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

[KaAp]

Ah Senator Clinton you cannot have it both ways ... I am tired of your games, I am tired of your multiple personalities, I am just tired ... you remind me of my children when they were young cheating on monopoly to try and gain an advantage ... it is time now for the sake of the party you profess to care for dearly and the country that you love to pack it in and go home ... I am sure that as Obama said he will turn to you to advise him once he is President --- please please go away...

[cybersense]

Look, Obama has already slated for the worst against the republicans in the race for the White HOuse. YOu won't be wishing Hillary to go away if republicans win. Who do you think can really kick butt in the white house between the two. It's not Obama. If he even makes it there, he will spend too much time learning the ropes. We need to think about the best qaulified canidate. Obama is not

[Ides]

Hillary's even worse. She's cracking under pressure against the rookie, you think I can trust her with a nuke?

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

Republicans won't win, and your unfounded fears are getting the better of you. Clinton ran a campaign partly based on fear and the fallacy of her so called experience. Was her name on the ticket when Bill ran twice? No, it wasn't. HRC isn't responsible for anything that went on in the White House during Clinton's terms except for her failed health care policy. You can't push through legislation with an arrogant know-it-all, non compromising attitude. Just because she has capitulated to the HMO's because they backed her campaign, with her health INSURANCE plan, doesn't mean she has learned anything in all this time. She is still playing the scorched earth game of take no prisoners in her campaign, and trying to mandate health insurance, even for those who can't afford it. Mandated/forced insurance will never pass through Congress.

Obama has more elected experience and legislative experience than Clinton. You cannot ignore his years of legislative experience in the State Senate of Illinois:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

If you compare their records in the Senate, Obama comes out on top. Here is an excellent article on research done in the Library of Congress, on both Clinton and Obama and their records in the Senate:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

Obama has sponsored, or co-sponsored 527 bills in his 2 years in the Senate.

Senator Obama has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/164117/783/290/461422

Obama has run his campaign brilliantly, fiscally and tactically with an inspirational and conciliatory tone, and Clinton has failed dismally, by surrounding herself with the wrong type of people and consistently showing bad judgment and an entitled and petty attitude. She would not make a good President, and she would not be elected against McCain.

[FullOnReality]

holy smokes, it sure is a pleasure watching that bitch go down in flames.

[teahead]

LOL!

Easy now fella. Let's not get too mysogenistic.

[shm259]

Ironic that the Clinton camp wants delegates to hold off now- the seemed to have no objection to her receiving t prior to when the first primary votes were cast and she was the "inevitable nominee"- this is rubbish.

[ACunningham]

Back to **KneeCapping** business again, ha?

.

[TheScarletPimpernel]

Obamanistas explain that super dels should follow the example of Republicans and independants and help deliver the nomination to Obama.
Black leaders threaten riots and blood in the streets if Mr Obama is not given the nomination, even if he does not have the required number of pledged dels.

They point to his wins in Alaska,Idaho Montana South Dakota,South Carolina,G­eorgia,Ala­bama and so on as an indication of his stregth.
They point to all the open primaries and cacuses where insurgent Repubs and independants gave Obama wins.
In these states in Nov the GOP vote will be "overwhelming" in favor of the GOP candidate.

In states required to win in Nov Mr Obama has either lost or won by the slightest of margins.He won Missori by a handful of votes and Connetticut does not count as it gave us Joe Lieberman.

Maybe he should switch parties and run as a Republican since they are the ones voting for the Senator.

[iPolitics]

What about Virginia, Maryland, and Wisconsin? Giving that up to the Republicans too. Not important?

Obama has overwhelmingly taken the Democratic votes since Super Tuesday once the Dems knew he had a chance againt the establishment.

You don't know much

[chronic]

See, its post like the one above from ScarletPimple exposes the ugly side of America. We will see more of this kind of racist sentiment in the months to come.


That may be the best thing the Obama campaign achieves, exposing the ignorance and hatred from the mentally ill racists that is the cancer on our society.



* OBAMA 08 *

[hank48188]

The rioting in the streets remark was from a Black Obama supporter, he was trying to scare White Folks to vote for Obama to prevent the riots.

[ched]

Every time Clinton supportards like Scarlett Pimpernel spew their nonsense in public, Clinton loses support. Keep it up, Scarlett, Obama's already up in Texas, but he's still got a few points to go in Ohio.
Thanks for the help.

[schoolmaster]

If you want Hillary to honor the terms of the DNC with regard to Michigan and Florida, you have to honor the rules of DNC regarding super delegates and their determination (need not be people's choice ) regarding nomination. All said, it is the the DNC which has screwed up the whole process-not Hillary.

[ched]

Hillary agreed to the rules, but changed her mind after the early pimaries had passed. Holding your fingers crossed behind your back may seem clever in the Clinton camp, but to the rest of us it's just plain sneaky. Go away, Hill.

[vippy]

Hillary should have had a plan, foresight when she voted over the years. Had she had a plan then she would have voted how us, the PEOPLE,
would have wanted her to vote. She was short sighted and without a plan, thinking her name alone will get her the presidency. It was not just the Iraq War Vote, it was all those others,
including FISA. So far she had only convinced us that she talks one way and does another!

[OfficialA]

She had a plan. She, like most Democrats in Congress, voted to give Bush war authority because they were afraid of the political consequences. I don't know what Obama would have done had he been in the Senate at the time, but the evidence we have to go on -- public remarks by the two -- show vastly different levels of enthusiasm for Bush's war. Her plan was to try to hold the center and dampen the contrasts between her positions and those of the Republican nominee. It's simply not working.

[newpantaloons]

She DID have a plan. She ALWAYS PLANNED on running for president and in a very, very politically calculating way, decided to vote the way she thought would give her the advantage. Hence, her Iraq vote, the bankruptcy vote, the Iranian Guard terrorist vote, etc., etc.. I heard Bill Clinton yesterday trying to explain her Iraq vote on the fact that she was Senator from New York and had to go to Ground Zero and see the horror of it. One problem: Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11! Haven't we heard this same old tired argument from George Bush and Dick Cheney and their neocon cabal long enough??! It is not TRUE, no matter how often you say it.

Her politically calculating votes were planned to help her win the presidency, NOT by voting her conscience. She CALCULATED wrong.

[ATLiberal]

This is the problem with the HRC in a microcosm. They are prepared to stick their fingeer in the winde every single day and change their story based on the direction.

HRC is the one who was stockpiling superD's before a single vote was cast!! Now they want them to hold off because they are going the other way? Preposterous.

[vippy]

why does the clinton camp get special treatment anyway. Enough is enough. He is the nominee
and basta! Hillary pack up and go home!

[mrJJ]

Congressional hopefuls ride the Obama wave

Democrats in some of the unlikeliest places are looking forward to running on a ticket with his name on the top line.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8711.html

[VOTER]

True.

Super Delegates don't care what Hillary is saying at

this point.

However, after her screaming MAD lady weekend,

Congressional candidates want HIllary to be gone.

They are furious with her for being a mean ME

candidate, who doesn't care about the DEM party.

[chronic]

Exaclty, Hillary is the Mean Me Me Me candidate.


I was a supporter of hers up until her exposing her multipersonality disorder this past weekend.

[partyofone]

When will the Democratic leadership sit down with the Clintons and say "enough"?

The vast majority of Americans do not want Mrs. Bill Clinton to be president. Obama has out campaigned her on every measure. She is becoming more divisive, destractive, and destructive.

Bill and Hillary need to check their super egos and greed and their thrist for a retaliation rematch in the mud, and give it up.

[kaspian]

When? Sometime after next Tuesday, I guess.

[suntzu]

The Clintons may have begun this campaign motivated by the quest for power, and in that respect, they are no different from other politicians, Obama included. The difference here is that the Clintons have from the very beginning started out with a premise of entitlement -- Hillary's constant harping about "35 years of experience," is code for "I put in my time, now I deserve to become (the first female) president.­"
It is this sense of entitlement from both the Clintons that is finally turning the people off. The public may love the Clintons, but they do not want their kind of leadership anymore.
Disclosure: I voted for Bill twice, and for Hillary (as a New Yorker) twice. No mas.

[schoolmaster]

It is wrong to say that people who have voted would have no impact, if super delegates decide the nominating process. To the extent that peoples' voting contributes to the delegate strength, it has impact. Only thing is, it will not have the sole impact. It was a considered decision that the activists, governors, senators, congressmen etc will also have an independent role in the nominating process in addition to peoples contribution towards delegates. If that were not acceptable to the party and super delegates, it should have been dropped before the start of elections. Super delegates endorsing one candidate or other during the process of election and publicly announcing it is derogatory to the concept of fairness and democratic process. It is childish and immature for the super delegates to behave like jumping for a toy and garnering their personal ambitions in advance.

[pottylikearockstar]

Obama should run as an independent if he doesn't want to follow party rules.

[partyofone]

He is ahead by at least 12 points in national polls, and winning every DEMOCRATIC primary by double digits.

If Democrats don't want to win the White House, and want to alienate the new generation of voters Obama is attracking, they should persist with enabling the mean and divisive Clintons.

If they want to do what is best for the nation, they will focus on Obama and winning in November. If the arcane Democratic Party "rules" will deprive the party and the nation of an Obama presidency, now is the time to stand up against them.

[newpantaloons]

Dear, dear "Potty", I think maybe you should look at YOUR candidate and define who is "playing by the rules" or not. Who, among the two, pledged to hold the Democratic Party in Michigan and Florida responsible for breaking party rules? And, NOW wants to break her pledge? Who supported NAFTA and now wants to PRETEND she secretly didn't? Who voted for the usery bankruptcy bill and now says she was secretly hoping it wouldn't pass? Who courted superdelegates right and left at the beginning of the primary season, but now wants them to WAIT to endorse anyone else?

[angelbravo]

Maybe you should not speak for the Democrat Party! Barack stands for Old Democrats,
New and Young Democrats and The Reagan Democrats that helped the Democrat Party maintain control of the House for almost 40 years last century. We have the numbers to control policy and now its up to us to use it wisely are we will be what the republicans have become now. Let roll up the sleves and get to work to make America its very best.

[ebbtide]

There will be a revolution if the super delagates steal an election for Clinton. Geraldine Ferrarro, one of the supers crawled out from under her rock and said it should be left to the party bosses to decide an election and not the people. Somehow these folks have it in their head that the people who vote are nothing, to be swatted away like flies--you know, as Clinton said, it's activists who vote in a caucus. No wonder Obama is winning. With such disdain and disrespect toward the electorate coming from Clinton, it is little wonder people are voting for Obama.

[BNAUGHTY]

Please, do not allow the Clintons to change your use of language..­.. they are not "automatic" delegates.