Snippets from other blogs.
Clinton targets pledged delegates – Roger Simon – Politico.com:
“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.”
…
Delegates are NOT bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the convention or on the first ballot,” a recent DNC memo states. “A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required.”
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.
and
Another reading of the delegate story:
UPDATE: The Clinton campaign e-mails with a statement from spokesman Phil Singer:
“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.”
A Clinton staffer puts out the assertion that they will go after Obama’s delegates if we are in a stale-mate by the convention. The Obama camp’s response “um, really?”
When the story breaks, the same Clinton staffer says “We won’t do it, now Obama needs to be more clear.” Exactly why should the Obama campaign respond to this?
I think I have their response: “At no time have we ever planned on going after delegates pledged to Senator Clinton.”
In reality, Obama does not need to clarify his intentions to the Clinton camp on this matter. For their part, the Clinton camp should avoid attacking the process in this matter. In this particular instance, these particular ends do not justify these particular means. These are the kind of politics we are trying to get away from. This is the change that Obama speaks about and Clinton, apparently, pays lip service to.
I’m quite surprised that the delegates aren’t locked in to their candidate on the first ballot.
If Hillary keeps trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates in direct contradiction to party rules, or the superdelegates give her the win even though Obama comes in with more pledged voted delegates, or they start really twisting arms of Obama delegates…man. You’d have an election of Clinton vs. McCain, in which each party’s more committed wings (left vs. right) would be so pissed off they’d stay home. There is a potential here for a very interesting train wreck that would truly leave the “squishy middle” in control of the fate of the country.
I think a lot of folks in the Democratic Party are starting to see that maybe….juuuuust maybe…the “vast right-wing conspiracy” wasn’t as wrong about the Clintons as they thought we were ten years ago.
I don’t think “the Clinton’s” are any worse than the average bear in politics. I am surprised at the language on display here though. Those quotes from the Clinton staffer and campaign are very right-wing.
“We might do X even though it is slightly dirty.”
-Outrage against X-
“We are not going to do X and if the Others don’t also pledge to not do X, they are clearly at fault.”
Others: “What’s going on here?”
Having read those links, I say that this wholes system sucks. Also, that Clinton staffer quote is rather misleading.