This is just bizarre. I don't believe for a second that Roger Simon made that conversation up.

Come on, Chris, this is a naked manipulation of the press by the Clintonites. They're floating a phony story--that HRC is trying to flip Obama's superdelegates--just so that they can then deny it, and, more importantly--and this is the point of the entire exercise--just so that they can box Obama into a corner, and demand that he not flip any of Hillary's superdelegates (ie, "It's now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions.").

But HRC's superdelegates are already flipping, even without any apparent inducement from BHO, and why? Because, in the case of congressmen and other elected officials, they see a discrepancy between their pledge to vote for Hillary, and their constituents' vote for Obama.

The Clintonites are now trying to stop the bleeding: by making it appear unseemly that a superdelegate would flip, or, more specifically: by implying that Obama is doing something underhanded--employing "these sorts of tactics"--to make them flip.

I'm sorry , Chris, but this is a fairly transparent political manuever.

Don't you guys at TNR ever play poker?

So I guess this story is downgraded from:

"Clintons criminally powerhungry!"

to

"Clinton surrogates criminally clumsy with non-attributable statements!"

Two things that just went through the head of Hillary supporters:

8:00 am: Well, delegates are delegates. All is fair in love and war. If Obama can't keep 'em, they can join whomever they like.

Second: Of course Hillary would never do such a thing! Obama, on the other hand -- well, this is right down his alley. This outrageous smear is just another example of the media's campaign against Hillary.

...to be continued...

If you look at the Politico story, the talk of a "strategy" of "targeting" delegates is all Roger Simon's or his editors'. The Clinton operative quoted could have been just shooting the breeze, speculating idly (albeit cynically) about what a deadlocked primary season could lead to -- a free-for-all scramble for delegates. Simon then confused this prediction with an intention, as in a game of Telephone.

Or, if there's more method to it than that, it could be a warning shot aimed at Obama's camp not to try going after pledged delegates because then Clinton will too. Possibly the Clinton campaign has picked up signs of their own pledged delegates wavering in the face of Obamamentum, and they're worried that the Obama people will move in and try to take advantage of this.

Did Phil Singer deny that anyone said that to Roger Simon? This seems like a nondenial denial. I won't be satisfied until Singer says that Roger Simon is lying.

Joseph Cuomo,  The article was about flipping pledged delegates - those won in the primaries and caucuses - not superdelegates.

Sorry, Chris, woke up late and groggy this morning/afternoon, and apparently misread the posts associated with this story. I had thought the story was that the Clintonites were trying to flip Obama's super (as opposed to pledged) delegates. Now that I've had my breakfast, I see that the story is much more loony that I had thought. . .

JoCuo -- This is poker? Lying to, and therefore burning, a reporter for a significant D.C. media outlet?

Superdelegates are free to flip - the Simon story was about regular delegates, "pledged" because they are supposed to be elected in proportion to the votes in the state - or the precinct or whatever. I am one of these, as of my state's caucus. If anyone tries to flip me, I'll play along for long enough to nail it, then I'll sing like a canary. I'll also probably get voted off the island at the next meeting, but still. I'll keep my eyes and ears open.

hey JSmith, then let Singer deny that anyone on the campaign said it. read the article, this is not shooting the breeze, shooting the breeze is talking about how much the knicks suck, this is campaign strategy, you know, their job. Deny it Clinton, or own up to it and apologize. NOTHING LESS WILL DO!

But upon further reflection, Chris, it seems that maybe my original point stands, with only a slight modification.

Perhaps the Clintonites are indeed floating a phony story--that HRC is trying to flip BHO's pledged delegates--just so that they can deny it, and, more importantly, just so that they can box Obama into a corner.

Perhaps the Clintonites fear that Obama's momentum is swelling into a tsunami, so that even if he doesn't have enough delegates to win the nomination, he will soon be perceived (if he isn't already perceived) as the presumptive nominee.

The Clintonites fear (and it may be a desperate fear): that some of Hillary's pledged delegates (especially those whose districts went narrowly for HRC) may soon see the handwriting on the wall, and, in the interest of party unity, flip, all on their own.

So the maneuver here would be for the Clintonites to makes such a flip (even if it were not induced by Obama) seem unseemly, even underhanded, in order for HRC to hold on to whatever shot she has at the nomination, however long that shot may be. . .

Joseph -- My rhetorical question was posed before TNR's spaceage server updated. Please ignore.

J.J. Gould-

I would suggest to you that if a Clintonite (or, for that matter, a political hack of any stripe) had lied, and therefore burned, "a reporter for a significant D.C. media outlet," it wouldn't be the first time in history that such a thing has happened.

J.J. Gould-

My answer to your rhetorical question was posted before TNR's bargain-basement server updated, and allowed me to read your retraction of your question. So please ignore my response as well.

Christ, I hate this new format. . .

Joseph -- It would not be the first time, very true. But it would hardly be "poker."

actually, the more that I think about it the more of an evil genius I think Singer is, his statement is both a nondenial denial and a misdirection practically accusing Obama of contemplating it since he did not deny  it first. Did Hillary hire Nixon's CREEP staff from 1972. Or does Hillary have Nixon on automatic dial on her ouiji board?

Sometimes I write comments and then a few mintues later, before my comments actually show up, I respond to what people might be saying about my last comment. Then a few minutes later I offer counterarguments to their counterarguments, all while everything is stuck in the hopper.

There's an art to it.

Blackton, why would the campaign deny anyone said it when someone clearly did? My point was that the framing of the quote in terms of "strategy" and "targeting" was the news organization's, not the source's. Campaign operative jabber all the time to reporters, often over drinks, and this guy could have thought he was just stating the (to him) obvious  -- that both campaigns would go after any available delegate. Of course, it was stupid of him not to anticipate how it would be played in the reporter's story, that it would come out looking like a statement of intention unique to the Clinton campaign. If he's really a senior operative he should have known better, but these people screw up like this all the time.

I think that's the most likely explanation, although as I also said, it could have been some kind of warning shot. Either way, I'll bet they didn't intend a story appearing this morning that would make Clinton look even more cynical and desperate than she already is.

Joseph -- It's like talking to you on the phone with a half-hour echo delay.

What?

Wha...?

Did you...?

Sorry, go ahead ...

J.J. Gould-

Now I see (after several server lapses) where you're going with this.

The reason I compare political maneuvering to poker is that both are largely to do with reading your opponent, concealing the strength of your position, sending out false signals, creating misleading expectations, and provoking your opponent (either by miisdirection or accusation or bravura or just plain nastiness) into anger, into acting without thinking, into making a bad play.

And if there is anyone in our time who typifies the poker mentality in politics--anyone who places personal gain over the common good--it would have to be Karl Rove.

And Bill and Hillary (even though I vastly prefer them both to Bush) play the same game.

virginiacentrist -- And here I thought you actually lived inside the TNR server ...

J.J. Gould-

Yes, this new format reminds me of phone converations I used to have (in the mid-1980s) with friends in China, each of us responding to an echo of a response, even as our own respective responses echoed back to us.

J.J. Gould-

I'm afraid it's time for me to stop playing echo tag with you, my friend (at least for the few remaining hours of daylight), and go to work (where, luckily, I have no tempting, or aggravating, connection to the internet or TNR's new format. . .).

Joseph -- I guess I'd just say this seems like bad poker, if it's poker at all. What's Roger Simon going to do, come out and say, "Well, I was sure I heard this person say it to me exactly as I reported it, but I guess I was wrong and must be a sh*t reporter"?

Hello?

Hello ... ?

I would really love a sarcastic, out-Clintoning-the-Clintons response from the Obama camp:

"Senator Obama would never, ever even consider painting the White House pink and sacrificing a live chicken on the floor of the Senate. It's now time for Senator Clinton to be clear about her intentions."

JSmith, gotcha. although for a warning shot, it is a bad time.

J.J. Gould-

Yes, I agree: No question that (especially after the loss in Wisconsin, making it nine in a row now for HRC) this is bad (or ineffective) poker, being played by the Clinton campaign.

Indeed, contrary to one's expectations, the Clintonites appear to be the kind of poker players one dreams of running into at the same table in AC, desperate players, down on their luck, who don't know how to read an opponent, don't know how to conceal their weakness, don't know when to bluff or raise or check, and don't know enough to keep their chips out of the pot when they have, at best, a marginal hand. . .