Delegate Loophole

[zabet]

CAMPAIGN 2008
A Delegate Loophole?
By Michael Isikoff | NEWSWEEK
Mar 24, 2008 Issue | Updated: 11:42 a.m. ET Mar 15, 2008

Citing wiggle room in an obscure, 26-year-old Democratic Party rule, Hillary Clinton's campaign is leaving the door open to the idea of attempting to persuade Barack Obama's pledged delegates to switch their votes at the last minute and back the New York senator—despite fears among some party officials that it could throw this summer's Denver convention into chaos.

The question of whether pledged delegates must stick to the candidate they were elected to vote for has prompted party chatter for weeks. Clinton herself drew notice last week during a NEWSWEEK interview when she said her delegate numbers aren't "bleak at all," even though by most counts she trails Obama by more than 100. "Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to," she added. Although her campaign quickly denied it was waging any effort to "flip" Obama's pledged delegates, Clinton's remarks weren't academic. After the 1980 battle between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy, her chief strategist Harold Ickes noted, the party changed a rule that required pledged delegates to stick with their candidates no matter what. The current rule, adopted in 1982, states that pledged delegates "shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them." A "good conscience" reason for a delegate to switch, Ickes told NEWSWEEK, would be if one candidate—such as, say, Clinton—was deemed more "electable." If delegates believe she has a better chance in November than Obama, Ickes said, "you bet" that would be a reason to change their vote. (He added, however, that the campaign is "focused" on winning over uncommitted superdelegates "at this point.")

Ickes's comments prompted a fierce comeback from Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "Despite repeated denials," he said, "the Clinton campaign finally admitted that they will go to any length to win." One party official, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive matters, said the strategy behind Clinton's invocation of the 1982 rule was clear: "They're trying to open up a window for some of the Obama people to change their minds."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/123495

The Obama supporters believe the delegate support
once given is written in stone.

[LadyVT]

1. I'm glad to read this, since in ANY campaign year LOTS can happen between

each state's primary and the convention. Like what's happening now. With Wright. And Rezko. And Obama lying about releasing all of his tax returns when he's only released one year. Just for instance.

[zabet]

2. Yes it is a good thing.

I bet that 98% of the Ozombies
on here would say the delegates
cannot change their pledges, that
it's illegal. If they do change
their pledges, the Ozombies will
accuse Clinton of stealing the
nomination or at least of strong-
arming it.

[DemBones DemBones]

3. i thought delegates had to stay with the candidate on the first ballot but

apparently not, and i'm glad. it's good that there is freedom for the delegates to change to prevent having a nominee who can't win.

i think obama is toast already but he could be burnt cinders by the time of the convention, which would make it truly stupid to nominate him.

it would be equally stupid to nominate clinton if the situation were reversed, as i'm sure we are all mature enough to realize.

the rule is for the good of the party. we need to beat mccain and hillary clinton is the one to do that. i'd rather dennis kucinich be our nominee but not if he couldn't win.

[Sadie5]

4. Wonder what Obama offered Dodd

to drop out of the race. After watching Dodd defend Rev wright this afternoon I see only a shifty eyed politician who has been offered a position in Os cabinet if he wins.