Clinton camp makes case for superdelegates
Hillary Clinton’s campaign suggested Saturday that even if Barack Obama earns more delegates in state primaries and caucuses than she does, a circle of politicians and party insiders should crown her the nominee because she would make a better candidate in November. Neither Democrat is in reach of the 2,025 delegates needed to cinch the nomination, but Obama is ahead by about 140 pledged delegates…. But top Clinton advisor Harold Ickes called that a “minuscule” edge and said it should not sway the so-called superdelegates — 796 members of Congress and the Democratic National Committee who can vote for whomever they please at the nominating convention. Ickes said he prefers to call them “automatic delegates.”
I respect Sen. Hillary Clinton’s abilities and her resolve, but I find myself quickly losing respect for her campaign for the Democratic nomination. Her campaigning has taken on an increasingly shrill and desperate tone as she continues to trail Sen. Barack Obama in the delegate count. Now Clinton campaign officials are confirming that Clinton will go after Obama’s pledged delegates if she needs them to put herself over the top. Yes, you read that right. As it turns out, delegates- even ones allegedly “won” by a candidate are not bound to vote for that candidate at the Democratic convention. So now it would seem that Sen. Clinton is now willing to steal the nomination if she cannot win it fair and square.
Theoretically, each campaign will select supporters as delegates, but there is no rule in place that requires them to vote for the candidate they’re “pledged” to. So, depending on the dearth of anything resembling ethics and decency, a campaign is free to try and cherry-pick delegates…and Lord only knows what sorts of incentives to jump ship might be offered as part of any prospective deal. The reason this hasn’t been an issue for a long, LONG time is that Democratic coronations nominations has usually been a done deal by this time in the primary season. We’re in uncharted territory, and it would seem that all is fair in love and war politics.
“Delegates are NOT bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to at the convention or on the first ballot,” a recent DNC memo states. “A delegate goes to the convention with a signed pledge of support for a particular presidential candidate. At the convention, while it is assumed that the delegate will cast their vote for the candidate they are publicly pledged to, it is not required.”
A recipe for chaos at a convention where neither candidate may have enough delegates to secure the nomination without outside assistance (i.e.- chicanery, vote-buying, influence-peddling, or just plain cheating)? Quite possibly, and I don’t doubt for a minute that the Clinton campaign is willing to do “whatever it takes” to win, even if it means ignoring the fact that Obama will very likely have received a solid majority of the votes cast during the primary season.
Of course, now that the Clinton campaign’s intentions have been exposed, they’re now denying everything and have even found a way to toss this mess back at Obama. Classy, eh?
This is democracy? Do Americans really want a President willing to do “whatever it takes” to win? Haven’t we had enough of that over the past eight years? Isn’t it about time that we stood up and made it clear that enough is enough? We should be better than that, and yes….
WE DESERVE BETTER.
