What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander

Update: Ambinder now writes, "Update: Turns out that the culprit is the Texas Democratic Party. The delegate lists they forwarded to the campaigns contain many errors on them, so Clinton delegates are receiving Obama mail and Obama delegates are recieving (sic) Clinton mail. Indeed, it wouldn't make much sense for Obama to remind Clinton delegates when the conventions are." I communicated with a contact of mine who is very familiar with the shenanigans in the process in Texas, and he's not convinced that Ambinder's read is entirely correct. You will recall the things that came out at the time of the primary and caucus in Texas, like how Senator Obama's people were grabbing sign in sheets early. My original diary commences here:

I have read a lot of complaints about Hillary's observation the other day in Philadelphia, "Pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody."  A lot of people who support Mr. Obama took exception to a frankly true observation.

Just so that everyone can recognize that the Change You Can Believe In looks a lot like the Old Kind of Politics of Division, Marc Ambinder observes that, "In Texas, Barack Obama's campaign is targeting delegates Hillary Clinton won from the state's precinct caucuses."

Just for the context of the story, according to Ambinder:

Nearly 90,000 delegates plan to attend the senatorial and county conventions this week; just 10 percent will move on to the state convention, which formally selects the pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

I think this phenomenon of Obama targeting Clinton delegates to the Texas state convention reflects the larger issue of Obama's argument that delegates need to express the will of the people.  How is it that Obama can poach delegates on the local level and ask them at the local level to defy the "will of the people" and complain that such tactics on the national level are undemocratic.  Indeed, Ambinder sees precisely the same conundrum for the Prophet of Change:

Here's an imponderable: since the caucus delegates represent the will of the voters in those precincts, doesn't any effort to get them to change their minds after the fact amount to .... well, actually, what's the difference between working the county delegates and then working the pledged delegates?

Reminds me of that great lyric from The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again":

Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.



Display:


What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander (2.00 / 4)

the longer this race goes on, the more obama looks like just another Chicago politician. so much for the moral high ground.


by campskunk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:09:39 AM EST

Change that isn't change at all (2.00 / 4)

I think it's amusing that the public perception is that Hillary plays hardball and Obama is an innocent lamb lying among the lions.  It's not the case.


Another Hillary Supporter for Obama!
by Beltway Dem on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:11:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

UPDATE: Obama is not the culprit (2.00 / 0)

Read the update to the Marc Ambinder story that you posted:

Update: Turns out that the culprit is the Texas Democratic Party. The delegate lists they forwarded to the campaigns contain many errors on them, so Clinton delegates are receiving Obama mail and Obama delegates are recieving Clinton mail. Indeed, it wouldn't make much sense for Obama to remind Clinton delegates when the conventions are.

As a result, Obama is "targeting" Clinton's delegates and vice versa.

Will you please update your diary to reflect this information?


by jdusek on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:21:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: UPDATE: Obama is not the culprit (none / 0)

You have made the appropriate notes.  Thanks for your input.


Another Hillary Supporter for Obama!
by Beltway Dem on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:28:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: UPDATE: Obama is not the culprit (none / 0)

Thanks. Would you be be willing to include the update in your diary so that people who don't read the comments understand that the issue is not one-sided? I would appreciate it.


by jdusek on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:34:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama defies the will of the Texas Dittoheads (1.00 / 2)

100,000 of HeadRush's Dittoheads threw Texas into Hillary's lap.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/25/2255 26/647

Why should Obama go along with the Dittoheads?


McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.
by Lefty Coaster on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:13:02 AM EST

Re: Obama defies the will of the Texas Dittoheads (2.00 / 2)

that doesn't make any sense


When I speak I have a southern drawl.. When you come down here Stop and say hello I'm an American from south of the Mason Dixon line
by lori on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:14:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sure it does. (2.00 / 3)

The rule is that anything that benefits Senator Obama is fair game, and anything that benefits Senator Clinton is the work of the demons.  Once you understand this rule, the political world becomes a simple place free of any nuance or complexities.


Another Hillary Supporter for Obama!
by Beltway Dem on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:16:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sure it does. (none / 0)

It's only Mark halperine that is trying to be fair among the arm chair pundits these days.

He called Obama's campaign

http://thepage.time.com/


When I speak I have a southern drawl.. When you come down here Stop and say hello I'm an American from south of the Mason Dixon line
by lori on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:22:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sure it does. (none / 0)

It turns out the Texas Democratic Party is to blame in this case. Check out the update to your story. (I posted it above.)


by jdusek on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:23:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sure it does. (2.00 / 2)

yep,  Republican crossovers for Obama=good

Republican crossovers for Hillary= bad

9/10 of those Obama caucus states will be bright red as ever in November.


by WolfmanJack on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:52:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sure it does. (none / 0)

How do you figure 9/10?

Obama will win IA and MN easily, may win CO and may be competitive in NE and ND.


by bawbie on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:56:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sure it does. (none / 0)

well, from www.electoral-vote.com

Obama primary states mostly caucuses: ID, WY, UT, NE, KS, ND, MS, AL, GA, SC

Those are what I would call "red states".  maybe he wins one, maybe in the South, maybe ND, that is 9/10 of the "red states" that gave him his delegate lead.

OK. make it 8/10.  While losing large swing states. www.electoral-vote.com has the electoral vote matchups based on polling data.  Yes, polls can change.  Yes, it is early.  But it is all the data we have.  The Electoral College map favors either McCain or Hillary, not Obama, at least as of now.  But what a way to go into the Democratic convention.  .


by WolfmanJack on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:56:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama defies the will of the Texas Dittoheads (2.00 / 1)

For the same reason you would argue that the dittoheads in the caucus states that voted for Obama should be paid mind.  What's good for the goose is good the gander?


Another Hillary Supporter for Obama!
by Beltway Dem on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:15:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama defies the will of the Texas Dittoheads (2.00 / 1)

This was a non-issue. The dittoheads were hoping to throw the vote for whoever was behind. I got a call in El Paso from an idiot Limbaugh listener Thursday-ish fishing for information on us losing. He was disappointed to hear that we thought we had it locked up, and I dismissed the call. By the time the final early voting numbers were in, it was obvious we had won - we had three of the top four over-performing counties, including mine.

We had the late mo, and muddled the Limbaugh effect. But if there was an effect at all, it favored Obama, who was behind going into Tuesday, and who finished three or four points back. I've reviewed literally thousands names on precinct lists, and saw very few cross-over votes. In fact, I have not seen one caucus-goer who was not on our earlier database of registered Dems.

So much for that theory.
by Pacific John on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:47:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

better check out your source.. (none / 0)

...he seems to be getting his "report" from a Blogspot site, not really considered to be very reliable.

This guys son got a flier in the mail?

Give me a break!


by Silence Do Good on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:16:41 AM EST

Re: What's Good (none / 0)

You should really update this diary to show the updated information relayed in your link.


by shalca on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:34:12 AM EST

Re: What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gand (2.00 / 2)

One key point: Delegates are not bound at the county conventions Saturday. It IS highly unlikely that a real Hillary delegate would switch, but the Obama people are masters of manipulating caucuses. In one example I'm aware of, a stealth Obama supporter got himself elected a Hillary delegate, and will switch to Obama at the convention. Score one for Obama. BTW, this mf'er lied to us for two straight weeks, and wasn't exposed until after the election. Why doesn't the Obama campaign act like it can win a fair election? (read: gather some convictions and let FL and MI voters count. Don't be worse than George Bush, huh? Your choice.)

But this is a game played at the margins. If you can sway one vote here or there, you can change the round-off calculation, and take a delegate.
by Pacific John on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:00:48 PM EST

Re: What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gand (none / 0)

I love the strategy of HRC supporters to leave out major parts of an article. Cherry picking information from a single article is really just insulting to everyone's intelligence, as if we won't read the link (though sometimes you're inclined to not even provide them). If you go to the bottom of Marc's article, you'll notice it says that the DNC mixed up information on the delegate lists they gave to the candidate's campaigns, and that it makes no sense that Obama would have sent out a mailer to the Clinton campaigners reminding them of when and where to caucus.


by TheSilverMonkey on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:05:19 PM EST

Re: What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gand (none / 0)

Well, I notice you've updated the diary, and then went ahead and cited an anonymous and unverifiable source. Nice.


by TheSilverMonkey on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:06:36 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.