More On The Clinton Campaign And The Texas "Lawsuit"

I asked Guy Cecil, the national political director for the Clinton campaign, where he ""forcefully raise[d] the prospect of a courtroom battle?" as suggested by the Houston Chroncile.

"Absolutely not. There was no threat, 'direct or veiled' to engage in litigation. We asked that the results of the call be put in writing," he said.

Mo Elliethee, a Clinton campaign spokesman, elaborated for me.

"The campaigns have been discussing primary night procedures and we asked for those procedures to be put in writing before we agree to them. It is standard operating procedure for our campaign - and we presume any campaign - to see what we are agreeing to in writing before we agree to it."

My guess is that the campaign is worried about what happens when the voting stops and the caucus starts and believes that the Texas Democratic Party isn't prepared to run the caucuses competently. Remember, Texas awards delegates in two parts; two thirds to the winners of 31 state senate district primaries, allocated proportionally; and then to the winners of a statewide caucus; only those voters who can prove they voted in the primaries can participate in the caucus.

The call where Cecil allegedly made his threats lasted ninety minutes long and featured participants from both campaigns. By singling Cecil's request to put the party's interpertation of its caucus rules on paper, the party might simply be trying to ward off potential challenges to its procedures on caucus night... or trying to embarass the Clinton campaign.

Comments

By singling Cecil's request to put the party's interpertation of its caucus rules on paper, the party might simply be trying to ward off potential challenges to its procedures on caucus night... or trying to embarass the Clinton campaign.

Couple things, Marc. First, those caucus rules ARE on paper -- I've seen them when I was doing some research trying to understand this system. So either the Clinton campaign failed to retrieve this document from the TDP's website (which, admittedly, is a distinct possibility) or there's more to this story than the Clinton spokespersons let on.

Second, why on earth would the TDP be trying to embarass the Clinton campaign? Hillary had, and continues to enjoy, the support of many establishment figures of the Texas Democratic establishment. Yet they're going out of their way to make her look bad?? As we robots like to say, does not compute. Do you have any additional proof to support this assertion, or does your mental calculus simply reduce to "anyone doing something not good for Hillary must be out to get her"? Sigh, silly human.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 29, 2008 11:04 AM

After the Clintons' implicit approval of the Nevada lawsuit, and their general dissatisfaction/disdain for cacuses in general, their denial rings a bit hollow.

Posted by south side | February 29, 2008 11:06 AM

So what happens if they don't like what is on paper? Are they goiung to throw a tantrum.

This is all about the caucuses. The Clinton camp wants to limit participation, the Obama camp wants to make sure that the opportunity is there for whomever wants to caucus to do so.

Who is pro small d democracy in this case?

Posted by John | February 29, 2008 11:07 AM

The Texas Two Step rules have been around a long time and each campaign went into this knowing the rules: once again the Clinton camp is trying to change things in mid-stream.

By singling Cecil's request to put the party's interpertation of its caucus rules on paper, the party might simply be trying to ward off potential challenges to its procedures on caucus night... or trying to embarass the Clinton campaign.

Why would the Texas Dem Party try to embarass the Clinton's? They didn't single them out and sent neutral letters to both campaigns out of their apparent concern of a legal challenge emerging like the one that occured in Nevada. Given the Clinton's history, I don't blame them at all.

I read at Al Giordono's blog The Field, this was an argument about reporting the caucus results Tuesday night in a timely manner. And I find the Clinton camp requst for rules on paper bewildering, this excuse makes no sense. The rules are on paper and everyone knows and everyone has to deal with the same challenges.

I think you have bought into the Clinton's pushback a bit too much.

Posted by Rhoda | February 29, 2008 11:22 AM

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Posted by jacksmith | February 29, 2008 11:27 AM

You might be an idiot if you think you can convert people to your side by calling them idiots. Or you might just be Hillary Clinton.

Posted by @jacksmith | February 29, 2008 11:32 AM

Man, jacksmith...you really persuaded me with that sophisticated argument. I haven't heard such a compelling case sine Tina Fey tried to rally blue collar workers in Texas and Ohio with the phrase: "Bitch is the New Black."

But on to Marc's post, you know MY FRIEND, there is another possibility, that maybe, just maybe, the world is NOT out to get the Clinton campaign; that threats of lawsuits in complicated caucus situations have been made before by the Clinton campaign (Nevada); and the fact that TWO DEMOCRATIC OFFICIALS CONFIRMED THE THREAT CAME FROM CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN...maybe...just maybe there is some truth to this story.

But i guess it's alright because if two Clinton officials say that two Texas Democratic officials are lying, than that just kind of makes the whole thing a wash.

The Nevada lawsuit played horribly for the Clinton's after it was revealed. They didnt want the same thing on the eve of this contest.

Jeez Marc. I don't get what's up with you man. Did the Clinton people tell you they felt embarrassed or something? Did you guys have a moment?

Posted by enough | February 29, 2008 11:50 AM

These TX caucuses are going to be an absolute fiasco. Worse than Nevada. It's a train wreck everyone on the ground in TX can see coming from a mile away. Both the Clinton and the Obama campaign ought to be kicking the TDP's butt daily to make sure they have their act together. The TDP doesn't have precinct chairs for each of it's 18,000 precincts. It's not even apparent that they have a clean system in place for verifying that caucus attendees actually voted in the day-time primary.
I fully expect the police to be called in at some precincts in Houston.

Posted by dry_fish | February 29, 2008 12:03 PM

According to Obama campaign manager David Plouffe (as reported in Al Giordano's blog, "The Field"), the crux of the Clinton campaign's lawsuit threats is the timing of the Texas Democratic Party's reporting of the caucus (not primary) results.

Plouffe alleges that the Clinton camp is trying to intimidate the TDC into sitting on the caucus results for days or weeks, so that she has an easier time declaring that she's won March 4.

Posted by Rieux | February 29, 2008 12:36 PM

If they don't get the rules in writing that they want, do they then refuse to run on Tuesday? What exactly do they plan to do?

I hope Texas rewards them appropriately for this--keeping the results secret? Since when is this an important part of the democratic process?

Posted by Deborah | February 29, 2008 12:51 PM

Or, the Clinton campaign may be planning to reprise its Nevada lawsuit in some form.

Pathetic.

Posted by BillB | February 29, 2008 1:05 PM

Or, the Clinton campaign may be planning to reprise its Nevada lawsuit in some form.

Pathetic.

Posted by BillB | February 29, 2008 1:05 PM

It's all in The Field's post:

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=797

This is the plan: Threaten to sue in order to delay reporting of TX caucus results so the HRC campaign can spin a defeat into victory, game a news cycle for a single night, and go on to fight another day, praying for a miracle gaffe chez Obama.

Perhaps a bit less effort to spin the MSM and a bit more awareness of "the internet" is in order? Hillary, honey: it's a new day. We're watching you.

Posted by Dr. Duh | February 29, 2008 1:24 PM

It seems clear to me that they're laying the groundwork to be able to show, after the Texas caucuses on Tuesday, that there were irregularities in the process and that therefore those delegates should be thrown out. They're setting the stage for a legal challenge to the validity of the caucus results AFTER March 4, not before.

No doubt there will be some departures from official caucus procedure at various precincts on Tuesday, if for no other reason than caucuses are disorderly by their nature, and the vast majority of people participating in them (myself included) have never done so before. But that doesn't make them dishonest or, at their core, undemocratic.

Bill Clinton hinted at a legal challenge to the Texas caususes last week, when he said that "it would be tragic if Hillary were to win this election in the daytime and somebody were to come in at night and take it away."

By "somebody," he is referring to the voters who make the effort to come out and caucus on Tuesday night. The inference is clear and unambiguous -- if caucus-goers shift the delegate count away from Senator Clinton, as seems likely, then they are no better than thieves in the night.

Mo Elliethee's comment that the Clinton campaign wants to "see what we are agreeing to in writing before we agree to it" is ludicrous. They agreed to it when they filed for the primary. If they only realized last month what that primary actually consisted of, then that's their problem.

I will be the first to admit that Texas has a bizarre and somewhat ridiculous primacaucus system. And I'm all for wiping it clean and starting from scratch for next cycle. But the system we have now is the system we have now. You don't change the rules in the middle of the game because you happen to be losing.

Senator Obama caught some heat a while back when he observed that he would be able to get Senator Clinton's supporters into his camp if he were the nominee, but the reverse might not be as true. While that was probably an inopportune thing to say publicly, it's entirely accurate, in large part due to her and her surrogates' ongoing efforts since Iowa to denigarate, dismiss and disparage primary contests that don't go her way.

How enthusiastic I am supposed to be, if she's the nominee in the general election, when her husband, a former president of the United States, implies that, as a Texas caucus-goer supporting Obama, I'm no better than a common thief?

Posted by Andy | February 29, 2008 2:16 PM

the first year i was a Texas delegate, both to the county convention and state convention, was 1988. i was a gore delegate btw. the rules have been the same for years. interestingly, that year at the state convention hillary was a featured speaker. bill clinton knows the texas system inside and outside.

i voted for bill each year he ran, both on a ballot and at the conventions. after the scandals of his administration and having to live as an unwilling participant in their dysfunctional marriage, i would NEVER vote for another clinton. ever, ever,ever. they are despicable. how dare they interfere with our election?!

i hope she's beat like a drum.....

Posted by kelly | February 29, 2008 2:59 PM

You know what I cannot understand, is why common sense is never brought up in this continuing inevitable blow up of the Democratic Party!
I am proud of both candidates regarding what they can do for our country. But let’s look at the facts. Clinton has lost 11 states in a row. Probably will lose Texas and win Ohio.
She will not catch up to Obama in the delegate count. It mathmaticly will not happen. For Clinton to win, she will have to turn this democratic process into a high intense business deal. This election is having a record number of voters. This is a direct reflection on the message that Obama has had on the American people.
If this election is won by biter self centered super delegets or chaging of rules, rregardless of what candidate creates this division. I will guarantee you that the race for presidency will not even be close. The breath of fresh air from record number of voters will be siphoned up. Mc Cain will be victorious.

Posted by Erik | February 29, 2008 4:21 PM

I'm by no means willing to let the Clinton camp off the hook but having been through both rounds 1 and 2 of the NV caucus, and having seen before my eyes how rules written on a page can be subject to changing interpretations up to and during the actual event , they may have a point.

Now, setting aside the substance of wanting the party to clarify its rules, there's also the tactic --- with which they've had success in some earlier states -- of trying to mobilize your supporters not only to vote but to caucus by sending the message that if they don't turn out, the process will not be fair. Thats pretty standard gotv rhetoric.

In short, I'm eager for her to be done next Tues as well, but in the larger scheme of things, this is hardly the Clinton camp's most kitchen-sinkiest tactic.

Posted by Gus | February 29, 2008 7:11 PM