Obama played the superdelegate issue perfectly

[ProSense]

Obama's comment reported by Jake Tapper:

With her vast institutional advantages, Clinton took a lead in superdelegates long ago. This week, however, Obama said, "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. Those superdelegates, those party insiders would have to think long and hard how they would approach the nomination.

"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," Obama said.

Obama did not say how that would impact the superdelegates supporting his campaign who hail from states Clinton won — such as, in Massachusetts, Sens. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, and Gov. Deval Patrick. Every delegate, of course, is being watched and contested.

more

That last bit is Tapper's. Obama reference is to the overall number of pledged delegates "our constituencies." When Tapper files his next report, he adds the implication that Obama specifically mentioned states.

Here in Washington she has Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell -- though ABC News has learned that Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire will endorse Obama.

Obama this week warned Super-delegates to vote the way their states have voted, "if this contest comes down to super-delegates, we are going to be able to say we have more pledged delegates, which means the Democratic voters have spoken. Those super-delegates, those party insiders would have to think long and hard how they would approach the nomination." Obama suggested "the argument we would be making to super-delegates 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."

Does that mean his super-delegates in Massachusetts -- Sens. Kerry and Kennedy, Gov Patrick -- should defect to Clinton?

link

"Does that mean his super-delegates in Massachusetts -- Sens. Kerry and Kennedy, Gov Patrick -- should defect to Clinton?"

No it doesn't, and that's not what Obama said. He said:

...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. Those superdelegates, those party insiders would have to think long and hard how they would approach the nomination.

Hillary picks up on Tapper's comment about Kerry and Kennedy's support shifting to her, and she is now on record vigorously defending the rules, and assigning "independent judgment" to the superdelegates:

“Superdelegates are by design supposed to exercise independent judgment, that is the way the system works,” she told reporters after a town hall in Orono, Maine. “If Sen. Obama and his campaign continue to push this position which is really contrary to what the definition of a super delegate has historically been then I look forward to receiving the support of Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Kerry.”

This is exactly what Kerry and Kennedy did in supporting Obama, "exercise independent judgment."

Good one! Especially good after all the bashing of Kerry and Kennedy!

Obama gave them food for thought. If he happens to have more pledged delegates overall than Hillary, he's saying to the superdelegates currently in her corner: think long and hard (exercise "independent judgment") and side with the Democratic voters. No conflict, smart position.

[jlake]

1. Yes, he wants to manipulate the rules into working for him....

fat chance 0bama. The superdelegates are free to choose who they vote for.

[usregimechange]

2. Still opposing democracy today I see.

[jlake]

3. Did you read the article? Obama wants the sd vote finessed so that he comes out on top.

If he wants it one way, then Kennedy and Kerry should cast their votes for Hillary, since Mass OVERWHELMINGLY rejected Obama and supported Hillary.

[ClassWarrior]

13. Unlike Clinton, who's working to make sure all the votes go to her opponent.

:rofl:

You're a riot!!

NGU.

[jlake]

17. So in states Obama won, the superdelegates should vote for him.

But in states Hillary won, the superdelegates should vote for Obama.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[ClassWarrior]

21. You yourself said they're free to choose!! So that may be the case!!

Live with it!!

:rofl:

NGU.

[joshcryer]

Yeah, they'll probably vote for the person with the most pledged delegates.

Don't understand the issue.

[jlake]

28. They are free to choose. Obama is trying to bully them into voting for him.

But I am not worried MI & FL will be seated, and Hillary will win nomination.
Obama's dirty tricks and petulant whining are starting to take a toll on his appeal.

[joshcryer]

29. Obama isn't bullying so much dictating.

And he's doing in it a way that basically states the obvious. But Hillary flipped it against him by basically saying she'd never tell them out to vote (even though we all know how they'd vote). It was a good play.

[jlake]

31. He's trying - He is basically saying that in states he won the SD should cast

their votes for him, and in states that Hillary won they should "think about voting for Obama" - a real double standard.
Massachusetts overwhelmingly voted for Hillary, but Obama wants to keep his Kennedy & Kerry SD votes.

[joshcryer]

33. But see, she's not disagreeing that the SDs should vote for the one with the most pledged delegates.

That's the beauty of the play. :)

[jlake]

35. Except that it is, and is very disingenuous.

Obama wants to change some rules to benefit him, but he acts as though seating the delegates from MI & FL breaks some sort of holy covenant.

[joshcryer]

41. I expect the superdelegates to seat them.

It'll be a huge upset.

[Spider Jerusalem]

4. You mean like Hillary wants to manipulate or outright ignore the rules, right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3175564

[jlake]

7. So you favor voter disenfranchisement?

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. There is no guaranteed right to vote in a party primary.

The national Democratic Party established the rules; Florida and Michigan chose to break them, and were sanctioned for it. This isn't disenfranchisement, because franchise refers ONLY to the Constitutionaly guaranteed right to vote in a general election. You should take the time to learn what words actually mean before you start throwing them around.

[jlake]

15. Exactly. I was arguing this point last night and was called a fascist.

So there is no argument against the superdelegates voting however they want.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. I haven't made an argument either way.

Merely pointed out that Clinton is a hypocrite who chooses to ignore established rules when doing so works in her favour.

[jlake]

24. There are no established rules. The DNC can choose to seat the delegates or not.

Your point about the constitution should be used on Obama to stop wining about the superdelegates disenfranchising voters.

[Spider Jerusalem]

30. The national party already made that decision.

Months before the primaries. The issue should be moot. And in any case, those two primaries were uncontested, and had lower turnout due to the general impression that they wouldn't be counted; bad precedent to do anything other than stand by the original decision barring any delegates from those *illegitimate* (by national party rules) non-contests being seated.

[jlake]

32. As part of their rules, they can change "the rules" at any time.

If the delegates are not seated, or a new vote is taken to ensure legitimacy and those delegates seated, the Democratic Party will suffer in the GE.

[Spider Jerusalem]

37. you mean 'if Hillary isn't the nominee'

becausee that's a possible outcome of either fairly contested primaries, or the delegates not being seated. It's also blind, partisan stupidity. The results of uncontested and illegitimate primary elections standing would be much, MUCH worse for the Democratic Party than those results being admitted just to benefit the candidate YOU happen to support.

[jlake]

38. It has nothing to do with my candidate - the point is that the DNC

can do whatever they want. Obama seems to think that not seating the MI & FL delegates is some sort of holy covenant, while he wants to change the rules on super delegates - don't you see the hypocrisy in that?

[Spider Jerusalem]

40. Yet Hillary is against changing the rules for superdelegates...

and in favour of changing the rules on Michigan and Florida. Which is amazingly hypocritical. Or do YOU not see the hypocrisy there?

[truedelphi]

54. Reading at least one of the other posters, I realize

That the epidemic and nightmare of smokin' crack ain't over by a long shot.

When people feel that changing the rules in the middle of the game is fair, I re-e-eally have to wonder.

[jlake]

34. And I'll add that the established rules are that superdelegates get to cast

their vote with no restrictions or strings attached - Obama wants SOME rules kept and others changed to benefit him.
It is very disingenuous.

[joshcryer]

8. She never suggested breaking any party rules, they can be seated via democratic vote.

I don't see the issue.

[ray of light]

14. bull sh*t. Michigan people were TOLD before the primary that their votes WOULD NOT COUNT

and that there would be only Hillary and Kucinich and a write in and a noncommitted on the ballot. It's hogwash to then turn around and say "Seat the delegates". No matter WHO you support it's BULL.

IT's like the DNC has suddenly decided that it's OK to PREVENT PEOPLE FROM GETTING REAL VOTE and that it's OK to disenfranchise voters.

You know...if they had a real vote or real caucus, maybe Hillary would win those and there wouldn't be any doubt.

But I"M SICK OF PEOPLE F*CKING WITH MY VOTE AND THEN CLAIMING THAT "OK WE'LL COUNT YOUR VOTE NOW THAT YOU ...."

That's bull shit. It's so Republican it's disgusting!

[joshcryer]

25. You have no clue how the DNC works. People can vote on resolutions at the DNC.

If one of those resolutions is to seat those delegates, then they can be seated.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

[ray of light]

49. Doesn't matter about a "VOte" AT the convention about an illegitimate election.

Frankly, you don't know seem to understand that if they place loose with Michigan and FLorda then they deligitimize the candidcacy of Obama OR Clinton--whoever wins the nomination.

You don't vote to have a preseason game count so that you can get to the Super Bowl. That's what they're trying to do.

[rodeodance]

26. seems you need to take up that problem with the State people Hillary is speaking for

the voters.

[ClassWarrior]

10. How can you even type that with a straight face??

"Manipulate the rules" to reflect the will of the voters?? Heaven forbid!!

:rofl:

Pretty authoritarian thinking there, rules before people.

NGU.

[jlake]

12. Did you see the part where he doesn't want them to follow that guideline

in places where the voters chose Hillary, but the superdelegates will vote for Obama
Like Massachusetts -- how you can support his dishonest attempt to swing the election is beyond me.

[ClassWarrior]

19. You yourself said the superdelegates are free to choose. So he's making his argument!

If they're free to choose, does that mean that the candidates aren't allowed to try to influence them?

:shrug:

NGU.

[jlake]

22. you need to read the article.

They are free to choose - but he wants all of the options to be for "Obama".

You either did NOT read and comprehend the article or you are partisan beyond all rationality.

[indimuse]

53. Obama challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story

The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box.



It was in this part of the city that an eager reform Democrat by the name of Abner Mikva first entered elected office in the 1950s. And here a young, brash minister

named Jesse Jackson ran Operation Breadbasket, leading marchers who sought to pressure grocery chains to hire minorities.

Palmer served the district in the Illinois Senate for much of the 1990s. Decades earlier, she was working as a community organizer in the area when Obama was

growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor, according to news accounts and

interviews.

But when Palmer got clobbered in that November 1995 special congressional race, her supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her

state Senate seat.

Obama not only refused to step aside, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer's hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw.

"I liked Alice Palmer a lot. I thought she was a good public servant," Obama said. "It was very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out entirely differently."

His choice divided veteran Chicago political activists.

"There was friction about the decision he made," said City Colleges of Chicago professor emeritus Timuel Black, who tried to negotiate with Obama on Palmer's

behalf. "There were deep disagreements."

Had Palmer survived the petition challenge, Obama would have faced the daunting task of taking on an incumbent senator. Palmer's elimination marked the first of

several fortuitous political moments in Obama's electoral success: He won the 2004 primary and general elections for U.S. Senate after tough challengers imploded

when their messy divorce files were unsealed.

In a recent interview, Obama granted that "there's a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn't create barriers to people getting on the ballot."

But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents' signature sheets. "To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had

been set up," Obama recalled
"To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had

been set up," Obama recalled

"To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had

been set up," Obama recalled


"To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had

been set up," Obama recalled


"To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had

been set up," Obama recalled


"To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had

been set up," Obama recalled



"To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had

been set up," Obama recalled



"To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had

been set up," Obama recalled

[John Q. Citizen]

27. I can't see elected officials wanting to return to 1994. Repo turnout was the same as in 1990,

(the last non-presidential year) but Dem turnout was way down, which is how the Repos took over both houses of congress.

Newt called it "The Republican Revolution," but it was in reality the Democratic rank and file's dis-satisfaction with NAFTA and Hill's laughably stupid managed care welfare for the insurance companies initiative that depressed Dem turnout tand led to the rout.

I can't imagine why any elected Dem would want to replat that again.

[Hieronymus]

48. OMG, tell me it isn't so. A candidate wants to manipulate ...

rules to win. :sarcasm:

[joshcryer]

5. His argument will be moot if he doesn't have the popular vote backing it, too.

And if Hillary has more pledged delegates this will clearly backfire on him.

[FARAFIELD]

6. Personally I dont care if

Patty and Maria support Hillary Im fine with winning fair and square (or losing in the same way) I just think the perception of SUPERDELEGATES that are uncommitted supporting someone that won more votes and had more pledged delegates would suck, and be an awful perception problem. Maybe enough of the SUPERS will be pledged and this wont come up. Hillary has a big lead in SD so she is the only possible one to be (hurt?) by the perception. The Michigan and FLorida thing is MUCH BIGGER than who the hell Sherrod Brown supports, (by the way who does he support?_

[sandnsea]

9. It's not August

When the constituencies have spoken, then ALL the superdelegates should back the winner. That means Kerry, Kennedy, Cantwell, Murray and everybody else ALL vote for the same candidate. That will happen in August and none of this superdelegate stuff matters in the meantime.

[rodeodance]

16. Jake Tapper--as an aside is the one who last week got in trouble on his blog for

spreading false information about a speech b. clinton gave in Denver on Hillary's new job creating enviromental-energy plan

[Blue State Bandit]

18. Especialy the ones who serve in districts that went heavy for Obama.

[Exultant Democracy]

23. I wonder how Clinton feels when she spins something true and thoughtfull into something false

while side-stepping the issue.

[nonconformist]

39. How did she do that?

Obama says the superdelegates should listen to their constituents. Hillary points out that if that's the case, she can look forward to Kerry's and Kennedy's superdelegates, because she is who THEIR constituents chose.

[Exultant Democracy]

42. He said if he went to the CONVENTION with more pledged delegate

that the super-delegates shouldn't override the constituency of the democratic party. In no place did he say elected officials have to line up with their states (check he NEVER said that) so that would make both what you and Clinton said serious intellectual dishonesty.

[Cha]

43. We already know hilary and bil

clinton are intellectually dishonest..and we're finding out the hilary supporters are just like 'er.

[nonconformist]

45. Many freepers agree. nt

[Exultant Democracy]

50. Oh lookie lookie we are freepers now

:rofl:

[nonconformist]

44. But, as Clinton said, superdelegates are supposed to have independent judgement.

That's their purpose in the process. You just can't start changing rules, demanding that they change the way they work just because it might not work out in his favor. Does Obama think that if Hillary goes to the convention with more pledged delegates that superdelegates that backed him, independent of their constituents (like Kerry and Kennedy) should switch to back Hillary? Or does it only work the other way?

[ProSense]

55. Excellent comment! n/t

[Tatiana]

36. He is narrowing the superdelegate lead Clinton has a couple at a time.

Whatever strategy they are using, it is working. I don't know if it will be enough, though.

[kdpeters]

46. Obama speaks to democratic principles. Clinton asks for special treatment

[psquare]

47. There is an online petition to address this Superdelegate issue

The whole issue here is that Clinton and Obama will not be able to get the 2025 delegates through the primaries and caucus alone. They will need the Superdelegates as well. This is, simply, not very democratic.

To address this I have started an online petition to have the DNC amend the convention rules to assure that sufficient Superdelegates are bound to the winner of a majority of Pledged Delegates (1627 if MI and FL aren't added). Please visit the petition site, read, and if you agree, please sign the petition.

Together we can bring some sanity to this process!

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/dem2008/petition.html

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.