way lower than it was in the primaries. Way to go, Hill! :thumbsdown:

[yourguide]

15. More from politico on this

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

Clinton targets pledged delegates

By: Roger Simon
Feb 19, 2008 05:48 AM EST

Richmond Mayor L. Douglas Wilder predicted riots in the streets if the Clinton campaign were to overturn an Obama lead through the use of superdelegates.



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.

But one neutral Democratic operative said to me: “If you are Hillary Clinton, you know you can’t get the nomination just with superdelegates without splitting the party. You have to go after the pledged delegates.”

Winning with superdelegates is potentially party-splitting because it could mean throwing out the choice of the elected delegates and substituting the choice of 795 party big shots.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has warned against it. “I think there is a concern when the public speaks and there is a counter-decision made to that,” she said. “It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided.”

Donna Brazile, who was Al Gore’s campaign manager in 2000 and is a member of the DNC, said recently: “If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit . I feel very strongly about this.”

On Sunday, Doug Wilder, the mayor of Richmond and a former governor of Virginia, went even further, predicting riots in the streets if the Clinton campaign were to overturn an Obama lead through the use of superdelegates.

“There will be chaos at the convention,” Wilder told Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation.”

“If you think 1968 was bad, you watch: In 2008, it will be worse.”

But would getting pledged delegates to switch sides be any less controversial? Perhaps not. They were chosen by voters, but they were chosen to back a particular candidate.

And it is unlikely that many people, including the pledged delegates themselves, know that pledged delegates actually can switch.

Nor would it be easy to get them to switch.

If, however, after the April 22 Pennsylvania primary the pledged delegate count looks very close, the Clinton official said, “ sides will start working all delegates.”

In other words, Clinton and Obama will have to go after every delegate who is alive and breathing.

[yourguide]

26. And this is my favorite part:

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.


Of course the Clinton campaign thinks the Obama campaign would do this, that camp thinks it's OK to do this so they assume Obama's camp would as well.

Well it's not ok. That's IT, she is as low as it gets.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. The headline is more than a little misleading

Here are the actual relevent snips:


...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.

And then this:

“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.”

The core: "I swear it's not happening now... if it is a stalmate everybody will be going after everybody's delegates".


That is not Clinton targetting pledged delegates. That is someone in the Clinton campaign making an assumption that they will have to actively duel with the Obama campaign over each other's pledged delegates if there is a stalmate.

[yourguide]

37. you forgot the quote at the beginning of the article

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.

[Tom Rinaldo]

68. That isn't a quote though, it is a "lead in"

What follows is the actual reporting on what was said, quoting both named and un-named sourses. There is no quote that directly supports that lead in phrase, but there are several specific quotes that do not frame that discussion in the way implied.

[yourguide]

76. yup, keep spinning it...

you guys are going to lose. cheating or not you will lose because of crap like this. you guys had a chance.

The lead in IS the story or did you not take Journalism 101.

[Tom Rinaldo]

83. In journalism one should back up your lead with substance

It frequently is not done, or at the least I should say that often the "lead in" is spun in the most provocative way possible to draw more readers to the story than would have bothered to read it had the opening lines been more "nuanced". Surely you have read enough politics by now to notice that.

[yourguide]

88. Sir, feel free to vote Hil

Vote for cheating and stealing, be my guest. If you dont see ANYTHING wrong with Clinton officials admitting they plan to implement this strategy, trying to circumvent the will of the voters, then you have far larger issues that need to be addressed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

95. I commented below that I don't support it

I commented above that I see No quote where Clinton officials admit that they plan to implement this strategy. I see quotes saying at least one assumes that mutual delegate raiding will take place if there is a stalemate. That is not an admission of a plan to implement that strategy if in fact there is no evidence that Obama's side would do the same.

Maybe they would, I called the headline misleading, I did not say it is impossible, but from what is reported so far it is still only a possibility, and a possibility premised on an assumption that each side will have to fight for their pledged delegates.

[Ian_rd]

39. Oh for God's sake.

You've got a Clinton insider describing a strategy they're considering that they know is anti-democratic and unethical. And how does this person manage the message? By saying he ASSUMES Obama will do the same? That is weak. Really really weak. Requires no evidence whatsoever.

Maybe Bush assumed Gore would steal Florida votes too in 2000? Hey, you never know. Maybe the vote theft was a preemptive strike against Gore's coup.

[yourguide]

43. Really disgusting

just foul. She is having a rally here in NY today and it makes me want to spend the $250 for a floor seat just to call her out on this.

This is so wrong.

[Tom Rinaldo]

78. I think it is wrong. I don't support it

I don't want either campaign to do it. But I would not simply assume if I were in either campaign that everyone on the "other side" is as pure as the driven snow and would not possibly attempt to do that. Maybe not the candidates themselves, but some supporters of them. Once you lose the nomination it is too late to cry "foul", especially if nothing illegal happened. I seriously would be shocked if some people in both camps are not at the least discussing contingency plans in case the other side is caught attempting to raid their own delegates.

[BeyondGeography]

50. He's saying, "They're going to be just as naughty as we are"

But the Obama campaign won't have to, since they'll have the lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote. Why would they cede the high ground while the Clinton campaign attempts to execute electoral thievery Republican-style?

[Bread and Circus]

60. Hillary Clinton: The George Bush of the Democratic Party

[Bread and Circus]

79. Wow, if you read the Clinton aides' remarks it reveals how stupid they think we are.

Well, I have news for them. Any attempt of theirs to steal the election in any format is going to be met with an angry opposition.

[Vinca]

18. The Clintons don't care about the party, only about the Clintons.

I'm guessing they've got Rove on retainer somewhere.

[adabfree]

19. I am not surprised by anything Hillary does...absolutely nothing..

I have a few labels I could put on her character right now, but it's to early...

She's a piece of work...simply a piece of work...

[CreekDog]

23. i was wondering about this on the second ballot

don't like it one bit.

[yourguide]

24. This makes me sick,

just sick to my stomach. I will not vote for her, period. She apparently doesnt need my vote anyway, if she thinks she can hijack the primaries then she is welcome to hijack the nomination and she doesnt need my support either way.

No way will Barack supporters vote for her after this, no friggin way.

[usregimechange]

31. She would do almost anything to win...

[Ian_rd]

35. ... and she is.

This is where democracy stops and the Clinton campaign begins.

[City Lights]

49. Almost?

What wouldn't she do to win? :shrug:

I am finding myself more repulsed by her with each passing day. :puke:

[4themind]

38. I hope both candidates go on record about their intentions on this issue..

Maximizing voter education as to how their votes will be counted has an important civic purpose IMO

[mckeown1128]

86. Both candidates.... What are you smoking?

Why would Obama try to do something so stupid? He is trying to win the old fashoned way. You know, voters and elections. He has zero motivation to intimidate pledged delegates.

[4themind]

101. Never meant to say..

that he did, I just want both of them on the record from now

[mckeown1128]

165. ohh ok... sorry if I was a little snarky....

I have been on edge here.

[Perky]

41. Roger SImon writes about this extensively on Politico this AM

Clinton targets pledged delegates

By: Roger Simon
Feb 19, 2008 05:48 AM EST
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.

But one neutral Democratic operative said to me: “If you are Hillary Clinton, you know you can’t get the nomination just with superdelegates without splitting the party. You have to go after the pledged delegates.”

Winning with superdelegates is potentially party-splitting because it could mean throwing out the choice of the elected delegates and substituting the choice of 795 party big shots.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has warned against it. “I think there is a concern when the public speaks and there is a counter-decision made to that,” she said. “It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided.”

Donna Brazile, who was Al Gore’s campaign manager in 2000 and is a member of the DNC, said recently: “If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit . I feel very strongly about this.”

On Sunday, Doug Wilder, the mayor of Richmond and a former governor of Virginia, went even further, predicting riots in the streets if the Clinton campaign were to overturn an Obama lead through the use of superdelegates.

“There will be chaos at the convention,” Wilder told Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation.”

“If you think 1968 was bad, you watch: In 2008, it will be worse.”

But would getting pledged delegates to switch sides be any less controversial? Perhaps not. They were chosen by voters, but they were chosen to back a particular candidate.

And it is unlikely that many people, including the pledged delegates themselves, know that pledged delegates actually can switch.

Nor would it be easy to get them to switch.

If, however, after the April 22 Pennsylvania primary the pledged delegate count looks very close, the Clinton official said, “ sides will start working all delegates.”

In other words, Clinton and Obama will have to go after every delegate who is alive and breathing.

[LiberalFighter]

91. I don't believe you can quote the entire article

[loveangelc]

42. She is insane.

[BeyondGeography]

51. Will that include second-class delegates from red states?

[AlertLurker]

54. Obama is doing exactly the same thing.

All this tit-for-tat crap is getting verrry monotonous.

Doesn't either of them have any IDEAS?

[yourguide]

57. what tit for tat crap?

Politico broke this, confirmation from a senior hillary advisor. The obama camp didnt put this out.

[Pirate Smile]

72. Well, Obama is trying to actually win the primaries and caucuses in all the states,

even the insignificant ones, so he is trying to get those delegates. Don't you see? It is the same thing.

:crazy:

[City Lights]

67. What proof do you have that Obama is also doing this?

Is there some confirmation from his campaign that I overlooked?

[AlertLurker]

125. I got an e-mail from the Obama campaign.

This stuff is just dragging and dragging...I'm getting pretty disgusted with both of them, though I never liked either one much, anyway...

[City Lights]

142. You got an email from the Obama campaign saying he's going to try to

persuade Clinton's pledged delegates to join him at the convention?

Care to share it here?

I'm on Obama's email list and I got no such email. I got one about superdelegates, but none about pledged delegates.

[CookCountyResident]

136. Obama met with Edwards

... possibly to try to get him to give over his pledged delegates?! Obama will need every one that he can get, if Hillary is using this scorched earth strategy.

[mckeown1128]

63. You left out the worst part....

"all of the rules will be going out the window" line.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

[LiberalFighter]

80. I wonder which side of the aisle the reporter is on.

If this is true then Obama would be doing it as well.

[Medusa]

82. Look, this is not likely to be an effective strategy for her

At most she might peel off a handful--less than 5 is my guess. It just means that these delegates would be well advised to change their phone numbers or they'll be getting calls from Billary & Chelsea and anyone else the Clinton campaign can 'sic on 'em. This is just one more example of how desperate she is.

[LiberalFighter]

87. This is the quote not being reported by the OP

“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.”

And this

And it is unlikely that many people, including the pledged delegates themselves, know that pledged delegates actually can switch.

Nor would it be easy to get them to switch.

If, however, after the April 22 Pennsylvania primary the pledged delegate count looks very close, the Clinton official said, “ sides will start working all delegates.”

[Bread and Circus]

97. The Obama campaigned stated that they were NOT interested in doing this and that's in the article

This is coming from the Clinton campaign only. they are trying to "soften us up" by acting like both sides are going to do it. Don't be duped. It makes no sense for the Obama campaign to even want to do this considering they will have more pledge delagates to begin with. The Clinton campaign is trying to steal the election in plain sight.

[LiberalFighter]

105. I find your super size text offensive and I find your response offensive

And I find it offensive that you believe any candidate including Obama would not be doing this if it is done.

In reality, BOTH SIDES will be talking to all the candidates to present their case ahead of the second ballot vote should neither candidate receives the requisite votes to win the nomination. Either side waiting until after the first ballot would be fools.

[Bread and Circus]

108. Bullshit. This is 100% coming from the Clinton campaign. They know they

are going to lose the pledged delegate race and so they want to steal delegates. It's as simple as that.

Trying to make this "both sides are going to do it" is just a flat out lie and makes no sense. Why in hell would the winning side want to steal delegates they don't need?

[yourguide]

112. amen.

[LiberalFighter]

114. Why the hell should I trust what you say or Simon who probably being bias in his reporting

And I sure as hell won't be believing or trusting the opinions of people on this site or others when they don't have the political expertise.

AND YOU DIDN'T READ THE LAST PART OF MY RESPONSE EITHER WHICH SHOWS YOUR LACK OF COMPREHENSION.

[yourguide]

98. the thing about it is

the CLinton camp has already decided this to be a part of their strategy...the obama camp, as mentioned in the article, has no knowledge of this crappy strategy.

[LiberalFighter]

106. I'm sure they are always telling the truth

[yourguide]

109. just like Bill did about Monica?

[LiberalFighter]

116. Just like your post counts are less than 200 and you don't provide data about yourself

in your profile.

[yourguide]

120. SO what?

Does it matter I dont have as much free time to post as you guys?

And why do I need to provide personal data to a bunch of strangers?

Make your arguement on the merits, if you have any.

[LiberalFighter]

124. You can't provide what part of the country you live? You must be weaseling

As for the lying.

It wasn't Hillary that lied about the BJ.

And I'm sure that Obama has never lied about major facts.

PUT ON IGNORE

[yourguide]

129. Hey knucklehead

if you look at any of my prior posts I state that I live in NY.

[Barack_America]

96. With Democrats like the Clintons, who needs Republicans?

Do they care about anything other than winning? Is this nomination important enough to steal elections and destroy the Democratic party?

They should be thrown out of the party if they try this shit.

[npincus]

102. How B*shian of her... you can't win honestly then STEAL it.

[SunnyDays]

113. What's so outrageous? Obama's dropping $$ all over the place

and JJ Jr. is threatening incumbent black officeholders with challengers if they don't toe the Obama line.

Is trying to win over delegates more outrageous than the latter??

[GarbagemanLB]

118. There is a difference between PLEDGED delegates and super delegates.

[Occam Bandage]

117. Wow. We've finally found someone willing to sink lower than Bush.

[sniffa]

127. Didn't this work for Mondale?

I was too young to be aware of politics then.

[polichick]

128. 2000, 2004 - and now 2008...

Guess it's not only Republicans who are power hungry enough to thwart the will of the people.

[elixir]

130. Do you mean she's going to throw money at them like Obama did? He outspent HRC 3x on superdelegates.

[GarbagemanLB]

133. Superdelegates are different from pledged. n/t

[karynnj]

138. How dishonest - he gave money to elect a Democratic Congress in 2006

This is "Hey John" redux as "Hey Barrack".

What Obama did was to work very hard to raise money and to appear with candidates to help them win election. This was GOOD. HRC used 2006 to raise twice as much money possible from big money donors. She had lame opponents in both the primary and GE and raised a huge amount.

[angie_love]

132. If she wins the nom by stealing it I will WRITE IN Obama in November

That is all. How absolutely horrid.

[tyne]

137. Somebody (or several people)

from each side needs to contact their campaign and demand a response about this issue, imo.

But first....I'll go on record as saying that I'd detest a move by Obama to do such a thing.

How about Hillary supporters?

[Perky]

139. If she steals it . I wou;d back an independent Democratic Bid By Obama

We have momentum ... we have a mailing list.. we have a message that resonates and we have money

We will win as independents.

[yourguide]

141. Me too

I have never not voted in a General and have always voted Dem. After this I just cant do it. Period. I will write barack in.

[Scurrilous]

144. Clinton Camp: 'All The Rules Will Be Going Out The Window'

<snip>

"Our friend Roger Simon has a juicy little column in this morning's Politico where he reports on the Clinton campaign's push not just for superdelegates but regular, pledged delegates.

Whether or not they know it, those delegates purportedly elected to represent the will of the voters of their home states and districts can actually vote any way they want. And according to Simon, "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.

“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 Simon yesterday. “All the rules will be going out the window.”

The Obama campaign responded harshly this morning.

“As it becomes increasingly clear that Senator Clinton may not be able to secure the nomination by winning the support of actual voters, the Clinton campaign has once again floated a strategy that would essentially say that the preference of Democratic voters is a mere obstacle to their win-at-all-costs strategy," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. "First, they said they’ll try to seat the non-existent delegates in Florida and Michigan, something that neutral party leaders have roundly criticized. Then, they suggested that superdelegates should consider subverting the will of the voters and the pledged delegates, which has also been strongly objected to.

“Their new strategy will be to convince delegates that were pledged by actual Democratic voters to switch sides. In their own words, ‘all the rules will be going out the window.’ Voters are already rejecting the Clinton campaign’s say-or-do-anything-to-win tactics, and this is the latest example that it’s time to turn the page on this type of politics that could severely harm our party’s chances to win the general election."

This thing reminds me more and more of the Florida recount. And just as with that contest, the point is not to "count every vote" -- but to win."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/clinton-camp-al.html

[Meshuga]

146. Nice response by the Obama campaign

“As it becomes increasingly clear that Senator Clinton may not be able to secure the nomination by winning the support of actual voters, the Clinton campaign has once again floated a strategy that would essentially say that the preference of Democratic voters is a mere obstacle to their win-at-all-costs strategy," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.

Nice response from David Plouffe. My perception is that it is a win at all cost strategy for HRC. It is nauseating.

[yourguide]

161. got a link for this? would love to see the rest.

[Meshuga]

164. The only link I have is the abcnews link...

...from the post I was replying to:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/clinton-camp-al.html

[TriMetFan]

147. Who cares.

Come on, Obama has spent over $600,000.00 on buying super delegates votes and Hillary has spent about $198,000.00 doing the same thing. Now this is what everyone should be pissed about. Buying votes is wrong and they are both doing it.

[NashVegas]

148. Oh, The OUTRAGE!

How do y'all like the new shoes?

[LizW]

151. Debunked.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4659984

[rodeodance]

168. yes---it was debunked HOURS AGO

[DEMocracity]

156. I must admit that Hillary has impressed me with this one...

just when I think there is nothing worse that she can do... she does it. She ALWAYS does it. HOW is it POSSIBLE ?????

[Lerkfish]

163. simple: Mark Penn and her other advisors are running a piss-poor campaign

they're shooting themselves in the foot, constantly.

[Unbowed]

157. That would be the deal breaker for me.

I've said from the beginning of this that I'd support the nominee. Let me amend that to legitimate nominee of the Democratic Party. I can't believe Clinton would stoop to this and I'm not jumping to conclusions. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt. I don't think she will divide the party this way. At lease, I hope not. But if she does, then all bets are off for me.

No, I won't support McAsshole. But I will write-in the legitimate nominee and let the chips fall where they may.

[Unbowed]

158. That would be the deal breaker for me.

I've said from the beginning of this that I'll support the nominee. Let me amend that to legitimate nominee of the Democratic Party. I can't believe Clinton would stoop to this and I'm not jumping to conclusions. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt. I don't think she will divide the party this way. At lease, I hope not. But if she does, then all bets are off for me.

No, I won't support McAsshole. But I will write-in the legitimate nominee and let the chips fall where they may. **Edit to add disclaimer: McAsshole is a paraphrase of McDonalds trademark.

[rodeodance]

167. **STATEMENTS FROM HILLARY AND OBOMA***UPDATES********

CLINTON ISSUED A STATEMENT AND OBAMA FOLLOWED WITH HIS STATEMENT






http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02...


Clinton Spokesperson Rules Out Pursuit Of Obama's Pledged Delegates
By Greg Sargent - February 19, 2008, 10:55AM

Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer is adamantly denying a report this morning in The Politico quoting an anonymous campaign official suggesting that the Clinton campaign will pursue Obama's pledged delegates. Singer sends me this:

We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. It's now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions.

It's worth noting that the Politico story quotes a Clinton official predicting that both campaigns will pursue the pledged dels. The Obama camp has not yet put out a statement on whether they'll pursue Hillary's pledged dels, though they very likely will soon.

More in a bit.

Late Update: The Obama campaign has ruled out this tactic, too. Obama spokesperson Tommy Vietor sends me this:

"We would absolutely not use these sorts of tactics. Senator Obama is focused on winning contests and earning the support of pledged delegates."

[OnionRing Sasquatch]

169. Sounds like someone..

needs to curl up next to a super sized helping of onion rings. Then I'm sure the fair play will return. It's easy to get wrapped up in the excitement of a campaign when you should stop, relax, and take a fast food fiesta, that'll calm 'er down.

[Fox Mulder]

170. If she does that...

I won't vote for her in the GE, even if she is the nominee.

I'll write-in someone instead.

[eridani]

171. In caucus states, this is perfectly fair

In 2004, the Kucinich campaign went from 0 delegates after the precinct caucuses to 6 pledged and one at-large delegate after the Congressional District caucuses. We peeled off quite a few of the more loosely attached Dean delegates, and also some Kerry delegates who felt free to vote their values after Kerry's nomination was assured numerically.

If she can convince LD and CD delegates to switch, she's entitled. However, since her WA state campaign manager is a major asshole, it probably won't happen. Some of her LD organizers are good folks who might have better luck, though.

[michelle25]

172. the winner of popular vote must be nominee

It is very simple to me. If the super delegates overrule the pledged delegates,
I will have to vote McCain. I will use my right to vote, I'm a regitered Democrat,
but I will not vote a candidate who has won the nominee while he or she didn't win
the popular vote - period.