Clinton Targets Pledged Delegates

Politico:

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.

Read the whole story: Politico

Comments

[user168]

It's nothing new - Hillary will do whatever it takes at all cost to get to what she wants. She is the scariest woman on earth. It reminds me of that Smith woman who drowned her two boys with her car so to win the boyfriend.

[meileen]

Saw a segment on TV that displayed BO had given hundreds of thousands of dollars to the campaigns of delegates, WAY more than Hillary's double digit amount. If this fact were reversed, it would be front page news. But no mention here at HuffPo.

So let's see, he pays off delegates, reneges on campaign finance promises, lifts speeches previously given and on record, uses sexist language, but in the eyes of many, he is a 'new' candidate.

Didn't we blow it in the past by voting in the guy with charisma? Will we ever learn?

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

hmmm no new posts...

[TotobiAyokoh23]

Let there be no mistake: if the democratic-majoritarian preferences of the people is subverted by the diabolical machinations of the so-called "super-delegates," the conflagrations that will erupt on the streets of Denver will make the French Revolution look like a Sunday-School Picnic!

[KQuark]

Clinton has several fatal personality flaws that will drag down the best chance to get a Democrat in the white house in years. She is obsessed with secrecy, vindictive in nature, obsessed with power, has no personal ethics and is fatally partisan. She simply does not care what damage she does on the way to the nomination. She will not win the white house because unlike Obama who has too much integrity to bring up her past misdeeds McCrazy and the Republicans will.

The false charge of plagiarism is already sticking to every Clinton supporters tongues like glue. They are already pounding the unfounded charge over and over again. It does not matter that Obama wrote two books and write most of his speeches which is a rarity in politics today. It does not matter that Obama is an honest man with real progressive convictions, because the Clinton machine has their gotcha moment. It does not matter that Obama is the only candidate that can beat McCrazy.

Before I said I would vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it was, but not now. I'm going on record for the first time saying that if Hillary is nominated I will not vote. At this point I'd rather have 4 years of McCrazy than vote for a person with no morals. Hillary supporters I hope your happy with your candidate because she made a person who voted for the Democratic nominee every election since Mondale not vote for the first time since I have had the privilege.

[BitJam]

Today's Gallop poll gives detailed results of Obama's headway among almost all groups of voters:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104428/Obama-Gaining-Among-MiddleAged-Women-Hispanics.aspx

Polls should never be entirely trusted and this year has been particularly bad for pollsters but trends tend to be much more reliable than absolute results.

The most striking statistics were the ones with graduated grouping such as education and age. Although Obama made headway in every group, Obama made the most gains in the _middle_ group.

Age ......... Obama Gain

----------------------------------

18 -- 34 ..... 6%

35 -- 54 ..... 16%

55+ .......... 12%

Education ........ Obama Gain

----------------------------------------

High School or less .. 15%

Some College ......... 18%

College Graduate ..... 6%

These results indicate that the voting "blocs" from Super Tuesday were the result of a communication gap. They were not due to fundamental divides in our country. Obama was simply getting his message across fastest to younger and better educated voters. The more he campaigns, the better he does. I feel hopeful that these trends will continue and Obama will emerge as the clear victor well before the Democratic convention.

[westseattle]

Clinton's best chance, as even their campaign has come out and said, is if Obama doesn't have the time to reach voters in upcoming primaries. Clinton split on super tuesday because her name recognition was too much for Obama to overcome in such little time. The more voters get to hear and understand Obama, the more they vote for him. Clinton, on the other hand, is more like Ghouliani. The more the voters see of her, the less they like her.

[BrooklynLager]

I think early voting had as much to do with Clinton's wins in places like California than anything else. Millions of people had already cast their votes when Hillary Clinton was still "the inevitable nominee".

[einherjar]

I am one of those people.

I really had no opinion on Hillary, take her or leave her. But now the more I hear, see and read about her, the more I REALLY dislike her.

Her votes on important legislation is abyssmal when viewed through this progressives eyes.

If she is the Dem nomination, I will have to think long and hard before I vote for her. I personally consider her no better than McCain at this point.

[KQuark]

Clinton has several fatal personality flaws that will drag down the best chance to get a Democrat in the white house in years. She is obsessed with secrecy, vindictive in nature, obsessed with power, has no personal ethics and is fatally partisan. She simply does not care what damage she does on the way to the nomination. She will not win the white house because unlike Obama who has too much integrity to bring up her past misdeeds McCrazy and the Republicans will.

The false charge of plagiarism is already sticking to every Clinton supporters tongues like glue. They are already pounding the unfounded charge over and over again. It does not matter that Obama wrote two books and write most of his speeches which is a rarity in politics today. It does not matter that Obama is an honest man with real progressive convictions, because the Clinton machine has their gotcha moment. It does not matter that Obama is the only candidate that can beat McCrazy.

Before I said I would vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it was, but not now. I'm going on record for the first time saying that if Hillary is nominated I will not vote. At this point I'd rather have 4 years of McCrazy than vote for a person with no morals. Hillary supporters I hope your happy with your candidate because she made a person who voted for the Democratic nominee every election since Mondale not vote for the first time since I have had the privilege.

[Lisette]

Well, well, well! What do all you Hillary feminists think of this?

[SmellTheHorse]

Of course the Clinton campaign is denying this story--but you gotta admit, knowing what we've all learned over watching Hillary and Bill during this campaign, it sure has the ring of truth.

I think Democrats need to start distinguishing between the Democratic Party and the Clintocratic Party.

[BrooklynLager]

Hmm. It IS much easier to say than "the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party". And most people have no idea what the DLC is.

[TotobiAyokoh23]

The Clintons are planning on "by any means necessary approach" to winning the nomination: the Bonny & Clyde of modern-day politics!

[citizenofmars]

Look at that pose- can you spell E-V-A P-E-R-O-N?

[SUNRAI]

The more Clinton's want this...the more it just makes her look bad and more the voters are turned off by her. She wants to win at all costs and she'll be hated even more if she wins the nomination. She won't have the support she thinks she needs to win the WH.

[JerryJef]

We've all heard what will happen if the "super" delegates "overturn" the expressed will of the people. What is going to happen if the PLEDGED delegates overturn the will of the people?

The function of the National Convention since 1828 has been to enunciate the Party's position on issues and to select the nominees for President and Vice-President. Nobody has cared about the Party's platform since 1829, especially the nominee. In the modern age, with the primary system, we are far beyond the need to nominate a candidate by Convention.

I am not sure this is a good thing. Like Jefferson, I believe firmly in the People's right and duty to govern themselves, and, like Jefferson, I am wary of their ability to do so. The more hysteria I see in the discussions about the current endeavor the less convinced I am of it. We are rapidly approaching the point of uncontrolled hysterics.

But I also believe we are at the point for the ultimate reform. Dispense with the National Convention. Conduct primaries only and eliminate the state caucuses. Have the National Committee certify the candidate who receives the largest popular vote in the primaries as the Party's candidate for President. Let him decide, as he does anyhow, who the Vice-Presidential candidate will be.

Whatever reforms we make or don't make, we must get hold of our emotions and stop this rhetoric about how we will burn the house down if things don't go our way.

[westseattle]

Jerry, a great point. I can tell you the caucus system lends itself to more dirty shenanigans. Why does it have to be so complex? It seems a primary vote would be the easiest and most straighforward approach to choosing a nominee. If it's good enough for the general, why isn't it good enough for the primary?

[JohnFromCensornati]

This ain't a democracy.
She wants to win.
Is she breaking the rules?

[westseattle]

Maybe not breaking the rules here. Trying to seat Florida and Michigan delegate is breaking the rules. What the above article points too is the desperation of the Clinton campaign and how they'll stop at nothing to try to steal the nomination. She wants to win, but she's not doing so well. She's lost 23 out of 34 states, and yet Howard Wolfson just stated on MSNBC that Hillary and Barack are tied. As usual, facts don't matter. Only winning. And we're sick of it.

[AnninCA]

Then you must be equally disgusted by tbe interview Obama gave after his Florida fundraiser that he would support their fight to be seated.

No?

Well, then......maybe you're just hypocritical then.

[EinChicago]

To be fair, the only person who broke the rules in florida was Obama when he cheated and actively ran campaign ads in Florida when Ewards and CLinton did not.

[JerryJef]

This article makes this statement: "They (delegates to the national convention) were chosen by voters, but they were chosen to back a particular candidate."

This statement is not exactly precise. It suggests a direct connection between the voter and an individual delegate. No such connection exists. The voter votes for a candidate. The National Delegates are chosen from among the members of a State Convention. Members of the Convention indicate their preference. All members having the same peference caucus and elect the number of live bodies to go the the National Convention that they are told to elect by the State Convention bosses. There is a vague, indistinct but traceable correlation between the popular vote and the number of delegates to the National Convention, but there is not correlation between the voters and a specific delegate as suggest by the article.

This article does not agree with what I've been told at every State convention I've attended. We have been told that the delegates we selected to go to the National Convention would be bound by their pledge to vote on the first ballot for the candidate they were selected to support.

[westseattle]

Actually, you are wrong. I am a delegate. The biggest concern of the voters that elected me as a delegate is that I would uphold their vote at the convention. They have this concern because technically, I could switch my support to another candidate. There is no law that I support the candidate that I was elected to support.

[AnninCA]

My advice?

Just relax and watch and see.

My guess is this wonte so miserable as you might imagie at this stage.

BTW....good for you.

You're involved.

[JerryJef]

West Seattle, I presume, means West Seattle, Washington. Washington held a caucus to select delegates, and will today conduct a meaningless primary. Perhaps you were specifically and individually chosen because of the candidate you support. I can see that happening at a caucus. I suspect, however, your selection sends you to the next level of convention, but not necessarily to the National Convention. But I really don't know. And I really don't care.

I live in a primary State. What I described about what we have been told is not incorrect. It is what we were told. We will have a national delegate selection convention next month. Do you want to come down and listen?

For clarification, I didn't refer to any statute. I referred to party rules.

[baghdadjoe]

Let's consider what WOULD happen if Hillary Clinton became the nominee.

8 Years of the Clintons, major losses for Democrats across the nation.

Governors (-12 Ds)

30 Dems after 1992 election

18 Dems after 2000 election

U.S. Senators (-7 Ds)

57 Dems after 1992 election

50 Dems after 2000 election

Reps (-46 Ds)

258 Dems after 1992 election

212 Dems after 2000 election

This MIGHT be the single most important reason for supporting Obama. The Clintons use the Democratic Party as a vehicle to consolidate their personal political power. They gain power by dividing us up like a Thanksgiving turkey and pitting us against each other. They simply DO NOT CARE about electing more Democrats, strengthening the party, or furthering progressive causes.

On the other hand, if you want more Republicans in Congress and in state governments, Hillary Clinton is the best choice.

[NoRepresentation]

One thing you failed to point out is that Hillary is the Eli Manning of her house hold. These are just the numbers with Bill, think how bad they will be if we have the less talented Clinton hack in the White House.

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

you didn't diss Eli did you?