Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Is Hillary's Campaign Planning to Manipulate Pledged Delegates?

Posted by Ron Chusid, The Carpetbagger Report at 1:36 PM on February 19, 2008.


It would certainly be bad for the Clinton campaign if these charges are true, but that remains to be seen.
070112hillaryvmed7a.widec
Clinton

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Democracy and Elections in your
mailbox!

 

The Politico has a potentially controversial story by Roger Simon which leaves me wondering where the story is. The title certainly caught my attention: Clinton Targets Pledged Delegates. The logic here is that Clinton's strategy of going after super delegates is running into trouble with all the talk of how it would split the party if the super delegates go against the will of the delegates won by the candidates in caucuses and primaries. The next step would be to get pledged delegates to change their support so that the super delegates would not be voting contrary to the pledged delegates.

This is theoretically possible as there is nothing which legally prevents a delegate from changing their vote. Even if legal, this would be as potentially divisive as Clinton's strategy of going after the super delegates.

If this is true, it would be yet another serious problem which would harm the credibility of the Clinton campaign. However, after reading beyond the head line, I'm not certain there really is a story here at all.

The article has a couple of quotes from the Clinton campaign, but I would really like to see the full context of any interviews to determine if this is really their plan or if spokes people simply responded to some leading questions. Early in the article, the author states:

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.

I would like to see more detail on the line that "the strategy was confirmed to me." The quotes in the remainder of the story are not strong enough to be considered confirmation. Later there is the comment:

"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."

This certainly doesn't show that this is happening now, and it is unclear as to whether this is a reflection of future plans. Later in the story:

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.

Towards the end there is yet another unclear statement:

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

These could be taken as predictions as opposed to confirmation of any such plan and are insufficient to support Simon's earlier statement that this strategy was confirmed. Without further evidence we might have to wait and see whether there is any validity to this charge.

Political Punch received the following response from the Obama campaign to these charges:

"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."

It would certainly be bad for the Clinton campaign if these charges are true, but that remains to be seen.


See (Literally) Why Al Franken is Gaining Votes
Minnesota Public Radio's website has examples of the kinds of errors voters made when marking paper ballots.
Post by Steven Rosenfeld. November 20, 2008.
Convicted Senator Ted Stevens Now 814 Votes Behind in Alaska
With 40,000 ballots left to be counted, Democrat Mark Begich has pulled ahead of the incumbent Republican senator.
Post by Steven Rosenfeld. November 13, 2008.
VideoTheVote Releases Footage of Major Problems on Election Day
The election protection group releases a series of video reports showing the major problems faced by voters in 2008.
Post by Staff. November 12, 2008.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Don't Blow It, Please
Posted by: QQOblivion on Feb 19, 2008 10:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Super-delegates, pledged delegates: If shenanigans leads to Clinton winning the nomination, and even if Clinton wins fairly, all polls I have seen show McCain winning the general election.
The Democrats' delegates, if they have any smarts, will let Obama take the nomination. Thing is, as is customary for the Democrats, they (the party insiders, in this case) will (as usual) probably pick the candidate (Hillary) anyway most likely to lose the general election. I wouldn't be shocked if, despite all previous expectations to the contrary, we get a Republican president next time around.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't Blow It, Please Posted by: jpopphan@charter.net
Another BS process story
Posted by: Joshua Holland on Feb 19, 2008 11:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really, this is ridiculous. The poaching of delegates is not only "theoretically legal," it's also the only way a winner can come out of a convention if the candidates go in tied.

Clinton's campaign vehemently denies the story's accuracy, which comes from the hacks at the Politico and should be suspect.

It's also not in any way "divisive" to court super-delegates -- Obama's doing the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do your Hillary homework!
Posted by: grassyknolluk on Feb 19, 2008 3:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Clintons are the Godfathers of politics. You can bet that they'll be calling in all their markers. A lot of people have been bribed in advance with considerable cash and concessions. And contracts and 'contracts'. Do your Clinton homework. I wish Mario Puzo could write about the real history of Hillary and Bill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't Doubt It for a Minute.
Posted by: wmichaeltrout on Feb 20, 2008 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.....I was a delegate at large to the 1992 Democratic National Convention for Jerry Brown. Party insiders, in that instance Mr. Clinton's campaign, controlled events so closely at the convention, that it was in fact more a coronation than anything else.

.....The convention SHOULD BE THE LAST DEBATE STAGE OF THE NOMINATION PROCESS. Delegates SHOULD have one last chance to compare the Candidates. The only way for that to happen is for all Candidates who made it as far as the convention to have a podium to address the body, with equal access.

.....But if you watch the section of the video about the protests of the Jerry Brown delegates at http://www.mediaburn.org/Video-Preview.128.0.html?uid=750
you can see how Clinton operatives and party insiders denied Jerry prime time access to speak to the delegates.

.....You need to keep in mind that the convention is a 4-5 day affair of very long days. With a little scheduling shenanigans you can effectively dampen any message, and that is absolutely what happened.

.....So beware, Barack, the antics of the insiders; they can throw you under the bus.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]