home

So Pledged Delegates Really Are NOT Pledged

This is a hilarious development:

Prince George's County Executive Jack B. Johnson, a Democratic convention delegate pledged to support Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, said yesterday that he thinks Sen. Barack Obama has "in a real sense" won the Democratic nomination and that he now plans to support Obama at the August convention.

Heh. Now it seems to me the Obama camp needed to tell this fellow he should not do that. But they did not:

David Plouffe just . . . mentioned that the Clinton Campaign has said that pledged delegates could switch. He said their focus is on reaching 2025 total delegates and that it is in reach.

More...

Um Plouffe, if everyone can vote how they want, no one will reach 2025 or 2209 until the convention in August. What a dumb move by him.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Hillary Clinton, Dems And White Working Class Voters | Charges Dropped Against Guantanamo Detainee >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Sometimes I think I hate them. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by liminal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:27:08 AM EST
    A few months ago, online Obamaphiles were OUTRAGED because they thought HRC might poach Obama's pledged delegates.

    I look forward to a new bout of rending of garments, pulling of hair, and gnashing of teeth on her behalf.

    Obama's campaign didn't "poach" (3.00 / 1) (#68)
    by JoeA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:32:52 PM EST
    this guy.  He seems to have done it spontaneously. I happen to think he should vote for whoever he is pledged to in the 1st ballot at the convention,  but hey it was the Clinton campaign who opened this whole can of worms.

    Parent
    No, the DNC Roolz (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:34:59 PM EST
    opened this can of worms.

    Parent
    And Obama has left it wide open (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:03:06 PM EST
    Sheesh. Are you folks so intent on missing the point?

    Parent
    Oh no! (none / 0) (#120)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:43:47 PM EST
    Now the Obama camp will be forced to argue that the popular vote matters after all.

    Parent
    ::hugs:: (none / 0) (#122)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:23:22 PM EST
    Nice to see you :)

    Parent
    I saw this earlier today (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by lefty lawyer on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:28:20 AM EST
    and I thought, wait, the Obama people howled with outrage at the idea of pledged delegates changing sides.  The wave of heat emanating from Daily Kos on this issue a couple of months ago just about knocked me over.

    Today?  Nothing.

    And if nobody is truly pledged, then how can it be decided until the convention?  Plouffe is truly being stupid here, although on issues of consistency, it's not the first time.  "What's good for me is good, and what's good for you is bad" is not a philosophy, it's a recipe for chaos and disaster.  Declaring victory is a little more complicated than just speaking the words.

    It has always been the way... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:27:14 PM EST
    Delegates - pledged or super - end up switching to the winner if they have been sent to the convention as a delegate for another candidate.

    The whole uproar about delegates switching has been a bit of a scam from the begining.  A scam perpetuated by the Obama camp to effectively bully their delegates and other candidate's delegates into following their made up rules.

    Parent

    this goes to he C - class' (none / 0) (#107)
    by thereyougo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:50:11 PM EST
    lack of seasoned political savy where they just didn't bother with the roolz. The blogs are bloviating what Hillary said months ago if their blind Obama worship allowed it. EVEN pledged delegates can move anytime in any direction.

    This is more of their sillyness that will bring them down as credible and afaic,in future contests. I predict they will not have the impact they wish they had in the future.

    TPM and TL and a few others who have stayed above the fray will in the end remain, but the DKs and moveon, will see their popularity wane considerably.

    Obama for his victory lap,and the media playing it up, has bought the line thinking that the blogs do play a significant role, but its fun to watch the kids krash. :-)

    I'm happy for Hillary because her pedigree is on display, for all to see that should she pull this out, and I predict she will; it does prove she has what it takes to take on the mess that is being left by the previous administratin.                    

    Instead of losing, she's actually winning more of my respect.

    Parent

    Wouldn't it be hilarious? (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:28:39 AM EST
    If at the convention, presumed nominee walks in, the media is all a-tizzy for the Dem nominee, and then when the voting starts, Hillary gets more delegates and wins the nomination?  Woo-boy!  Maybe I should DVR that night of the convention!

    Given those recent electoral vote (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:33:05 AM EST
    maps and predictions, that is exactly what should happen at the convention.

    Parent
    We all know that's what SHOULD (4.75 / 4) (#31)
    by vicsan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:49:59 AM EST
    happen, but Al Sharpton's riot threat is hanging over their heads. Will they do the right thing? Or will they cave to threats? We shall see.

    Parent
    Sharpton (5.00 / 9) (#36)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:53:05 AM EST
    right, these guys could not riot against the war, you think they will riot about this?  What are they going to do, text message us to death?  

    Parent
    Some days the pestering is so bad (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Ellie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:04:00 PM EST
    I'm half in love with easeful death

    It's such a counter-intuitive use of the medium, too: just wasteful, annoying static that poisons the environment. It's like putting good design and craft into making car alarms WHINIER.

    Why can't the pestering include something useful, like a two line tip to improve someone's life or make them feel good for a moment? Hey, did you know that your unique body temperature as modulated by personality and temperament is what modulates the biosphere and makes all life possible? You rock, baby.

    So much better than, "Wwwwwwwaaaahhhh. Lllllleavvvvve Obaaaamaaa Alllloonnnnne."

    Parent

    Sharpton?? (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:54:00 AM EST
    is he the mind behind the recreate68 organizing? He doesn't riot, he protests.

    Parent
    He said if the SDs plan to STEAL (none / 0) (#76)
    by vicsan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:38:56 PM EST
    the election from BO, he will be in Colorado with his people. You say they will "protest" and other people saw it as a threat to riot. You don't believe he put that out there to make the DC elites think they would face a "protest", do you?

    Parent
    Riots? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by contrarian1964 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:37:23 PM EST
    Riot threat?  Does that truly seem likely to you?

    Can anybody see the stereotyping here?  The fear mongering?

    The 60s are over.  This is 40 years later.  This is not even the same electorate as 10 years ago, let alone 40.

    Parent

    Google is your friend. (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by vicsan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:46:35 PM EST
    I'm not stereotyping. Are BO supporters AA ONLY? I don't think so. How is this stereotyping? Al Sharpton said it FOR A REASON. What reason is that, do you suppose? It wouldn't be to intimidate people, would it? Do you think?

    He didn't say he would be in Colorado with AAs only. I do believe BO has supporters of other ethnicities, right?

    Parent

    And Al Sharpton speaks to (none / 0) (#93)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:20:09 PM EST

    blacks only.  You do know that, right?  I'm not being snarky.  Sharpton doesn't exactly have great respect for The Man...you even know anything about Sharpton?

    Parent
    Wrong (3.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Claw on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:44:43 PM EST
    He gave a speech at the 2004 convention that was pretty well recieved by DEMOCRATS, regardless of race.  

    Parent
    Wrong (3.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Claw on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:45:19 PM EST
    He gave a speech at the 2004 convention that was pretty well recieved by DEMOCRATS, regardless of race.  

    Parent
    Wrong (3.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Claw on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:47:11 PM EST
    He gave a speech at the 2004 convention that was pretty well recieved by DEMOCRATS, regardless of race.  

    Parent
    you can say that again (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:52:46 PM EST
    Haha (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Claw on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:58:46 PM EST
    yeah, sorry about that. The comment wasn't meant to be posted multiple times.  This computer is nearing retirement

    Parent
    Durh, because he was running for President. (none / 0) (#125)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:23:20 PM EST

    But of course I'm sure you remember Tawana Brawley and the Central Park Jogger protests, right?  Calling Jews diamond merchants and turning an accident into a racial issue?  Calling a Jewish store owner an "interloper"?  Getting caught on tape with shady fund raisers and then blaming it on racism?  Sharpton is a disgusting race baiter, period.

    Parent
    the part about Sharpton (none / 0) (#94)
    by Iris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:23:06 PM EST
    was stereotyping, I think, but the recreate68 nonsense should remind us of what happened to the "New Left," as well as the backlash against it.

    Parent
    the way I see it is that if after those NYC (none / 0) (#112)
    by thereyougo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:16:00 PM EST
    cops who were recently acquitted for killing that black guy failed to bring civil unrest, and the illegal war of Iraq didn't bring the people out on the National Mall, a few thousand participants in a presidential election is not going to either.

    Its just talk or rather blogging, like one of the c-class said "Hillary will sundere the party if she takes this to the convention". Give me a break.

    This is what the democratic party is about, allowing the process, the Republicans should take note. We've gotten so used to their "out way is the only way"that we've forgotten democrats permit dissent.

    If Obama doesn't like it, it says more about his commitment to demoratic ideals, and thats too bad.
    It might mean he's DINO.

    Parent

    the way I see it is that if after those NYC (none / 0) (#113)
    by thereyougo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:18:26 PM EST
    cops who were recently acquitted for killing that black guy failed to bring civil unrest, and the illegal war of Iraq didn't bring the people out on the National Mall, a few thousand participants in a presidential election is not going to either.

    Its just talk or rather blogging, like one of the c-class said "Hillary will sundere the party if she takes this to the convention". Give me a break.

    This is what the democratic party is about, allowing the process, the Republicans should take note. We've gotten so used to their "out way is the only way"that we've forgotten democrats permit dissent.

    If Obama doesn't like it, it says more about his commitment to demoratic ideals, and thats too bad.
    It might mean he's DINO.

    Parent

    You just invented a Micro-Genre for my media lib (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Ellie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:54:43 AM EST
    With that suggestion of DVR'ing the convention:

    Polierotica: political conventions with surprise outcomes that get you off repeatedly. (Number of titles: 1)

    Parent

    She did indeed (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:29:11 AM EST
    The Obama camp was fighting that argument. It is ridiculous of Plouffe to feed the idea they can.

    Of course, you miss the point. BTW Joe, behave better here going forward. You are being very disruptive.

    You may force me to give you reason to go whine back at the Big Orange Satan's place about how mean I am to you.

    It is clear you are trolling for conflict. Just be less obvious about it or you will haver to go.

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:52:44 AM EST
    They would rather score a "gotcha" point than seal the nomination.  Amazing.

    Parent
    a question (none / 0) (#79)
    by contrarian1964 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:43:38 PM EST
    Forgive me for not knowing, but what kind of conflict is allowed and what isn't?  What is the purpose here?  A gathering of like minds, or do you want to encourage debate between opposing viewpoints?

    Because this blog is smaller than Kos, you have the potential to have members police debate better - in a fair way.  But there is massive unfairness here all the time - ad hominems really should not be allowed anywhere.  

    But maybe I'm a blog idealist.

    Parent

    Opinions, honest ON TOPIC opinions (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:47:35 PM EST
    are encouraged. attempt to foment disputes are not allowed.

    Joe comes to start fights, not to exchange views. but you knew that already.

    Parent

    Works both ways though (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Saul on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:30:29 AM EST
    It's true that the pledge delegates that were originally gotten at the primaries, that went from county to state and now to the national convention do have the right to change their minds as per the DNC rules.  I believe the key word is IN GOOD FAITH

    Bwhahaaahahahaha! (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Faust on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:30:57 AM EST
    Hasn't Plouffe been reading DKOS? THIS IS A TRAVESTY OF DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    There is no there there in politics.

    And may I add (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Faust on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:37:26 AM EST
    That Mr. Johnson has a bad case of premature commutation.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by talex on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:50:06 AM EST
    don't hold your breath for the Obamabots to come out today and say he should vote how he was pledged to do. Like with Kennedy and Kerry (who will never get another dime of my money) the Obamabots will head for the bunkers to bury their heads in each others collective behinds.

    Parent
    I dunno if I qualify (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by CST on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:03:11 PM EST
    But I think he should vote for Hillary like he's supposed to.  I don't think Kerry and Kennedy should have to.  I think supers can vote for whoever they want individually as long as they eventually end up as a group with a popular vote winner taking the nomination - that's why those "undecided" supers are important.  

    I don't think Kennedy and Kerry really need  money.  I wouldn't recommend ever donating to those two.  Save it for someone who needs it.  Frankly, I wouldn't mind a little "change" in the Mass Senate delegation myself.  Those two have had too much power for too long.

    Parent

    good for you (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:06:27 PM EST
    Not only are you right, you are politically smart.

    I strongly commend your good sense.

    Parent

    You and Dalton (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:15:10 PM EST
    are not Obamabots.

    I like everything you said. Ideally speaking, the pledged delegates should vote the way their districts voted.

    However, a super-tight race can change those dynamics.

    And I agree - Massachusetts deserves better Senators than Kerry and Kennedy 2.0 - Anti-Unity Boogaloo. I say they should each be primaried by a person of color and/or a woman. ;-)

    Parent

    In this instance his district apparently went (none / 0) (#70)
    by JoeA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:34:32 PM EST
    for Obama heavily.  However he was one of the delegates pledged to Hillary Clinton.

    I agree with your sentiment though.

    Parent

    This is great -- it means it really (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:33:23 AM EST
    isn't over until the convention, of course.  So it is Obama's message that he already has won that is really derailed -- or perhaps scrambled? -- by "poaching" this delegate.

    I.e., it reaffirms that it doesn't matter where any delegates of any sort -- pledged, super, add-on, etc. -- are on May 20.  And Obama will just have to wait until the end of August like the rest of us mortals.


    yep, message: votes don't count until August (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by DandyTIger on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:38:18 AM EST
    That is the real message behind this. The votes can and do switch anytime they want. So any running total, even if it goes over some magic number is meaningless, because none of the votes count until they are actually officially, legally counted.

    Waffle's much? :-)

    Parent

    Makes the MI division easier to handle (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:51:43 AM EST
    If it really splits 59/69, some Obama delegates may take that side knowing they can actually vote for the candidate who won their votes.

    Parent
    That's right -- all she needs to do (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:08:42 PM EST
    is make it to the convention in August. She knows it, Obama and the Kennedy cabal know it too (and that is why they are screaming that it is "over," that KY & WV don't matter, etc).  That is also why I am not in a panic. Even if he wins Oregon & throws a huge victory party complete with magnums of Crystal for everyone, I will not lose a wink of sleep. August, baby, August -- only then will we have the nominee.

    Parent
    That is the same conclusion (none / 0) (#97)
    by Iris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:27:38 PM EST
    that I am reaching.  Hang in there til August Hillary!

    Parent
    Well, that is a good point. Obama's (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:11:21 PM EST
    camp is really inviting a convention fight now.
    Its' not "over" until the delegates vote, since there declared intentions have no force at all, by the consent of the Obama campaign.

    Parent
    agreed, they will (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:33:36 AM EST
    have to back pedal from this or it will go to August.  They just opened the door for candidates to actively work to get people to switch.

    Now THIS (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by lilburro on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:41:22 AM EST
    makes me want to make calls for Clinton.  The popular vote argument is still on!

    I'd love to see the news anchors discuss this tonight as they talk up the pledged delegate count.  I can't WAIT for Donna Brazile's unbiased opinion.

    If you (none / 0) (#95)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:23:17 PM EST
    wait for an unbiased opinion or words of common sense from Donna Brazile you will have a long and fruitless wait. We all will. :)

    Parent
    Wasn't there some outrage in California (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:44:33 AM EST
    because the Obama campaign was banning nearly 1000 potential delegates from the selection process because they thought they were really backing Clinton? Not the brightest bulb if he is going to go public with that decision...the entire country of pledged delegates could decide they, too, want national notoriety for a few minutes.

    A Pledge, like a Vote counts when it's cast (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Ellie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:45:26 AM EST
    Hell, if that's all it takes, don't even hold a general election. Just declare Obama the President now, based on his movement and newly registered would-be voters.

    I mean, they've pledged their votes  for November right? Why doubt them?

    Yep, yep, yeppers! (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by vicsan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:46:36 AM EST
    All Pledged Delegates can switch their votes until the convention. NOTHING is carved in stone . Too bad for BO because the longer this goes on, the more states he ignores, and the more states he loses, the more likely it is the delegates...Pledged and Supers, will see the guy cannot win the states we need to win in November.

    IMCPO and much to his certain chagrin, he is going to see he REALLY DOES NEED those uneducated older women, those garlic-nosed Italians, the Jewish voters, the blue collar working class voters, the gays, the bitter voters, the gun clinging voters, the religion clinging voters, the poor voters,  the Hispanic voters, AND white people. Darn those voters. They can really screw things up for BO, can't they?

    What? Was the BO campaign expecting to keep this little "Pledged Delegate/Super Delegate" factoid under wraps until they installed him as the nominee? Do they really think we're all that stupid?

    Errrrr....DON'T ANSWER THAT! Of course they do.

    This entire (none / 0) (#99)
    by Iris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:32:19 PM EST
    campaign has just been one constantly growing ball of conventional wisdom, hasn't it?

    Parent
    Another reality comes to the fore (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Lahdee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:46:56 AM EST
    is unity next?

    It's already become such a circus (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:47:46 AM EST
    that I would enjoy seeing 2 Obama pledged delegates come out saying they are switching sides for every 1 Obama that does it. Just to play with "the math" and the media.

    If I never hear the words "the math" again after this election, I will die a happy soul.


    did Obama offer him a deal? (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Josey on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:48:06 AM EST
    cabinet position?
    It's easier for Obama to make deals with any kind of delegate than to actually win in Nov.


    From the comments attached to the article... (5.00 / 9) (#34)
    by lilburro on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:51:47 AM EST
    KCinDC says:

    "The Obama campaign shouldn't legitimize the idea that pledged delegates in general can switch, but it seems like it should be okay for Clinton's pledged delegates to switch because she's effectively released them by saying they can vote for whoever they want. Obama has made no similar statement, so his delegates are still pledged to him."

    She effectively released them?  Um.  Ok.  I guess when you discuss the DNC rules, you are actually releasing your delegates.  Be careful out there candidates!  It's a crazy world!


    Bwahahahaha! (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:05:24 PM EST
    That is funny as all get out.

    Parent
    Obama apparently (none / 0) (#101)
    by Iris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:35:48 PM EST
    transcends reality now, too, with what he does not say.

    Parent
    Don't mean to ruin the party (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by SpinDoctor on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:58:15 AM EST
    But is there any indication that the Obama campaign has solicited the support of any pledged delegates?  Is there any credible reporting that indicates that they condone Johnson's switch?

    Don;t mean to ruin your red herring (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:04:38 PM EST
    But the point is Plouffe should reject this switch because it undermines the FINALITY of the delegate count.

    Spin doctor you aree better than this type of red herring. at least I think you are.

    Parent

    citizen big tent democrat, not to change the (none / 0) (#60)
    by cy street on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:17:45 PM EST
    subject away from plouffe, could you comment on the pledged delegates of other candidates, edwards, richardson.

    have they disbanded already?  i forget.

    what is their status?

    i agree with your plouffe take.  i also believe plouffe has performed a minor miracle by sticking to the plan.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:24:17 PM EST
    under the rules they can vote for whomever they want. I believe they are morally bound to vote for the candidate they represent until released by said candidate.

    BTW, Richardson has 1 delegate. Presumably he has released that delegate to vote for Obama.

    Parent

    so, without mucking up the post, (none / 0) (#66)
    by cy street on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:30:51 PM EST
    does it follow, if clinton concedes that her delegates are also "released"?

    not trying to stir anything up, just curious.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:46:08 PM EST
    And at the Convention it is the custom to release delegates so the nominee is chosen unanimously.

    Parent
    thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by cy street on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:03:56 PM EST
    you know well you have many admirers on both sides of this process here and beyond.  i wonder what might have happened had you been inside the house of clinton as an advisor.

    i doubt michigan and florida would have been so easily diminished by the party and obama.  i did not understand then, and i am still mystified as to what they were thinking.

    moving on.

    i look forward to your insights on the obama approach to the refuglicans.

    Parent

    No red herring Armando (none / 0) (#61)
    by SpinDoctor on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:23:18 PM EST
    I do not agree with Johnson's decision and believe the Obama camp should encourage him to vote for Clinton.  All I am trying to do is temp down the anti-Obama vitriol that permeates this site.  There is a reflexive response here to assume that everything that occurs has some nefarious Obama involvement.

    You are a pragmatist Armando.  You recognize the importance of all Democrats getting behind the likely nominee.  However, the number of posts and comments that do nothing but ferment more anti-Obama hate is not serving our Party well and bodes badly for November.  

    You know I have been a defender of yours from years ago and a big supporter.  I have also been a fan of Jeralyn's advocacy and she has written quite kindly and has been very vocal and supportive on one of my cases.  So it pains me to see some of the things being said about the two of you on the blogosphere because of some intemperate comments, poorly thought out posts or because of the intolerant atmosphere that has become more pervasive.   So it wasn't a red herring.  Just a small attempt at trying to bring some possible perspective to what transpired.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:26:01 PM EST
    You just admitted you changed the subject. the criticisms are of Plouffe, representing the Obama camp. And they are just as you yourself just acknoweeldged.

    I do not accept your explanation. You wanted to change the subject - the definition of a red herring.

    Parent

    We disagree then (none / 0) (#81)
    by SpinDoctor on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:46:01 PM EST
    You implied that Plouffe was, at worst, somehow complicit or in the most charitable interpretation, hypocritical.  All I asked for was some clarification on what role, if any, the Obama campaign played in the Johnson's conversion.  From your lack of response, I will assume they neither played a role nor explicitly condoned the switch.

    That said, Johnson should remain faithful to Clinton and vote for her.  Any suggestion to the contrary, in my opinion, is a breach of his duty as a pledged delegate.

    Parent

    I implied no such thng (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    I stated, in PLAIN ENGLISH, that Plouffe was stupid to condone the switch.

    Parent
    Don't care what (none / 0) (#100)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:34:30 PM EST
    other blogs say about our leaders; we love 'em!

    Parent
    Yes -- THIS is an indication (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:13:04 PM EST
    that they are soliciting Clinton's pledged delegates and Plouffe's statement confirms that they condone Johnson's switch.

    Parent
    No, its really not (none / 0) (#119)
    by fuzzyone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:31:35 PM EST
    I agree with BTD that it was a mistake on the part of Obama's campaign not to say this guy should stick with his pledge.  It would have been smarter both in terms of their delegate count argument and as a PR move.  But there is no evidence they induced this in any way, unless you have some you have not provided.  As pointed out below this guy switched once before.  Bad job by the Clinton campaign picking him.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:03:23 PM EST
    Does Obama want to make sure that McCain wins in November?

    The Amazing Revelation with regard to Delegates... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by hillct on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:04:20 PM EST
    Over the past year, I've been increasingly stunned my the massive lack of understanding of our political system. Convention delegates have always been allowed to vote however they pleased. Very seldom would you find a delegate who would vote contrary to the popular vote of those he/she represented but it has happened in the past and it's not news. The operation of brokered conventions is the stuff of 5th grade social studies class. Perhaps that's why the TV program are you smarter than a 5th grader actually has an audience - what a sad commentary on society today. Granted, my level of shock over the general misunderstanding of the role of convention delegates has been tempered by my shock, years earlier over the profound misunderstanding across the country over the operations of the general election, but I don't see how you can reasonably expect the Obama campaign to instruct a delegate how he should vote. Certainly, delegates should align their votes with the will of those they represent but neither candidate should be instructing or courting delegates of any kind, as a general principle of conduct, but it's certainly one possible course for candidates (any candidates) of lesser moral fortitude.


    The outrage over the election of the Shrub to his first term was the time to reform the electoral system, at the general and party level, but that opportunity was squandered. Gone are the days when electors or delegates, or other representational voting mechanisms were required for technical reasons, but we still retain these vestiges of old, and apparently only develop enough righteous indignation, to change the system, when it doesn't work in our favor - and even then, the needed steps aren't taken, to improve the process.


    If you want to fix the system, then fix it, but until then, don't complain about those who take advantage of it's design.


    --hillct

    Once again (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:04:50 PM EST
    HRC was not teh evil for saying what she said about pledged delegates, but simply telling an inconvenient truth. Whoopsie!

    I'm starting to think Obama supporters have as little sense of irony as Bush supporters. YIKES!

    Overgeneralization is death (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by contrarian1964 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:40:50 PM EST
    Massive, mass generalization.

    Obama supporters all __.  They're all the same.

    Hillary supporters all ___.  They're all the same.

    Everyone who is liberal, who is progressive, who is a Democrat, strong or weak, will be better off if people just stop talking this way.  

    This is about the Democratic coalition, not playing gotcha with the supporters of the candidate you didn't root for.

    Parent

    My pointing out (none / 0) (#86)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:49:07 PM EST
    that HRC was right about this issue is playing "gotcha?"

    Talk about a red herring.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#103)
    by Iris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:41:27 PM EST
    that reckless generalizations are dangerous, and I'm guilty of this at times myself.

    Parent
    Say What???........ (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by chopper on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:19:05 PM EST
    First the cult says super delegates have to respect their constituencies and vote the same way.

    Then Kennedy and Kerry popped up for Obama even though Hillary won MA.

    Then they say pledged delegated have to do the same.

    But now they changed their minds.

    First it's 2209 delegates, now it's 2000? or whatever.

    First we have a 50-state plan, now we have a 48-state plan.  Obama and the DNC say screw FL and MI.

    Is there any Constitutional Law available to end this fiasco?

    Constitutional law (none / 0) (#105)
    by Iris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:48:03 PM EST
    supports the right of delegates at the convention to vote the way they want.  That's a fact.  And considering that the press is so eager to be the determiners of how the Dem nominee is chosen, and the Obama campaign & the Obama-blogosphere feeds off of the MSM for support, I think there's real reason for concern.  

    Again this is a good time to illustrate the difference between the selection of a nominee for president and the election to choose the president.  To say that our party has no choice now and delegates can't just choose the best candidate is just an attempt to 'control the narrative' and create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Parent

    Will TINS flip out about this? (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:29:46 AM EST
    heh, yeah right.

    There is a change in the air! (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:46:37 AM EST
    Currently there is no Hillary Hatin' going on in the Rec List.  Curiouser and curiouser.

    Parent
    I warnbed you Joe (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:36:40 AM EST
    But you could not help yourself.

    Go back to your home base and denounce me to the masses. Comment no further at THIS SITE today.

    Of course I deleted your insulting comment. And I will delete any further comments you make today.

    Have a nice day, elsewhere. I look forward to your outrage at your cult meeting.


    Um, BTD? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:43:00 AM EST
    Could you set a good example for the rest of us by not gratuitously abusing the trolls?  I find it a bit distracting.  JMO

    Thanks.

    Parent

    Shut your mouth! (3.66 / 3) (#30)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:49:44 AM EST
    I love it when BTD does this (as long as I'm not the target, of course).

    Parent
    Yes, isn't that one of the reasons we (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:15:58 PM EST
    come here?

    Parent
    But then I get tempted (none / 0) (#106)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:49:30 PM EST
    to do the same, but we are supposed to be on our best behavior!

    I am ashamed to admit that I loved a good snark filled troll party at daily kos.  We aren't allowed to do that here, though.  Must be upstanding, respectful netizens!

    Parent

    I haven't posted a danger kitty pic (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:14:28 PM EST
    in ages...went through withdrawal for a while...

    Parent
    I'm grateful for BTD's moderation (none / 0) (#108)
    by Iris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:51:28 PM EST
    It's not like he didn't warn him, and it does keep the discussion from descending into a screaming match.  

    Parent
    Yabbut (none / 0) (#123)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:50:40 PM EST
    Some people get a kick out of provoking reactions.

    Plus BTD can be an effective moderator without the verbosity.  If he really wanted a commenter gone, they'd be banned and their comments deleted.

    Parent

    No More Interesting Conventions, Please (none / 0) (#18)
    by HenryFTP on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:41:45 AM EST
    The last "interesting" Democratic convention was 1980; the last "interesting" Republican convention was 1976. Each "interesting" convention damaged the party's standard bearer.

    National conventions used to be serious affairs, and were much beloved by the networks in the early days of television. They used to do live broadcasts of congressional hearings, too.

    But without FCC regulation, we now inhabit the world contemplated by the film Network. If our convention isn't tightly scripted, the media bloviators will flail us alive as disorganized DFHs incapable of undertaking the serious business of governing the country.

    This has always been the dirty secret about "pledged" delegates, and it's not smart for a frontrunner with a narrow lead to permit that secret to come into the open -- this augurs poorly for the capability of the Obama campaign to orchestrate Party unity once the primaries are finished.

    A 'tightly scripted' (none / 0) (#111)
    by Iris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:03:30 PM EST
    lovefest of Obama is the last thing we need at the convention.  This isn't 2004, Obama is not a war hero OR a veteran opponent of the Vietnam war.  Obamafest 2008 would make me hurl.

    If our convention isn't tightly scripted, the media bloviators will flail us alive as disorganized DFHs incapable of undertaking the serious business of governing the country.
    News flash: the 'bloviators' are going to do that either way, in some form or another.  And the unremitting hostility and ignorance (of recent history) expressed in the attempt to 'keep the Clintons away from the White House' makes me wonder if our party is not, in fact, being taken over by people incapable of undertaking the serious business of governing the country.

    Parent
    Local politics at work... (none / 0) (#22)
    by mike in dc on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:44:36 AM EST
    ...in all likelihood.  PG County went pretty overwhelmingly for Obama, and Johnson is jumping on the bandwagon now that it looks like Obama's a lock.  It's a little embarrassing for all parties--to Obama, because their official position is that pledged delegates should stay pledged, and to Clinton, because this is not the kind of "mind changing" they had in mind, either.

    A convention fight would be a disaster--nearly 3 months of negative media for the Democrats, followed by bad feelings all around.

    Were people in olden times more (none / 0) (#104)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:42:20 PM EST
    pragmatic or simply more polite?  Convention fights used to be high entertainment (but not the ones on the streets and in the parks of Chicago*).  Sometimes we even won the election.

    *Anyone wonder at Chicago's attraction and education of a certain candidate?

    Parent

    Joe since you chose to ignoe my directive (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:47:53 AM EST
    you are now suspended until Thursday.

    This is news? (none / 0) (#41)
    by oldpro on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:03:16 PM EST
    Why is this news to anyone 'in politics?'

    Yes, that this suggests disarray (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:11:54 PM EST
    in the Obama campaign, going off message that all delegate counts will be clear and settled by May 20, is news.

    Of course, that any delegate can switch is not news, if that's what you mean.  But that's not what BTD means by pflogging Plouffe for messing with Obama's plans to coronate himself a week from today.  Oops.

    Parent

    OK... (none / 0) (#78)
    by oldpro on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:43:28 PM EST
    but yes...I meant that 'any delegate can switch' anytime and as many times as they want (witness THIS delegate who's done it twice!) until....

    ...wait for it...

    the convention in August!

    You know it, I know it, BTD knows it...but those who don't (including those in the media who evidently don't know much, including the meaning of the word 'pledged,' never mention it.

    Let's see if any do now...I doubt it.  Doesn't fit their scheme to promote Obama to nomination.

    Parent

    Agreed -- this garbles the message (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:50:47 PM EST
    to the media, the main target of any campaign message.  That the media apparently never have actually read the party roolz is just another example of their laziness, relying only on whatever their campaign of choice tells them.  

    It's just so much easier that way and leaves more time to retouch their makeup.

    Parent

    Maryland ballots... (disenfranchisement?) (none / 0) (#49)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:08:38 PM EST
    On the MD ballot, you get to choose the delegates according to the delegates name with the delegate's affiliation in () next to the name. Some of them had (undecided) next to their names.

    At least that's how I remember it.

    If so, Jackson was chosen because of his affiliation with Clinton. And as such, he just officially thumbed his nose at the people who voted for Clinton by way of him.

    I thought the rule or the custom was to vote (none / 0) (#51)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:10:55 PM EST
    for how you were pledged on the first ballot and then on the second ballot you can vote for whomever you want.

    Yes, that's what's expected. (none / 0) (#53)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:11:48 PM EST
    Speaking of which, do the sanctions (none / 0) (#55)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:13:01 PM EST
    against the FL and MI delegations hold if there is a second ballot? Has anyone actually checked the rules?

    Parent
    Custom but not the roolz (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:16:02 PM EST
    And, of course, it is customary if chosen as a pledged delegate only days ago to bide one's time a bit before revealing oneself to be duplicitous.  It just sorta reflects badly on his candidate now, huh?

    Parent
    I thought the individual (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:36:26 PM EST
    state rules "ruled" how long a state delegate is bound to a candidate for the nomination.  

    Parent
    Looks like bad vetting from the Clinton camp (none / 0) (#65)
    by s5 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:28:16 PM EST
    This is Johnson's second change of heart in the race. He had allowed his name to be listed as a supporter by the Obama campaign in December.

    If true, he should never have been vetted as a pledged delegate for Clinton. This is just sloppiness on the part of her campaign.

    Well of course IACF (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:33:15 PM EST
    that goes without saying.

    Parent
    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:44:47 PM EST
    Red herrings yet again.

    Are the pledged delegates NOT pledged? Then the result is not decided until the Convention.

    Parent

    Looks like bad message control (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:52:01 PM EST
    by the Obama camp.  Oh, and your plans for the coronation party a week from today?  Cancelled.

    Parent
    Links? (none / 0) (#98)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:29:46 PM EST

    (to the cancellation, that is)

    Parent
    I was hoping for a link to this. (none / 0) (#126)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:24:39 PM EST

    When I posted earlier, but I haven't seen or heard of Obama cancelling his DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN Party.

    Parent
    Don't understand the surprise (none / 0) (#72)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:35:40 PM EST
    it's part of the moving logic.  Michigan and Florida primaries did not happen, but they want a chunk of the votes.  Popular vote is the metric, unless it looks like Hillary is ahead.  SDs have to vote the way their districts voted, unless it's Richardson, Teddy, Kerry etc.
    Key states don't matter, but national polling matters when it comes to electability.  

    Alice in Wonderland. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:37:30 PM EST
    Kennedy's 1980 convention strategy (none / 0) (#84)
    by Manuel on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:47:23 PM EST
    was to get pledged delegates released from their voting commitment.  Hillary has way more support than Kennedy did in 1980.  The Obama camp may goad Hillary into this.  If I were them, I'd be figuring out how to get Hillary on board.  At the very least, I expect a platform showdown over the healthcare plan.  This gives Obama an opportunity to show flexibility as the platform is mostly symbolic.  Hillary has earned the right of first refusal on the VP as well as a say on the VP nominee.

    Well BTD I have always said (none / 0) (#96)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:26:30 PM EST
    the term "pledged delegate" was a misnomer.

    exactly (none / 0) (#102)
    by Lisa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:39:43 PM EST
    He essentially just said, let's wait on deciding this thing until the convention.  Brilliant move.

    Hadn't heard about Rev. (none / 0) (#109)
    by zfran on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:55:34 PM EST
    Sharpton starting demonstrations if nomination goes to Hillary...how ironic...didn't Sen. Obama want him to stay away because he (Obama) was running an all inclusive campaign (ha!) and didn't want Rev. Sharpton around to mess it up and now he hasn't said anything about this to stop Rev. Sharpton's verbal agression on this subject!!??! I believe Sen. Clinton's analogy of the rules indicated that any delegate could vote how they wished at the convention and until that vote was actually taken, they are only "pledged" toward that candidate.

    The Clinton campaign have (none / 0) (#110)
    by JoeA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:57:42 PM EST
    clearly done a pretty poor job of vetting their Pledged Delegates in this instance.

    According to this Washington Post Article it's the second time he has switched sides already in this campaign.  He initially allowed the Obama campaign to list him as a supporter in December 2007, before switching to Clinton and becoming one of her Pledged Delegates in February, and now changing his mind again.

    If I had been on the Clinton campaign I don't think I would have been comfortable allowing this guy onto my delegate slate.


    Double agent mole (none / 0) (#124)
    by gandy007 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:56:43 PM EST
    As one who was in intelligence/spy game once upon a time and I know, I know, that's a contradiction; this is actually a brilliant trap by the Clinton camp.

    Originally the guy was going to be Obama's guy and in fact they thought he really was.  Then he said, "Ill really sow chaos and dissension. I'll pretend to be pledged to Clinton and then I'll switch, sucking other Clinton delegates with me."

    But really all along he was Clinton's guy.  The trap was set.  Clinton is still running because she knows pledged delegates aren't really pledged except on their honor, of which some unmentionable people have none. He can still vote for Clinton and no one will be the wiser, until the endgame.

    By accepting this delegate, the Obamaites have opened Pandora's Box.  By aquiesing, they have
    said it's OK to do the dishonorable deed. Nothing really counts until the convention and the vote is taken.

    So, on to the convention.