I should start off by admitting that I am a volunteer for the Obama Campaign. And I really didn't want my very first diary here at Kos to be one that risks me being flamed, but I guess I can take it.
As recently as two hours ago, I told a friend that if Senator Clinton were the nominee, I not only would vote for her but I'd work for her. However, I'm almost re-thinking my position on that one after reading the Politico piece that has already been diaried here. I know and respect a lot of people who are Clinton supporters. They support her for good, thoughtful reasons, and these are intelligent people who are not "off their meds" or suffering from any other ailment that sometimes gets hurled around here in the comments. But I have to say, this story has disturbed me for several reasons.
First is the obvious. Attempting to win the nomination over the will of the party voters is, to put it mildly, divisive to the Democratic electorate. Going after someone else's pledged delegates, even more than trying to land the so-called superdelegates, is so anti-democratic (small and large "D") that much of the electorate would be demoralized, angry, and unmotivated to vote. The thought that a candidate for her party's highest office would consider this is disturbing and depressing, particularly with the 2000 vote still a very fresh wound to many people.
However, as I was thinking about this, I thought, "Why would their campaign float this out there? Is this just another example of Mark Penn's utter political tone-deafness? From the same school of thought as significant vs. insignificant states? I just don't get it. Particularly when you consider the fact that pledged delegates, as I understand it, are generally people who are pretty committed to the candidate to whom they are pledged. That would be a very, VERY tough audience to get. Why in the name of all that is holy would you leak a long-shot gambit that, even if it isn't technically cheating under party rules, sure SOUNDS like it's cheating?"
And then it hit me. If this news is really coming out of the Clinton camp, it was done specifically to depress turnout. Period. If you hint that there's no point in them voting, then they stay home and don't vote. You increase your chances then of winning your primaries, and then the superdelegates don't become as controversial an issue. My own husband, when he first started reading about the superdelegate flap, indicated that he might not vote in the primary (and I don't know what his preference is, by the way) since "it's all rigged and my vote doesn't matter." That must be exactly what at least some strategists in the Clinton camp want people to think.
What's really bothersome about this is that that is Rovian Republican strategy 101. Republicans have always, ALWAYS benefitted from lower voter turnout. That's why they've engaged in some creepy voter depression schemes over the years. It's been damaging to the electorate, and it's extraordinarily disheartening to see it happening in one of our candidates.