« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary has crossed the commander of desperation threshold: She officially pursues pledged delegates!
Sen. Hillary Clinton made a blunt appeal to North Dakota delegates to switch their support to her, despite the fact that Sen. Barack Obama handily defeated her in the state's caucus in February.
In an indication of how tense the battle has become for each Democratic delegate, Obama abandoned the campaign trail in Pennsylvania and scooted to North Dakota for the state party's annual dinner last night, despite the fact that he's already won 14 of the state's 21 delegates as well as six of the state's seven superdelegates.
The two candidates also will battle for votes tonight in Butte, Mont., when Democrats there hold their annual dinner. The Montana primary, which offers only a handful of delegates, is scheduled for June.
Clinton made it clear to North Dakota Democrats last night that she believes there is no such thing as a pledged delegate and highlighted that stubborn streak in her appeal for delegates to switch from Obama to her when the Democratic national party holds its nominating convention this August.
"I am here tonight because I am seeking your support," Clinton said, adding that she never gives up.
"I know what it's like to stumble. I know what it means to get knocked down. But I've never stayed down. I never will and neither will America if we get ready to win this election in November," she said.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4596305&page=1
-----------------------------------------------
I have had it with her. I was a quiet fan of her tenacity and will to win, but I think that she has now gone way over the line. She speaks about voter disenfranchisement but then tries to overturn complete state contests by begging?
Earlier today, I was rethinking my previous position about an Obama/Clinton ticket. I said to myself, it is possible that she could do good things for the people of America as Barack's number 2. I no longer believe this is true and regret the precious moments I wasted considering the idea.
The party needs to coalesce around Barack, in significant numbers, starting this Monday. End is time to put the wounded beast of a candidate out of her misery. I know that she will be in tons of trouble, as will Bill, with the people they made promises to, but oh well, you win some lose some.
Comments (38)
So it's official.
Primaries don't matter.
Voters don't matter.
April 5, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everybody should vote! We want to hear from all the voters! Then we can ignore them for their own good.
April 6, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree, especially about the hypocrisy of the argument that her campaign (and supporters) use of "disenfranchisement": why in the hell did we vote, if the pledged delegates can just override our vote in the primary? These are the majority of the Democratic Party voters, and it feels like she's trying to steal our votes!
April 5, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said in another post, I think her suggestions about moving pledged delegates is just a way to keep her supporters' (false) hopes alive. Obama's pledged delegates aren't going to flip (short of the oft-cited hypothetical about finding out he has a second family in Idaho). Frankly, the more she pursues this line, the less democratic she looks. I tend to think the argument hurts her among undecided voters and, given my confidence in Obama's ultimate victory, I just refuse to get exorcised over her making what amounts to a ridiculous argument that I don't think HRC herself believes will happen.
April 5, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I do not think that they will flip. However, I think that for her to take the discussion into that direction is questionable at best and contemptible in actuality.
April 5, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to be sure, you know that she's been making this case for a several weeks now, right? I haven't seen any evidence that it has any effectiveness with respect to the delegates themselves. Have there been any accounts of an Obama delegate saying they might go to the convention and vote for HRC on the first ballot? On the other hand, there should be no question that if something arises that truly and indisputably unelectable, he really will lose pledged delegates on the first ballot. Technically, HRC is correct. Tactically, it strikes me as really stupid to make a primary campaign argument that has an equal chance of working against her (i.e., pledged HRC delegates are also free to flip and vote for Obama).
April 5, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except she and her campaign had promised before they weren't going to try to sway them, and doing the robocalls before the conventions in secret, while publicly denying it.
Now, she's openly calling for delegates to switch. It's a pretty big change, and hard to ignore.
April 5, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which delegates are we talking about, the county-level delegates feeding the state conventions or the final delegates selected to go to the DNC convention in Denver? I agree that the flip-flop on HRC's intention to go after pledged delegates looks pretty bad, but again feel like it's not going to make any substantial difference in how many delegates arrive in Denver for either side. Obama's going to come in with a healthy margin over HRC. And I hope it's a completely moot point once the 75 or so SDs Obama's likely to need after 6/3 to reach 2024 declare for him.
April 5, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
He has a second family in Idaho?!? Why isn't this in the news? Someone should definitely put this story in its own blog post!!
Don't mind me—just a little snark demonstrating how such a rumor can get started. ;)
April 5, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kind of an inside joke, I suppose. I've seen the "second family in Idaho" scenario used repeatedly as an example of the kind of thing that could derail his candidacy. I guess it's better to repeat one silly hypothetical than to come up with a slew of alternates.
Oh, and if we were to learn that BREAKING: HILLARY HAS SIX ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN BY NORMAN HSU, well that kind of thing could hurt as well. ;-)
April 5, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am aware that she/her camp has been commenting on it for a few weeks. It was horrible then, too. There were conversations about whether they intended to actuall go this route. This is the first instance that I am aware of where she actually tried to employ the strategy to a room full of democrats and actual delegates pledged to Barack.
April 5, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aah, comprendo. Thanks.
April 5, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The whole situation is quite sad. If I were in her shoes, I might be inclined to do the same thing, that is, if I didn't have professional pride. It has to be tough to go from being in the White House for eight years, to being in the senate for a number a years, the entire time thinking you will eventually become president only to have your hopes dashed right at the point where it is closest to becoming true. To proudly wear the badge of the presumptive nominee for over a year and to then fall to delegate beggar, taking your own party hostage along the way, promising to go to the convention for a floor fight. It is quite unseemly, to say it in the most polite way.
April 5, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is sad. But most narcissists leave a sad trail behind them. That doesn't mean they should get to be President just so they won't ruin everyone else's lives so they can get their way.
April 5, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to hear such statements without fearing actual detachment from reality.
Hillary is simultaneously arguing that we must not disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan, that we must seat the delegates they elected, and that there is no connection between the preferences of voters and the choice delegates should make.
It's mindboggling to try to come up with a political model that could fit this. What would you call a system that has 1) delegates to professing supporting for candidates, 2) election of those delegates by voters to express their preferences for candidates, and 3) selection of a nominee by delegates without regard to the professions of delegates or preferences of voters.
I guess the name for that system ends in -ocracy because there's some kind of rule involved. "Demo" doesn't belong because there's no involvement of the people. "Representative" doesn't belong because the delegates represent no one. The meaning of "delegate" is "a person authorized to represent another" but these delegates are being asked not to represent the voters who elected them. If they do as Hillary asks, they are no longer delegates. "Autocracy" doesn't seem like the right word because Hillary appears to recognize that she cannot simply appoint herself and be done with it.
Can somebody who knows a lot of Greek and Latin come up with an appropriate name? In a nutshell, the concept is rule by the one who is chosen by those who are elected not to represent those who elected them. I'd prefer to squeeze this into four syllables or less because we may have to say it a lot.
April 5, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry about the typos in item 1). That's supposed to say "delegates professing support for candidates."
Wish we could edit our postings.
April 5, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The name of the system is called:
I want to win at all costs, even if I have to lie, cheat, and steal. I made promises based on the expectation that I would win and you all need to stand tall with me!
---------------------
Seriously, I wonder how she can keep a straight face while talking out of both sides and dodging sniper fire at the same time.
April 5, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think HRC is in any way attempting to be consistent. This is a lawyerly tactic, called arguing in the alternative. When making arguments before a court it is perfectly acceptable to submit multiple theories on why you should win an argument at issue in a case, even when those theories contradict one another. The assumption is that a judge knows you don't think both propositions are actually correct, but that only one winning rationale is needed to win a point. So no big deal if you submit 10 reasons to win. Only one has to convince the judge.
For better or worse, elections aren't courts of law, so HRC looks pretty ridiculous trying to foist multiple, inconsistent arguments on the voters. I guess she hopes if one line of reasoning doesn't work to sway an undecided voter, that maybe a different (albeit inconsistent) line will sway them. And for those who don't support her, this kind of thing doesn't come off as looking like a legitimate strategy, but as evidence of a sort of schizophrenia.
April 5, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, so many people WANT to believe her, and they will grab on to many of those arguments, and then spew them on these blogs, all together.
She's not only being a lawyer, she's infecting people with cognitive dissonance, this country is going to need a lot of (psychological) healing after this primary is over.
April 5, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said in another thread, I honestly don't know her supporters hold on to through the dizzying array of arguments she's been making. Suspension of disbelief, I guess, or that river in Egypt.
April 5, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Naw, the problem isn't that you lack knowledge of Greek or Latin. The problem is, you're still giving this stuff the credit of being a "concept."
I think a prerequisite to formulating a concept would be the ability to do rational and ordered thinking. But this stuff is clearly disordered thinking.
April 5, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, sure looks like that way!
April 5, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Laura, your statement has the ring of a diagnosis, a professional opinion based on years of study and clinical practice.
If you are a qualified clinician, I would welcome your thoughts on the psychological state of an anti-lobbyist candidate whose campaign staff is made up of lobbyists. And I don't mean a Dem.
April 5, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Idiocracy?
btw - we need to find you a nice avatar!
April 5, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know where avatars come from. An avatar stork?
April 5, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
[i] It's mindboggling to try to come up with a political model that could fit this.
I guess the name for that system ends in -ocracy because there's some kind of rule involved... Can somebody ... come up with an appropriate name? In a nutshell, the concept is rule by the one who is chosen by those who are elected not to represent those who elected them. I'd prefer to squeeze this into four syllables or less because we may have to say it a lot. [/i]
I don’t know, but it seems to be a unique machination of one particular woman’s campaign so maybe “hillocracy”?
[i] And for those who don't support her, this kind of thing doesn't come off as looking like a legitimate strategy, but as evidence of a sort of schizophrenia.[/i]
Okay, well, now that you put it that way, maybe “phrenocracy”.
Or would that be a “hillprhenocracy” ...
Whatever. Clearly it’s hair past a freckle, which means it is time for me to head back down the rabbit hole, Alice..
April 6, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's officially revoltingly pathetic now.
April 6, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
My favorite has always been kakistocracy: government by the worst people in the state.
As far as Hillary, I would say, "caveat elector"- let the voter beware.
The media wants this to go on because a convention floor fight and possible reprisal of 1968 would be "history in the making," and money in the bank. I personally think the media is engaging in a dramatic re-enactment of "Weekend at Bernie's," by propping up a campaign that has been dead for months.
I have written since Februaru that Clinton should have conceded because to stay in the race would tarnish her legacy, jeopardize the general election, and force her to make bedfellows with the VRWC.
Bottom line:
Going after pledged delegates is cheaper than ad buys. Blaming the Obama camp for state legislatures and courts refusing to revote in MI and FL is cheaper than ad buys. Creating controversy that generates free media is cheaper than ad buys.
In other words, her campaign is flat broke.
April 6, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, when your shrinking fan base won't fill smaller venues, your contract doesn't get renewed... it doesn't mean your fans are pure.
Hillary's campaign reveals its elitism once again.
April 6, 2008 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=related
Hillary and Bill corrupt fund raising history.
Watch it, and you will have your eyes opened. This will reveal to you why Bill has been paid so many millions in recent years.
April 6, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
How dare Clinton try to win?!! It shows desperation that she would try to remind pledged candidates that according to the rules they can still switch. The nerve!
Well I hope her "desperate" ploy works. Obama was seen as the candidate who could transcend race and bring America together. Then came the revelations about his pastor and his church. Look for the swift boat ads coming soon from the GOP.
Obama was seen as the only candidate who opposed the war from the start. Then came the news that he only opposed it in a speech in front of an anti-war audience before he was even a member of the Senate. And since joining the Senate he has voted EXACTLY THE SAME as Hillary on every single vote except for one, and that one vote had nothing to do with the war. Look for the swift boat ads coming soon from the GOP.
Mirages always look better from a distance. But the closer you look at them, the more they fade.
April 6, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't seem wise to let Swiftboaters choose the Democratic nominee.
My GOP acquaintances assure me the biggest Swiftboater theme for Hillary will be lesbianism going back to school days. They nod knowingly and insist it's justified because it's true. Why else would Hillary have tolerated Bill's infidelities?
It's hard to guess whether GOP lies about Hillary will be more or less damaging than GOP lies about Obama. They'll say Obama's a muslim, buddies with terrorists, and, oh yeah, angry and black. They'll add a bunch of other negative stuff about Hillary, particularly her habit of making statements that are easy to prove false. See Bosnian sniper fire; contrast that with John McCain's real military service.
On the issue of pledged delegates, there is both clear encouragement in party rules and a clear moral obligation to vote for the candidate you told voters you represent. To my recollection, no Democratic candidate has ever suggested disregarding expressed voter preference as the first option.
April 6, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary is encouraging pledged delegates to ignore the votes that got them elected, isn't she advocating disenfrachising THOSE voters?
Hint: Yes, but that is okay in Hillaryland
And FYI, It doesn't matter if she wants universal health care -- a President Hillary couldn't get an ice cream truck passed in Congress. Her secretiveness; her ham-fisted management style; and her negatives would guarantee a gridlock that would sweep in a repub in 2012 just like Bill's behavior and subsequent paralysis in the last 2 years of his administration did.
Yes, she wants to win; trouble is she has lost, and she just can't believe it. So now she is trying to cheat her way in, going back on her own pledge about Florida and Michigan. Maybe she could get the Supreme Court to appoint her. Worked for someone who has a lot of the same characteristics; our current preZ.
April 6, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK Otto. Thanks for the heads up.
We will be certain to watch for those GOP swift boat ads, when Nominee Obama takes on Nominee McCain.
Which side will you be on. I ask only because you have been pushing the Wright store for weeks now. What are you a Swift boater in training for the fall!
April 6, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is so striking to me is the assumption from the Clinton campaign that the delegate shift will go in one direction when in fact the movement can very easily go towards Obama.
I'm in Idaho, a state where during the caucus, it seemed that Clinton would not make the 15% threshold to gain delegates. However, since our caucus, we like many other states have heard from Clinton and especially her surrogates that we do not matter because 1) we're a Red state; 2) we are a latte-sipping, Prius driving, boutique state; 3) caucuses are undemocratic because it favors "activists"; and 4) my favorite, they (i.e. Idaho, et. al.) "don't need a president; we need a feeling." I can easily see Obama's pledged delegates making a case to Clinton's pledged delegates to abandon her in favor of Obama, a candidate who has made it clear that states like Idaho do matter.
Despite the fact that Idaho is an underpopulated, largely rural state, many of those scheduled to attend the state convention to determine the pledged delegates to the National Convention have paid very close attention to the events of the last couple of months via newspapers, cable news, and yes, even the internet. So I am curious to understand how and why the Clinton campaign assumes that they can convince pledged delegates to switch to her over Obama? What has changed since the caucus here in Idaho and elsewhere that makes her a better candidate? What is the case/ argument for pledged delegates to switch sides?
Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to her making the argument. What I am curious about is what makes her think this could be an effective and convincing point?
April 6, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting point, Sarasvati. Kind of scary in its way, since it raises the specter of all the delegates from everywhere, Hillary's included, simply doing as they please.
A parallel to think about:
Reporter: The polls say the American people oppose the war.
Dick Cheney: So?
Reporter: The delegates were elected by voters based on a pledge to support the candidate those voters preferred.
Hillary Clinton: So?
Same principle.
April 6, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I find interesting is that the ABC writers grabbed ahold of this one little part of her speech, while the forums in the Bismark paper not only doesn't include a single mention of this "plea" from those who were in attendance, but it also has several comments about how they weren't attacking each other.
Not to mention that besides the "unity" aspect of both candidates focusing mostly on McCain, there are actually other things that the delegates are going to vote about at the convention than just the nomination of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates in those two ballots.
April 6, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That last bit came out funny, but my point was that a lot of what the national media reports are obviously affected by this and other forums, but they don't seem to have any correlation to what local media and those who were in attendance have to say.
And, the delegates are going to vote on a lot of other issues, in addition to the (at least two) ballots naming the ticket.
April 6, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment