Clinton Camp Presses Super Delegates Not To Take Sides

For weeks, the Barack Obama campaign has warned that Hillary Clinton would try to use her ties to the Democratic establishment to muscle 'super delegates' into backing her presidential bid, overriding a popular vote majority and Obama's plurality of pledged delegates elected in primaries and caucuses.

Now, however, as Obama has gained steadily in the polls, the Clinton campaign has reversed field. Top Clinton aides are pleading with uncommitted super delegates to hold off making any commitments, fearful that any commitments they make would be to back Obama, not Clinton.

A set of talking points emailed to Clinton supporters within organized labor describes the arguments to use on uncommitted super delegates. In the email, the Clinton campaign suggests telling the uncommitted delegates that "it would be unfair and unjust to cut off the nominating process now. There might come a time when the process needs to come to a close, but that time is not now."

In language that could have been lifted from the Obama playbook just a few weeks ago, the email says Clinton backers should make the case to super delegates that: "If House, Senate and DNC members try to end this process now, it would be very damaging to those institutions, the Democratic Party and our chances in November."

The entire DNC, members of Congress, governors, labor leaders and other key interest group leaders make up the 842 "automatic" or "super" delegates to the convention who are free to cast ballots for the candidate of their choice, regardless of how their state voted. To win, a Democratic candidate must have the support of at least 2025 delegates out of a total of 4048; 20.8 percent of the delegates are super delegates.

Just over three weeks ago, on February 6, Obama was the one warning that the super delegates might side with Clinton, even though he was ahead in the popular vote and in the pledged delegate count:

"If this contest comes down to superdelegates, we are going to be able to say we have more pledged delegates, which means the Democratic voters have spoken. . . . The argument we would be making to superdelegates is, if we come into the convention with more pledged delegates then I think we can make a very strong argument that our constituencies have spoken and I think that's going to be pretty important when it comes to the general election."

Clinton and her aides, three weeks ago, were, in turn, adamant in defending their efforts to persuade super delegates to endorse the New York Senator.

On February 16, Clinton told reporters that super delegates have "first-hand knowledge of the candidates" and "if people want to go after delegates in places that I've won who are supporting somebody else, what's good for the goose is good for the gander." At the time, Clinton had a substantial lead among super delegates. One estimate on February 8 gave her a 213 to 142, a 71 vote advantage.

More recently, however, the trend among super delegates making endorsements has been decidedly in Obama's favor; he has picked up the support of 35, including three who switched from Clinton. The Clinton campaign did not respond to queries as to how many super delegate endorsements she has picked up in recent weeks. The most recent super delegate count on RealClearPolitics shows her lead among super delegates dropping to 59, 241-182.

The count among pledged delegates chosen through primaries and caucuses is 1193 for Obama and 1038 for Clinton, or a 155 vote in favor of the Illinois Senator. Obama has so far won a total of 10,305,403 votes, according to RealClearPolitics, to Clinton's 9,379,822, a difference of 925,581 votes.

In the Clinton campaign's talking points email, Clinton supporters were told to argue that "late momentum in the primary may be an important factor impacting the perception of a candidate's strength going into the general election. If, as we expect, Hillary Clinton wins Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, the current dynamics of this race will shift dramatically."

Comments

[JamesKlichII]

06:49 PM on 03/04/2008

Super Delegates should not take sides. The best person should become the next President. Who has the best energy about them. Hillary Clinton will and can do a great job. If the Super Delegates want to take sides go with the person who in your heart you know is the right person. That person is Hillary Clinton.

[Swift2]

03:23 PM on 02/28/2008

Well, you could certainly say that Obama's campaign has switched, too. When they first condemned the superdelegates, it was as if their virgin eyes were offended by the "discovery" of this terrible, anti-democratic idea of putting elected officials and party regulars in there, some unpledged to any candidate, and the vile Hillary plot of forcing all these disgusting inside-the-Beltway, oh-so-yesterday people to vote her in Despite the Public Unanimity in Electing the People's Candidate!

Ah, not so much. Now that they're switching, there goes the outrage. Or maybe the system, put into place after Ted Kennedy made his abortive run for President, and ruined Democratic hopes against Ronald Reagan, is actually working more or less the way it was intended. Ah, I love the smell of "change" in the morning!

[jp1949]

07:50 PM on 02/27/2008

You Obama supporters are vile ignorant people. No class. You think anyone supporting Hillary Clinton would vote for Obama reading and listing to your garbage. So you don't want to vote for Hillary, tough. Don't. I would vote McCain instead of Obama because of his supporters. The man knows very little of running this country and his inexperience is just what we had for 7 years.

[specultr]

08:58 PM on 02/27/2008

Who said the following:

"I don't really care what Obama's religion is but I do care about putting a Muslim in the White House. I think this country has lost its collective mind. Blindly following this great speech giver."

You do some smearing yourself, hypocrite.

[Swift2]

03:24 PM on 02/28/2008

Y'know, I support Hillary, but get the quivering anger out of your voice. It doesn't sell.

[rubicon101]

07:34 PM on 02/27/2008

It amazes that so many people who support Obama on this blog absolutely hate the Clintons.
They hate Hillary because she's a woman and married to the former President.
They hate Bill because he represents the past, not because things were better back then..
They hate Bill because he represents the past.
I find all of this behavior petty & vile.
If this is what Senator Barack means when he talks about "change"? You might as well count me out, I'm not signing up for that crap.
Furthermore , all of you fervent Obama supporters,think things will be different in 2 - 3 years from now, things may not be better than they are as of right now.
Obama may not even get elected. You better take a closer look to see who might be more electable in the general election.
Good luck Texas, Ohio, RI and VT

[specultr]

08:56 PM on 02/27/2008

You aleady said that you would vote for McCain if your candidate lost. You've done some Obama-bashing yourself, hypocrite. So STFU and move on!

[PatriotActor]

12:28 AM on 02/28/2008

"They hate Hillary because she's a woman"

What's your evidence for that? I've seen a number of Hillary-bashers, but I haven't seen any that I would interpret as hating her because she's a woman.

[Roose]

05:50 PM on 02/27/2008

What else does the harridan have in her bag of tricks?

[Swift2]

03:28 PM on 02/28/2008

This is the kind of crap you see everywhere on the Obama Post. That, and every possible photo of Hillary that is unflattering. And every story with an extra anti-Hillary "kick". The Obama Post could do a report that touched all candidates, but they had a wide-eyed photo of Hillary they just bought, and a zealous headline-writer, and poof! a story about 10 candidates becomes an expose on Hillary.

And if you point out the name-calling, somebody will deny it.

[magen]

05:48 PM on 02/27/2008

The last thing the American electorate needs right now is to be overruled or ignored-Hillary supporters.

Please don't pull another GWB on this nation-Hillary.

Concede with dignity. Don't go down screaming and crying and blaming everybody but yourself like a republiCON.

[jp1949]

07:47 PM on 02/27/2008

She doesn't need to concede. She hasn't lost. Keep your lip zipped and wait for the people's votes to be counted or do you think the states who haven't voted don't have that right.

[Swift2]

03:32 PM on 02/28/2008

What, a Nader nut? First you insult Hillary by saying she's the same as GWB. Untrue. Then you link that to her not conceding before her opponent has enough delegates, or until there's no way she can win. And a poll isn't a vote, oh friend of democracy.

But I can see the quality of your political analysis by the use of the republiCON tag. Where'd you learn that, nursery school?

[NABNYC]

05:48 PM on 02/27/2008

Hillary's recent mantra has been that "no matter who is the nominee," all Democrats must be united for the election. I don't think she's saying that because she thinks Obama's going to be the nominee.

I've long suspected she and her husband will use their insider connections to get the nomination despite popular support for Obama. How could they do that? Well, let's see: offer federal contracts to certain states and certain friends. Offer cabinet positions, ambassadorships to others. And just pass out money to many of the people. We already know both candidates have been paying bribes to the Superdelegates.

Now that would be a real interesting convention. Bill and Hillary buy the nomination. Obama shut out. What would the people do? Well, for one, the "people" won't be at the convention, and I'm sure the police will make sure that demonstrators can't get close. I guess we'll see.

[Swift2]

03:34 PM on 02/28/2008

"You've long suspected." I've long suspected that the unprincipled anti-Hillary nuts -- the ones you can't see the Obama loyalties in, just the anti-Hillary nuttiness -- is nothing but a number of psychological projections of stereotypes you make up for your own convenience.
I've often thought that Obama is taking secret orders from Osama-- oh, no, I'm not thinking that, because it's nuts.

[chappelforpres]

05:22 PM on 02/27/2008

Yahoo News -Associated Press

"Civil rights leader John Lewis dropped his support for Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential bid Wednesday in favor of Barack Obama.

Lewis, a Democratic congressman from Atlanta, is the most prominent black leader to defect from Clinton's campaign in the face of near-unanimous black support for Obama in recent voting. He also is a superdelegate who gets a vote at this summer's national convention in Denver.

"After taking some time for serious reflection on this issue, I have decided that when I cast my vote as a superdelegate at the Democratic convention, it is my duty as a representative of the 5th Congressional District to express the will of the people," Lewis said in a statement. "As a U.S. representative, it is my role not to try to subdue or suppress the will of the people, but to help it prosper and grow."

Lewis' endorsement had been a coveted prize among the Democratic candidates thanks to his standing as one of the most prominent civil rights leaders of the 1960s.

Well, Hillary's "Just hold on Superdelegates and wait and see if my luck changes strategy" is going the way of many of her teams recent antics...not well.

[OldBlueDog]

06:14 PM on 02/27/2008

I only hope Congressman Lewis's constituents judge him by the content of his character. Because it's obvious his word is not to be trusted. Will he change it back if by some miracle Hillary takes the pledged delegate lead? My only point is that how well one keeps his word should be a part of how his character is judged. He could have just as easily waited until she had conceded, but he instead bowed to the pressure and broke his promise. Shame on you Mr. Lewis!

[heywhat]

05:06 PM on 02/27/2008

I am a supporter of HRC but I would love it if she would tell her supers to voter their consciences. Still, she is playing by the rules, rules everyone knew, rules of which Senator Obama was fully aware and he, too, has been wooing sd.

http://strictlyanecdotal.com

[Berce]

05:01 PM on 02/27/2008

Bill and Hillary. Is time for a third political party. Democrat for McCain.

[Swift2]

03:37 PM on 02/28/2008

Party of one, Democrat for McCain!

Why would a Democrat vote for that lobbyist-dominated phony old creep? What is it, you like conservative justices? Is it the perpetual, unwinnable war? Or do you just like to hop into your jammies and sit on grampa's lap?

[synkopen]

04:48 PM on 02/27/2008

Hillary's turn around is only because in the past week or so quite a few more superdelegates have endorsed Obama. She still draws a few, but proportionally he is getting more of late. Suddenly she is afraid her lead will get too narrow for comfort. Her superdelegate lead is still her main hope.

[chronic]

04:46 PM on 02/27/2008

Hillary has exposed herself as a madwoman. She will do anything she can to elevate herself to the Presidency because she feels she deserves it.


She will and is stooping to throwing the Democratic party and the Presidency under the bus if she is not annointed the nominee!

[Swift2]

03:38 PM on 02/28/2008

No, chronic, you have exposed yourself as either an idiot or a shill.

[alexanderc]

04:17 PM on 02/27/2008

the clintons are crazy, they already have the superdelegate lead, and they want to come with this? Obsurd

[Demoid]

03:02 PM on 02/27/2008

STICK A FORK IN HER BUTT AND TURN HER OVER, SHE'S DONE!!!!!!

[courgood]

02:30 PM on 02/27/2008

And so it goes - shocking - the Clintons trying to move yet another goalpost. They need to realize (like everyone else) that there's no end-zone left - they're in the parking lot.
She speaks of harming the Party - when it's her slash & burn politics that is on the verge of doing exactly that!?!
This plea will fall like a thud b/c losers don't have power to wield and her nastiness has swallowed up any potential goodwill left. The Super-emes are looking for a reason - any reason - to stick it right back to the Clintons and to make sure they're on the right side of history.