"So called" Pledged Delegates up for Grabs, Clinton says

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the second time in three days, Sen. Hillary Clinton told reporters that the pledged delegates awarded based on vote totals in their state are not bound to abide by election results.

It's an idea that has been floated by her or a campaign surrogate nearly half a dozen times this month.

Sen. Barack Obama leads Clinton among all Democratic delegates, 1,622 to 1,485, in the latest CNN count. Among pledged delegates, Obama leads Clinton 1,413 to 1,242.

"Every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose," Clinton told Time's Mark Halperin in an interview published Wednesday.

"We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment," she said.

Clinton's remarks echoed her Monday comments to the editorial board of the Philadelphia Daily News.

"And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged," she said Monday. "You know there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates."

Clinton also made similar comments in a Newsweek interview published two weeks ago.

The last time a major candidate lobbied pledged delegates to switch sides was at the 1980 convention, when Ted Kennedy's campaign tried to recruit delegates who arrived at the convention supporting eventual nominee Jimmy Carter.

After that battle, the Democratic Party altered a provision that required pledged delegates to support the candidate they had arrived at the convention to back.

Clinton advisers have cited the altered rule, which dates to 1982 and says only that pledged delegates "shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them."

The same year, The Democratic Party created a new category of delegate -- the so-called "superdelegates" -- party leaders and elected officials who are free to support any candidate they wish, regardless of vote totals in their home states.

Some states require their delegates to support the candidate they are pledged to but most do not.

Earlier this month, Clinton adviser Harold Ickes first raised the prospect that pledged delegates were not legally bound to vote as election results indicate -- an idea that has drawn sharp criticism from supporters of rival Obama.

"Despite repeated denials, the Clinton campaign has again admitted that they will go to any length to win," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said again Wednesday.

link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/26/clinton.delegates/



Latest group to join the list of "don't matters": Voters.

in the back so hilary is moot.

Josh Marshall had a piece on this a few days back: he says pledged delegates tend to be the most ardent of supporters, and are unlikely to jump ship. She has to keep people thinking she has a chance, or calls for her to step aside will grow louder. She knows this is a disingenuous line.

'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'

Who was that, Wolfowitz? I remember hearing it, I know it was a PNACer.

Very likely Cheney. It has his cadences, if you will.

They also know that they will not catch Obama. And they also know the SuperD's will break in his favor when he enters the Convention with more PD's and more popular vote.

To what end? What is the benefit to Hillary in managing perceptions and giving her supporters false hope? More fundraising? It probably costs more for her to keep going that she is bringing in, now. I just don't get her motivation at this point.

She's the little engine that could, chugging up a steep hill that's about to turn into a wall.

which is what makes it all the more ridiculous.

so...

in the following memo to pelosi, posted on TPm, they say quote "We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of EACH
of the delegates at the National Convention in August."

:shrug:

Otherwise, primaries are fine, because they allow the public to feel like we are the ones who chose the candidate, when in reality the candidate was chosen for us. The Obama campaign is a rare occurrence where the public chose against the will of the party elite in a significant way. Recently, a few of Hillary's big money donors - the party elite - have warned Nancy Pelosi that she needs to retract her comment that the superdelegate vote should reflect the will of the voters. This is what they think of us. This is what Hillary thinks of us. When we disobey, we are to be dealt with as cattle: prodded and herded to where they want us to be, stuck with Hillary against our will.

I would not support her lobbying pledged delegates, nor would I support Obama doing it. But though there was a little back and forth about this months ago, how one side may be forced to if the other side did first, both campaigns claim they are not going to do this.

The thing is, this isn't something that can safely be done in secret - it would involve talking to people with known associations to the other side for either candidate to attempt it, which let's just say is risky. It is controversial enough when either campaign tries to get a super delegate to change sides after they endorsed. It is not going to happen nor has anyone proposed doing it.

I think Hillary was making a point about how out of line it is to assume that Super Delegates must vote to follow the lead of whoever has the most pledged delegates, since even the pledged delegates are legally free to change their minds.

This simply is not somewhere Hillary would want to go, even if you do not trust her. That can of worms would much more likely work against her than for her. She has no reason to believe that she would get more conversions than Barack would, especially if people got angry at her, as they certrainly would, if she initiated trying to win conversions of pledged delegates.

When will her destructiveness end?

as far away from Hillary as they can get. That's ballot box poison.

Just what we want to head our party! Sheesh!

LOL

Talking about the delegates is not the same as trying to persuade them to switch their vote. Talking about the delegates won't affect the outcome of the primaries at all.

Got it. :thumbsup:

:freak: