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.
What? Isn’t that impossible? A pledged delegate is pledged to a particular candidate and cannot switch, right?
Wrong.
The ultimate power couple looks to win by whatever means it takes. I hope America is finally seeing through them and repudiates them hands down.
We should not be surprised at this. The leopard cannot change his spots.
(Note to Elves: Do not delete. Yes, I know leopards are not mentioned in the article. But this is not an off-topic comment about carnivore biology. Trust me.)
[i]LOL!, never fear Wilfred. We understood the metaphor 😉 [/i]
Yawn. Oh, please, please. This is simply our messy political process at work. Mr. Obama is doing the same thing, but since he’s the current darling of the press, it’s not being reported. If Mr. McCain (the anti-Bush candidate) not run away with the GOP primaries, we’d be reading the same sort of things about him and Mr. Huckabee, et al.
I like this blog, particularly Canon Harmon’s thoughtful and informative posts of theological and other developments in the AC. However, it would be helpful if he labeled posts on the current US political scene as “Suitable for Far-Righters Only.” Seems like it always elicits many ultra-right wing comments, usually hyperventilating with some version of ‘Clintonitis’. Thought I’d toss in a more moderate voice for once. BTW, it’s fascinating that Rush Limbaugh and the other right-wing radio hosts can’t STAND Mr. McCain — and he won anyway! Now he has to cuddle up to the GOP fatcats to finance his campaign! It’s going to be an interesting campaign!
This practice is essentially about denying the people’s choice. Theft and a disgrace.
Little Cabbage- don’t be naive. Democrats (lower or upper case) expect their vote for a candidate to stay stuck. Only republicans expect delegated representation to vote as is best for the country. This power politics will only be seen as chicanery by the voters in the Democratic party, and will result in the Clinton’s winning nothing of value. As Obama has the momentum now, I regard your “he’s doing it as well” analysis as irrelevant, and in the same vein as your polemic ad hominem concerning how how Canon Harmon is now a “right winger”. For red necks like me, that is pure humor, and not to be taken seriously.
Sorry L’Cabbage – it might feed your fantasy to believe that all Clinton-haters are rightwingers, but there are those of us who believe that he is the ultimate Anti-Liberal, someone who masquerades as a candidate of the left, but is willing to execute a retarded man for political gain. Or stand by while Rwanda dies. Or trade money for access. Or treat women as disposable, interchangeable playthings. I could go on and on…
In fact, Christopher Hitchens wrote a book covering the subject:
“The honest and the powerless have a vested interest in a politician who cannot be bought, whereas the powerful and dishonest have already begun to haggle over the tab while the acceptance speech is being written.”
-Christopher Hitchens “No One Left To Lie To” (1999)
Well, assuming this plan comes to fruition, which I rather doubt, then John McCain will be the safety bet to become President.
The vitriolic replies to my earlier post proves my point. Thanks, all!
It’s interesting how this primary season is highlighting how much of our electoral process is guided by undemocratic, and in many cases arcane, rules of our political parties.
8- indeed they did “prove” your point, though not to be true.
With the Texas primary coming up, we are getting a lot of Clinton and Obama ads. Moreover, he spoke in Dallas today and got extensive news coverage. I am struck how little of substance he actually says. True, he says it extraordinarily well, but there is not a lot there. Pretty much: change, health care, end the war, and more change. He is going to CHANGE Washington. Wasn’t Ronald Reagan just saying that a few days ago? Or was that a hundred other politicians before and after Reagan? I really do think Hillary has a lot more to her. Which is not to say I’d vote for her or anyone else that protects the legal murder of babies nor anyone who plans to surrender to radical Islamists. But given the choices, I suspect Clinton would make a better president.
And I am extremely surprised to be saying that.
Don’t forget that delegates are expected to switch their votes if there’s a second (or third, or fourth…) ballot. That’s the only reason to send actual people to cast the votes in the first place.
I’ll admit that I had been under the impression that pledged delegates were required to cast their vote as pledged on the first ballot, but I’m not too surprised to hear that it isn’t true. Heck, you still get the occasional rogue elector in the Electoral College.
Personally, I think the whole process by which the parties select their candidates is painfully broken, but given that the rules are what they are I don’t see the point of blaming anyone for playing the rules.
Now we know what Karl Rove’s been up to since he bailed …
Hey, it’s politics and you can’t take politics out of it. And I don’t worship at the alter of democracy by the way. A pure democracy can be just as tyranical as any other political system. The left knows this as you hear their cries of “minority rights” when they aren’t in the majority.
The parties should be free to shape their rules as they see fit.
#14 Br Michael – I know you meant to write ” [i] altar [/i] of democracy”, but with the subject being Mrs Clinton’s stealing votes, ” [i] alter [/i] of democracy” is actually a pretty good Freudian slip.
I was surprised to learn that Democratic party rules don’t require pledged delegates to honor their pledges on the first ballot. I don’t know if Republican rules do require this, and it’s not in question this year. This effort to get delegates to switch does seem underhanded, and I imagine the average voter would view it that way.
The speculation about whether Republicans would do the same thing sounds like another “but everybody does it!” argument. It doesn’t help much to claim, without support, that the other side would be just as unprincipled, unless it’s a claim that we’re all born sinners, which is true.
And when did disagreement become “vitriol?” Vitriol: “cruel and bitter criticism.”
“Selected not elected!”
I have been interested in watch this charade go on (and on and on). The same Democrats who were bemoaning the principles of the electoral college in 2000 are now all in favor of trying to woo (by hook or by crook) superdelegates, which as far as I can understand them serve basically the same functional purpose as an electoral college delegates.
Electoral college delegates were created as a buffer between the mass electorate so that that Presidential elections would not end up as rule by the largest mob and not have little states at the mercy of larger states with larger populations. As I understand the superdelegate system, is that not the same premise of having loyal party people who are immune from the fickle masses as a buffer?
Politics is politics I suppose.