Clinton Campaign Says It Will Not Lobby Pledged Delegates

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.

.

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.

Comments

Flip. Flop.

Posted by neilrlca | February 19, 2008 11:11 AM

It's now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions.

Nice.

Posted by John | February 19, 2008 11:11 AM

That's not what Phil said in the Simon piece or in the past. Who's disingenuous now?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | February 19, 2008 11:14 AM

Wow. This is impressive, even for the Clinton campaign.

Let's summarize:
- Clinton staffer openly tells political reporter that the campaign is considering bribing pledged delegates.
- Campaign later denies it, and accuses opponent of considering bribing pledged delegates.

........

Posted by Col | February 19, 2008 11:26 AM

doesn't deny going after edwards delegates

Posted by jtk | February 19, 2008 11:31 AM

Hey John they did..
http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-clinton-tactics/

Posted by Ann | February 19, 2008 11:51 AM

And people say that the Clinton campaign is about change? Reminds me a lot of the '90s this does.

Posted by ProgressiveNotLiberal | February 19, 2008 11:59 AM

right, I think the HRC camp forgot an all-important clause at the end of their statement: "at this time."

their previous statements have not gotten in the way of their new position on Michigan and Florida.

Posted by miked98 | February 19, 2008 12:14 PM

They pledge not to steal AFTER public outrage? What a surprise.

Posted by Phil | February 19, 2008 12:31 PM

Col,

Could you be any less accurate? Here is the origial quote from the original article. Can you find the word "bribe" that you have attributed to the Clinton campaign in there anywhere?
-------------------------------------------------

“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

Posted by anon-no-more | February 19, 2008 12:35 PM

Clinton

verb

1. to justify inappropriate behavior.
2. to suggest that your ethical opponent is guilty of your unethical behavior.
3. to attempt to bespoil a victory for another party which is out of one's own reach.

[Origin: 1980s–1990s -- US politicians Bill and Hillary Clinton]

noun
1. a popular politician who loses touch with voters.
2. a slash-and-burn politician who attempts to win at any cost.
3. a candidate who expects a coronation but then encounters popular opposition.

Posted by Louis | February 19, 2008 12:42 PM

As best i can tell--and forgive me, I'm not so smart--Hillary and Bill Clinton are willing to burn their own party to the ground, in order to have a shot at beating the GOP in November. But if they've torched and bruised and split the party through their negative campaigning and attempts tp steal the nomination, how, exactly, do Democrats end up winning? I'm sure Mark Penn could explain this to me.

Posted by kathroberts | February 19, 2008 1:02 PM

Marc, Welcome back. We missed you last week.

Posted by Curtis | February 19, 2008 2:05 PM