Maryland Delegate Will Not Lose Seat (Updated)

UPDATE: Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson, who was initially a pledged Clinton at-large delegate from Maryland, is the first pledged delegate to announce that he will switch his support to Senator Obama.  He is not a Superdelegate, he was not elected at the district level.

The At-Large application form for the Maryland Democratic Party states a filing window between April 1 and April 18, 2008.  Sometime during this period, Mr. Johnson pledged his support for Senator Clinton and filed the form.  The signed pledge states "I hereby file as a male delegate pledged to support the Presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton."

The Maryland State Central Committee voted to choose Mr. Johnson and the other at-large delegates on May 3, 2008.  Sometime in the 10 days following his selection, Mr. Johnson had a change of heart.  Or he filed for a Clinton delegate slot knowing he had Obama leanings prior to making his intentions public on May 13th.  But because a pledge is not a legal contract, there is no consequence for switching.  And while he might be the first to publicly switch, he's not the first to consider doing so.

Today's Washington Post details Mr. Johnson's endorsement, which constitutes his second change of heart in the past four months (he was originally with Obama, then switched to Clinton in February, before switching back to Obama this week).

Comments

[Joe]

No matter how you look at it, it's a bad move on his part, and I say that as an Obama supporter.

If he made the pledge, he should keep it, legally binding or not. I don't think that's how anyone wants Obama to win.

And no, it doesn't matter to me that Hillary talked about flipping pledged delegates.

Honestly, if I were Obama, I would ask him to keep his pledge.

[greg]

Fascinating. Between you, DCW, and Politico, I've learned more about Civics in 2 months than I ever would have in school.

Even as an Obama supporter, I think that it sets a bad precedent for him to switch. While the delegate process is a great way to reward party loyalists, I think it might be fair to just mathematically assign hypothetical delegates as opposed to real live people with "independent judgment."

[Kasturba]

I agree. I am an Obama supporter, and I think he should just stay put. If by the time the convention rolls around he is released from his pledge by Hillary Clinton, then he can switch. But until then he should stay put. If he is not happy about it, maybe he should resign his position, and let a more dedicated Clinton supporter take his spot.

[Joe]

Any comment on McCain's new story about getting out in 2013? I love how he made sure that's AFTER the 2012 election, so that he can never be held accountable for failure (it'll happen next year! really!) ...

But he'd have to. If, somehow, he wins this election, it'd be like "read my lips, no new taxes!" was to Bush Sr.

[eagleye]

He's a flip-flopper !

[Truth]

I don't know what more can happen with the DNC to highlight its weaknesses with the Primary process. Complain all you want, but the DNC has made it impossible for a declared GE candidate until the convention.

And are the Democrats trying to help McCain? They took Bush's bait in Israel this morning. They are saying Bush is contradicting himself in Libya, North Korea and Iran on diplomacy. Biden even called Bush's positions on these "good policy".

[The Grand Panjandrum]

Johnson should do the honorable thing and vote as he originally pledged unless he is released by Senator Clinton. This really does reflect poorly upon Mr Johnson's integrity.

[Blame]

I was under the impression that Hillary gave Johnson permission to flip. Permission was implicit in her “There is no such thing as a pledged delegate” statement.

Of course I could be wrong. Maybe Obama should publicly ask Hillary for clarification. I would love to hear her answer.

[Truth]

Can somebody please stop the Democrats from making all these mistakes? Do they not see the dynamic happening right now?

1. They’ve been able to get leaders of the Democrat Party to give Bush some backhanded credit on Libya, North Korea & Iran.
2. They’ve been able to get The O-Face Team to weaken Obama’s “new diplomacy”. I just watched Richardson say you talk to Hams via Egypt. That is EXACTLY the diplomacy we are supposed to be changing – “Ted (Egypt), tell Suzie (Hamas) I didn’t like what she said.”
3. They’ve been able to get the Democrats to say you don’t attack the heir apparent as it may damage his diplomatic dealings (see the irony there?)
4. Helped move discussion from economy to foreign policy (believe it or not, Republicans are still viewed as the strongest here)

This is all planned. They’ve moved Obama’s positions and Bush’s positions closer together, except on Iraq. But here is the thing, McCain has already said he is not Bush. He will just say “While others were just screaming foul, I came to the correct conclusion that Rumsfeld was the problem. I actually had a plan. Had I been in charge, Iraq would be better off today and I will prove that to you with my administration.”

I just scratch my head that somehow we’ve come to think you agree first, then discuss. Obama has been pushed closer to that position every time foreign policy comes up and it shows a real weakness on his part.

"I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did." Obama 5/6/2008

What is he smoking? Roosevelt and Truman were all about unconditional surrender for WWII, Cold War and Korea (still no treaty there). Kennedy didn’t negotiate with the Soviet Union. They played chicken (saber rattling). Why didn’t he mention Carter (Egypt-Israel), Nixon (China), Reagan (Gorbachev) & Clinton (Oslo Accords, North Korea & Iraq (real WMD removal))? I can tell you why, but you wouldn’t like it. Has something to do with politics … old politics.

Clinton’s position on Iraq is so much stronger because she can say Bill Clinton’s administration was the one that actually disarmed Iraq. That is just a proven fact now.

[Truth]

“There is no such thing as a pledged delegate”

Once again, Hillary knows the reality on issues better than anyone else well before it happens. I say let Mr. Johnson go to Obama and set the precedent to highlight the DNC's lack of handling a successful campaign. We can then have defections left and right not just with superdelegates, but delegates. The destruction to the Democrat Party is coming from the DNC, not Hillary.

Just remember a defection in the General Election from Obama to McCain is the equivalent of a 2 vote swing for every one vote cast.

Finally, if you are voting for Obama because you are actually voting against same old DC and voting for a candidate that tells it like it is - take a look at Ron Paul. Instead of a $500 hard to claim if you make over $19,000 EIC, Paul will do it the right way with actual tax cuts on the brackets themselves.

Go here for just how honest he is:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/ron-paul/

Check out the single false. You will like him even more reading the single false on a technicality.

[Mr Super]

Truth - the DNC doesn't run the campaigns, the campaigns run the campaigns.

[LindaS]

So, Truth, why don't you just vote Ron Paul as a Write-in in November and end your confusion over who to support?

[Eddie in ME]

Truth, anyone who refers to the Democrat (sic) Party is obviously not a Democrat.

[suekzoo]

Truth said: "Clinton’s position on Iraq is so much stronger because she can say Bill Clinton’s administration was the one that actually disarmed Iraq. That is just a proven fact now."

What exactly does this have to do with Hillary? She was the First Lady, period. She had no role in disarming Iraq, and frankly, Bill is not the candidate. We are vote for one President, not a package deal. (Not then, either, by the way.)

I know you believe Hillary is the best candidate and has the best and most detailed policy. Maybe so. But, she is a poor executive, as clearly demonstrated by how she has run her campaign. Her campaign is the biggest enterprise she has ever run, and as I see it, it's been chaos and fraught with problems. Ideas are great, but if you don't have the executive ability to assemble a plan and a team to carry it out, you're nowhere.

[Truth]

“Truth - the DNC doesn't run the campaigns, the campaigns run the campaigns.” - Mr. Super

Ed, if you want to argue semantics (distractions) instead of the more than valid points made, Obama and Axelrod have said had the Primary rules been different, they would have run a different campaign. I don’t attack people for stating “Iraq War” instead of Iraqi War”. I felt no reason to jump all over Joe for a temporary lapse on John Edwards’ state. I called somebody on saying “people like you (Mr. Super)” because it was a personal attack. I dismissed the “sweetie” thing as petty because I only discuss real issues. But to further the discussion, change campaign with primary if that makes you happy.

The Republicans could have said “you are misrepresenting our policy. We have used diplomacy.” But what better to way to do that than to get your adversary (Democrats) to say it for you?

“Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without
preconditions.” What happened to that Obama? The Republicans have been able to turn his biggest strength into a glaring weakness.

“He’s still the president of the United States. What does it do to our standing around the world when the leader of our country is saying the kinds of things he’s been saying lately about Democrats? When he goes to the length he has gone to damage the Democratic candidates I don’t think that helps us in the world” - Bob Casey. Does that make Bush unpatriotic?

We are now talking about foreign policy. The Democrats might be scoring sighted wins, but the Republicans are systematically tearing apart Obama’s strengths. Obama needs to embrace them, not defend and diminish them.

Obama has been off message ever since he’s been asked to defend his positions. You must realize the audience he needs to attract now are the people not already declaring their vote for him. The Obama-heavy media need to realize they are doing him a disservice, just as they did during the opening salvos of the Iraq(i) War.

You may not like the Republicans' current incarnation, but to underestimate them is to help them.

[Mr Super]

Honestly it wasn't about semantics, I was specifically referring to this comment:

"I say let Mr. Johnson go to Obama and set the precedent to highlight the DNC's lack of handling a successful campaign."

When you say "handling a successful campaign" it indicates the the DNC coordinated the races. The DNC has nothing to do with the races or keeping delegates from switching or not switching.

The DNC was hands-off as it should have been. The rules were set, and most of the campaigns built efforts aimed at winning the contests based on those rules.

[J S]

As a fan of SNL from way back, I have to ask - is "Truth" the subliminal message guy, or the pathological liar?

I only ask because he makes me laugh so ;)

[Truth]

"As a fan of SNL from way back, I have to ask - is "Truth" the subliminal message guy, or the pathological liar?" J S

Sure thing, Canteen Boy.

[Joe]

Truth: I guess the difference, then, is that you think the DNC should be a little more "hands on" than it is?

And, BTW, I do appreciate your consideration in keeping things civil around here :) I spent a little time with a map of Appalachia after someone pointed out how confused I was.

[Truth]

"I guess the difference, then, is that you think the DNC should be a little more "hands on" than it is?" Joe

Not so much intervening as getting the rules right to begin with. If they want a more democratic vote, then fine. But don't have a caucus, delegate division not matching actual vote division, allowing pledges to switch, superdelegates declaring before the primary is over (or worse, begins), taking away all the delegates instead of half of FL, MI. I don’t even understand the divinity of IA-NH in the primaries. I had a NH roommate during some of my college years, and he was very smug about that fact. What is wrong with a simple lottery each year for date placement? Why give any state an advantage? If you want to go by popular vote then delegate division should be based strictly off the % split of the state vote. As long as we have the Electoral College, I think mimicking its winner take all method will produce the strongest Democratic candidate.

We can all say, “we know now”, but these problems were always there. A tight race just brings it to the forefront.

I don’t understand why there isn’t more control over debates either. I could never figure out why with 20+ debates, you could not have strictly themed debates. This debate is all about health care, this one about energy, that one about the Middle East, this about infrastructure (looking Will’s way), etc. Allow each candidate to start with a 10 minute presentation (visual aids allowed). Sure private organizations (MSM for all you tin foil hat basement dwellers) run the debates, but they will follow rules set out by the DNC if it means they cannot host if they don’t. “MSM” isn’t allowed to force the NFL to have 3 downs instead of 4.

BTW, start here for what is hopefully the most fertile ground for a VP slot:
http://democraticgovernors.org/governors

[Mr Super]

We had several debates which were focused on a theme. While the conversation delved into other topics, as any conversation on politics will do, we had debates focused on labor, gay issues, healthcare and education. We also had debates called the "Black/Brown Debates" which focused on minority issues and ones hosted by Spanish language media aimed at bringing awareness to Hispanic and immigration issues.

http://www.youdecide2008.com/2007/06/13/full-2008-debate-schedule-from-dnc-and-gop/

[Truth]

The only debate/forum I saw that tried to stick exclusively to the theme was the faith forum. The "themes" you mentioned were talked about for at most 1/4th of the entire debate. With multiple participants, that means every time they had just enough time to give the "opening paragraph" to their plan. I remember Hillary having to fight one time to get more detailed discussion on health care.

The effect is obvious. Most voters really don't know the differences between the candidates. As long as we don't make the candidates defend their plan in detail without a teleprompter, we will continue to not get the best canddiate.

[Mr Super]

That's the nature of political debate, the conversation twists and turns as people delve into different subjects. What percentages of each thread in this blog stays on topic with each subject posted? Maybe 1/4? ;)

[suekzoo]

Truth,

I agree with you about themed debates. I think they would be useful, not only for the Democrats, but for the Republicans as well. Somehow, though, I think the MSM would resist. I know you said earlier that they don't dictate to the NFL, but political debates aren't nearly the same. Unfortunately, the public has gotten so used to "news" as entertainment and sound bites that I wonder if the broadcast and cable outlets would lose viewership of the debates if they took on a more dry formula of presentations with visual aids, etc. and therefore, resist or refuse to air them. I remember when Gore ran in 1999 that he was criticized for his dry and detailed explanations of policy. Personally, I think those details are important, and the voting public needs that information. But, I don't know that many people who really delve into all that.

[Truth]

It may be the point of modern political debate, which is attention deficit. My point was simply that people running for the most important position of our country aren't allowed to engage in attention deficit. This would be an example of an economic debate going off topic:

"Out military expenditures are hurting our economy. Iraq ... death count ... surge ... Iran ... nuclear ... diplomacy."

And relevant:

"Out military expenditures are hurting our economy. $X annual for Iraq I would use for ... stimulate with middle class tax cut ... small business loans ... gas price affecting consumer goods and service inflation ..."

The debate point (one of many) was an expansion on DNC rules such as pledge jumping. Instead of defending the same old (I thought you were the Obama supporter, not me), we need to change politics. I took it further than a slogan and gave some highlights.

I think we both agree now that debates have too many tangents that get repeated in headline form debate after debate. I refuse to defend that format.