Methinks maybe--but in the end, it'll probably be a moot point.

The possibility first surfaced in a Feb. 19 report on Politico.com, which cited "high-ranking Clinton official" confirming that the "campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination." (According to the DNC, pledged delegates are not technically bound to either candidate.) "I swear it is not happening now," said the Clintonite. "But as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody’s delegates. All the rules will be going out the window.” And it reappeared today in NEWSWEEK's interview with the candidate herself. Asked by the very smart, very tenacious Suzanne Smalley about how she can win despite the unfavorable delegate math, Clinton responded that "there are elected delegates, caucus delegates and super-delegates, all for different reasons, and they're all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to. This is a very carefully constructed process that goes back years, and we're going to follow the process." (Insert ironic "what about Florida and Michigan?" smirk here.)

Now, Clinton didn't say "we're going after Obama's delegates"; she said "delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to" and, therefore, "we're going to follow the process."  But the implication is clear. And while Clinton spokesman Phil Singer has said "we have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama" (the Obama camp offered a similar pledge), that's just good politics. Such backroom dealing would, of course, offend tons of rank-and-file Dems. But it might not matter come summer. In fact, no less of an authority than Elaine Kamarck, a member of the DNC's Rules Committee, told me on Friday that BOTH campaigns would, when faced the lull between the final primary and the Denver convention, go on the pledged-delegate prowl. Here's our exchange:

What if Florida and Michigan don't decide the race, though? There will be 80 days between the last primary in June and the convention in August--with no more votes to battle over.
Let me point you in the direction of two prior conventions: the 1976 Republican convention and the 1980 Democratic convention. What happens after Florida and Michigan is that there will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 4,000 individuals selected as delegates. If the two campaigns continue, if nobody drops out, they will then turn their focus on those 4,000 people, which includes the superdelegates. And there will be an intense effort to move people from one camp to the other.

We're talking pledged delegates?
Right. The fact of the matter is, there isn't one hell of a huge difference between pledged delegates and superdelegates.

No one is bound.
Right. No one at these conventions is bound. They haven't been bound since 1980. What we will see is each candidate will set up a very elaborate, very expensive war room. They will make sure not only that all their delegates are locked down, but they will try to raid the other candidate's delegates.

This is before the convention?
If they stay in the race, this will be going on all summer.

And it's all behind the scenes?
All behind the scenes, of course.

By the way, Kamarck just happens to be a former Clinton Administration official--and a committed Hillary superdelegate. We'll see if Singer's promise holds up. But judging by Kamarck's attitude--and Clinton's quote--something tells me that when push comes to shove this summer, it's going to be every man (or woman) for herself.

That said, the big question here is not "Will poaching happen?" but "Will it work?" Obamabots are already seething at Clinton's "undemocratic" approach, but there's no proof that such a strategy would actually, you know, net her more delegates. In fact, it probably wouldn't. Pledged delegates are hand-picked supporters, so it's nearly impossible to imagine them flipping in the middle of a race--especially one that's this competitive. As Ben Smith notes, these folks typically switch sides only "when a candidate withdraws or collapses," which isn't going to happen anytime soon (to put it mildly). If the convention goes to a second ballot, of course, all hell could break loose. But we've got plenty of weirdness to worry about before we get there.

UPDATE, 3:40 p.m.: Failed to mention this before, but the most fascinating--and perhaps consequential--thing about Clinton's statement in the dead-tree mag is the way she categorizes delegates: "elected," "caucus" and "super." No one other than Clinton refers to them this way. The first two are presumably what normal people call "pledged," with Clinton's "elected" delegates coming from primaries and "caucus" delegates coming from, well, caususes. Technically, there's not an ounce of difference between the two. So what's up with the new classifications? Clinton seems to think that renaming delegates will change the way we see them. She'd prefer that we think of primary delegates, for example, like senators and congressmen--"elected" by their constituents, not "pledged" or bound to do what the people say. And she'd prefer we didn't think of "caucus" delegates as being "elected" at all--a clear shot at the Obama-dominated caucuses, which the Clinton camp has repeatedly called undemocratic. In the end, the new labels leave room for Clinton to separate the two numbers--an "elected delegate" count would, in fact, show Clinton in the lead. It's a ridiculous strategy. But you can't say the woman's not savvy.