Question: has the Democratic party EVER seen anything like this? The Politico:
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.
UPDATE: TPM Election Central reports that a Clinton campaign spokesman denies they’re going after pledged delegates:
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.”
Our original post resumes here
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.”
Further down:
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.”
Perhaps — but so far if you look at the news stories (just Google them) all of the threatening noises about going after Superdelegates and official campaigns statements about how primary votes could be trumped by Superdelegates have come from the Clinton camp.
This new Politico story suggests that that may not be enough to put Hillary Clinton over the top, so now that strategy has been expanded — go after delegates Obama won in primary elections.
This story seems to be more of a trail balloon but it reflects a mentality that the primaries — even those that’ll be held today and in March — are essentially ceremonial exercises where the judgment of voters really doesn’t matter because it could be swept aside by political seductions or pressures.
It’ll be interesting to see if this story gets “legs” and if the Clinton campaign stands behind it — or denies it. [SEE DENIAL ABOVE]
Question: has the Democratic party EVER seen anything like this?
It has been said that with the Bush administration the Republican party and conservatism were at important road posts and had to make some fundamental decisions about the party’s soul and values in 2008.
It can be argued now: so must the Democrats.
UPDATE: ABC’s Political Punch has a blunt response from the Obama camp — and a comment of its own:
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.
UPDATE: Thoughts on Clinton campaign denial:
The TPM Clinton camp denial suggests the following about The Politico report:
(1) It was made up. Unlikely. News outlets and websites don’t just make up big stories and figure no one will find out it’s false.
(2) It was a trial balloon. More likely. News sources do this all the time
(3) It was to send the Obama campaign a message that they will go to the end. Possibly. But it has likely backfired. A lot of voters will wonder whether people who think like this should be trusted with the levers of power in the White House. They’ll point to the Nixon and to the present Bush administrations as administrations that pushed the envelope on executive power and created confrontations with the legislative branch.
(4) It was to assure Hillary Clinton donors that it not only isn’t over until the fat lady sings, it isn’t over until the fat lady been convinced to change her scheduled song.
It’s hard to see how this story is a net plus for the Clinton campaign:
–It could force the Obama camp into denying THEY want to go after pledged delegates but it isn’t something that will convince voters to vote for Hillary.
–At the very LEAST the campaign has BURNED a reporter and an influential website by denying its widely-covered report. The Politico will eventually have to stand by its story, say it was wrong, or make up for it by future hard-hitting reporting on the Clinton campaign.
–Yesterday there was the fuss emanating from the Clinton side about Obama borrowing campaign rhetoric. Now there’s this.
–It’ll likely renew news media skepticism about comments coming from the Clinton campaign.
SOME OTHER WEBLOG REACTION:
I admit to being completely baffled by the Clinton campaign’s decision to continually leak these stories to the press. It’s inconceivable that Hillary Clinton can win the nomination in this manner (delegates, pledged or otherwise, will not go along with tearing the Democratic Party apart to nominate a candidate who received fewer elected delegates and is broadly considered to be less electable and more divisive), and all stories like this one do is guarantee loads of media coverage about sleazy campaign tactics. Am I missing something?
It makes one ask what in hell is going on inside the Clinton campaign that they would risk all not only by blandly accepting the use of such a tactic but by talking about it now.
Should we conclude that the Clinton campaign is evil? Or is this just evidence of the campaign’s competence, that it’s exploring all the permutations of the fight for the nomination? The Clinton aid prefaces his remark with: “I swear it is not happening now.”
Ha. That reminds me of one of my favorite Nixon quotes: “We could do it, but that would be wrong.”
….Hey… badger! That reminds me: I’ve got to go vote in the Wisconsin primary.
How far will Hillary Clinton go to make sure she gets the Democratic nomination? Readers of this column have already learned of her intention to try to seat Michigan and Florida delegates in her without a fair re-vote. The courtship of Super Delegates, too, has been a focal point for both Clinton and Obama, with many party insiders fearing an outcome in which Obama would win the pledged delegates, only to have that total overturned by the “Supers” at the convention.
Well, today comes word of yet another wrinkle in Clinton’s increasingly uphill quest for the White House….
…..So you see, if you thought that your vote actually mattered, you were mistaken. Turns out it was nothing more than a symbolic gesture. One that could be overturned in an instant depending on the whimsy of long-standing party alliances.
I cannot say that such a tactic is against the rules, but because the rules technically allow someone to do a thing doesn’t necessarily mean that they should do a thing. Because it is within the Clintons’ right to subvert the will of the voters on the most basic level doesn’t mean that it’s still not wrong, vile, thoroughly undemocratic and ultimately unbecoming of a person seeking to be the standard-bearer of the Democratic party.
I seriously am at a loss as to how any self respecting Democrat would choose this to be our party’s nominee to the general election. Right now MSNBC is flooding the cycle with news about a bogus plagiarism charge that the Clinton camp itself won’t confirm it didn’t commit. They have sought to play the rules of the Democratic party with the expertise of a master musician not in order to see the will of the millions of people who are expected to turn out for the nominee in droves done, but so that she wins the nomination. They employed blatant race baiting in South Carolina, they have harped upon drug use, they have used increasingly dirty tactics every step of the way.
And no, Obama is not perfect, he’s not a messiah. Michelle Obama can say something silly once in a while. But there is a direct difference between the missteps of a campaign that is attempting to accomplish something positive, and the disreputable tactics of a campaign that is doing anything and everything it can to win for winning’s sake.
Imagine the disillusionment of rank and file Democrats, even Clinton supporters, if they see the Clintons pry the nomination away from Obama by cajoling Obama’s pledged delegates away from him. Under what theory of representative democracy would they justify such actions? But I have another question.
This stuff is just silly. It’s never going to succeed, and even trying would destroy the Clintons’ reputation, in both the party and the nation, irreparably. So, why are they pushing these types of stories in the press now?
One theory is that they need to provide some kind of rationale (a path to victory) to their financial contributors, no matter how implausible. Another theory is that is makes her look tough and willing to fight, and they hope that contrasts nicely with Obama’s (seemingly) more laid back attitude. One way to raise doubt about Obama is to play to fears that he isn’t tough enough to stand up to Republican assaults. Maybe stories like this are intended to feed that suspicion. I can’t really think of any other theories. I think these stories, overall, make the Clintons look bad. They feed into the negative storyline that they will do anything to get elected, and they suggest that they have no respect for the principles of representative democracy.
And don’t tell me that they are playing by the rules. First of all, the American people never signed onto those rules and will be dismayed to learn of them. Secondly, even the source here knows they aren’t playing by the rules.
Why would the Clinton campaign even float out the idea that the pledged delegates are being targeted and are up for grabs? God only knows. You’d think they might have some work to do trying to actually earn pledged delegates. Maybe this is for the consumption of potential Clinton donors, who need to be convinced that their money wouldn’t be wasted on a dying campaign, that Hillary Clinton has no intention of throwing in the towel any time soon.
It’s also possible this pitch for a story from the Clinton campaign operative is intended to start undermining the validity of the entire delegate process, to make it seem like there are no rules that really matter and all that counts is “winning” the nomination. Maybe they’re just trying to cast doubt on integrity of the entire delegate process. If that seems familiar, it’s probably because we’ve seen it before, from the Republicans, who used sophistry, shifting definitions and dubious standards of evidence and truth during the 2000 Florida recount.
In other words, “screw what the voter wants”. I have been speaking to a lot of Democrats lately who are fed up with their party. From the waffling of the leadership in the House and Senate, to this entire delegate mess, they are tired of it. Something has to be done soon or the Independent column in the polls is going to start growing.
Shortly before Election Day of 2000 it seemed possible that Al Gore would win in the Electoral College vote while losing the popular vote. Back then, some Bush operatives were openly discussing pursuing a “faithless elector” strategy: inducing some of the electors pledged to Gore to defect to Bush. That would have been perfectly legal: in Constitutional theory, the electors are free agents. But the Bushoids’ mere willingness to consider such a strategy, and discuss it openly, was the first strong hint that they had no sense of limits.
We have now suffered for seven years with the consequences of putting such people in power.
Are we having fun yet? Do we want four or eight more years of the same thing?No, planning to win the nomination by inducing pledged delegates to break their word isn’t at the same level of gravity as denying that Congress has the power of the purse, but it’s based on the same winning-is-everything principle. I’m willing to believe that HRC herself is a decent person. But she has surrounded herself with people who cannot be trusted with power.
The rules aren’t going out the window; they’re getting held up to the light, and their stench has become overwhelming. The Clintons don’t suggest breaking the rules but simply using them to their advantage.
The press has reported endlessly on the enthusiasm gap between the Republican and Democratic primaries. That will prove a double-edged sword if Hillary or Obama somehow manages to get significant defections among pledged delegates. The whole convention will turn into a massive vote-buying bazaar in Denver, and the saps who turned out in record numbers in these primaries and caucuses will find out that their efforts meant absolutely nothing at all.
You think an enthusiasm gap existed in the primaries? Wait to see what happens if Hillary wins the nomination in this manner. The silence of the saps in November will be deafening.
This strategy just reeks of desperation and prompts two questions: (a) why would she do it? and (b) why would a high-ranking campaign official actually admit it? [UPDATE: The Clinton campaign categorically denies they plan to do this.]
On its face, this seems like an insane idea. People are already freaked about the possibility of superdelegates reversing a narrow pledged delegate lead, and thus taking the Democratic nomination out of the hands of the people and putting it in the hands of party insiders. The anger and resentment at Clinton would be far greater if she promised a few unscrupulous delegates some sweet Clinton Administration jobs and subverted the decisions of the people. This win-at-all-costs strategy is self-defeating, because it would undermine the Democratic Party’s excitement about their nominee in the general election.
But how much credibility can we assign to the report? Simon cites a single, unnamed source.
–Newshoggers’ Libby:
A recent DNC memo confirms this loophole and apparently Hillary will have no problem exploiting it…So why bother to go through the charade of holding primaries at all? Why doesn’t the DNC just admit the candidate will be chosen in back room deals no matter what the proles prefer? That at least would be honest. We clearly need a new primary system.
Nothing is sacred except Billary’s Grand Restoration. As BooMan put it, “The Clinton campaign is taking on some of the characteristics of a vampire, zombie, or other undead creature that requires a stake through the heart or other special measures to kill.” If our votes were pointless from the beginning, couldn’t Billary at least have had the decency to tell us that the primary would be a waste of our time?
Obama’s campaign is having a conference call right now to denounce the Clintonian intention as revealed by the Simon column — which, again, the Clinton campaign completely denies.
Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe acknowledged that party rules allow delegates to change their minds. But “what we’re focused on is winning pledged delegates,” he said. And the Clinton comments “amount to a pattern” of “trying to find an alternative route” to the nomination.
Just when it seemed that Barack Obama’s gaffes and the inevitable media swing away from the front-runner seemed to be breathing new life into Hillary Clinton’s campaign, she reminds us why half the country really, really hates her.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.