In Which Clinton Reminds Obama's Pledged Delegates That They're Welcome to Switch Sides

When it comes to whether or not she plans to poach Barack Obama's pledged delegates--i.e., the delegates won in primaries or caucuses--Hillary Clinton has been sending some seriously mixed messages.

Here at Stumper headquarters, I've made a habit of tracking statements by the candidate or her campaign on the subject. Let's just say I'm starting to get dizzy. On March 10, I reported thata question from NEWSWEEK's Suzanne Smalley on

But Singer's stance got a little shakier later that week. On March 14, I reported that Iowa county delegates pledged to Obama were receiving robocalls from the Clinton campaign in the run-up to the coming county conventions (when such delegates can switch their allegiances). Claiming that the Iowa Democratic Party had provided the campaign with an incomplete list of delegate affiliations, Singer said

I'm wondering no more. In an interview yesterday with the editorial board of the Philadelphia Daily News, Clinton was again asked how she plans to win the nomination if she trails Obama in the pledged-delegate tally and popular vote at the end of regulation. And again she signaled that her opponent's pledged delegates are up for grabs. "I just don't think this is over yet, and I don't think that it is smart for us to take a position that might disadvantage us in November," she said. "And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates... There are different ways to become a delegate, there are delegates from caucuses, there are delegates from primaries, and there are the appointed delegates, they're all equal, they all have an equal vote--those are the rules of the Democratic Party." You don't say.

At this point, I seriously doubt that Clinton is just, you know, explaining the rules to us rubes. Has she admitted that she will pursue Obama's pledged delegates? No. But as the Daily news concluded, she "sure implied" as much. Who knows how the former First Lady plans to sway her opponent's flock. Perhaps with passive, Iowa-style robocalls. Perhaps, as Kamarck suggested, by launching a "

But whatever tactics Clinton is considering, her identical, repeated responses to the "how do you plan to win?" question leave no doubt in my mind:

To the inhabitants of Hillaryland, pledged delegates are fair game.

UPDATE, 11:30 a.m.: On a conference call this morning with reporters, according to the Politico, Clinton adviser Harold Ickes said “there’s no party rule” binding delegates to their candidate. “Obviously, circumstances can change,” he continued, that can cast doubt on a candidate’s viability. But spokesman Phil Singer quickly jumped in. “We are not seeking or asking pledged delegates for Sen. Obama to flip over," he said, "So please don’t make any mistake about that.”

Note the "seeking or asking." Delightful. As one commenter put it:

Clinton Doublespeak Translation Time: (A) "There are no rules that say we can't steal pledged." (B) "But don't worry we won't steal them." (C) "But we could steal them if we wanted to."

So what's happening here? Chris Orr at the New Republic sums it up nicely:

UPDATE, 12:20 a.m.: Amid all the hubbub about poaching, it bears repeating that (as I wrote on March 10) even in 1992, only one delegate, as I recall, switched away from Bill Clinton amid the series of potentially disastrous controversies he weathered during his march to the nomination." In other words, it's not clear that the potential benefit--minuscule delegate gains--would outweigh the politically disastrous effect that poaching would have on at least half the party. More reason to believe the whole "fog of nonsense" idea...