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

[ArchAngel]

We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us, sneaky little progressives. Wicked, tricksy falssse!

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

This article is more proof that Hillary is not going to give up and bow out even if she loses Texas and Ohio. She is in this until at least Pennsylvania. For all the Democrats that want HRC to vacate the political stage, sorry, it's not going to happen yet. The Clintons are determined to get back into the White House at any cost.

[JHJ]

Why are we now up to 842 super-delegates? I thought it was 795 (or 796, depending on when an empty congressional seat gets filled)? Does this have to do with some of the super-delegates that only get 1/2 votes? (meaning 842 people, with 796 super-delegate votes?)

[foreffectivegovernment]

O.K. everyone, Hillary Clinton has said her vote on the Iraq War Resolution was wrong and she would take it back. Are you willing to forgive her like you did John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and many other Democratic Senators who voted the same way she did?

I thought so. You were only using that as a reason to bash her because the Republicans were telling you to.

Check out these websites if you dare.

http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/358


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/07/AR2007110702828.html

http://www.againsthillary.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Her_Now

Now check this out.

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

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

This is not illegal, and has been part of the primary process in States that allow anyone to vote during the primaries regardless of their party affiliation.

If a majority of voters don't want her, then you'd best accept this fact. There may be just as many Republicans who are more confident of a McCain victory over HRC who will probably vote for her. It can cut both ways.

I find it hard to believe you are for "effective government", if you back Senator Clinton. She has run her campaign incompetently and would have no hope in a general election.

If you knew more about the Clinton administration, you'd know that many of the problems we are experiencing now, including the mortgage crisis, are Bill Clinton's policies finally bearing fruit. He was incompetent too. He bent over backwards and capitulated to the Republicans and that's what has hastened the vast transfer of the wealth of ordinary Americans to the richest 2%.

[Shannon2008]

Look, I am a Obama supporter. But, if you think that the current mortgage crisis is Bill Clinton's fault, you are sadly mistaken. Bill Clinton led the longest period of economic expansion in US History. With that being said, more Americans had money in their pockets 7 years ago than they do now.

The mortage crisis was caused because the Bush administration was asleep at the wheel. Most of the ARM mortgages are less than 5 years old. The trend of rising foreclosures did not start until after Bush took office.

The root of the problem stemmed from the fact that the Federal Reserve kept interest rates at a historical low far too long. This couple with the fact that the administration gave a tax cut out to the wealthiest Americans who were speculating on mortgage lending with their hedge funds helped to create the current housing crisis. What's worse is that the Bush administration is devaluing the dollar to fund the war and cover up record inflation.

You need to vote for McCain, my friend. Barack Obama does not espouse your views. Put the koolaid down and take off the rose colored glasses.

Let those of us who understand what's wrong with this country fix the mess that George Bush has left.

[Kane]

It's not about her, it's about us. Mrs Clinton is the same person she was 15 years ago, and that's fine. But we have changed, and we're ready to turn the page. America desperately needs a clean break from the Clintons' and Bushs' if we are to have any chance for change.

It's time to let go of the past.

[ebbtide]

Heh, too little too late friend. She was way for that war for a couple of years, joining arms with McCain. She defended that vote with flimsy excuses, blaming it on Bush not conducting it properly, or the Iraqi people. Funny Biden and Edwards lost the race isn't it? She will lose also and this caculating admission of being for it befroe she was against it is more of same flimsy excuses, now that she is losing. Don't ever want to see her ass in the White House after the way she has conducted herself and her campaign.

[BNAUGHTY]

last night, ONLY after essentially losing the campaign, was the FIRST TIME that HRC was willing to admit that it was a mistake (or suggest she would take it back)... and it smacked of opportunism/desperation..... if she had shown the political courage to do so from the start (like Edwards, Bidden, Dodd).... instead of worrying about needing to appear strong and steadfast in her decisions..... it would not have been as big of an issue as it grew to be.... that is HER FAULT, not ours.

additionally, to suggest that we are/have been upset about this solely because "Republicans were telling us to do so" is just about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard... and extremely dismissive of the intelligence of those whom you share your party with.

you are a thinly veiled partisan hack, no doubt affiliated with the clinton campaign, who is in all likelihood paid to visit sites like HUFFPOST and post your "opinions"...

enough with the victim card, regardless of your candidates qualifications to be president, she ran a terrible campaign. period. you can blame it on the media or progressives being in cahoots with the republicans, but just as voters across the country saw through her empty rhetoric in this campaign cycle, so to can we here see through yours.

it is over. get behind the nominee or vote for Nader or McCain, but stop complaining, you want someone to blame, blame your candidates mismanaged and ill conceived campaign.

[partyofone]

foreffectivegovernment,

Why don't Hillary and her supporters understand. Hillary vote on Iraq (and later on Iran) are not just votes to be regretted. They enabled the worst foreign policy disaster in HISTORY.

Hillary's votes are evidence of very very very FLAWED judgement. Taking the vote back doesn't change the analytical process that produced it. As Obama has said "the mindset that got us into the war."

Time and time again, Hillary Clinton calculates her own self-serving, narrow, short-term interest, placing the nation at risk. Her decision to stay in this campaign and do damage is another prime example.

Hillary does not have the quality of judgment necessary to lead the nation and the world.

[dukeman]

It was not flawed judgement, it was an attempt to look tough and "commander-in- chief" like.

Clinton wants everyone to know that she would be willing to drop bombs on women and children in foreign countries so she can sit in the Oval Office.

[ebbtide]

I ask the same question. I came to the conclusion that her staunch supporters like war and were for Bush's war. If they were not, why on earth are they voting for someone who enabled the slaughter of one million people as well as 4000 Americans, as well as thirty or more thousand wounded and maimed? She is touted as a great defender of women and children, but voted to bomb them to bits by the hundreds of thousands and would have done the same in Iran, should Bush have pushed the button to go.

[Triangle1]

So - if Obama is doing so amazingly great, then he shouldn't have anything to worry about with the Superdelegates? But the fact of the matter is, as much as everyone appears to be hating on Hillary, about half the people are voting for her. Apparently, the ones who aren't voting for her tend to sit around on the computer day and night looking for someone to trash, and she's even on the same Democratic team! Who needs the Republican attack machine come November when we can just destroy ourselves.

[PrdAmerican]

Its all part of the primary game...your party bickers, fights, trys to upset the other...then you have a kumbaya moment in Denver and then it's time to trash the Republicans through November. We humans had to come up with something once they shut down the coliseum, and politics seemed like the next best thing!

[Giglawyer]

About half the people voted for Bush in 2000, and yet that still seems to be a sore spot for GOre supporters that Gore lost.

[partyofone]

Tiangle1,

We live in a DEMOCRACY. Voters in large numbers are rejecting Hillary in favor of Obama.

Casting voters who reject one candidate as "haters" is an insult to the democratic process. Use of the term in a campaign is to attempt to make a losging candidate the victim and thus, somehow, worthy of support.

Do you agree with the logic that the nation somehow owes Hillary Clinton the presidency because Bill cheated on her? Get real!

Do we really want a democractically rejected, who constantly perceives herself as victimized to be the leader of the nation and the world?

[imsosure]

The pic for this post, she looks like she's saying, "I told you it was my turn," with her sense of entitlement intact. Hillaryous as usual.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

[BrooklynLager]

This is like her arguing for the seating of Florida and Michigan - there are WAAAAAY too many public statements she's made taking the opposite position for anyone to take her seriously.

[BrooklynLager]

Chuck Todd on politico was estimating Obama would pick up 20 superdelegates in the next week; he didn't elaborate except to say that it wasn't an idle prediction.

I think the super delegates are going to be our allies here; after March 4th, the superdelegates will be in a position to close out the primaries by backing Obama.

This race cannot go on much longer.

[partyofone]

The super delegates by definition are hardcore Democratic party opperatives, and by nature self-serving, what's in it for me types. Do you really think they will risk being on the outside, when Obama wins the nomination?

"Clinton loyalty" is an oxymoron. The Clintons stiff-armed support for Hillary early, with a "for us or the enemy" pitch.

The super delgates are recognizing the simple fact that Mrs. Bill Clinton is not going to be president. They are jumping as fast as they can off the leaky Clinton campaign canoe and swimming furiously for the U.S.S. Obama which is moving full speed ahead. I hope they can swim fast enough to save their self-serving political careers.

[foreffectivegovernment]

You dimbulbs still do not realize why the super-delegates were formed. Until you do, don't be expounding on how they should vote. They came into existence before some of you were born.

The super-delegates know what their duties are and don't need you to force them into making a decision based on threats of "rioting in the streets" and "I'll vote Republican if you don't support my candidate". That is a form of bribery and should not be a factor in their decision.

The objective is to nominate the strongest Democratic candidate to face the Republican in the general election and I think that is what we all want. We just differ on who that is.

Senator Teddy Kennedy set a bad example by supporting Senator Obama because he was pissed at former President Clinton and he will have to live with that if Democrats lose the election.

Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama have not asked the other to drop out of the race, only their supporters have. Let the process continue until all of the voters have spoken and then let the super-delegates do their job as intended.

[BitJam]

Part of the point of the superdelegates is to prevent candidates from destroying the party in their attempt to win the nomination. Therefore Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama in response to the dirty tactics of President Clinton was a GOOD example of what superdelegates are supposed to do. They are supposed to hold the good of the party above the good of an individual candidate.

[kroses98]

AMEN!!! And Hillary Clinton's candidacy is certainly NOT for the good of the party!!! If she were to gain the support of the superdelegates, without winning the majority of the voters, there would be such a MAJOR REBELLION, the likes of which this country has never seen! The majority of Barack Obama's supporters, including myself, would NEVER vote for her in the general election, and she would go down to defeat in November. In addition, many Democrats like me, would leave the Democratic Party forever, to become Independents!!!

[foreffectivegovernment]

The super-delegates were formed to keep someone like an unknown peanut farmer from Georgia from becoming the Democratic President of the United States. The Democratic Liberal Elite was able to nominate and elect someone who was not qualified to be President and could not perform as the majority of the people of the United States wanted.

With the assistance of Teddy Kennedy, the Republicans got into office, only broken by the administration of Bill Clinton in 1992.

Check it out and see for yourself, history repeats itself. Don't be fooled by the Republicans or the Democrats.

[BrooklynLager]

What are you talking about? Kennedy was like the 300th superdelegate to endorse a candidate - by the time he backed Obama there was no example left to be set.

Both candidates have been courting the superdelegates - Clinton more successfully overall - and THE VERY MOMENT her campaign does a 180, you suddenly find something unseemly about the whole thing.

Nobody could ever fault you for being inconsistent.

[Shannon2008]

Since February 5, Clinton has lost 3 superdelegates while Obama has gained 35. I would say she has been successfully tanking the election. By that, I mean she has no chance in hell of winning. She's down 150 pledged delegates right now. She's probably going to split the contests on March 4. At least, she's figured out that she needs to canvass the rural areas to gain more delegates. Her big state and populous city strategy just did not pay off. I live in Texas and she's spent more time down in the valley courting the Latino vote or in east Texas (Beaumont) courting the racist "we'll never vote for an African American" vote. She'll probably lose the popular vote her in Texas, and either win or split the delegates proportioned by the general primary. She still has a problem when it comes to caucusing. Those house moms lack the courage to stand up in front of their husbands and communities to cast a vote for Hilary. They don't want there to be a civil war in their homes. She'll probably lose the caucus and CNN will flash a big banner declaring Obama the winner long before the popular vote has been completely counted. She'll deliver a rousing concession speech and urge the party to come together. You'll cry. No matter how you look at it, this is how it ends. So, be prepared and be strong. I would hate for you to think that she had won or had been SUCCESSFUL. AT THIS VERY MOMENT, she has not.

[PrdAmerican]

Nice talking point's Pelosi. However, the party loyalists are getting just a wee bit tired of the DNC and our democrats up there on the hill. Clearly, the mandate we gave the DNC was not heard....they have ignored us consistantly with regards to economy, constitution, impeachment, ending the war, etc. To again ignore the clear majority would be tantamount to saying what Hillary has said all along...if you live in a red state you don't matter, if you live in a state that has a caucus you don't matter, if you live in a state with a lot of black voters you don't matter...if you don't vote for me, you don't matter. I think democrats are fed up and to use the Superdelegates to dig a wedge in even further would so disrupt this party that it would take decades to repair, if ever.

[uberlefty]

I think at this point its just about staying on top of the news cycle. Everyday, since losing in Wisconsin, Hillary has done something to capture the news cycle. Even if it seems weird or negative she just wants to keep the spotlight focused on her. That keeps Obama off the front page which her campaign believes slows his momentum. Stay tuned for more of Hillarys Follies.

[imsosure]

And McCain scandals,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

[Shannon2008]

That's what happens when you run out of money. She did an interview for CBN, the Christian Broadcasting Network. If that wasn't a signal that she's broke, I don't know what is . . . OOPS, I forgot to mention her plug during the debate, "Donate money to our campaign at HilaryClinton.com". She's quite pastey and low on funds.

[iPolitics]

Since Super Tuesday, Superdelegates:

Obama +25

Hillary -3

It's over

[BitJam]

Hillary doesn't want superdelegates to commit because she wants to destroy the Democratic party in order to save it.

The whole point of the superdelegates is to put a quick end to campaigns like Hillary's that can drag things on and on until the convention but can't win.

[lisakaz]

Indeed, hence this smells like a stall tactic. Hope for something to make 'em swing back to her.

[TurnThePageGA]

Hope for something that can be spinned to provide political cover for superdelegates to line up behind them. Win Ohio by one vote. Another state that matters. Alaska, Alabama, Colorado, Conneticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, VI, and Americans Abroad don't matter. A popular vote of 10,305,403 for Obama to 9,379,822 for Clinton doesn't matter. 1193 PLEDGED (elected) delegates for Obama to 1038 PLEDGED (elected) delegates for Clinton does not matter.

[chronic]

EXACTLY!!

The Clinton would rather destroy the party than to save it by stepping aside and let the people determine who will be thier President.

I've now seen the ugly side of the Clintons and it sickens me!

[starboymikey]

Clinton Camp Presses Super Delegates Not To Take Sides
______________________________________________

Unless the pledge their support to her.

[sansego2000]

A big problem if Hillary is trying to get the super-delegates if she can't get the majority of delegates. it will be another Bush thing of 2000. The U.S. does not get the one that the people have chosen. It dashes the illusion of democracy that everyone says the U.S. has. I just hope that people have learned a little something in the last 7 years. Don't let history repeat or fall for the same old dirty politics from the experienced politician ( accomplished liars).

[nachtengel]

How can anyone who is for Hillary not be angry about this flip-flop, Kansas city shuffle routine and logic.

I really can't understand for the life of me why people are not yelling to the hills at her to just pick a side on any topic, solution, path, idea or any of the above, and stick to it for the next few years.

It's wise to be flexible, and to be able to think on your feet. But this is so far beyond that, that it makes no political sense to me, as she doesn't have the time or endurance to finish the fight at this point. She is using all her energy on weaving and being a show(wo)man, she isn't getting any punches in.