Clinton Fails To Submit An Entire Delegate Slate In Pennsylvania

Um...I am really embarrassed to say I am not sure what this means.

Can someone explain it to me?

Posted by Jenna | February 19, 2008 9:56 AM

It means Hillary has no organization in PA, while folks were fighting to get on the ballot under Obama's slate.

Posted by Adam B | February 19, 2008 10:16 AM

There was once a time I considered voting Clinton because I had confidence in her campaign to be a well-oiled machine against the Republicans.

That is all out the window and I have no more reason to support her anymore. She is unelectable.

Posted by Dan | February 19, 2008 10:17 AM

Beyond Adam B's explaination, it also means that at the grassroots level of campaigning Clinton lacks supportors in some congressional districts in PA. Where as Obama's support is more broad.

Moreover, this means that her politically active supporters and campaign members in PA are wavering in thier support of delegates. She has less of a chance of picking up enough delegates to win PA if she has less of them on her slate.

So its like Obama has the potential to get 100 delegates in PA. Opposed to Clinton potential of getting 90. Although 90 percent of the delegates might be enough to win it shows that there are a number of delegates that can NOT stand up for her at the DNC. (Even if she wins in those congressional districts). This is because she did not get them slated.

All this makes it a little harder for her to win in PA. It shows that there is campaign strategy here. She probably would have liked to pick up the delegates on her slate but said "no biggie" when they didn't join. I shows that she can be selective. "If you can't help me..then I don't anything to do with you"

And this is were Obama has broad support across congressional districts.

Posted by John E. | February 19, 2008 10:50 AM

This. Thing. Is. Over.

Posted by JBS | February 19, 2008 11:02 AM

So its like Obama has the potential to get 100 delegates in PA. Opposed to Clinton potential of getting 90. Although 90 percent of the delegates might be enough to win it shows that there are a number of delegates that can NOT stand up for her at the DNC. (Even if she wins in those congressional districts). This is because she did not get them slated.

So now we're going to disenfranchise 10 proud delegates of the great state of Pennsylvania? Clearly you don't know what it means to be "READY ON DAY ONE."

Why do you hate America, John E.?

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 19, 2008 11:07 AM

But the Philly News article also said that:

"But Clinton's faux pas is more of an image problem than a practical one. Under Democratic Party rules (and does any organization on the planet have more rules or more complex rules?) a presidential candidate winning in a congressional district gets delegates from that district (assigned at a later date) whether he or she files slates delegates or not."

Seems pretty weird to me

Posted by A DC Wonk | February 19, 2008 12:01 PM

Is this embarassing or what?

Posted by Valdez | February 19, 2008 12:05 PM

hilzoy reports some research over at Andrew Sullivan's blog. It appears that, unless Clinton was actually going to win all the delegates in a particular CD, not having the total number of delegates available might not make a difference in her actual delegate count. But it certainly shows sloppy organization.

Posted by wj | February 19, 2008 1:14 PM

What it means is she considered PA an "insignificant state" until she started losing. Wanna place a bet on how much schmoozing she does between now and April 22nd?

Posted by Kelly | February 19, 2008 1:39 PM

Rest assured that the She-weasel from New York (or is it Arkansas or maybe Illinois) will have her flying monkey toady Rendell change the rules again.
There is no way that the Clinton Duoacracy will allow 10 delegates to slip throug their slimy, thieving, corruption stained hands.
In Wisconsin Shrillary tried to impress male voters withe her duck hunting fairy tale. In PA she will probably talk about her Scrapple hunting trip. When a voter corrects her on the definition of scrapple she will blame the vast right wing conspiracy for hunting the last scrapple into extinction.

Posted by Remus | February 19, 2008 3:26 PM

Under Democratic Party rules a presidential candidate winning in a congressional district gets delegates from that district (assigned at a later date) whether he or she files slates delegates or not.

Clinton knows this. Obama may or may not...

Obama supporters are reporting this to news agencies either 1) not knowing the facts (inexperience) or 2) playing “Washington-speak” politics. Let's stop this kind of garbage and start understanding the issues and facts (just like the Michele comment). No more Washington-speak.

Obama speaks of commitments and "Washington-speak". So as Obama himself just said, it's fair (commenting on McCain's recent NY times article) to look at a candidate in light of his campaign. Therefore... Are Obama commitments being kept? Judge for yourself.

1. Obama made a written commitment to take public funds for the 2008 election. Upon asking to reconfirm this commitment, he would not. McCain accuses him of a “Washington-speak".

2. Obama tells Idaho voters on Feb 1... Quoting Obama, "And then there are people who say, `Well, he doesn't believe in the Second Amendment,' even though I come from a state -- we've got a lot of hunters in downstate Illinois. And I have no intention of taking away folks' guns."

Obama didn't mention that he does support gun control and has a record of voting for it in the Illinois Senate. 12 years ago, when Obama was running for the state Legislature, he wrote in a questionnaire that he "supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." The majority of Idaho voters oppose gun control.

Get to know Obama.
Here are some of his votes. Do they reflect his experience or lack of experience?

No – SB 485 (1999)
To give no offer of “good time” for sex offenders sentenced to the County Jail. Obama was the ONLY vote against this measure.

PRESENT SB 609 (2001)(meaning he refused to vote)
To restrict the location of buildings with “adult” uses (meaning pornographic video stores, strip clubs, etc.) with-in 1,000 feet of any public or private elementary or secondary school, public park, place or warship, preschool, day-care facility, mobile park or residential area.

NO SB 1075 (1999)
To create an income tax credit for all full-time K-12 (kindergarten through high school) pupils in an amount equal to 25% of qualified education expenses up to a maximum of $500 per family.

NO – SB 1661 (2002)
A part of the Born Alive Infant Protection Package. Would create a cause of action if a child is born alive after an abortion and the child is then neglected through failure to provide medical care after birth. Basically, doctors must act on behalf of an aborted fetus IF the fetus/child is born ALIVE and is not given medical attention. Only 15 members of the US House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote. Pro-choice organizations supported this measure.

YES – HB 3396 (2003)
Not requiring a secret ballot to organize if 50% of the eligible workers publically sign a card of support for unionization. This supports the leaders of the unions and not the worker’s privacy. It’s a formula for workplace harassment and forced compliance if someone objects – a secret ballot eliminates workplace harassment if unionization is being considered.

YES SB 1733 (2003)
To impose a Gas Use Tax on the purchase of natural gas from outside the state of Illinois for use or consumption in Illinois. Consumers would have to pay 5% of the purchase price or 2.4 cents per therm. Because natural gas is needed for heating, it is essentially a tax on the poor. Rich folks don’t care if their heating bill goes up $500/year.

No – SB 381 (1997)
To require prisoners to pay court costs for frivolous lawsuits against the state.

NOT Voting HB581 (2003)
Allows domestic partners to be allowed to assume the rights of a spouse of survivor with regards to pension benefits under the Chicago Teacher’s pension system.

NO SB 228 (1997)
Changes in the “Illinois Equal Opportunity Act of 1997” to stipulate, non-withstanding any law to the contrary, any government or school district that gives benefits to same-sex couples under any criteria must give equal benefits to heterosexual couples.

Present HB 4659 (2000)
To establish a zero tolerance drug-testing policy for Department of Corrections Employees

Posted by Get to know Obama - from the data | February 24, 2008 7:06 PM