Once it's clear that someone will be the nominee, I'm all for pledged delegates switching to make the ballot unanimous if that's what they want to do. But now is too early for a delegate to make any such intentions public. Once Hillary "suspends" her campaign, or drops out, or whatever, then it would be fine. But not yet.

You're right, he shouldn't.  And of course Obama should not go down that road, and he hasn't.  But then, you know, Mrs. Clinton started it.  She invaded Poland (or at least, hinted she might).

Goose. Gander.  Them's the break.

Hello John Lewis?  It's the 60's calling, we have your spine.

I appreciate the intellectual consistency you're demonstrating, Chris.  I was troubled when I read this, too.  I'm all for supporting Obama on a second ballot if it comes to that, but Johnson was elected to fulfill a certain duty, and he clearly intends to shirk that duty.  

In general, I'd hesitate to allow Jack Johnson to walk my dog, much less choose the Democratic nominee.  

Obama needs to tell this guy--right now--to vote for Clinton. Otherwise all hell could break lose.

I laud you for your fairness, Mr. Orr. That is more than quite a few can manage out here. For them , it is more like lex talionis.

You're absolutely right, adam.  Obama needs to take the high road on this, publicly and promptly.

Mr. Johnson has just ensured that his political career is over.  There is no way anyone is going to select him to represent them in anything ever again.  

Is it rare that elected officials are pledged convention delegates?  It's an honest question.  (I mean  elected to office, not just as delegates).  

County executives are pretty powerful in Maryland, like big city mayors.  I guess Johnson wanted or imagined himself to be a PLEO (pary leaders and elected officials) and act like a superdelegate, who does have the right to switch at will.  These high-ranking but not high enough to be a PLEOs are the pledged delegates that I would think most likely to switch for precisely this reason.  

I think the party and the candidates have to be clear -- if it wasn't clear already -- that the only legitimate reason for going against the voters as a pledged delegate is if the nomination is sealed and you're trying to achieve unity, if not unanimity.  In that case, I think you need at least the implicit blessing of the candidate you are switching from.  Johnson jumped the gun and should get some kind of slap on the wrist.

I dislike it too, but the ironic entertainment value is almost too good not to enjoy. Hillary suggests that pledged delegates are up for grabs and so one of HERS takes her up on the bargain. And, of course, he does it for personal recognition and 15 minutes of fame (ok, maybe five minutes), but it backfires and pretty much ends any political ambitions he ever had. Sort of like Clinton herself. Gotta love it on one level. But, no, it's a bad idea and no other pledged delegates should follow this lead.

After reading the posts on TPM in response to the article, it's kind of interesting how, while noting the irony, that the Obama supporters think this guy is wrong for switching like that.

anonevent: Yeah, really disappointing that yet again, the Obamabots, these misled Messiah-following partisan cult members, fail to rise to the occasion and show their true, Clinton-hating colours.  Where's the outrage, I ask you, about this namby-pamby liberal tolerant educated spineless Bambi-like roll-over and die attitude?

I mean, if you go on like this, how are PCC and Sleepy and the gang going to accuse all Obama followers of being just like, you know, Clinton followers?  If you behave in this unseemly civilised fashion, how could Peter1943 get on his high horse and denounce you all for your moral decrepitude/turpitude?  

Disappointing ...

icarusr: Indeed.

Obama should make some kind of comment about this; but, he shouldn't make too big a deal out of it, or rap Johnson's knuckles too hard, since Clinton did "authorize" pledged delegate defection and since he doesn't want to turn the defection into a media circus. He should just say he disagrees with Clinton -- that he thinks pledged delegates should stick with their mandate -- and say that he doesn't encourage defections in either direction. He looks forward to winning the nomination on the basis of the voters' will and the superdelegates' judgment.

I don't understand this whole process.  Why was he pledged for Hillary if his county was overwhelmingly pro-Obama?  This makes little sense to me.  Is there some type of convention that selects people to represent the delegate allocation at the state level rather than the county level following a primary?  Who elects these people anyway?  I don't recall voting for delegates to represent people at the convention, I recall voting for Barack and that was it.  Could someone explicate the process?

CNN reported on January 3, 2008:

-- Clinton of New York leads the delegate race as of Thursday, with support from 154 superdelegates, more than three times the number supporting her nearest rival, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

154 superdelegates pledged their vote to Senator Clinton before a single vote had been counted. I have no problem with any super-delegate breaking their pledge when so many of them made such an ill-informed choice in the first place.

edition.cnn.com/.../index.html

ndmackenzie. This is NOT a superdelegate. It's a PLEDGED delegate. Big difference.

Max, if I understand the process correctly, the results of the state's primary or caucus dictate the number of delegates each candidate will send to the national convention from that state.  However, the delegates themselves are chosen at the state's convention, and there need not be any relationship between where the delegate comes from, the results in his or her district, and the candidate he or she is pledged to support at the national convention.

There is probably some variation in how it's done from state to state, but that's my understanding of the general process.

No doubt the Clinton machine is working overtime now to demonstrate that because of this one unauthorised, unsolicited defection, Superdelegates should simply ignore all delegate count as basically and inherently illegitimate.

Huh.  Life imitates a Boston Legal episode from a couple weeks ago.

(Anybody besides me watch that show?  Candor forces me to admit that the main reason I watch is to see how many "Star Trek" alumni they can cram into each episode.  One episode from a couple seasons ago managed five: William Shatner, Rene Auberjonois, Armin Shimerman, Ethan Phillips, and some other guy who'd played a couple of bit parts.)

thanks drdanyu