When it comes to whether or not she plans to poach Barack Obama's pledged delegates--i.e., the delegates won in primaries or caucuses--Hillary Clinton has been sending some seriously mixed messages.

Here at Stumper headquarters, I've made a habit of tracking statements by the candidate or her campaign on the subject. Let's just say I'm starting to get dizzy. On March 10, I reported that Clinton responded to a question from NEWSWEEK's Suzanne Smalley on how she can win despite the unfavorable delegate math by arguing 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." Clinton, of course, was right; pledged delegates don't have to stand by their man--or woman. But that wouldn't stop Obama supporters from screaming bloody murder. Coming in the wake of 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" and Stumper's own interview with Elaine Kamarck, a Clinton-supporting member of the DNC's Rules Committee, who predicted that both Dems will "try to raid the other candidate's delegates," the New York senator's suspicious statement led us to conclude that "when push comes to shove this summer, it's going to be every man for himself." Still, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer maintained that "we have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama."

But Singer's stance got a little shakier later that week. On March 14, I reported that Iowa county delegates pledged to Obama were receiving robocalls from the Clinton campaign in the run-up to the coming county conventions (when such delegates can switch their allegiances). Claiming that the Iowa Democratic Party had provided the campaign with an incomplete list of delegate affiliations, Singer said that "the point of the call is to identify our delegates." But a quick check with the IDP revealed that "80 percent" of the county delegates were, in fact, linked to their chosen candidates on the lists sent to the campaigns--including at least one Obama supporter, Lance Jenkins, who specifically reported receiving the Clinton robocall. Noting that the call included 30-45 seconds of Clinton talking points, I concluded that the campaign was likely threading a needle. "If this is "delegate poaching"--which, I remind you, is totally legit--it's the mildest, most passive form imaginable," I wrote. "Keep track of how many delegates you have and, by getting your message out, maybe pick up a few." That said, it still seemed like an effort to sway a rival's supporters. At the time, I wondered if "these 'identification with benefits' robocalls [would] reappear in the run-up to the convention."

I'm wondering no more. In an interview yesterday with the editorial board of the Philadelphia Daily News, Clinton was again asked how she plans to win the nomination if she trails Obama in the pledged-delegate tally and popular vote at the end of regulation. And again she signaled that her opponent's pledged delegates are up for grabs. "I just don't think this is over yet, and I don't think that it is smart for us to take a position that might disadvantage us in November," she said. "And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates... There are different ways to become a delegate, there are delegates from caucuses, there are delegates from primaries, and there are the appointed delegates, they're all equal, they all have an equal vote--those are the rules of the Democratic Party." You don't say.

At this point, I seriously doubt that Clinton is just, you know, explaining the rules to us rubes. Has she admitted that she will pursue Obama's pledged delegates? No. But as the Daily news concluded, she "sure implied" as much. Who knows how the former First Lady plans to sway her opponent's flock. Perhaps with passive, Iowa-style robocalls. Perhaps, as Kamarck suggested, by launching a "very elaborate, very expensive war room" where her staff will make "an intense effort to move people from one camp to the other." Or perhaps by simply hoping that, after wins in Pennsylvania and, say, Puerto Rico, Obama's supporters will magically realize the error of their ways and come crawling back.

But whatever tactics Clinton is considering, her identical, repeated responses to the "how do you plan to win?" question leave no doubt in my mind:

To the inhabitants of Hillaryland, pledged delegates are fair game.

UPDATE, 11:30 a.m.: On a conference call this morning with reporters, according to the Politico, Clinton adviser Harold Ickes said “there’s no party rule” binding delegates to their candidate. “Obviously, circumstances can change,” he continued, that can cast doubt on a candidate’s viability. But spokesman Phil Singer quickly jumped in. “We are not seeking or asking pledged delegates for Sen. Obama to flip over," he said, "So please don’t make any mistake about that.”

Note the "are not seeking or asking." Delightful. As one commenter put it:

Clinton Doublespeak Translation Time: (A) "There are no rules that say we can't steal pledged." (B) "But don't worry we won't steal them." (C) "But we could steal them if we wanted to."

So what's happening here? Chris Orr at the New Republic sums it up nicely:

The larger question, of course, is why the Clinton campaign keeps going out of its way to raise this point even after they have explicitly, and adamantly, claimed they have no intention of going after Barack Obam's pledged delegates...I think the best, perhaps only, explanation is Josh Marshall's "fog of nonsense" thesis: By repeatedly raising the possibility of pledged delegates flipping (and getting people discussing improbable scenarios such as the above), they muddy the waters. They make it seem possible that the delegate math isn't as incontrovertibly against them as it is, that something might change, that it's still early in the race, that "anybody can vote for anybody," that nobody knows anything. 

UPDATE, 12:20 a.m.: Amid all the hubbub about poaching, it bears repeating that (as I wrote on March 10) "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." Despite her "efforts" in Iowa, Clinton actually LOST one delegate. And as Marc Ambinder notes, "even in 1992, only one delegate, as I recall, switched away from Bill Clinton amid the series of potentially disastrous controversies he weathered during his march to the nomination." In other words, it's not clear that the potential benefit--minuscule delegate gains--would outweigh the politically disastrous effect that poaching would have on at least half the party. More reason to believe the whole "fog of nonsense" idea...