What's The Story Behind the Story About Flipping Pledged Delegates?

Let's review things.

Roger Simon of The Politico wrote a piece in which he claimed an unnamed high ranking Clinton campaign official told him the Clinton campaign would be trying to flip pledged delegates (those delegates awarded to a candidate based on her or his performance in a primary or caucus, as distinguished from the unpledged delegates, aka "superdelegates," who can vote for whomever they want at the convention).  This is what Simon wrote:

"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," a senior Clinton official told me Monday afternoon. "All the rules will be going out the window."

The Clinton campaign now denies that they will try to flip pledged delegates from Obama to Clinton (via Greg Sergeant at TPM Election Central):

We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. It's now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions.

To my knowledge, the Obama campaign had not previously made comments about going after Clinton delegates.  Nonetheless, this was their response to Greg Sergeant:

"We would absolutely not use these sorts of tactics. Senator Obama is focused on winning contests and earning the support of pledged delegates."

So, here's what we have.  Roger Simon wrote a piece supposedly quoting an unnamed Clinton official saying they would go after Obama's pledged delegates.  In that same article, Simon cited Phil Singer:

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer told me Monday he assumes the Obama campaign is going after delegates pledged to Clinton, though a senior Obama aide told me he knew of no such strategy.

Note that in the original article by Simon, Singer is asked about going after the other candidate's pledged delegates, and he is not cited as saying that the Clinton campaign rejects the strategy, or that they have no plans to pursue such a strategy.  However, he apparently did say he assumes the Obama campaign will be going after Clinton's pledged delegates.  

What's going on here?  Some possible explanations:

1. Maybe Simon just made it all up, or grossly mischaracterized what he was told by the unnamed Clinton official.  

2. Maybe Simon's description of the conversation with the Clinton official is accurate.  However, when Singer spoke with Simon on Monday, maybe Simon didn't tell him of the earlier conversation with the Clinton official, so Singer didn't feel any need to disavow the strategy of going after Obama's pledged candidates, OR Singer did disavow the strategy, and Simon failed to report the disavowal.

3. Simon had the conversation with the unnamed Clinton official and reported it accurately.  Simon also had the conversation with Singer, who in fact did say he assumed the Obama campaign would be trying to flip Clinton's pledged delegates.  Why would he say he assumed the Obama campaign would try to flip Clinton's pledged delegates?  Presumably either because the Clinton campaign believed it was an obvious strategy for a candidate in pursuit of the nomination, an obvious strategy that both campaigns would employ, OR because the Clinton campaign either knew of attempts by the Obama campaign to flip Clinton's pledged delegates or that they just assume the Obama campaign will engage in efforts that the public would reject.  

Some people will argue there's nothing underhanded about trying to flip the pledged delegates.  If one believe that, recognize that you are now arguing against the public positions of the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  It's apparent now, based on the responses of both campaigns to Greg Sergeant, that neither campaign wishes to be seen as undermining the intentions of primary voters.  As explained here, there's nothing that formally binds the pledged delegates from voting for whomever they want.  However, the legitimacy of the nomination system rests on the pledged delegates voting in proportion to the votes of their state and/or district, at least on the first ballot of the convention.  If voters lose trust in the legitimacy of the system, we are in deep trouble, and the nomination will be seen as a power grab in a climate of anarchy.  

If both candidates are still competing for the nomination at the end of the primaries, it's almost certain that neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination.  However, it's quite possible that one will have a clear lead, and that a third or fewer of the 796 unpledged delegates will put that candidate over the top for the nomination.  I reject the idea that the unpledged delegates shouldn't "decide" the nomination.  They're a legitimate part of the process as it's been devised.  Furthermore, unless one of the candidates drops out, their votes will be necessary to secure the nomination.  However, reversing the votes of pledged delegates would be akin to changing the votes after the fact.  The disavowals by both campaigns suggest they both understand this.  

If we assume that Simon didn't completely fabricate the conversation with the unnamed Clinton official—and I have yet to see a statement from the Clinton campaign that no such conversation occurred or that Simon mischaracterized the conversation—it still leaves us with this question: why didn't the Clinton campaign come out before the Simon article ran and denounce any effort by the Obama campaign to poach Clinton's pledged delegates?  From the comments of both the unnamed official and of Singer, it's clear the Clinton campaign had discussed this possibility.  The statements of the Obama campaign, on the other hand, give no indication they had discussed such a strategy.  

So, why did the Clinton campaign assume the Obama campaign would try to poach Clinton delegates?  Because that's just how the Obama campaign operates, but the Clinton campaign operates by different standards of conduct?  If that's it, what past actions support that conclusion?  If not that, then maybe because the Clinton campaign knows of efforts already underway by the Obama campaign?  If so, what's the evidence?  Or, is it possible, because the Clinton campaign assumed the Obama campaign would do it, and the Clinton campaign was assuming they, the Clinton campaign, would also be trying to flip pledged delegates?