Ickes: Pledged, but not bound (Looks like Clinton camp is going to try and 'sway' pledged delegates)

<snip>

On a conference call with reporters, 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 suggest that the Clinton campaign would court pledged delegates, something they've disavowed; he just stated the rule. Still, an interesting note.


<snip>


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

...who very publicly switched to Obama.

can't change sides...unless he was talking about Edwards...not sure how that works.

They can change their minds all the way up to the convention. They have no official connection to the election results. Pledged delegates do.

...I mean...how in the hell can ANYONE still support this woman?

Your first experience with ethics?

i love it! :toast:

Unless a superdelegate switches from Clinton to Obama. Then it's okay, huh?

If it's the other way around, then Clinton is dishonest and mean.

You wouldn't know ethics if it hit you in the face.

heading into November's elections x(

x(

.

Florida moving up it's primary was all the republican's fault :cry:

:hi:

But you get testy about swaying delegates? This is going to be such fun.

Go read some of madfloridian's journals before typing stupid stuff.

I never had anything but respect for the Cintons, until lately.

Her contempt toward Obama supporters, her sarcasm about the celestial choir, her attempt to make it sound ok to break party rules have all worked against her in my opinion.

I can not even watch her on TV anymore. I just can't.

Governor Crist wants the delegates seated at the convention. They don't want to disenfranchise a few million voters.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/03/blitzer-could-floridas-republican-governor-help-clinton/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080302/pl_bloomberg/a_z1b1gct_nm_1

http://mersmanpolitical.blogspot.com/2008/03/florida-gov-supports-new-democratic.html

This isn't Hillary's idea either. There is no credible information that she has any part in Governor Crist's or Governor Granholm's positions. There are a lot of people who believe that seating the delegates is the right thing to do.

I think refusing to recognize the people's vote is unconstitutional. People's Constitutional rights superceed any rules the DNC makes up.

Dean made a monumental mistake when he decided on these ridiculous rules because it's causing so many problems in the process. They probably never figured that the race would be this close, which shows the leader of the DNC's inexperience in not recognizing that the unexpected could happen. Things are not so black and white when dealing with the electorate. Dean created this mess and he is going to have to make it right.

They want to discount millions of voters who have the right to have their votes counted. That's the issue of most importance, not the whining of misinformed Obama zealots who want a free ride for their candidate.

This is real politics, so educate yourselves and stop acting like spoiled children.

It's called a campaign and that means that the two candidates try to 'sway' people to come to their side. That's what a political campaign is.

It's all a terrible shock to their delicately nurtured souls.

but we are dems because we believe in a sense of fairness.

.

This is not democracy.

There is a difference in swaying voters and swaying those that the voters elected to represent them. The voters chose a delegate for Obama, and it is that delegate's responsibility to abide by the voters' wishes.

This is an underhanded, scummy way to try to win. Any attempt to spin it otherwise is complete bullshit.

local party actions - it doesn't go to well.

But, hey, if the Clinton campaign wants to come to Iowa and strong-arm county convention delegates who worked for and went to caucus for Barack Obama. So be it. I'm sure they'll be welcomed.

Gotta win right? Ethics be damned

This is despicable!

I hope she is never elected to office again after this disgraceful campaign.

let them know how dirty and destructive to the party the campaign's behavior is.

At some of the caucuses, delegates were voted on and I wouldn't be surprised if the Clinton camp got some of their supporters nominated as Obama delegates.

If you can't win fair and square, why not cheat? That's their belief.

do it and then continue to deny it. the HRC supporters will blindly defend.

:crazy:

Forum Name General Discussion: Primaries
Topic subject Obama and The Myth of Pledged Delegates
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4906504#4906504
4906504, Obama and The Myth of Pledged Delegates
Posted by rodeodance on Wed Mar-05-08 12:05 PM

Its the process that counts folks:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-schlesinger/obama-and-the-myth-of-ple_b_89977.html


Obama and The Myth of Pledged Delegates

Posted March 5, 2008 | 10:15 AM (EST)


There is no rule in the politics of Democratic Party conventions that says that the contender with the largest number of pledged delegates short of the total required for nomination should automatically, by dint of that achievement, be handed the party's designation. This argument is now being put forth by Senator Obama's campaign.


Such a contention is belied by the modern-day history of Democratic conventions. In 1912, the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, Champ Clark, went to the Baltimore convention with the largest number of delegates, around 440, Woodrow Wilson was second with 324, trailed by a few others -- with two thirds of the convention vote required for nomination. Champ Clark was not then allowed to proclaim himself victorious simply because he led the pack. Rather the proceedings went through almost 50 ballots over a week's period that, after much maneuvering, resulted in Wilson accumulating enough delegates to secure the nomination.

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt arrived at the Democratic Convention this time with the most delegates -- having won them through some primaries and some Democratic state organizations -- but still short of the requisite two-thirds majority. Despite this lead, the party did not hand him the nomination. He had to proceed through four ballots to achieve it.

….Read this omitted paragraph for another good example………

Now today some in the Obama campaign and in the media are dismissing the importance of Hillary Clinton's victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island as unimportant. For they argue that, by any careful analysis of the delegate selection process under the present Democratic Party proportional representation system, whatever delegate totals Senator Clinton wins through the end of this year's primary season, will not be able to overcome Senator Obama's current unsurpassable lead over Senator Clinton and therefore Obama will deserve the support of the so-called "super delegates" and should gain the nomination. But that is not how it works as we have seen in past Democratic conventions. A lead in pledged delegates is not enough. You still have to convince your party that you are the best nominee. That is what the next stage of this election is all about.

to sway pledged delegates away from Obama.

But nice attempt at smear.

Who is to say that the Clinton campaign (or for fairness the Obama campaign) is not encouraging supporters to apply as pledged delegates for their opponent? Really would not be that hard to find "true believers" of either campaign do be double agent pledged delegates unless the campaigns are scrutinizing the selection.

There are alternates listed and alternates to the alternates.

:wtf:

expect a 'call' from the Clinton campaign :scared: