Double-Dealing Delegates? Obama Scrubs California Delegate List

Obama is taking Clinton at her word that pledged delegates are in play and taking strong measures to ensure pledged delegates are loyal. The Obama campaign cut 900 prospective delegates from the running for this weekend's California Democratic Convention based on questions of allegiance and an overabundance of prospective delegates. Newspaper reports vary for the Clinton cuts, from 36 to 50.

The Obama campaign must be worried about pledged delegates if they are taking these kinds of measures to control who becomes a pledged delegate in California. I believe this is an indicator that Clinton is serious about her threat to disregard the will of the voters by stealing pledged delegates. By now, you've probably heard what Clinton has said about pledged delegates, but just in case you haven't, here is the infamous pledged delegate quote from Sen. Clinton:

Pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates.

I guess that depends on your definition of the word pledged.

On the other hand, Chris Lavery, Clinton's California Political Director had this to say:

...the people running as Obama delegates (should) [sic] support Sen. Obama. We don't believe that anyone should try to beat the system.

The chair of Sacramento for Obama was concerned about a number of delegates that were not known to the Obama campaign and questioned their motives:

I don't know what their motivation is. I'd like to trust that it's pure. We just want to make sure we work as hard as we can to have rock-solid support for Obama.

David Karol, a political science professor at UC Berkley says that historically, for the most part, pledged delegates haven't changed sides except when migrating from a candidate who has withdrawn:

I think it is unlikely that we will see a significant amount of switching on the part of pledged delegates as long as both candidates remain active. In the recent past switching has not been very important and has chiefly taken the form of delegates moving from defunct campaigns to the camp of the prospective nominee.

California Democratic Party Spokesperson Bob Mulholland said that it's not that often that a candidate blocks someone from being a delegate unless they've donated to the other candidate and that this year's cuts are unprecedented.

On the other hand, according to Nathaniel Bach at Huffington Post, some die-hard Obama fans were also cut from the list (including him). He says the Obama campaign needs to right the wrong and reinstate the entire contingent of prospective delegates. He says that one Obama supporter who traveled to 10 states to volunteer for Obama was cut. At the least, he'd like an explanation from the Obama campaign of why he and other Obama supporters were cut.

Merriam-Webster's word of the day today is velleity. As in, perhaps the Obama campaign was concerned that some delegates commitment to Obama might be more of a velleity than an unyielding loyalty (Sorry, I saw the word of the day email and just had to throw it out there).

California Obama Spokesperson Don Morrison said the rolls were cut due to both allegiance questions and time constraints. According to the San Jose Mercury:

In some districts, more than 90 people had signed up to run for as few as three delegate positions. In the 17th District, which includes most of Santa Cruz County as well as Monterey and San Benito counties, 26 people had signed up for two posts.

90 people running for a 3-delegate spot is a bit over the top. Were they really going to let all those people get up and give a 1 minute speech? That would take up at least two hours, plus time to vote, and they'd still only have 3 down and a few hundred left to be selected. Obviously some people were cut because their allegiance was dubious, but others needed to be cut for the sake of practicality, which is no doubt going to leave some Obama supporters disappointed.

If anything, we should see this as a harbinger of good things for the Obama campaign. Hordes of people signing up to be Obama delegates in a state where he lost. This bodes well for November.


Poll
Why is Obama cutting prospective pledged delegates?
They are ensuring that pledged delegates are pledged to Obama
They are rewarding their most active volunteers
They are cutting the lists to a more manageable number
A & B above
B & C above
A combination of all of the above
They thought it was hell week, and they were cutting frat pledges

Votes: 17
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Re: Double-Dealing Delegates? Obama Scrubs Califor (2.00 / 1)

Nice research!


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:32:34 AM EST

Re: Double-Dealing Delegates? (none / 0)

Great topic!

I would love to hear more about her tactics to change the pledged delegate vote.  I read in Texas that the party chair was asking Obama's delegates to  step aside so that he could replace them with Hillary's.

It can also work the other way, her delegates are welcome to switch to Obama.

All's fair in war.  


by Kiku on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:45:21 AM EST

Re: Double-Dealing Delegates? (none / 0)

If it was Texas - that's different.  Caucus delegates can switch; Hillary Clinton lost a delegate to Obama in Iowa.

Primary delegates are a different story.  I've never heard of it happening; they're pledged to represent the voters "in all good conscience".  Which gives them some wiggle room, but not much.


by Mostly on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:43:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

it's Hillary's fault? (2.00 / 1)

she's forced him to cut his grass roots supporters and reward his bundlers and their girlfriends because she mentioned the rules and you guys think she can 'steal' delegates?  In this field, and only this one, they play by the same rules. Sounds to me like Obama is trying to cut his activists, who may want him to be leftier than he is and may figure this out by convention time? But he's being paranoid, his grass roots supporters are loyal and have shown that they can switch their goals and priorities to come into line with his evolving policies.  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:35:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree with Obama here. (none / 0)

There's no sense taking chances when the stakes are this high.  It's unfortunate that some big supporters were cut, but Obama isn't telepathic nor does he have access to a time machine (I don't think... that would be awesome, though).


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:09:22 AM EST

Re: I agree with Obama here. (none / 0)

Unbeliever!


Proudly joining the legions of people and states that don't matter on May 20th.
by Obama Independent on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:59:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Double-Standards... (2.00 / 1)

any reasonable person would have mentioned that both hillary and barack's campaign have done this.


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:40:16 AM EST

Re: Double-Dealing Delegates? Obama Scrubs Califor (none / 0)

Uh. There are only so many slots...


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:41:35 AM EST

Obama Scrubs California Delegate List (1.83 / 6)

this is where the real progressives are being asked to get off the bus.  ideologically motivated people, the progressives who have been in bush's face and raising a stink about the bush administration long before it became fashionable, are being seen as not trustworthy.

what obama's campaign wants is "mules" - people who will just go to the convention and vote for obama, no matter what. if they have strong dedication to particular causes they're persuadable, so none of those types are allowed.

why does this surprise anyone? all along, obama's campaign has been about getting elected - that's it. causes come and go, but the pursuit of political power goes on.  

"thanks for the help, liberal blogosphere, but we'll take it from here".  heh.


by campskunk on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:02:21 AM EST

Re: Obama Scrubs California Delegate List (2.00 / 1)

Sorry boys but CampSkunk's comment was NOT TR-worthy.

Please reconsider.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:36:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is not a strong arguement: (2.00 / 3)

90 people running for a 3-delegate spot is a bit over the top. Were they really going to let all those people get up and give a 1 minute speech? That would take up at least two hours, plus time to vote, and they'd still only have 3 down and a few hundred left to be selected. Obviously some people were cut because their allegiance was dubious, but others needed to be cut for the sake of practicality, which is no doubt going to leave some Obama supporters disappointed.

I've been to a CA delegate selection caucus, and they're easy. Casual candidates drop out, and well known candidates quickly rise to the top. During Clinton-Gore everyone wanted to be a delegate to go to the party in Chicago. Dozens of candidates were common.

AND, I just got done with Texas. Each senate district caucus, with thousands of delegates each, lasted over 12 hours. The earlier precinct caucuses at every single polling place in the state took three to four hours, and included about 1.2 million people.

Marcy Winograd is very well connected in the party. When she says this was a purge of anti-war progressives to make room for people who are basically lobbiests, I believe her.


by Pacific John on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:29:02 AM EST

BTW, I rec'd this dairy (2.00 / 1)

This is a conversation that needs to happen.

It is obvious to the objective observer that political necessity will trump idealism, and that a coalition that spans from economic neo-liberals to single-payer advocates, from anti-war activists to foreign policy realists, will result in a lot of broken hearts. This is a feature of winning with Chicago style politics.

This is just the first perceived betrayal of many to come. When an entire campaign is based on hope, a lot of dreams get dashed. To borrow from a WWII aphorism, you can hope for the best, but you have to plan for the worst. And that pretty much summarizes the two campaigns.


by Pacific John on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:01:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.