TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
25.03.2008
Harold Ickes as Kamikaze Pilot

Chris has an excellent post up about the Clinton campaign's dwelling on how pledged delegates aren't locked into a particular candidate. I'd just add one thing: The person responsible for this procedural quirk is none other than Harold Ickes, the wily Clinton operative currently overseeing her delegate-whipping effort.

Pledged delegates actually were bound to their candidate through the 1980 campaign. That was the year Ickes' boss, Ted Kennedy, entered the Democratic convention needing hundreds of pledged delegates to abandon Jimmy Carter, who'd already clinched the nomination, in order to have a shot at it himself. Ickes' strategy was to first engineer the procedural change that would allow delegates to switch their allegiances, then to pick off said delegates. It was a tall order, and Ickes obviously came up short. But, from what I'm told was a kind of consolation to the Kennedy forces, the rule was changed before the next presidential cycle, which is where we are today.

Why am I recounting this bit of history? Two reasons: 1.) Because I can--it was just lying around in my notes. And 2.) because, while I 90-percent agree with Chris and Josh Marshall that the Clintons' goal here is to create a "fog of nonsense" (terrific term, by the way), I think Ickes himself is just crazy enough to want to target Obama's pledged delegates, the same way he pursued Carter's in 1980, and against much, much longer odds. If nothing else, Ickes probably figures he can extract some concessions the way he did back then.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 12:46 PM with 2 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

blackton said:

but extract concessions to what ends? The guy is in his 70's, statistically speaking is as likely not to be alive for the next Presidential election, and being that Hillary has essentially blown up the road ahead would only be greasing the wheels for a candidate who has no relation to him.

The greatest thing about this election is that the Democrats will no longer be saddled with people who staffed the McGovern, or worse the McCarthy campaigns. This is the last hurrah for the worst generation, and they are going to go out in a way befitting their sobriquet.

March 25, 2008 1:31 PM

jwsevert said:

You know, Harold used to live across the street from me and I ran into him in the grocery store on Saturday evening; and it was all I could do to restrain myself from bopping him on the head with a cantaloupe.

Indeed, he is smart and wily (and sometimes appears arrogant, loud and profane) but my sense is that his political skills are better suited for the take-no-prisoners, ideological bloodbaths one used to see in Upper West Side Manhattan Democratic Clubs than for the romance, care and feeding required to garner Super Delegates or persuade elected delegates to renege on pledges made to the party members who elected them and to Senator Obama.

These elected delegates:

-- had been told they must back Senator Clinton because of her "inevitability" or they would be disciplined by the vaunted and ruthless Clinton machine;

-- nevertheless committed, many quite fervently, to an underdog;

-- witnessed "inevitability" prove less compelling as a campaign theme than "I still believe in a place called Hope" and then saw it replaced with "let's throw the kitchen sink at Obama whatever the consequences for November";

-- witnessed the vaunted Clinton machine prove less than that and, indeed, barely up to the efficiency standards of a high school student government campaign ("Mark, you shut up."  "No, Mandy, you shut up".  "Oops, there goes Patti and $100 milliion and we didn't quite file a full slate of delegate in Pennsylvania");

-- witnessed former President Clinton's political and strategic brilliance prove to be more fallible than previously thought (setting aside the damage to his somewhat repaired reputation that some of his more outlandish statements may have caused).

And, now Harold Ickes is going to swoop in with threats, rules changes and a "fog of nonsense" and somehow pick them off.  Well, the arrogance inherent in that idea is mystifying.  It does, however, speak volumes about Senator Clinton’s presidential campaign to date.

March 25, 2008 8:11 PM