Disclaimer: First, this call was not recorded or transcribed -- my diary will be as good as my memory (take that for what it's worth). Second, some of the arguments that this DNC caller made are legitimate arguments that the DNC should be making. Some I think are in the gray area. By the end of the call, I believe this DNC caller was stumping for Hillary a little too much, even using (what I consider to be) misleading Clinton talking points.

The caller did not get far into her pitch before I stopped her. I could not help myself. She was calling to ask for my financial support of a DNC campaign to stop McCain from winning in November and to counter the negative campaigning. I immediately interjected with, "The negative campaigning is coming from Hillary!" (I know, I know, the republicans are attacking Obama, but this was a visceral reaction from months of Hillary making the Republican attacks for them.)

I told the caller that I would not give any more money to the DNC as long as Clinton remains in the race. I do not want my money to support a candidate who has divided this party, especially one who has divided the party along racial lines.

She told me that she understood how I felt but that we should support the nominee no matter who it is (ok, I can buy that, she is representing the DNC, and that's exactly what she should say in that role). I told her that she needed to enter into her little database that I will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she steals the nomination from Obama.

Now, her job is to raise funds for the DNC, and my objection to donating is an objection to Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the resulting debate and her defense of Hillary was only her way of trying to overcome my objection, but I don't think so. Once I said that I could not support Hillary Clinton, the DNC fundraiser forgot all about her fundraising campaign. In fact, I don't think she ever mentioned it again.

First, she told me that she could tell how smart I am. In fact, throughout the call, she began nearly every rebuttal with this obviously well practiced line --  as meaningful as, "I can tell you really appreciate fine cars," from a car salesman.

She pointed out that it is more important to keep McCain from winning (ok, that's a legitimate argument for the DNC to make, I'm not sure I agree, but I don't object to the argument). I told her that many of us see the Clintons now as not significantly different than the Republicans. Bill shoved NAFTA down our throats (sending our jobs overseas) and pushed through the repeal of Glass-Steagall (helping create the current real estate and credit crisis). The Clintons are bought and paid for by special interests, just like the current slate of Republican politicians.

She told me again how smart I am (heh), and then she reminded me of the good things that Bill Clinton did as president (ok, I'm feeling like she's pushing the Clintons a little too hard at this point, but I think this is gray area, I'm still sort of ok with it). She said Bill balanced the budget and resided over a great economic expansion. I conceded that the balanced budget was great but reminded her that it was pure dumb luck that he presided over the Internet boom. Rather than take measures to make the economic prosperity last, he pushed through NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagall (I know, I'm harping, but these are serious sticking points with me), and presided over other economic policy decisions (e.g., Greenspan, deregulation) that were good for the wealthy and bad for the middle class.

She tried another tact. She asked me if I thought Clinton would be better than McCain on pro-choice issues, women's rights, and other women's issues. Wouldn't it be worth it, she asked, to keep McCain from making judicial appointments? Ok, I'm a pro-life Democrat, but McCain making judicial appointments does scare me more than a little. She might have gotten me to concede there, but she kept talking, and this is where I think she started to cross the line from neutrality to stumping...

She said,

But 12 states have not voted yet, and they could all go to Hillary. What if Hillary wins the last 12 states?

I was so shocked that I very rudely retorted, "Can you count? There are seven states and two territories left!" (hint: 7+2≠12) She remained unflappable and asked,

But what if Hillary does win all of the remaining states?

I told her there is virtually no possibility that Hillary can win all of the remaining states, and even if she did, she would not gain enough delegates to overturn Obama's lead. I pointed out that she won Texas but lost delegates there, she won New Mexico but lost delegates there, and she won Pennsylvania but only gained about ten delegates there.

Unfazed, she turned to superdelegates. She asked,

What if she gets all of the superdelegates for the remaining states?

I told her that was highly unlikely, but regardless, superdelegates should not overturn the will of the voters. The nominee should be the person who wins the most pledged delegates.

I told her that if the first African American to win the most pledged delegates has the nomination stolen from him by superdelegates that I believe the Democratic Party will lose African American voters forever, and Hillary cannot win (no Democrat can win) without the African American vote. Not only are they an essential part of our coalition, but they are an essential part of who this party is supposed to represent.

She told me again that she could see how smart I am but that all superdelegates should vote the way their constituents have voted, and if they did that, Hillary would win, and it would be legitimate. She said,

What about in Massachusetts where the people voted for Hillary, but Kennedy and Kerry support Obama? Shouldn't they go with the voters in their state and vote for Hillary?

At this point in the conversation, I really felt that she had crossed the line from DNC representative to Clinton stumper. However, maybe my call was unique -- I found no similar stories online (I did find complaints about Telefund calling too often and not removing people from their list upon request). Telefund is also under contract to make calls for the Clinton campaign. If their staff is making calls for both the DNC and the Clinton campaign, they will be familiar with the Clinton talking points -- perhaps this was less a concerted effort and more a happenstance.

First, I responded that Clinton and her supporters cannot ask Obama to play by rules that she is unwilling to play by. Clinton is clearly courting not just all superdelegates but also all pledged delegates. I reminded her of Clinton's own words,

We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment.

I reminded her of the historic and sensitive nature of Obama's electoral wins. He is the first African American to win the presidential nomination of a major party. Superdelegates should (almost) never overturn the will of the voters, but to take the nomination from the first African American nominee would be simply unconscionable. I told her that I will not support a party that does this. People would be marching in the streets if the superdelegates overturn the will of the voters, taking the nomination from the first African American to earn it. And I will be marching too, sign held high, in front of my local DNC office if the nomination is stolen from Obama.

She argued for a couple more minutes regarding the legitimacy of superdelegates and the possibility of Clinton winning. She made it clear that a win by either superdelegates or pledged delegates would be a legitimate win.

Finally, she told me again how smart I am and how glad she is that I am involved, and then she bid me goodnight.

Did this DNC caller cross a line that should not be crossed during a primary by the DNC?

Where is that line, and how fuzzy is it?