Here's the actual quote that all this nonsense is based on:

"I swear it is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody's delegates."  [emphasis added by me]

This was it.  This was the "Hillary Camp Master Plan to steal the election."

The key words as far as what Cenk's saying is "if there is a stalemate" and "everybody."

We are in a very unique position right now.  We might get to the convention and have to candidates separated by a slim margin of delegates.  We might have one canddiate with a lead in the popular vote and ANOTHER in the lead with delegates.  I think both of those can accurately be described as a stalemate.  Personally?  I think these are both unlikely, and I think Obama will win it clean.  But I don't get paid a good deal of money by the Clinton campaign not to think that way.  For them to speculate about it, especially with Hillary looking like she's about to lose, makes perfect sense.

What this Super-Secret Squirrel insider is describing is BOTH camps trying to fend off a brokered or ugly convention by trying to shore up a delegate lead by any means necessary.  It's nothing more than hypothetical conjecture.

What he did not anticipate (though he probably should have) is that the vitriolic hatred of Hillary by the progressive media would IMMEDIATELY transform this as a plan to steal delegates at any cost.  I think the "Source's" characterization of this hypothetical is completely accurate, and I think no matter what either camp says now, this is EXACTLY what they'd do if the convention was coming in the way I describe above.  But it's also inside-baseball, and it's easy to make it SOUND nefarious.  It's just like John Kerry's completely accurate and defendable claim that he "Voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it."

It's true, it makes sense, and it's justified.  But the average VOTER is too stupid to get it, and the average PARTISAN is too dishonest to represent it accurately.  That's why they had to back away from that comment.  Not because it WAS an evil thing to say, but because they learned that objective analysis of the comment just wasn't going to happen.

I was disappointed to see Cenk buying the same anti-Hillary spin.  That said, if he'd have looked at just about any progressive blog he would have thought that's exactly what was happening, so I don't blame him personally.

His second claim though is completely unexplainable.  Cenk took it a step further and said the Clinton campaign inplied they would BRIBE delegates with political appointments, etc.  The entirety of this controversy came from the quote I posted above.  It is clear that NOTHING in there talks about bribing or the spoils system.  I do not know who made that part of it up (because clearly SOMEONE did) but it just makes it sound that much more evil, and it's based on nothing.