Reconsidering The Anti-Poach Pledge?

Will Hillary Clinton's campaign begin to pressure pledged delegates to change their affiliation? The Philadelphia Daily News's Will Bunch is on the case. Clinton is right about the rules, but it stands to reason that Obama's campaign would ensure that the pledged delegates they send to the convention are strong of mind; indeed, those who take the time to run for the position of delegate are probably not going to be swayed in any event. Even in 1992, only one delegate, as I recall, switched away from Bill Clinton amid the series of potentially disastrous controversies he weathered during his march to the nomination.

"....But what, I asked, would she say to a pledged delegate to convince him or her to switch:

I just think it’s a very dynamic process, and all these people haven’t voted – most importantly Pennsylvania hasn’t voted, so why do people want to shut it down? My husband didn’t wrap up the nomination until June, and in June he was running third behind President Bush and Ross Perot – elections are dynamic and the idea that you could make some decision now...and furthermore superdelegates are just as legitimate as any other delegates. I mean, they’re there for a purpose, they’re not just window dressing. They re told to exercise their independent judgment, you know. Some support me in states I didn’t win. Some support Senator Obama in states he didn’t win. So you could argue that you can’t do that, that Governor Richardson shouldn’t be supporting him, that I won New Mexico – under the Obama theory, right?

But I still wanted to know her case for switching. She went on:

There are different ways to become a delegate, there are delegates from caucuses, there are delegates from primaries, and there are the appointed delegates, they’re all equal, they all have an equal vote – those are the rules of the Democratic Party. Now if you don’t like the rules, change them going forward but those are the rules. And they are there for a purpose, because if you go back and look 30 years ago, people were elected to Congress said, 'Wait a minute, this party is not running winning elections. We need to have a say, with all due respect,' so, they have a say. You know, the goals are very conveniently being interpreted, you know – Michigan shouldn’t count because of the rukes and and we shouldn’t count the superdelegates even though the rules…You know, I think that doesn’t make sense.

Comments

According to The Field, the Clinton campaign may already be sending out robo-calls to Obama delegates in Texas:

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=935

Posted by T. Hodler | March 25, 2008 11:36 AM

It's like bloggers don't read other blogs. They are already trying to poach folks in Texas (as linked to above).

Posted by Keith | March 25, 2008 11:46 AM

I am assuming that when she says "You know, I think that doesn’t make sense." she is talking about her own comments that immediately preceded those words.

Posted by john m | March 25, 2008 11:46 AM

"those are the rules of the Democratic Party. Now if you don’t like the rules, change them going forward but those are the rules. And they are there for a purpose"

Don't the rules state that Florida and Michigan votes don't count? Is she trying to use both sides of the coin in the same paragraph? The rules are there for a reason, and she wants to circumvent those rules. Is she actually trying to rewrite history so soon after it happened?

Evil woman. Evil.

Posted by Chris DeAngelus | March 25, 2008 11:57 AM

This worked REALLY well for the Clintons in Iowa's round 2 of the caucuses.

Just quit already. You have lost.

Posted by Joe Justice | March 25, 2008 12:10 PM

This is rich: Now if you don’t like the rules, change them going forward but those are the rules.

Votes should be counted in states that ignored the rules and were told their votes wouldn't count. (By Harold Ickes!)
Votes should not count anywhere they selected a pledged delegate not for Hillary. Those voters we can disenfranchise with ease: they were misguided, after all.

Marc, we want her feet held to the fire on this. And the supers need to step up a bit more on what's acceptable dialogue: along with "no endorsing McCain" should be "no telling legitimate voters they shouldn't count."

Posted by Deborah | March 25, 2008 12:13 PM

There is just so much doublespeak to unpack in this nugget. "Rules are rules" - but not so with MI and FL. "Most importantly Pennsylvania" - so, to you kids in Indiana, North Carolina, etc., you're secondary; "all these people haven't voted" - conveniently ignoring the fact that Clinton had 100 superdelegates in her pocket before Iowa.

Posted by Ready for change | March 25, 2008 12:15 PM

How long until someone makes the false claim that Clinton is "changing the rules?" Someone above mentions Texas as if Hill is trying to 'steal' Obama's delegates ... wrongo - this is accepted and standard practice in texas:

"The Texas Democratic Party ... caution[s], however, that delegate lists won't be official until the state convention in June. ... both campaigns will have to work to ensure that their delegates attend the next round of conventions and remain committed to their candidate. Caucus delegates can change their minds and switch candidates."

I'm sure that everyone who is worried about Hillary 'poaching' delegates was just as mad to discover that Obama stole Edwards' Iowa delegates:

"More than half the 14 delegates allocated to John Edwards on the basis of caucus night projections switched Saturday to Obama .... Some of the delegates picked at Saturday's conventions were sticking with Edwards, even though he's dropped from the race."

Oh, wait. Not so upset? It was a fair fight?

I agree, just as it is a fair fight right now to go after any pledged delegate - anywhere:

"If no candidate receives a clear majority of delegates, the party may head into the convention without a nominee. ...The nominee is then determined by a series of floor votes at the convention... Pledged delegates and superdelegates may switch their support, and negotiations continue until one candidate receives a majority of votes."

The point is that many of these so-called pledged delegates chosen during caucuses aren't really pledged or official at all. They don't become official until after county and senatorial conventions where delegates are selected for the state convention.

This isn't poaching, it's playing within the rules to win. Let's stop the whining and be accurate.

Posted by sbj | March 25, 2008 12:17 PM

"Don't the rules state that Florida and Michigan votes don't count?"

Sigh .... At the time that Dean imposed his illegal penalty, he also provided for two means of redress: appeal to the RBC for a revote, appeal to the credentials committee to seat the delegates in some fashion.

I'm not sure how playing by the rules laid out by Howard Dean is somehow morphed into cheating and trying to change the rules, but this is a persistent lie propogated on this blog by many.

Posted by sbj | March 25, 2008 12:25 PM

In a slightly unrelated matter, whenever I visit a war zone rife with snipers, I always try to stand up straight and remember to wear a yellow scarf. Seriously, it only recently occurred to me that we haven't heard from Sidney Blumenthal of late. Remember Sidney, long-time friend and senior advisor to presidential candidate Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the man who coined the term “vast right-wing conspiracy?” Sidney blew through Greeley Park at speeds in excess of 70-mph., in a 30-mph. zone, and got apprehended by police (in a quirk of irony maybe that’s why Hillary teared-up and won NH.). Sidney failed to walk the walk. He failed the field sobriety test, got arrested - handcuffed – just like Dee Dee Myers does every so often. Point being, what if Barack Obama's pastor, the Reverend J.A. Wright, had done such a thing? Would Hillary Clinton ever let Barack Obama live it down? Sidney declined the Breathalyzer, and was booked for Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated, DWI. And, that was the end of it: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 25, 2008 12:28 PM

At a slightly grander scale, consider the comment above with HRC's mangled response to the Tuzla follow-up: "I couldn't just walk by the little girl," etc. I see an insidious pattern of confusion, desperation and mendacity. And that's not what our great nation needs in a leader in these troubled times.

Posted by Dr. Duh | March 25, 2008 12:33 PM

sbj, we know how the local-->county-->state process works, at least in broad outline. She is talking about delegates at the convention being free to switch. Which they are, but there is no point in constantly reiterating it unless you want them to--and somehow no one believes she's signalling her pledged delagates that they're free to abandon her.

I will grant that the robocalls aren't too worrying because, let's face it, that's a really stupid way to steal a delegate. But don't conflate what happens to Edwards delegates (or anyone else's) as we go through county and state conventions* with an argument that both super and pledged delegates at the convention should just vote as they wish on the first ballot (Jack Kelly is suggesting a June poll, and then everyone goes with the results for that week, ignoring the elections), previous votes by actual citizens be damned.

*Where, it seems, this sort of "states that already voted suck and don't count" attitude isn't helping her.

Posted by Deborah | March 25, 2008 12:36 PM

No cause for hysteria:

Campaign spokesman Phil Singer then jumped in to dial back any impression that the campaign would be attempting this: "It is still our position that we are not asking pledged delegates for Sen. Obama to flip over. That is a rule, but we are not engaged in any efforts, so please don't make a mistake about that."

Singer added later in the call, "I know there's always a temptation to read something into everything, but simply stating a fact is not a cause for hysteria."

Posted by sbj | March 25, 2008 12:44 PM

Sigh .... At the time that Dean imposed his illegal penalty, he also provided for two means of redress: appeal to the RBC for a revote, appeal to the credentials committee to seat the delegates in some fashion.

I'm not sure how playing by the rules laid out by Howard Dean is somehow morphed into cheating and trying to change the rules, but this is a persistent lie propogated on this blog by many.

Not a lie. She said she wouldn't participate in Michigan. She said it in writing. Leaving your name on a ballot in a primary is participation, at least as defined by any sane human being. Lie #1.

She never once spoke up against Howard Dean's rules until it looked like it would be to her advantage. During the campaign she said the MI and FL votes "don't count for anything". Now they MUST count. Lie #2. (Or perhaps you'd prefer it to be called a highly expedient change of position.)

Remember that her stated "reasoning" for leaving her name on the MI ballot ... because supposedly it didn't matter. SHE said that. Now she's whining for either a re-vote or to seat the delegates she won in a primary that didn't count and she supposedly didn't participate in except for leaving her name on the ballot, which Obama could have done because after all it was his choice to remove his name, which he shouldn't have done because now the delegates should count. Ouch. Lost track of the lies and double talk on that one.

Posted by LFC | March 25, 2008 12:51 PM

"She said she wouldn't participate in Michigan. She said it in writing. Leaving your name on a ballot in a primary is participation, at least as defined by any sane human being."

So very wrong. The DNC asked the candidates to not campaign, they never told anyone to remove their name. Obama and Edwards removed their names voluntarily to curry favor with Iowa Democrats (and it worked). So, no, sorry, she didn't do anything wrong, she didn't lie.

"She never once spoke up against Howard Dean's rules"

Righty-o. She agreed to them - a part of which stipulated two means of redress.

"until it looked like it would be to her advantage."

So? I'm supposed to be upset that a poitician is looking after their own interests and trying to win the nomination?

"During the campaign she said the MI and FL votes "don't count for anything". Now they MUST count."

Nope. These elections won't count for anything. As I carefully stated in the previous post, the delegates will be seated by 'some' metric - but not by the results of the election. It will be up to the credentials committee to decide the metric.

"Now she's whining for either a re-vote or to seat the delegates"

Second sigh. This is precisely what Howard Dean permitted the aggrieved parties to do. No sane person is going to be upset that Hill is playing by the rules.

"she won in a primary that didn't count and she supposedly didn't participate in except for leaving her name on the ballot, which Obama could have done because after all it was his choice to remove his name, which he shouldn't have done"

Well at least you got all of this correct!

Posted by sbj | March 25, 2008 1:27 PM

I'm a yallah-dawg Democrat and have 'left-winger' in my medic-alert bracelet and I wish all these overheated partisans would take a long break. Switch to decaf!! Visit the VirginIslands!! For God's sake, cool it!!

In America we've never settled the question of whether we have something close to a direct democracy or a classic republic. Hey!! Even the 'Electors' of the electoral college can pledge to vote for one candidate but cast their vote for another. I recall some goofus 'pledged' to Nixon actually cast a vote for GeoWallace in '68; it was perfectly legal.

Somehow the Constitution survived, folks. Please quit making the Democrats look like the party of clowns and anarchists!! How does the phrase "President McCain" sound to you?

Posted by JohnMcC | March 25, 2008 2:50 PM

No cause for hysteria: --sbj

Yeah, Clinton brought it up, then Ickes brought it up (this week--they've brought it up several times previously), but Singer wants us to know it would be wrong to construe them as actually meaning what they are saying.

Posted by Deborah | March 25, 2008 4:05 PM

The DNC asked the candidates to not campaign,

Sigh. The operative word was "participate". By her definition, having your name on the ballot is not participating. "I guess it depends upon what the meaning of 'is' is."

Second sigh. This is precisely what Howard Dean permitted the aggrieved parties to do. No sane person is going to be upset that Hill is playing by the rules.

Sigh. She's demanding that they seat the delegates as voted. That's not the rules. That's her rules. The rules are that the committee decides. Can't you see the difference?

Final sigh. I guess saying that votes don't count and now they must count, and count per an invalid vote, isn't lying in your book. That's one interesting book.

Posted by LFC | March 25, 2008 4:06 PM

So I guess that Obama 'participated' in FL against DNC rules because his name was on the ballot? (By your logic, when he claims to have not participated in FL he's actually lying?) Did I miss something here? Did the DNC ask Obama to not 'participate' in MI but say it's okay to 'participate' in FL so long as you don't campaign there? Inane.

Your operative word was participate, the DNC's word was campaign. Sorry, bubba.

You do have one (minor) point that I agree with. Hill has used sloppy language to ask that the delegates be seated based on the election results. I think this is in an effort to make things clear to her target audience - simple-minded voters who only hear sound bites - but it is imprecise. (In other words, she is making a demand that she knows won't be honored, but she does so to make her point clear.) The rules clearly will not allow the results of the elections to be used for anything. But the rules also clearly allow for the delegates to be seated should the credentials committee decide to do so.

"I guess saying that votes don't count and now they must count, and count per an invalid vote, isn't lying in your book."

Actually, LFC, if you'll read over what you just wrote, helpfully reprinted above, there's not anything in there that could be called a lie (by any sane person). Agreeing that the elections won't count and then later arguing that they should count is not a lie. (It's hypocritical but it's not a lie.)

That's a minor distraction I'll concede, however, to the major point. She wants FL and MI to be represented because it helps her. Obama doesn't want them to count because it would hurt him. MI and FL have a right to ask for a revote, and a right to petition to seat their delegates. That's what is happening now. She isn't breaking any rules.

Posted by sbj | March 25, 2008 4:30 PM

So I guess that Obama 'participated' in FL against DNC rules because his name was on the ballot? (By your logic, when he claims to have not participated in FL he's actually lying?) Did I miss something here? Did the DNC ask Obama to not 'participate' in MI but say it's okay to 'participate' in FL so long as you don't campaign there? Inane.

Uh, Obama isn't claiming that the results are "fair" (a quote from Hillary) and is not attempting to use the bogus results to boost his campaign. So his actions have NO IMPACT. Understand? NO IMPACT. She is desperately trying to make her broken pledge HAVE IMPACT. HAVE. IMPACT. Get it? It's not that hard.

Your operative word was participate, the DNC's word was campaign. Sorry, bubba.

Looks like you read Hillary's press releases rather than the actual pledge she signed. For your information, I quote from the actual pledge (bold mine):

"THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC."

"Campaign or participate." Got it? I hope so. At least maybe I've swept away one of the fair tales you believe.

Hill has used sloppy language to ask that the delegates be seated based on the election results.

Oh, puh-leeeeaze. "Sloppy language?" That's the best you can do? That is an incredibly lame defense. She said the votes didn't count and then she said there must either be a re-vote (which is fine) or they must count as is (not fine). That's not sloppy. That's taking her prior statement and doing a 180 degree turn. Also known as a flip-flop. Also known as a lie. It's also her desperately trying to take advantage of the results of her broken pledge. Also a lie.

MI and FL have a right to ask for a revote, and a right to petition to seat their delegates. That's what is happening now.

Points on which we agree.

She isn't breaking any rules.

As pointed out above, she broke her pledge. That's breaking the rules. Obama's name on the ballot in FL means nothing as he is not trying to parlay it to his advantage. No impact, no foul.

She is trying to, against the rules, use her participation in MI to her advantage ... against her pledge. No "sloppy language" excuse here. And that means when she said that her name on the MI ballot was fine because it didn't count, and then said it has to count, she lied. She either lied before or is lying now. I'll let you pick.

She can lobby for how she wishes to have delegates seated, but when she justifies a postion with her broken pledge, she's lying. Sorry, Cletus, but that's the truth.

Posted by LFC | March 25, 2008 5:29 PM