Obama Conference Call, 3/12/08 Notes and Audio

I wasn't able to get a question in today, my apologies. But I noted some good ones in the last thread -- thanks and of course there will, for good or ill, be other opportunities. Direct audio link here. Quote of the call: "Just because [we've surpassed them in the popular vote] doesn't mean they won't move the goal posts again... [next they'll claim that] really the only popular vote that matters are in states that begin with 'n,' except for Nebraska, since we won there."

Some notes after the jump.

UPDATE: Speak of the devil:

Obama Campaign to Host Conference Call on Key General Election States

Chicago, IL – Following Obama's decisive win in Tuesday's Mississippi primary, the Obama campaign is hosting a conference call today with Gov. Chet Culver (IA), Gov. Jim Doyle (WI), Gov. Christine Gregoire (WA), and Sen. Claire McCaskill (MO) to discuss Obama's unique ability to win states critical to Democrats' general election success.

WHAT: Press Conference Call to Discuss Obama's Wins in States Critical to the General Election

WHO: Iowa Governor Chet Culver Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle Washington Governor Christine Gregoire Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill

WHEN: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 11 AM CT

CLARIFICATION on Dickerson's Q after the jump.

I was driving during the last bit of the call, so excuse the vagueness of the notes, my highlights include:

John Dickerson asked a question about how the complicated delegate allocation process in Texas -- that wound up putting Obama ahead in delegates despite Clinton's "win." is any less "underhanded" ["underhanded" is the word the Obama people used to describe Clinton's various accounting strategies, I don't think Dickerson used that word, he was just asking about Texas' rules versus what the Clinton people talk about. -- amc] than the various accounting schemes that the Clinton campaign has come up with. I don't think Plouffe had a really clear answer other than, "it isn't." He recounts his question this way: "It was a two part question in which there was no suggestion that Texas delegate lead was underhanded. The first question was one of clarification: 'At various times you've characterized Clinton techniques for winning the nomination as 'underhanded,' does that description apply to a victory where superdelegates vote for her to reverse obama's lead among pledged delegates?” The second question about Texas was separate. I asked: 'Can you help me understand why the complicated process of allocating delegates in Texas which has allowed Obama to lead there is more legitimate than the democratic national election rules which allow superdelegates to reverse the trend of the pledged delegates.' (this isn't a transcript but an attempt to reconstruct my handwriting)." [Sorry for the earlier, confused version.]

On delegates, Plouffe expressed deep reservations about the mail-in option in both MI and FL, noting that in Florida, at least, such an operation would require review by the Justice Department (that drew some questions in itself and surprised me -- I'll look into it). He said the ideal solution would be to "seat the delegates in some way" but indicated opposition to the forms of "do over" now on the table, saying that the proposals seemed like "Clinton operations" not like Democratic party operations, i.e., supported, proposed by, and potentially paid for by Clinton supporters.

Someone asked about the campaign's problem with Latino voters, to which Plouffe said that they are working to expand their appeal to all voters.

As far as I can tell, there were no policy questions asked.