Clinton Going After Pledged Delegates in North Dakota

There have been repeated reports that the Clinton campaign is going after delegates pledged to Obama. While her campaign has previously denied this, ABC News reports that Clinton is going after pledged delegates in North Dakota:

Sen. Hillary Clinton made a blunt appeal to North Dakota delegates to switch their support to her, despite the fact that Sen. Barack Obama handily defeated her in the state’s caucus in February.

In an indication of how tense the battle has become for each Democratic delegate, Obama abandoned the campaign trail in Pennsylvania and scooted to North Dakota for the state party’s annual dinner last night, despite the fact that he’s already won 14 of the state’s 21 delegates as well as six of the state’s seven superdelegates.

The two candidates also will battle for votes tonight in Butte, Mont., when Democrats there hold their annual dinner. The Montana primary, which offers only a handful of delegates, is scheduled for June.

Clinton made it clear to North Dakota Democrats last night that she believes there is no such thing as a pledged delegate and highlighted that stubborn streak in her appeal for delegates to switch from Obama to her when the Democratic national party holds its nominating convention this August.

The strategy appears futile. Pledged delegates are chosen for their loyalty to the candidate. Clinton is unlikely to pick up more delegates by such tactics, but they do reinforce the view that she is willing to do anything to win the nomination, regardless of how dishonest.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. 1
    Leonard says:

    I hate the Clintons!!!!!!

  2. 2
    Wayne says:

    Funny what a change in perspective will do. For 8 years, if anyone pointed out the fact that the Clinton’s were power-hungry, win at all costs types, they were denounces as part of that “vast right wing conspiracy” (you know, the one that, according to HRC invented the Monica Lewinsky affair).

  3. 3
    Ron Chusid says:


    There is a misconception among conservatives that all liberals loved the Clintons and opposition to them is something new. (I can see how this misconception could have developed as there are certainly some who defend anything from them.)

    I was not a big fan of the Clintons when they were in office (and certainly opposed HillaryCare). Many liberals have taken an Anyone But Clinton stance since the start of this nomination battle. (I’ve differed a little from that in being even more opposed to John Edwards than Hillary Clinton.)

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:


    To add to the above, one problem is the limitations of our labels. I’m liberal on social and civil liberties issues, and opposed to populist economic policies. The Clintons are populist on economic issues but not on social civil liberties issues. Our views are also quite different on foreign policy, especially Irag. So even though some might lump us together as liberals, I have little in common with the Clintons in terms of political beliefs.

  5. 5
    Wayne says:

    I agree completely on the label comment. For example, as I have stated before, I am more conservative than many of the readers of this blog, but I do find many areas of agreement.

  6. 6
    tim kelliher says:

    hillary clinton is about power and money not about the struggling middle class white go obama you have my vote hillary get out while you still can you will do anything to kill the real democratic canidate

Leave a comment