Is Clinton Going After Pledged Delegates?
Guest post by Ron Chusid
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.
Cross posted from Liberal Values
Grumpy
says:DKos includes a response from the Clinton campaign: “It’s now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions.”
Look, I realize that this story casts unfair aspersions on Clinton, but now they’re trying to leverage it into an attack on Obama’s credibility.
I used to just be uncomfortable with the idea of Clinton as a candidate. The more she campaigns, the less I like her.
Brooks
says:Remind me again about how much we all dislike those election-tampering, smear-loving, truth-impaired Republicans?
TR
says:I used to just be uncomfortable with the idea of Clinton as a candidate. The more she campaigns, the less I like her.
Agreed.
I understand a lot of this stems from the collection of unmitigated assholes she’s surrounded herself with, but (1) she picked them and ultimately bears responsibility for them and (2) if this is an indication of what her White House would look like, then, yeah, no thanks.
Between all the craven political maneuvering (the effort to change the rules ex post facto for FL/MI), the pathetic efforts at spinning away their losses (“this state doesn’t count because it had too many blacks, too many kids, too many college grads, was a caucus, was a small state, etc. etc.”), and the incredibly lame attack lines (“Obama’s a plagiarist! Obama’s a misogynist!”), this has to be the saddest campaign I’ve ever seen from our side.
brent
says:I really don’t buy that Clinton has anything like this in mind. I think there is a lot of reason to distrust Politico as a source on this but more importantly, it is extremely unrealistic that this would end with anything but Clinton being pilloried by members of her own party. Highly questionable story in my opinion.
Brooks
says:brent, I’m pretty sure Clinton would be happy with being pilloried as long as she won.
You’re right about distrusting Politico, but it’s a sad commentary on what many of us have come to expect from Hillary that a fairly outrageous story from a questionable source is so plausible. Two months ago I would have dismissed this story. Today it seems to fit in with what I’ve seen from camp Hillary.
Racer X
says:I think Politico has to be trusted only slightly less than Drudge.
That said, I would not be willing to bet that the Clintons haven’t at least floated this idea. They’ve pulled worse stunts lately.
brent
says:brent, I’m pretty sure Clinton would be happy with being pilloried as long as she won.
I guess my point, to be more precise, is that she couldn’t really win this way. She could only succeed in embarrassing herself politically and, whatever one has come to think of her in this season of heightened political passions, she is smart enough to know that.
Bernard Gilroy
says:Yeah, but what worries me is, it fits so naturally with preconceptions that people will not be vigilant. As an Obama supporter, I would have loved it if the campaign had said — when asked — “We’re not going to do anything of the sort and frankly, I doubt Senator Clinton’s campaign would either. Maybe this is a manufactured story.” If you’re going to run on the high ground, take it all the time.
All that said, if this actually is a planned tactic, then boo! on Clinton. It’ll fracture the party and hand 2008 to the Republicans.
Tom Cleaver
says:Ron, I can’t believe anyone as intelligent as you obviously are pays the slightest attention to the Republican disinformation operation known as “The Politico.” I refer you to Glenn Greenwald’s blog: search “The Politico” and he has full information on who is funding this propaganda operation and why.
“Disinformation” is the propagation of “facts” the listener/reader is inclined to believe, despite it’s being a lie, in such a way that it gets past their bullshit warning system. That is “The Politico.”
In fact, rather than run around like Chiken Little, crying that the sky is falling, 30 seconds spent going over to TalkingPointsMemo and looking through their breaking news will show the truth. Just like real journalists (there’s a reason they won that Peabody), the picked up the phone and called the source and asked the question and got the answer.
I am no supporter of Hillary Clinton, as anyone here knows, but I am also no supporter of spreading bullshit. It pains me to see intelligent people being taken in by lies. So please stop. Take “The Politico” off your bookmarks, and start treating it like the slightly-more-sophisticated version of Faux News that it is.
Danp
says:I have to disagree with the idea that these elected delegates are not obliged to vote for a specific candidate. Yes, Edwards’ delegates would be free to change, since he has dropped out of the race, but I have read party rules for several states, and in the ones I have read, the delegate has to commit to a candidate before being elected. One example below (Virginia). See page 3, question 3.
http://www.vademocrats.org/page/-/political/DPV%20Del%20Selection%20Plan%20FAQ.pdf
RonChusid
says:Tom,
If you actually read the post, as opposed to saying things like “please stop,” you might have noted that I questioned the validity of the story and showed that the actual information in the story did not support the headline.
This story is receiving a lot of attention in the blogosphere so simply not reading The Politico would not be a good solution. Showing that the story doesn’t hold up is far more meaningful than simply calling the site propaganda and ignoring it.
Rick
says:The Politico is crap and should be treated that way. Why do they get so many links from drudge?
Joey (bjobotts)
says:Keep in mind that so called super delegates do not represent independents and cross over republicans but only members of the democratic party. So if a majority of democrats vote for one candidate but more independents and republican cross overs combine to give a majority of votes to the other candidate…it shouldn’t matter. The super delegates are supposed to do what is good for the party for those who are democrats all the time. I have confidence that what is best for the party will be what is done. I’m optimistic that all of this fear mongering about manipulating the delegates will not be an issue and that the right thing will be done, that there will be a clear winner and that democrats will unite to support our nominee. All this speculation is just to have something to write about, trying to suggest that the sky is falling…maybe…at least in part…where the ozone is missing…
Tom Cleaver
says:Ron:
Sorry, but I disagree. Treat the enemy as The Enemy.
TR
says:Why do they get so many links from drudge?
Because they’re both full of shit. It’s like a mobius strip of craptacular political gossip.
RonChusid
says:Danp,
I have heard from other sources before that delegates can legally vote for anyone else. Even if state laws require them to commit before being elected it is doubtful that they could do anything if a delegate were to change their minds.
In some cases this could be a good thing. One rational for the super delegates is the hypothetical situation of a major scandal breaking out between the primaries and the convention. Under extraordinary circumstances I could see justification for delegates giving the nomination to someone other than who they were originally pledged to.
This would be entirely different than what Clinton is being accused of here. It would probably be legal to seek the votes of delegates who come committed, but it is doubtful many would change without good reason, and doubtful that someone who won that way could keep the party together.
I suspect that this story comes down to a writer suddenly realizing that something could happen and then extrapolating with weak quotes to write a sensational story with this accusation. I would love to be able to see full transcripts of all the author’s interviews with the Clinton campaign on this one.
Tom Cleaver
says:Joey (#13) said: I have confidence that what is best for the party will be what is done.
Obviously, you have never read a history of the Democratic Party. I suggest you start with 1968.
Steve
says:The situation posed by this most recent exploit of Fortress Hillary is identical to an “boy-cries-wolf” scenario, with the result being the same in both instances—the People no longer believe the boy (or in this case, Hillary) to be credible. Add to that the comment from Singer “assuming that the Obama camp is doing the same thing,” and it’s fairly obvious that the Clinton folks aren’t going to explicitly deny this action.
Playing this out several months, one is sorely tempted to ask what the Clinton people are going to do when it becomes mathematically inevitable that Obama garners the nomination. The issue of Clinton winning the nomination is already in doubt, given the antics of the campaign staff and her substandard drama-queen antics—and they’re demanding to know “Obama’s intentions?” Are they that seriously delusional about the possibility that “the Bill-n-Hill Puppet Hour” might be receiving a major role in an Obama administration?
Please. That’ll happen about three weeks after Karl Rove declares undying loyalty to the Democratic Party, rats out every member of the Bu$h administration for every political felony and misdemeanor committed since the fall of the Roman Empire, and voluntarily flings himself into an NFL arena filled to standing-room-only capacity with chain-saw-wielding Arkansas Talibanners….
Dan
says:Ron,
I read your post, and you did a crappy job of explaining your point (re: #11).
bubba
says:CB, better guest posters, please.
avalonballroom
says:No one in Harlem voted for Obama and we all know which ex-president has his office in Harlem, don’t we? I’m just sayin’…
Ed Stephan
says:#16: … delegates can legally vote for anyone else.
The trouble with all of this is that it presumes trust among Democrats. With some highly notable exceptions (e.g., 1968) that’s pretty much been a valid assumption. After all, if we deceive, abuse and fight each other the GOP wins.
Unfortunately, this time around the Cllintons are involved. Anyone who can parse the truth with as fine-toothed a comb and Bill Clinton’s is not to be trusted. Ever. When he was running his airtight pledge to integrate the armed forces via Executive Order No. 1 morphed into DADT his signature on the Defense of Marriage Act. His bald-faced lie to us all over TeeVee (“I did not have sex…”) blew up immediately with the unclean blue dress. What has changed? The “official” Clinton is now Hillary. That is all.
Ed Stephan
says:“as Bill” rather than “and Bill”
RonChusid
says:Bernard Gilroy,
Yeah, but what worries me is, it fits so naturally with preconceptions that people will not be vigilant.
I think that this is exactly what is happening. When I read the title I initially assumed that the charge was true based upon what has happened so far. However reading the story made it clear that there was not enough to support the title. Looking around the blogosphere a lot of blogs are responding as if this accusation is a known fact.
There are enough things going on with the Clinton campaign to get upset about without considering accusations which are unsubstantiated.
g8grl
says:Grumpy@ 1
Why provide only part of the quote? The whole thing is this (from http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/clinton_campaign_will_not_lobb.php):
Phil Singer, the Clinton campaign spokesman, e-mails in response to Roger Simon’s column this morning suggesting that Clinton’s campaign would begin to lobby pledged delegates:
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.
Partial quotes to make Hillary look bad? So typical of the DKos. Tell the whole story.
Danp
says:1) Phil Singer of the Clinton campaign says “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.”
2) Ron, while I understand your logic, I interpret the party rules (from those states I have read) as rather unambiguous. Who would enforce them, I cannot say.
3) Joey (13) says , “The super delegates are supposed to do what is good for the party for those who are democrats all the time.” Would you care to offer a justification to overturn elections in this year’s primary season, that supers might use vis a vis Independents and Republicans.
ithinkyoumeantaudobonballroom
says:#21,
Don’t look right to me, either. I wonder what Charlie Rangel has to say about it. IMHO, someone ought to take a poll of Super Tuesday voters in Harlem and ask them who they voted for.
On a slightly different note, I bet Maya Angelou feels kind of dumb for calling Bill Clinton the first black president. What will she do if Obama is elected? Write a poem lauding the second black president? I can’t see her being the national poet laureate if Obama gets the nod, that’s for sure.
Dale
says:Bernard Gilroy said
As an Obama supporter, I would have loved it if the campaign had said — when asked — “We’re not going to do anything of the sort and frankly, I doubt Senator Clinton’s campaign would either. Maybe this is a manufactured story.” If you’re going to run on the high ground, take it all the time.
I agree. That would have been my preferred response too. It would help dispel the appearance that Obama is okay with benefiting from the Clinton-hatred noise machine.
They came for Hillary, but I wasn’t Hillary so I did nothing. Then they came for me…
Dale
says:ithinkyoumeantaudobonballroom said:
On a slightly different note, I bet Maya Angelou feels kind of dumb for calling Bill Clinton the first black president. What will she do if Obama is elected? Write a poem lauding the second black president?
With Obama we will still only be halfway there.
Clinton the white black president.
Obama the half white black president.
Player-to-be-named the black president.
Castor Troy
says:The only reason that this sounds odd is that we haven’t seen the nomination go beyond a single round of balloting since, what, the 50’s?
A good theoretical strategy for Clinton (and one which I would be shocked if her team hadn’t at least explored) would be to get enough votes to force a second ballot, at which point all bets are off– pledged delegates are only pledged to their nominee for the first round of balloting.
That’s what I figure happened here– her people are looking at how to target pledged delegates for a second round of balloting (totally legitimate under the rules).
Simple and harmless, really, when considered in that context, and probably wholly accurate– this is a non-story (now, if someone comes up and tells me that they are targetting on the initial ballot, and not the second, that would be something suspicious– as it stands, I haven’t seen anything like that out in the news)
Tom Cleaver
says:Another point about the phony baloney from The Politico: this story is by Roger Simon f’r chrissakes!!!!
Roger Simon: failed Hollywood screenwriter turned Post-9/11 Conservative Patriot (read: 9/11 bedwetter); co-founder of Pantsload Media. In other words: Failed Right Wing Hack.
See? Now you know “The Politico” for what it is. A better name would be “The Commissar.”
Tom Cleaver
says:whoops – wrong Roger Simon. The one I was thinking of is Roger L. Simon. This one’s just as dumb, though.
Miss Cegenation
says:#29
Good point.
Bit of trivia – Obama was born in 1961, six years before the Supreme Court overturned state laws banning interracial marriage in Loving vs. Virginia. Of course it was the Warren Court that ruled in the case. I wonder if Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas would have rendered the same opinion. Thomas in particular would have been between a rock and a hard place.
Emily
says:Toni Morrison called Bill Clinton the first black president, not Maya Angelou. Either way, she endorsed Obama, and I don’t think she’s yet addressed that claim from the ’90s.
And Obama actually did get votes in Harlem, when they hand counted ballots. 116-118 in slight favor of Hillary, I think
TR
says:On a slightly different note, I bet Maya Angelou feels kind of dumb for calling Bill Clinton the first black president. What will she do if Obama is elected?
My guess? She’d probably point out that it was Toni Morrison who called Clinton the first black president, and not her.
Sharon
says:Clinton Camp: “It’s now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions.
Why? Unlike Clinton, Obama has never indicated they’re willing to steal the nomination if they can’t win it in the primaries and caucuses. This story maybe false, but it was damn easy to believe.
This single sentence (“It’s now time for the Obama campaign…”) personifies Hillary Clinton’s dishonesty. She can’t even deny a false report without looking at her contact with the press as an opportunity to cast aspersions.
RonChusid
says:Tom,
It doesn’t matter how poor a journalist Simon might be, and how biased The Politico may be. Just ignoring a story doesn’t make it go away. At very least I’ve seen ABC and MSNBC pick up this story. Both campaigns have now issued statements regarding the story. Even if you say everyone should stop reading The Politico, it is clearly being read by others and having an impact.
ithinkyoumeantaudobonballroom
says:Emily@34 and TR@35,
Now who feels kind of dumb? Me!
Re Harlem votes – They had to hand count votes before they found any for Obama. Hmm…
Crissa
says:You just love them some anonymous sources, Ron.
Gayle
says:TPM
I don’t understand how Hillary could get another vote from anybody who considers him or herself to be a progressive. These people are horrible.
Crissa
says:Okay, I take that back, under the fold you make it clear that you understand that there isn’t anything backing the charges of impropriety as of this time.
…But you have to admit, yesterday you were batting pretty hard for Obama. Hard to read through after that impression.
Mary
says:Why is this all being heaped on Clinton when the only delegate to announce he was changing his vote has switched to Obama?
Both candidates have announced formally that they are not targeting each other’s pledged delegates. The rest is just troublemaking.
It is pretty much impossible to figure out where this kind of thing originates but I am heartily sick of the Obama people here who say that all the bad stuff about Hillary is plausible because she is so sleazy. None of the Republican noise machine accusations that were investigated produced any substantiation. The Clintons received a clean bill of health for every investigation. It was harrassment and the smearing of their name that occurred over and over is the only sleaziness ever traced back to them (besides Bill’s very Southern belief that a blow job doesn’t count as sex).
You may feel that Clinton claims victim status too frequently, but I think there is a lot of basis for doing so. I find the many attacks on her that are clearly originating from Obama supporters are so unfair that it makes me ashamed to call such folks fellow-progressives. Win at any cost is a Republican value. Clinton is not “fair game” for any slur you guys care to make. This non-issue illustrates the williness of too many folks here to pile on whenever they get the slightest encouragement.
President Lindsay
says:Yo Tom Cleaver! Dude, email me please: gulliver at pacbell dot net. Thanks!
Emily
says:Mary,
That was a superdelegate, not a delegate. They can vote independently and change their votes; they don’t “pledge” until the convention in August. Delegates are expected to vote the way the people vote, and have literally already pledged their votes. Trying to get them to change (which neither candidate is doing!) would be immoral, to say the least.
Kathy
says:“I am heartily sick of the Obama people here who say that all the bad stuff about Hillary is plausible because she is so sleazy…”
Mary,
I’m heartily sick of the Clinton campaign’s slimy tactics, and heartily sick of being accused of being biased because I despise such tactics. Her tactics are slimy no matter who you support, and, perhaps, many of us wouldn’t be Obama supporters if it weren’t for the fact that Hillary is making preparations to take the nomination regardless of who wins the most pledged delegates via the elections.
Read post 40 above. If such behavior and intentions doesn’t make angry, then I’m ashamed to call you a “fellow progressive”.
TR
says:You may feel that Clinton claims victim status too frequently, but I think there is a lot of basis for doing so. I find the many attacks on her that are clearly originating from Obama supporters are so unfair that it makes me ashamed to call such folks fellow-progressives.
Really?
Could you name these “many attacks” that are “clearly originating from Obama supporters”?
And, please, spare us the effort of finding some blog comment from an Obama fan and making your case on that basis. I’m sure it’s out there, but I’m just as sure I could easily find ten times as much nonsense on the loony bin that is Hillaryis44.org.
We have a long record now of shameless attacks strewn around from Hillary Clinton’s senior staff members — Wolfson, Penn, Ickes, etc. — so please illuminate us as to which of Obama’s senior staff members are doing anything comparable.
RJ
says:Kathy makes a good point.
Undoubtedly, many progressives aren’t disgusted with Hillary because they’re Obama supporters. Rather, many are Obama supporters because they’re disgusted with Hillary.
Michael R
says:This story was broken early this morning, and every other blog I’ve seen quickly amended it with an update saying that the Clinton campaign had categorically denied the charges in the Politico. Why is this the only blog that hasn’t been updated?
Michael R
says:Rather, many are Obama supporters because they’re disgusted with Hillary.
Many of them are disgusted with how the news media, and certain bloggers, portray Bill and Hillary.
It’s not going to be so much fun when the news media gets tired of Obama, and begin treating him the same way. (as they also treated Gore and Kerry)
Danp
says:Here’s Obama’s response: “”We would absolutely not use these sorts of tactics. Senator Obama is focused on winning contests and earning the support of pledged delegates.”
Nell
says:“We have a long record now of shameless attacks strewn around from Hillary Clinton’s senior staff members — Wolfson, Penn, Ickes, etc. — so please illuminate us as to which of Obama’s senior staff members are doing anything comparable”
List them please
Lance
says:I’ll start buying the Obama position on Super Delegates as soon as Kennedy, Kerry and Duval (sp) pledge themselves to Hillary, the winner of the Mass. primary.
Until then, the rules say the Super’s vote the way they want and trying to force them to follow some other rule is just whining.
It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if Clinton had a second round plan for the pledged delegates. We have to settle this thing somehow.
JR
says:MichaelR
I’m a regular reader of this blog, but it appears to me that it’s been taken over by rabid Obama partisans while the real Carpetbagger is on hiatus.
I don’t understand how most of this helps Democrats in November, regardless of who wins the primaries.
The mainstream media has had an obvious hard-on for the Clintons since Clinton’s own hard-on wasn’t spanked badly enough over Monica. The Lewinsky scandal deeply upset the cocktail party elite in Washington who were briefly reminded of the real world and haven’t gotten over it since.
They took this out mercilessly on Al Gore in 2000 whose sin was something like failing to assassinate Clinton with a briefcase bomb and being bright and sometimes forgetting to pretend he wasn’t.
Now Hillary is running and you can feel the rage the mainstream media has over the possibility that the Clintons might be in their face again. So the attack dogs have been unleashed and have been in full pursuit from the get-go.
IMHO this is a legit reason to support Obama, i.e. the electability factor given the huge disparity between the Clinton hatred and the McCain crush that goes on in our establishment media. Can Clinton possibly surmount this?
The lengths to which the media will go to disparage the Clintons are astounding. My personal nomination (subject to change) for the most demented attack yet was an editorial by Bob Hebert implying that the Clintons had advised Andrew Young to claim that Bill Clinton had “been with” a lot of black women.
It was a tough choice between laughing out loud at how illogical anti-Clinton hatred can render a sufferer and vomiting up my breakfast with the thought that this had appeared in the “newspaper of record” in the world’s most powerful country which happens to be a democracy and enjoys relative freedom of the press.
But for the last couple of days, what’s really been troubling me is the thought that ther reason there are so few people out there from the left commenting on the anti-left bias in the media any more is because they see it helping Obama in the short term.
I don’t care whether someone loves Obama, but if anyone thinks that letting the media attack a Democrat unfairly (any Democrat) and “reaping” the rewards from that attack is a long-term winner, I beg to disagree.
Both candidates will come out of this scarred and both of them will face an uphill battle running against the media darling McCain.
[p.s. If you really want some nausea, read Nicholas Kristoff’s recent online smooch of McCain… hard to imagine the McCain campaign writing a more loving tribute to their man]
Ohioan
says:When you get tired of watching the bobbleheads reporting from Wisconsin and Hawaii and offering their brilliant analysis of how White Jews went for Obama in Milwaukee, or how Old women in Oahu went for Hillary, here’s some serious must-see TV for tonight:
PBS Frontline – What really happened in Haditha:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/haditha/
Jim
says:As Chris Todd from CQ put it earlier most pledged delegates are loyal to their candidate in primary states. However through the process in caucus states it is very possible for a candidate that won a state to not get the states pledged delegates. Most of these won’t be settled until sometime in April. He mentioned Iowa as an example where Clinton could pick up all of Edwards delegates at state level.
He also mentioned that going after pledged delegates is political suicide.
TR
says:List them please
Already did. Comment 3.
RonChusid
says:Michael R,
This story was broken early this morning, and every other blog I’ve seen quickly amended it with an update saying that the Clinton campaign had categorically denied the charges in the Politico. Why is this the only blog that hasn’t been updated?
Now, that isn’t a very accurate account. The majority of blogs I saw reported the accusations against Clinton as fact. While there may be others I haven’t seen, every blog which isn’t strongly pro-Clinton which covered this story was bashing Clinton on this. In contrast, my post here questioned the reliability of this accusation.
Since then the Clinton campaign has denied this. Some blogs have amended with the denial. Many have not. I didn’t see the denial as requiring an update because the denial was noted in the comments for those interested. In addition a denial by itself does not prove anything. Most importantly, as I had already noted the absence of evidence for these accusations there is not a need to backtrack on the story. In contrast, the many blogs which did present these accusations as if they were fact do have more of a reason to acknowledge that these accusations are not verified as fact.
Mary
says:“I’m heartily sick of the Clinton campaign’s slimy tactics, and heartily sick of being accused of being biased because I despise such tactics. Her tactics are slimy no matter who you support, and, perhaps, many of us wouldn’t be Obama supporters if it weren’t for the fact that Hillary is making preparations to take the nomination regardless of who wins the most pledged delegates via the elections.
Read post 40 above. If such behavior and intentions doesn’t make angry, then I’m ashamed to call you a “fellow progressive”.”
Above is quoted. I find nothing wrong with trying to have a majority on the credential committee so that the votes of MI and FL can be counted. I see no reason why they were disenfrancished in the first place. Because no candidates campaigned there, I think Clinton’s wins were legitimate and the delegates should be seated. I do not consider this an example of sleazy politics — it is just politics.
I do see plenty of examples of sleaziness coming from both camps due to the over-enthusiasm of the respective campaign staffs and supporters. I would no more vote for a candidate because of those things than I would based on their hairstyle or preference for chewing gum. This campaign should be about issues and it is clearly not.
I won’t vote for Obama, ever, because of his support for Joe Liberman, his support for Donnie McClurkin (and preference for African American social conservative voters over gays) and his plagiarism. I am an academic and I cannot forgive plagiarism or trivialize it, especially coming from a professional who should have been taught better in his many years of school. (And no, Hillary’s use of the phrase “fired up and ready to go” does not constitute plagiarism of Obama.) I won’t vote for Obama because he is too conservative for me. So is Clinton, but she at least has the demonstrated ability to effect change in Washington, both as a senator and as first lady, something Obama does not have. I also do not respect Obama’s missed votes in the Senate or in Illinois (voting present on women’s issues). There is such a long list of problems with Obama, that I cannot find it in me to vote for him in November either. I will either write in Edwards or Al Gore, or vote for Ralph Nader, should he choose to run.
Unlike Michelle Obama, I am proud of my country despite its woes and I do not equate that with support for Bush or the war in Iraq or torture in Guantanamo. I too am thoroughly ashamed of the behavior shown by progressives toward members of their own party. The Politico throws chum in the water and the Obama sharks start circling. Ugly. This is supposed to be an election about issues not a referendum on tactics. Those who have made it the latter have seized on this stuff largely because it provides an excuse to bash a woman who has run an excellent campaign in terms of speeches without gaffs and ideas that attract interest and support. Most of the public sees that and not this vicious infighting, which is why she tends to win when the media isn’t handicapping her. Now, she fights back on the same level and everyone here blames her for it. Get real.
Dale
says:The Toni Morrison/Maya Angelou flap reminds me of what people are saying about the Politico falsehood: It might not be true but it was damned easy to believe. 🙂
JR
says:No offense Ron, but “the denial as noted in the comments” seems incredibly lame to me.
Here I am providing an exception to the rule, but many of us who work day jobs can’t always go 67 comments deep to dig out a refutation, nor does it make sense to expect us to. If I have 15 minutes of free time to dedicate to Carpetbagger, Washington Monthly, NY Times, etc, etc, etc.I usually don’t have 17 minutes to waste on comments on a single thread in one of these locations, and surely even the most dedicated and self-absorbed blogger realizes this no?
Indicating that the Clinton campaign has denied an accusation when the accusation you’ve brought to the table is one guaranteed to stir ill will, controversy, etc. seems to me to be the least you can do if you’re interested in fairness.
If this accusation had been lodged against Obama and his campaign had denied it, that you would have thought “well a denial is mentioned in comment 47” and left it at that?
Best.
Dale
says:Grumpy said:
DKos includes a response from the Clinton campaign: “It’s now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions.”
Look, I realize that this story casts unfair aspersions on Clinton, but now they’re trying to leverage it into an attack on Obama’s credibility.
I used to just be uncomfortable with the idea of Clinton as a candidate. The more she campaigns, the less I like her.
But Grumpy, the Obama campaign had just made a response to the Politico story, in effect, dignifying it with a response that also listed two of their own complaints against Clinton. So her reply was not an attack but a reaction to an attack (a rettackion?)
L Boom
says:Dale, considering all the crap the Clinton campaign has been throwing at Obama lately, wouldn’t you say the Obama campaign’s response is surprisingly well-metered and thoughtful? I’d love to see the response from the Clinton campaign if things were reversed; I think we only need to look at their recent, ridiculous “plagiarism” attacks for a rough idea.
And as far as the Obama/Patrick plagiarism thing goes: No one could ever have predicted that.two guys in the same field with similar backgrounds and lots of common ideas would brainstorm speeches together. I’m not even as offended by the under-handedness of a lot of these latest attacks as much as I am the sheer stupidity of them; it’s too childish and amateurish to qualify as bare-knuckle politics. It’s more like watching a bunch of eighth-graders emulating Karl Rove tactics for a student council election. Penn and Wolfson can’t even succeed at being dirty without making themselves look foolish.
Ethel-to-Tilly
says:I’m getting convinced that a lot of these Poltico-type stories are designed to rile up the Democrats against Clinton so as to deprive her of support if she gets the nomination. I’d say they’re doing a good job of it too, judging by the rhetoric of the Obama supporters.
TR
says:I do see plenty of examples of sleaziness coming from both camps due to the over-enthusiasm of the respective campaign staffs and supporters.
You know, Mary, you can constantly insist, over and over again, that there are plenty of examples of Obama’s campaign acting with a level of sleaziness on par with what we’ve seen from the clinton camp, but until you actually provide some evidence to back it up, it’s just an empty charge.
You claim to be an academic, right? You must have more than a passing familiarity with the concept of evidence or citations. Feel free to give it a try.
There is such a long list of problems with Obama, that I cannot find it in me to vote for him in November either. I will either write in Edwards or Al Gore, or vote for Ralph Nader, should he choose to run.
And when President McCain’s appointments to the Supreme Court finally allow the conservative bloc to overturn Roe v. Wade and most of the Warren Court rulings, you’ll be paid back in full for your wise decision there.
I too am thoroughly ashamed of the behavior shown by progressives toward members of their own party.
On that we can agree. But unlike you, I’m not going to act childish and sit out the general eelction just because my own preferred candidate didn’t get the nomination. Get a grip and grow up.
Dale
says:L Boom said:
Dale, considering all the crap the Clinton campaign has been throwing at Obama lately, wouldn’t you say the Obama campaign’s response is surprisingly well-metered and thoughtful? I’d love to see the response from the Clinton campaign if things were reversed; I think we only need to look at their recent, ridiculous “plagiarism” attacks for a rough idea.
Perhaps so, but the danger is for Obama to be piggybacking on wingnut attacks to launch his own attacks.
Clinton Rules state that anything the least bit controversial the Clintons or their surrogates say will be reverberated through the rightwing noise machine.
Temporary Obama Rules (they’ll change if he’s the candidate) state that he’s not nitpicked so much.
It’s sort of like Ron Chusid treating the Politico as a serious political journal (even though he was debunking the article). That pissed a lot of CB commenters off because our shared perception is that The Politico is a rightwing hit publication.
socratic_me
says:Contra-JR, I feel that it is amazing that so many Clintonistas came pouring out of the woodwork while Steve was away and started yelling bloody murder over imagined slights. This one takes the cake. I was all set to give Ronchusid a hard time about being “too pro-Hillary” and then I realized that the Clintonistas had already invaded and were yelling at him for being anti-Hillary as he defended her
I don’t guess I should be that surprised, given that Steve was already being slammed regularly for having turned the site into a pro-Obama fan club. Still, I have to wonder what happened to turn up the volume on the screechers.
And for the record, adding the end of the denial – “It’s now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions.” doesn’t make camp Hillary look better. It makes her look worse. Now Obama not only has to deny that he agrees with every black person out there, but he is also responsible for denying things that Hillary is accused of? What kind of psychotic ethical judo is supposed to justify that accusation?
L Boom
says:I agree with you about the media’s rules for treating the Clintons, they really are ridiculous. That said, I think a lot of the stuff coming out of the Clinton camp has been stupid and counter-productive. I’ll put it this way: I’m a long-time Obama fan, but just a few months ago I would’ve been perfectly happy with any of the three candidates. After the last debate a few weeks ago, I felt much better about Clinton than I have in a long time.
But in these past weeks, she’s really gone beyond the pale and her use of wedge issues and just generally carving up Democratic demographics is incredibly selfish and short-sighted. Calling large chunks of the electorate irrelevant pisses off a whole bunch of people, as does talking about overturning the popular vote with superdelegates. These latest (possibly untrue) attacks just fit a little too perfectly into that narrative, and I think it’s as likely test-feelers put out for the strategy as it is a fabrication or twist on something that’s actually going on. This hard drive into the negative is only going to dampen turnout and enthusiasm, can hurt us bad down-ticket and reduce the possibilities of coat tails, and just, in general, does no one any good.
I do also agree about Politico being a bunch of right-wing hacks going for mainstream Drudginess. They’ve gotten a few good stories over the past few weeks, but in general they should never be mistaken for a serious, credible news organization.
Marian
says:I have a question and figured the brilliant people at this site would be able to answer it for me. Is there a rule on when a presidential condidate can pick their VP running mate?
I’ve been thinking about potential VP’s lately and wondering how naming those might influence the primary.
Any body know?
Chris
says:William Blake: ““To generalize is to be an idiot.”
My fellow idiots —
This isn’t about Obama supporters v. Clinton supporters. It’s about Obama v. Clinton.
Support your candidates, criticize your candidates, whatever. But as soon as you pull a Krugman…you’ve lost the argument.
TR
says:I have a question and figured the brilliant people at this site would be able to answer it for me. Is there a rule on when a presidential condidate can pick their VP running mate?
I don’t think there’s a rule against it, but people who’ve tried it in the past have had it backfire — I’m thinking of Reagan in ’76 when he floated Schwieker as a likely VP nod. He wanted to convince the party that he’d balance the ticket with a moderate, but the conservative base revolted over it and it killed his shot at knocking Ford off the nomination.
These days, I think most politicians realize that naming one name will only piss off the supporters of all the other potential candidates. Might as well just play it coy and flirt with everyone, securing a broader base of support on the way to the nomination from people who think you’re going to tap their choice for the job.
doubtful
says:The media doesn’t have ‘Clinton Rules,’ they have ‘Democrat Rules.’ Anyone making the argument that the media has ‘Clinton Rules,’ like Krugman, is probably trying give Hillary’s campaign a pass on something and paint her as a victim. Boo hoo.
Face it; the media will mistreat all Democrats, and if you think Obama has gotten a free pass so far, then you haven’t been paying attention.
Clinton Rules state that anything the least bit controversial the Clintons or their surrogates say will be reverberated through the rightwing noise machine. -Dale
You’d think they’d have caught on by now and stopped their surrogates, like Penn, from opening mouth and spewing inanity. Penn’s consistent absurdity makes me wonder if his digestive system was installed backwards.
To question them is not playing by ‘Clinton Rules;’ it’s common sense.
JRS Jr
says:MSNBC’s harball is also running with the story right now… It is now mainstream news. That darn right wing conspiracy is at it again…
RonChusid
says:JR,
You still miss the point that this post was already stating that there was no evidence to justify the charge. That is far more meaningful than a quick denial. It is quite common to deny an attack, and such denials don’t carry much weight. Showing that the charge is unfounded in the post is far more meaningful.
Besides, Clinton actually comes off worse from the denial considering that her denial raises an unjustified attack on Obama. If I had posted the denial, that would also lead to a discussion of that point, and I thought best to leave things as they were.
Posting this denial hurts Clinton more than it helps her. (Hopefully Obama supporters won’t now object that I should have posted the denial since it reflects poorly on the Clinton campaign. While Clinton doesn’t look good with this comment, this is rather trivial and there are far more serious things from her campaign to be concerned about.)
RonChusid
says:It is now mainstream news.
Of course it is. That’s why I objected to the argument that it this story should be ignored because it came from The Politico. Ignoring a story because you dislike the source won’t make it go away (even if your reasons for disliking the source are valid.)
Like it or not, stories like these need to be responded to, and most people will not be impressed by simply crying that it is coming from a right wing source and should be ignored.
TR
says:The media doesn’t have ‘Clinton Rules,’ they have ‘Democrat Rules.’ Anyone making the argument that the media has ‘Clinton Rules,’ like Krugman, is probably trying give Hillary’s campaign a pass on something and paint her as a victim. Boo hoo.,
Agreed. The Gore case alone is testament enough, but what they did to Bill Clinton and John Kerry isn’t far behind.
The double-standard is pathetic. “John Edwards is a phony because he claims to be for the poor, and yet look at his big house and how much he spent on a haircut! George W. Bush is just a straight shooter, as his policies will really help the richest Americans like him and Cheney.”
Michael R
says:My personal nomination (subject to change) for the most demented attack yet was an editorial by Bob Hebert implying that the Clintons had advised Andrew Young to claim that Bill Clinton had “been with” a lot of black women.
If I could nominate the most flabbergasting, I’d nominate how Bill’s reference to Obama’s anti-war stance as a “fairy tale” got spun as a racist remark.
Part of me thinks you’re right, JR, about the anti-Clinton narrative being a reason to support Obama. I don’t need additional reasons to support him, he seems like a terrific guy to me, but having to fight constantly against not only the Republicans but the media and now liberals over the interpretation of every act of the Clintons as calculated and evil…I’m sorry, but it’s just true that the Clintons just can’t win with an awful lot of folks. Either they compromise too much or too little. They’re either fiendishly clever and immoral master strategists or they’re incompetent. What they never seem to be allowed to be is regular, hard-working politicians with basic liberal values who are constrained by a difficult political atmosphere. They’re hated for being the most successful liberals of past 40 years, because they were either too liberal or not enough.
We know that in politics if you’re defending, you’re losing. And constantly having to say, “that’s a biased interpretation of what Clinton said” is a losing position. I do think Mark Penn has made it easier for Clinton-bashers. But his comments haven’t actually been that bad, and some of them have certainly been spun out of proportion. And it’s not as if he’s been supplying McCain with ammunition.
I think that, ultimately, though the main problem is that it’s become second-nature to accuse the Clintons of having bad intentions. People have internalized it; it’s perhaps become so natural an unquestioned that they don’t even realize they’re doing it. And that’s a major victory for the right-wing noise machine.
Michael R
says:the media doesn’t have ‘Clinton Rules,’ they have ‘Democrat Rules.’ Anyone making the argument that the media has ‘Clinton Rules,’ like Krugman, is probably trying give Hillary’s campaign a pass on something and paint her as a victim. Boo hoo.
If you’d read Krugman, you would know that he talks about how the “Clinton Rules” have appled to Gore, etc.., and how he expect that they’ll soon begin applying to Obama. So Krugman isn’t treating the Clintons as unique, as you’re accusing him of doing.
Michael R
says:You still miss the point that this post was already stating that there was no evidence to justify the charge. That is far more meaningful than a quick denial.
I disagree. I don’t think it’s more meaningful. If the campaign says they’re not pursuing that policy, but it later turns out they are, that bit of dishonesty will be very problematic for them. So, yes, a denial is significant.
I don’t quite understand why you’re so intent on not publishing an update with the denial. You’re giving a lot of reasons: it’s unnecessary; denials aren’t meaningful; that would actually hurt the Clinton campaign more. All 3 seem obviously wrong to me.
Giving multiple reasons is a good way of masking your real reason.
beep52
says:Someone somewhere (talk about anonymous sources) suggested we stop using “mainstream media” and substitute “corporate media.” There’s nothing mainstream about it, but it’s corporate through and through.
Dale
says:One commentor on the Fun With Quotes thread said that Michelle Obama’s quote was a bad one because it had to be explained. Well one thing the rightwing noise machine has accomplished over the years is to make it so everything Clinton says has to be explained. And they do us the favor of explaining it first by putting the worst possible spin (or lie) on it. Have you ever noticed that most leftie blogs spend most of their time debunking the wingnut columnists and bloggers? The right is still controlling the conversation with their pre-emptive lies.
The need to “explain” Clinton’s statements or statements about her statements either goes over the heads of readers and they think a whole bunch of terrible things have come out of the Clinton campaign or one has to take each event and analyze it about it’s sources is it just a flat out rightwing lie? Was the so-called surrogate really influential? Was the quote even correct? Was it an incomplete quote from and unqualified source during a ranging conversation that would provide context. Does the later correction of the lie get as much attention as the original lie? Let’s face it. It’s a lot easier to just get an impression than to research and remember. And that’s where the rightwing is successful. They make it inconvenent to get to the truth.
Not that Hillary is perfect, but she’s swimming in a sea of rightwing slime.
Extending the Jenga idea, it is a game of Ta-ka-radi using Jungle Rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenga
John Moody
says:Of course, this makes perfect sense. The Clinton campaign will run to the right wing hacks at Politico to leak a damaging story about themselves. It’s all so clear.
Danp
says:UPDATE: The politico article very clearly attributes this story to “a high ranking Clinton official on Monday.” That didn’t stop former Clinton press secretary, Lisa Capito, on CNN’s the Situation Room from attributing the story to Obama people. 6:20 pm Tuesday.
Lauren
says:HPost:
Ahem…some subprime borrowers are low-come and others are not. Just because somebody has a subprime loan doesn’t mean they need government assistance. Any assistance ought to based on need, not on criteria that may or may not reflect a homeowner’s ability to make his or her mortgage payments.
Missy
says:“When it comes to the housing crisis, Senator Obama sounds a lot more like President Bush than a Democratic candidate for President. In fact, Senator Obama has positioned himself to the right of George Bush on this issue.”
I wish Senator Clinton would just give us the facts. I can judge whether Obama “has positioned himself to the right of George Bush” without any help from her.
In addition, her ridiculous “it’s going to take a lot more than speeches” line grates on my nerves.
Steve-O
says:The Politico story smells like it’s straight out of Team Obama.
TR
says:The Politico story smells like it’s straight out of Team Obama.
Which is why it was sourced to a senior Clinton staffer?
Hannah
says:#52 Lance: “I’ll start buying the Obama position on Super Delegates as soon as Kennedy, Kerry and Duval (sp) pledge themselves to Hillary, the winner of the Mass. primary.”
And then you’d insist that Sens. Murry and Cantwell of Washington State switch their superdelegate votes from Clinton to Obama, right?
I’m not picking a fight, nor am I expressing a preference, just saying if you’re going to make an argument, it goes both ways.
Hannah
says:#87… sorry, Sen. Murray, not Murry
Grumpy
says:Loose ends…
g8girl #25: “Partial quotes to make Hillary look bad? So typical of the DKos. Tell the whole story.”
I omitted the other part of the quote because I took it for granted that the delegate-stealing story was bogus. I was moving on to the next phase of response.
Dale #61 did provide the whole story, and in that case the context is important.
Well, as important as any of this is. Do you realize how many potential voters out there aren’t even up to speed on the names of the candidates or which parties they belong to? (Or what the parties are about??) And we’re arguing about this minutiae for how many days?