Caucus Problems In Texas

Marc helpfully pointed out that Harris County contains Houston. Here are some more big cities corresponding with the unhelpful Texas county names:

Precinct 2316 in Tarrant County (Fort Worth)
Precinct 1205 in Dallas County (Dallas) (durrr)
Precinct 3127 in Bexar County (San Antonio)
Precinct 3082 in Ft. Bend County (Houston suburbs)
Precinct 18/224 in Harris County (Houston)
Precinct 3221 Dallas county (Dallas) (durrr^2)
Precinct 87 in El Paso County (El Paso) (on MST, don't think this issue should be arising yet?)
Precinct 458 in Travis County (Austin)

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 4, 2008 8:43 PM

So, basically they are objecting to mainly Obama friendly areas. Doh!

Posted by Andrew | March 4, 2008 8:56 PM

This is utter bullshit. The packet is first-come first-served. If you come to the convention site far in advance, you get the packet far in advance. THOSE are the rules.

Posted by Byron | March 4, 2008 8:56 PM

What they mean is "we don't have enough ground support to make sure that we get the packet first. Therefore, it is unfair."

Hillary, please please please GO AWAY.

Posted by Michael | March 4, 2008 8:57 PM

The difference between these two candidates is that Obama is building a democratic movement, Clinton is just trying to get herself elected. She'll do anything to win, she'll even probably take this straight to the Democratic Convention where Howard Dean and Al Gore will have to pry her and Bill off the podium as the Clintons shout is delerium.

Posted by Mark | March 4, 2008 9:00 PM

I was a total Clinton backer until she started with the attack ads in Wisconsin and has continued doing them in each and every state since. It has only gotten worse as she falls behind. She might as well hire Karl Rove because her campaign is taking these dirty tricks right out of his playbook. The whisper campaign and LIE that Obama is really a Muslim. Playing the fear card whenever she can. I voted for Obama today and will NOT vote for Clinton even if she is the eventual nominee. I might vote for McCain depending on how he conducts his campaign but as of this moment it is Obama or nothing. She is acting like either the party give her the nomination or she will take down the party so they lose in November. Obama stands for change and Clinton stands for more of the same.

Posted by former Clinton backer | March 4, 2008 9:03 PM

These claims may well be legitimate, but lets just recall the Clinton caucus strategy, as reported by Ben Smith recently:

Texas caucus hardball
March 01, 2008
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Texas_caucus_hardball.html

The Dallas Morning News gets hold of Clinton caucus "training materials," in which supporters are instructed to fight for procedural control of caucuses.
The materials say in part, "DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles."
It goes on to say, "If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serve as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness.
"The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary supporters hold these positions."
Some of the moments on the ground in Nevada showed how crucial technical control can be, particularly when -- there, as expected in Texas -- nobody has any idea what the rules are. Really makes you love the caucus process.

Posted by seanh | March 4, 2008 9:04 PM

I might care about this, except I'm fairly confident this is a strategy by the Obama campaign to ward off Clinton supporters getting the packet to control the caucus so *they can sway the results*. So far, the Obama campaign has been clean (see Nevada), and this seems to be not an effort to unfairly sway the results, but an effort to ensure that doesn't happen.

Posted by justinb | March 4, 2008 9:22 PM

Had she hired Karl Rove she would be winning.

Posted by Rich | March 4, 2008 9:28 PM

Ward off heck! The process is being hijacked by Obama supporters as my wife sits outside our caucus site here in Austin, TX. The Obama supporters are trying to keep the Clinton supporters from being heard and voting. So much for fair and clean. There are enough dirty tricks on both sides, guess you see what you want. Your silly if you think the Obama camp isn't about to play hardball and to win at any cost.

Posted by Cliff | March 4, 2008 9:31 PM

ok...want to complain about rigged results in Russia, why are such arcane rules for voting allowed to even exist in America, not very democratic to me.

Posted by Jas | March 4, 2008 9:34 PM

Well, the evidence? We're waiting...

Posted by Mike | March 4, 2008 9:34 PM

Seriously, where is that evidence? Saying "I have evidence" is not, as it so happens, the same as actually having evidence. So what's the hold up?

Posted by Ben | March 4, 2008 9:40 PM

Yo Cliff...I'm also at an Austin caucus site. Is your wife that morbidly obese woman trying to squeeze in past all those kids at the door? Dude...what have you been feeding her? Seriously.

Posted by Myron | March 4, 2008 9:50 PM

Yo Cliff...I'm also at an Austin caucus site. Is your wife that morbidly obese woman trying to squeeze in past all those kids at the door? Dude...what have you been feeding her? Seriously.

Posted by Myron | March 4, 2008 9:50 PM

Just got back from a caucus in Dallas. Our temporary chair was an Obama supporter and specifically asked for a Hillary supporter to be the secretary. Everything seemed fair, and Obama got all 4 delegates. Another precinct shared our location and went 4-3 for Hillary.

Posted by DDD | March 4, 2008 9:55 PM

Just got back from a caucus in Dallas. Our temporary chair was an Obama supporter and specifically asked for a Hillary supporter to be the secretary. Everything seemed fair, and Obama got all 4 delegates. Another precinct shared our location and went 4-3 for Hillary.

Posted by DDD | March 4, 2008 9:56 PM

This follows Obama's pattern. He will do anything to win. Hopefully he won't.

Posted by djjl | March 4, 2008 9:58 PM

Objectively, the process seems very messy and the state party seems in over its head

Told. You. So.

Posted by dry_fish | March 4, 2008 10:00 PM

Thank you seanh for reminding everyone that the Clinton crew PUBLISHED their strongarm tactics DAYS ago.

Posted by Jackie | March 4, 2008 10:02 PM

My caucus site in Austin was relatively clean. There was an old guy who stood up on a chair and claimed that the judge said he didn't have to abide by Democratic rules and would not release the packet, but the precinct chair quickly refuted that claim. Seems to me that the guy was trying to get people to leave, but who knows - he disappeared quickly after that. Other than this incident, the caucus was relatively peaceful.

Posted by Randall | March 4, 2008 10:08 PM

While it is probably safe to say that Obama will get the nomination, I will not be one democrat who will be voting for Barach Obama in the general election. As a centrist conservative democrat I do not see Barach as the savior everyone has purported him to be. How naïve everyone is, and how quickly their opinion will change when he is faced with the tough challenge to gain support for whatever programs he attempts to pass (which he has yet to articulate) are shot down because he either has to raise taxes, cut benefits or even trade off one class of voters priorities for another’s priorities.

Posted by Lou S | March 4, 2008 10:12 PM

Why don't people say what precinct they are in, instead of saying "funny things are happening in Austin." There are many, many precincts.

I voted in the primary and just returned from the caucus in precinct 444 (near dripping springs). The people running the show were a mix of Obama and Clinton supporters. Judging from the lines, it was a fairly even split between the two candidates among the voters too.

Posted by Jim | March 4, 2008 10:16 PM

Remember "I don't belong to any organized party, I'm a Democrat?"

Posted by sm | March 4, 2008 10:22 PM

Jas, these are political party nomination rules, not the actual elections. I admit they can be wacky, but parties are quasi-private associations and so can be as arcane as they like. The procedure for the general election is much different.

Posted by Jammer | March 4, 2008 10:29 PM

Your [sic] silly if you think the Obama camp isn't about to play hardball and to win at any cost.

Fighting fire with fire, then. Nice to see that the man I'm voting for is prepared to exhaust all posibilities to make my vote hold up.

Just sayin'.

Posted by Caucus Commando | March 4, 2008 10:33 PM

My daughter lives in Spring, TX, and she said blacks blocked the door so people waiting in line outside the caucus site could not get in. When one woman tried to push her way in and was assaulted by one of the people blocking the door, my daughter left. She has state testing at her school tomorrow and did not want to get beat up tonight.

Posted by Elizabeth | March 4, 2008 10:40 PM

I was at precinct 145 in Austin, lots of Obama supporters, but very orderly, everyone voted.

I must say that the Texas Democratic Party should change its primary system. Let's do away with this silly caucusing, and the runoff system while we're at it.

Posted by Jeff Versteeg | March 4, 2008 10:41 PM

Lou S, obviously you're a Clinton fan or you would have bothered to spell Barack correctly.

Posted by andrew | March 4, 2008 10:45 PM

Just finished caucusing in Montgomery County (just north of Houston) which is normally heavily republican; this is the first time in 20-something years they have held a democratic caucus. After we got someone to open up the cafeteria because there was no way the laws of physics would allow us to all fit in the allocated room, things went very smoothly. I know of at least two districts in northwest Harris County (Houston) that have not even begun yet because turnout was so big that the space could not accommodate the group that showed up, and the problem has not been remedied yet.

Posted by Carrie | March 4, 2008 10:46 PM

Seems odd that most of the Obama supporters do not convey the same type of message their leader does. So much for the change to hope, glory and a better way!
I guess Obama isn't the type of leader to elicit a real message of change after all!
Myron is a real champion for Obama's cause...making derogatory comments about a womans weight is not what I think Obama means when he talks of change. I think Obama wouldn't want your support.

Posted by jack | March 4, 2008 10:51 PM

I voted and caucused in precinct 1220 in Dallas.
Few to none of us had done this before and the room was packed.
The Precinct Chair, who turned out to be an Obama supporter, arrived and suggested we do a standing vote of who was for Hillary first and then those who were for Obama. We did that and, though Hillary had around a 25% win in the regular precict vote totals, the caucus votes came out for Obama, 82-96, or something close to that. Anyway, Obama got 11 and Hill got 10.

After that, no one knew who stayed and who left. So why didn't we sign in first and then vote?

Posted by Ramasan | March 4, 2008 10:53 PM

Jackie says: "Thank you seanh for reminding everyone that the Clinton crew PUBLISHED their strongarm [sic] tactics DAYS ago."

Jackie, sounds to me like the Clinton campaign figured Obama caucusers might well pull some shenanigans like this lock-out stuff. To prevent it, or at least minimize it, the Clinton campaign put out training materials warning their supporters not to let Obama caucusers gain total control of the precinct process. Looks like they weren't successful in all precincts.

Posted by Jo | March 4, 2008 11:03 PM

So a few eager Obama supporters beginning the caucus-packet-scavenger hunt a little too early. So what. These caucuses have such a disorganized process, I would assume this is fairly common. But it is petty and desperate to make an issue out of such minor technicalities. It reminds me of the election in Citizen Kane, in which, having been defeated, Kane is pressed to decide which headline to run on his newspapers in the morning, "Kane Wins" or "Fraud at Polls."

Posted by John | March 4, 2008 11:06 PM

Elizabeth sounds like a HUGE LIAR. Who even talks like that any more about "blacks." No black is going to keep people from entering anywhere they can rightfully be, for they know they'd have to answer to the law in a high profile time like this. Sounds they were hired to keep Clinton's people from cheating like the Dallas News reported here:

Texas caucus hardball
March 01, 2008
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Texas_caucus_hardball.html

The Dallas Morning News gets hold of Clinton caucus "training materials," in which supporters are instructed to fight for procedural control of caucuses.
The materials say in part, "DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles."
It goes on to say, "If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serve as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness.
"The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary supporters hold these positions."
Some of the moments on the ground in Nevada showed how crucial technical control can be, particularly when -- there, as expected in Texas -- nobody has any idea what the rules are. Really makes you love the caucus process.

Posted by Julie | March 4, 2008 11:29 PM

The Obama campaign had a plan to have Obama voters in strong Obama precincts vote provisional ballots in Clinton precincts instead of their own precincts so that they could overrun the caucuses and get the delegates for Obama.

If a voter shows up at a polling place, is not on the roll, and asks for a provisional ballot, the election judge is required to give one to the voter. Normal procedure is to offer the provisional ballot to the voter - whether they ask fo it or not.

Ordinarily, there would be between zero and two provisional ballots at any one polling place. So, if we see polling places with a large number of provisional ballots and then they show up at the caucus, we will know what Obama was up to.

In fact, becuase of Obama's planned shenanigans, the Texas Democratic Party had to issue special instructions about how the caucus should be run if there were provisional voters at the caucus.

The clarification by the state party may have stopped the Obama people form pulling this dirty trick.

Essentially, the state party said that the provisional voters would have to be identified and that their would have to be 2 caucuses - one with the provisional voters and one without so that if the provisional voters ballots were invalidated, their caucus votes wouldn't count.

A provisional ballot is given to someone who shows up at the polling place but is not on the voter roll for that precinct. That means they are either not registered or they are at the wrong polling place. The voter's validity is determined by the elections department and if the person is entitled to vote in that precinct their ballot will be counted, if not, it won't.

In fact, the provisional ballots are not even evaluated unless the number of provisional ballots could actually change the outcome in a close race. (If the provisonal ballots wouldn't make any diffeerence, they aren't evaluated or counted.)

Every provisional voter is asked to fill out a new voter registration or change of address card so that they will not have a problem in the next election.

Posted by Geoff Staples | March 4, 2008 11:30 PM

Ramasan:

If they didn't sign people in and do some administrative stuff like elect a temporary chair, and follow the script provided by the Democratic Party, they violated the caucus rules.

When you sign in, you specify yor presidential preference and the people signing in are supposed to be checked against the voter roll. If you didn't vote in the primary, you are not allowed to caucus.

Posted by Geoff Staples | March 4, 2008 11:37 PM

Marc,
We here in Precinct 94 Collin County, TX also see the same problem. Obama precinct captain got the packet early, plus a lot of people were allowed to sign-in without an driver-license or a voter registration.
Doesn't look right at all

Posted by Frank T | March 4, 2008 11:44 PM

I just voted at precinct 107 in Galveston. There were about 200 people as precinct 107/108 were at the same place. There was a line wrapping around the block just to get in the door. The allocated room was much to small to hold all the people. The atmosphere was chaotic, no one seemed to know what they were doing, and we kept getting conflicting information about whether or not we needed to stay after signing in. There was an hour wait before anyone moved and quite a few people left before signing in.

Posted by Margaret | March 4, 2008 11:57 PM

The packet cannot be received until the election judge closes the polls and then gives it to the precinct chair. If there is not a precinct chair in that precinct then the election judge is to give the package in one of two ways 1) either the first person for a party that request it after the polls close, or 2) by flipping a coin if both parties ask the election judge for the packet at around the sametime: These are the rules. If the packet is given before the polls are closed then it is violation of the process.

Posted by Rob Galvin | March 5, 2008 12:14 AM

OMG like anyone could keep a redneck out of someplace he wanted in. All one has to do is piss em off and, like in the case of Santa Anna, even putting on a dress and sneaking away won't save ya. I rather feel that the Clinton campaign has done exactly what they claim the Obama campaign is doing in all the rural counties. I think misdirection is par for the course for the Clntons.

Posted by Roger Ware | March 5, 2008 12:17 AM

Obama has hoodwinked and bamboozled so many gullible lefties into thinking that he can magically end all partisan politics in Washington and forge some kind of new, wonderful coalition to save the world.
I ask you to take a real hard look at just what Obama is talking about here.
Look at the guy's record of getting played as a sap by Republicans.
Look at his role model for bipartisanship, Tom Daschle.
You know what Tom Daschle's idea of bipartisanship is?
Total capitulation to the Republican party!
I'm so glad that Obama's true colors are showing. He's nothing but hot air and hollow rhetoric.

Posted by OxyCon | March 5, 2008 12:35 AM

I voted in precinct 218 Travis County. Our space was too small and things were disorganized at first, but after rearranging the room and shifting the lines it went smoothly. I was there at 6:45 signed in around 8:05 and the line was still wrapped out of the building. Nothing shady though.

Posted by David | March 5, 2008 12:43 AM

Lou S.: "While it is probably safe to say that Obama will get the nomination, I will not be one democrat who will be voting for Barach Obama in the general election."

Let me just say, as a supporter of Hillary Clinton, that I'll gladly support whoever becomes the nominee of our party - period. Regardless of my current concerns about Sen. Barack Obama's candidacy during this spirited primary season, he's still light years ahead of John McCain, and I'd be just as proud to call him "my President" as I would Sen. Clinton.

But as the great American philosopher Yogi Berra once said, it ain't over 'til it's over - and this one ain't over.

Posted by Donald from Hawaii | March 5, 2008 12:47 AM

count me and precinct 2171 as a caucus that was completely FUBAR. our precinct captain was totally unprepared and overwhelmed. her explanations of the process were vague and incomplete throughout the whole process which lasted 2 hours before they even collected the caucus sheets. first they told people they didnt need their addresses, every1 fills out the sheets we dont have enough sheets and we write who they vote for and return them. then she states that she does in fact need the addresses but we need to use new pieces of paper but the only pieces of paper available were the backs of sheets little kids color on since we are out of sheets. we finish. she kinda mentions people can leave if they want but at the same time she doesnt mention that when the process of reaffirming the vote takes place if questions arose on your name or vote or anything was not clear then you must be there to reaffirm your vote or your vote is thrown out. then after 2/3 of the caucus members in our precinct had left they begin reviewing names. i was sitting with 5 people i know voted for obama, we all witnessed each others' vote and signature and every single one of us was brought up as a problem. now, either we all had problems writing the correct information in the correct box, or she was targeting obama supporters. thats what i felt was happening. when i walked up to check the procedures they were busy calling names they felt were questionable and removing those who were not there to reaffirm. realize that the ability read it legibly was dictated by one woman. when she stated she could not read one i looked at the sheet before it was quickly pulled away and it was obviously an 'h' in the name and not a 'p' 2 others witnessed the same thing and we called her on it and then his name was matched up correctly, but it was only matched up after some1 had called her on it and otherwise the vote, like many i assume, would have been dismissed. we had multiple precincts in the same room yet if a question arose whether perhaps voters had gotten jumbled up in the confusion and blending of the 2 precincts and there names were on one precincts caucus sheets and on the other precinct's voter records sheets they refused to work together and insure that that individual caucus goers caucus vote counted. instead it was thrown out. (there was 600 people in 2 separate precincts in the same cafeteria and not one microphone was available for coordination of a process few understood including the precinct captian i felt.) i left after 3 hours and after making sure that every1 i was with had their vote reaffirmed on both sheets. thats when i left.

Posted by jason slick | March 5, 2008 12:57 AM

Please cool it... Everyone...
I was an obama precinct captain in 149 and we made mistakes, but it was insanity and we got thru it ok. The obama campaign did train us to get the packet, but they also trained us on how to run the process fairly. If it weren't for that training, no one would have known what to do. Clinton didn't have any knowledgable supports there and there was no one from the county party either. It was total chaos. If we didn't have group that planned it would have failed. If unfair things happened, which I can believe, its bc of the anarchy and not malicious intent from the obama campaign. If not for the I team tonight, nothing would have been done. And also, Clinton didn't have enough people to be delegates so I'm going to go to the convention to vote for her.

Posted by Tim T | March 5, 2008 2:11 AM

I voted in an Austin precinct where 5 people had attended the last Precinct Convention(caucus) in 2004. Tonight there were 250 people there. It was handled very well despite the large number (there was no way to anticipate the turnout at all) participating. It was a congenial group with no real unpleasantness. Clinton's group was just a third of the total and seemed worried that they might get cheated. But we had people from each camp overseeing everything that was done. Obama got 20 delegates and Clinton got 10.

Posted by JDS | March 5, 2008 2:20 AM

Hello. I'm not from Texas but I was trying to understand your causus voting (we don't have caucus voting here in Tennessee). What is the reason/purpose of it? How does it (or should it) work? How can a canidate win a primary vote but not a caucus vote? I tried reading all yall's comments so I could understand, but I think I'm more confused now than before. LOL Anyways, if someone could explain this I would really appreciate it. Thank you. - Laura

Posted by Laura | March 5, 2008 2:45 AM

*Sigh*. The law of unintended consequences bites all Democrats in the nether regions. A Texas primary/caucus system that was created in the hope of fostering participatory democracy seems to be setting us up for the demise we most feared and least needed: The presidency was the Dems' to lose, and we seem on course to get ourselves fractured enough to pull that unlikely defeat from the jaws of victory.
But, my Lone Star State friends, we Californians shot ourselves in the foot, too. We moved our primary up from June to Super Tues so that we would be "relevant", and wound up contributing to the deadlock that contributes to two great candidates behaving badly. If we had not been so arrogant, the Golden State's huge delgate count would have been the deciding factor after all.
Our only hope is that Democrats stop eating our own young. Texans, PLEASE wake up Wednesday with civility and perspective. Nobody's bad behavior wound up swinging things one way or another.

Posted by Mark from CA | March 5, 2008 2:56 AM

I am so sick and tired of all of this bull! White men created this mess, not black men, white men are at fault. They have no solution. None at all. McCain is a multi-term loser. He has no answers, and everyone knows it. Hillary has consistantly backed those same losers. She has no answers. Does Obama have the answer? Who knows for sure, but one thing we all know, niether of the other two do have them either.

Why should that black man be used to solve the white man's problems anyways. They heck with you all, I say. If he doesn't win, mark my words, Osama bin Ladan and all those terriost will soon own this country. Heck, they probably already do. The white man is too proud to bring the troops home, retreat and establish a new plan for the "war on terror" no, they have to kill all the people, and steal all the oil first. But somehow I have a feeling the middle east won't be that easy a defeat. Until then, McCain and Hillary voters, lose your houses and pay ten dollars for gas, lose your jobs to outsourcing...that oil money is comming...keep holding your breath!

Posted by mzlisa | March 5, 2008 5:03 AM

I am so sick and tired of all of this bull! White men created this mess, not black men, white men are at fault. They have no solution. None at all. McCain is a multi-term loser. He has no answers, and everyone knows it. Hillary has consistantly backed those same losers. She has no answers. Does Obama have the answer? Who knows for sure, but one thing we all know, niether of the other two do have them either

lol....this is the ignorant reason obama has won.....unfortunately obama has pulled them from clubs and rap concerts so he can get more votes but these people don't have a clue who obama is except that he's black..........how sad.........

Posted by cory | March 5, 2008 7:04 AM

I realize that in the "old days", a person with a miniscule amount of "black" blood could be considered a person of color. However, those days are over and the fact of the matter is that Obama is just as much white as he is black. Perhaps we should call him whack or blite. I have read his books. He's faced his demons and any argument about his race is as silly as calling him whack or blite. Barack is an American.

Posted by David | March 5, 2008 8:14 AM

Geoff Staples:

This year broke all records for voter turnout and many who had never voted before showed up at the poll for the first time. As you so eloquently stated one of the reason a voter is given a provision ballot is that that showed up at the wrong polling location. Normally, only diehard voters show up for democratic primaries, as evidenced by the often anemic total vote counts. It seems to me that the Democratic Party was concered that there would much higher provisional ballot because of the large increase in first time voters. Can you tell me where you heard about this plan by Obama to distort the caucus results? That is an extremely serious charge uou are leveling at his campaign and integrity that should not be uttered lightly.

Posted by Eric | March 5, 2008 9:20 AM

I voted in Fort Worth, and last night some loudmouth girl was discussing and holding 'the packet' as we waited before we could go in. Obama supporters were in complete control of the whole thing, running it actually. No one really knew where to sign in, they ran out of sign in sheets so they used notebook paper. No one knew what to do.

Posted by unhappy voter | March 5, 2008 9:39 AM

I voted in Fort Worth, and last night some loudmouth girl was discussing and holding 'the packet' as we waited before we could go in. Obama supporters were in complete control of the whole thing, running it actually. No one really knew where to sign in, they ran out of sign in sheets so they used notebook paper. No one knew what to do.

Posted by unhappy voter | March 5, 2008 9:39 AM

Yet another pathetic attempt by the Clinton Campaign at a claim of unfairness. The woman disgusts me to be honest. She so DESPERATELY wants to win that she is willing to dehumanize her own fellow American. She talks about of both sides of her mouth constantly and my respect for her has dwindled down to almost nothing. She reminds me of Anne Coultier. Frankly I've refused to vote in the primaries (wasn't able to anyway - unaligned). However, now it seems that us undecided folks are being pushed out there to make this freaking crap stop. Hillary showed some ugly colours within the last week or so. Really turned alot of us off. My friends and I are gamers professionally and we're pretty apathetic. However we all feel that this has gone WAY to freaking far. She was so ready to make an accusation of unfairness that she had her campaigers already plant some BS information with the papers. Geezus H. When will she stop? I'm going to try my best to make up for not voting by throwing my chips in for Obama. Frankly, out of the two of them she just seems like a nasty, angry, desperate, and bitter freak... he's pretty freaking calm, cool, collected, and dignified. He throws no low-punches at her. Unfair wretch....

OBAMA '08 HAS THE SUPPORT OF NY/NJ GAMERS!!!!!

Posted by Rebecca K. | March 5, 2008 9:49 AM

david, who just posted, is hopelessly naive, because people are so happy that even if NO-bama's .25 black, they want to vote for him because of racial payback. people are instructed to vote for 'their own,' and obama can be seen on a youtube clip saying 'this campaign is about our OWN people.' if anyone who isn't black thinks that obama considers you, look at his stance in the 'our own people' clip... it bugs me that so-called educated people are voting for this man who is so thinly veiled, with no experience and a vague slogans like 'change' and 'yes we can.' yes, the current political scene needs a change, but what does that change mean and for whom? who is this guy really to change his views so radically and not definitively state where he's coming from? ask yourself who the 'we' is in 'yes we can.'

bill clinton was an excellent president, and what's our thanks? bogus news stories calling him racist come out of the east early in the primary to silence him. hillary is very strong too. why are so many white males afraid of her? are they more sexist than they are racist? the guy who posted above about the fat wife jokes qualifies but can't you see that obama isn't for you, especially if you earn a lot? i thought texas was ridiculously sexist and racist and moved away as soon as i was able... today i wish i could have been there in the caucuses to vote for my girl HILL, early and often.

**PLEASE WAKE UP AND DON'T NAIVELY SUPPORT RACIAL PAYBACK!** racism is lose-lose; it's a two-way street. don't vote for a candidate based on color or sex and disregard the facts. don't listen to people who say that people in the minority can't be racist. (as this is the Atlantic site, check the archives for an excellent cover story about racial payback regarding the o.j. trial. the author was on charlie rose too and is in those archives. the author stood up to michael eric dyson's racial payback message. jurors were urged by cochran to send a message to whites by voting to acquit, and one white juror who voted with the jury cried her eyes out over her conflict. racial payback is insidious and willfully ignorant of the facts). has a black man really 'arrived' if he can get away with it?

the message of racial payback is that the ends, the advancement of the race, justifies the means, but if we are truly all related, so that hurting one person or group hurts all people, we will only be hurting ourselves as a whole with this garbage!

btw, who decided that martin luther king jr's message was irrelevant and that we just need to pay back the injustices in the country with more injustice. if we waste our time doing that, how will we advance as a nation? if we suspend thinking and judgment and facts and let our anger blindly lead us, where will that angry non-thinking mob lead us?

it drives me crazy that people try to compare obama to martin luther king jr and others. MLK JR. would NEVER SAY "THIS CAMPAIGN IS ABOUT OUR OWN PEOPLE!" why isn't that clip on national news? MLK JR. must be rolling in his grave. abe lincoln, jfk and the messiah must also be rolling in their graves. i feel sorry for whoever obama is being compared to and hope he doesn't cheapen their good names.

surely there must be a true straight-shooting progressive leader on our horizon who is not too cynical to have the dream in this day and age. right now HILL IS MY GIRL AND THE BEST BET!! obama won't fool everyone, and that's why even republicans voted for hillary today. i'll return the favor and vote republican if NO-bama gets the nomination.

former Texan turned Californian

Posted by tabatha | March 5, 2008 10:02 AM

I was in Precinct 3127 in San Antonio TX volunteering and I say that I know for a fact an Obama person not even from Texas was signing other Obama supporters up inside the polling place and telling them that they didn't need to come back. This other woman there reported him to the Judge and the county sent out attorneys looking for him.

Oh and you can only get the packet ahead time if your name is on it which means to applied and were accepted as precinct coordinator. This guy wasn't even from the state and he got it!

Posted by SG | March 5, 2008 10:02 AM

I attended the caucus for precinct 4204 in Tarrant county Texas. At least three precints use the same location so we had to go to different rooms. My precinct had to go to an upstairs room. The only access to this room is stairs. Did they not want people who cannot climb stairs to caucus?
Also the room was too small, all the people could not get in the room, we were told we could leave after we signed in if we did not want to vote for delagates. This system has to be changed!

Posted by Rosa | March 5, 2008 10:16 AM

I attended the caucus for precinct 4204 in Tarrant county Texas. At least three precints use the same location so we had to go to different rooms. My precinct had to go to an upstairs room. The only access to this room is stairs. Did they not want people who cannot climb stairs to caucus?
Also the room was too small, all the people could not get in the room, we were told we could leave after we signed in if we did not want to vote for delagates. This system has to be changed!

Posted by Rosa | March 5, 2008 10:16 AM

I think we need national reform legislation to outlaw all voting systems that do not respect the one man one vote principle which has been repeatedly violated. Disrespect of democracy has given us the current train wreck of an administration.

I haven't seen so casual and unprofessional a polling place as the one I voted in yesterday in North Dallas. I was not even given a ballot when I checked in. I had to wander around looking for one. Then I looked over and observed that no one was monitoring the voting area. It occurred to me I could have just picked up a handful of ballots and voted several times and no one would have noticed.

The caucus i hardly a suitable system for a democratic country. We established democracy to get away from a small group of people controlling the government. Nothing should count but the popular vote, period.

Posted by Joe Lindsay | March 5, 2008 10:27 AM

I am an Obama Precinct Captain and I, along with dozens of others, were stunned when the Precinct Chairs of Precincts 3131 and 3069 in Bexar County received the caucus packets before the close of primary voting. The Precinct Chairs then, in contravention of caucus rules, opened the packets and began signing in voters - again prior to the close of the polls.

We witnessed the sign ins to make sure they were fair but had to cite the Chairpersons chapter and verse of the rules before they would cease the start of the caucuses prior to the close of the polls.

This is such a new process for everyone that I think at least small breaches of the rules were likely commited in a large number of precincts.

Posted by Michael Nash | March 5, 2008 10:40 AM

to rebecca, the ny/nj gamer,
please unplug your games long enough to reflect a little more. CHOOSING A CANDIDATE ISN'T ABOUT CHARISMA ALONE, IT'S ABOUT CHARACTER. (read the book 'the making of the president 1968' about how television by its very nature led to distortion of the issues with slick appearances. nixon had to repackage himself in 1968 to make himself more palatable and secure a win). please don't tell me we're in an era where the look is all that matters. after all, i hear that some criminals are calm, cool and collected under fire... that doesn't mean anything! how about listening to their words?

historical figures like abe lincoln weren't slick; they were just honest people with strong minds, high ideals and good hearts. would abe lincoln make it today? would he be good-looking or cool enough? don't go with a smooth voice or look. also, ask yourself if you might be dismissing hillary for fighting back, because many times women are expected to do things like cry, apologize for themselves and cave in... maybe her against-the-grain behavior is disappointing to you, but that signals hope to me. read my earlier post if you will, because obama thinks this campaign is about 'our own people' (see the clip on youtube) and maybe you are not included in his select group... is that fair?

black superdelegates are being urged to not be the one vote that holds obama back, and if that's not racial payback, i don't know what is!

rebecca, ask yourself what fairness is. is it fair for obama to call one race 'our own people,' when he's of mixed race? what does that say about him, that he would betray half of himself? can a candidate play to both sides like that and be of good character? is he not a chameleon? a chameleon politician, how does that represent 'change?' please wake up, rebecca! this isn't a game!

Posted by tabatha | March 5, 2008 10:42 AM

tabatha,

I may not completely understand your point and want to give you the benefit of the doubt but must say that you come across as quite the hypocrite.

Let's see if I get this right: it is somehow wrong in your view for people to vote on the basis of racial identity but repeatedly you keep calling Hillary Clinton "your girl". So it's OK, then, to vote on the basis of gender identity?

Please clarify.

Posted by Michael Nash | March 5, 2008 11:26 AM

I am in Laredo (predominantly Hillary Country) and I can tell you that an Obama precinct captain found a ballot-box lock (supposed to be on the ballot box) that had been broken. It is obvious that someone tampered with the ballots in that precinct. And yes, I did personally see the broken ballot-box lock.
In one of the caucuses, Hillary supporters wheeled in around 13 people from the nursing home with oxygen tanks and all. One lady was overheard by one of my co-workers as saying she didn't even want to be there.

Posted by jack | March 5, 2008 11:45 AM

Tabatha, your candidate joined forces with Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum to attempt a $90 million congressional investigation on how video games are harming children. She has advocated a government takeover of the ESRB, which could dramatically decrease the number of titles available to the public. I think it's safe to say that Clinton will not be winning the gamer vote.

You are similarly unlikely to convince Obama supporters that the Clinton campaign is more "fair" than his, for reasons too numerous to elaborate.

Posted by Steven the all-knowing | March 5, 2008 11:59 AM

tabatha

Well inspite of you're "nobama" assertions, i find that u are viewing things completely wrong.

This is a historical election! And being that there are 2 democratic candidates that seemingly share a similar platform many of the first time voters are choosing their candidate base on superficial commonalities--- this can be clearly seen on BOTH sides though.

So how do we choose between candidates with only slight platform differences without resorting to looking at superficial distinctions beyond gender and race??? Well, beside their stand on major issues, i say we look at the Character revealed by the candidate. We should observe their reaction to winning and losing and how they attempt to connect to the people as a whole ( not by isolating certain ethnic groups in attempt shift a vote). WE ARE ALL AMERICANS and we should want to vote for a candidate concerned with americans as a whole. We are a diverse mixture of ppl and we need a president that represents us all!

Hilary has shown that in situations that are not going in her favor, she becomes desperate... she starts the mud slinging and the finger pointing. By taking that into consideration we are left to wonder how she would deal with a disaster or huge issue if ever she were to become president? Hiliary seemingly just wants to win votes, not represent a diverse group of people. And if ever we were to face a major problem in the future under her leaderships and she were to respond so lowely as she has in face of past campaign defeats, we are setting ourselves up to be walked all over by the rest of the world!... and a SNL skit ref won't save her

Obama on the other, although seemingly too idealistic, has maintained composure throughout his campaign. and in the end i think we as Americans are looking for someone to represent US and to show the rest of the world that we will continue to stand strong!!!

And to all claiming that there was some kinda of Obama attempt to underhandedly control the caucus, i find that to be quite a stretch. There was an unprecedented turnout for a very unorganized process... confusion was inevitable. I was at my precinct 618 caucus until almost midnight! Obama won in almost all the precincts held in our area by and overwhelming amount! In our particular precinct he won 20 to 7! I believe that this will prove to be a silent victory for Obama as he claims even more of the Texas delegates!

Posted by melvy | March 5, 2008 12:20 PM

How are precinct numbers assigned in the State of Texas? I keep seeing 3082 and being in Ft Bend County; yet, I'm in San Antonio (Bexar County) and I live in precinct 3082. I did check it out and there is a 3082 in Ft Bend County also. Are these numbers repeated in each county???? VERY confusing.

Posted by Bexar County | March 5, 2008 12:41 PM

to michael nash and others who responded to my posts:

i'll quote what i said: "don't vote for a candidate based on color or sex and disregard the facts." in other words, if condi rice ran against a man, i wouldn't vote for her...

if i didn't believe in hillary's positions, i wouldn't be for her, and i did not choose her because she's female. there's nothing in what i wrote to say i would choose a candidate for superficial reasons. i am simply proud that she is a strong female candidate. (thank God she's in there, or i'd be voting republican).

yes, this is a historical race, melvy, but let's not lose our heads over it. where do you get your insight into hillary's political motives or desperation? if obama is affiliated with corrupt figures or has told canadians that he is keeping mum about his real opinions about nafta, then why shouldn't she say something? yes, it's an exciting time in politics, but let's keep our eyes open.

the other commentary was disappointing, because actually hillary and obama are not as similar as it's painted in the press. obama has views that are more extreme: hillary wants to pull out of iraq in a reasonable amount of time, and he simply wants to pull out immediately. his positions sound like a high school candidate who is extremely naive and lacks experience... like bill clinton rightfully said, a fairytale (see below).

i find it interesting that NO ONE addressed obama's own divisive comments about race. when bill clinton was accused of being racist, he had simply said that obama's position about the war was a fairy tale. yet obama says the entire election is about 'our own' people, and no one says a word in the press. no one addresses it here. they say i'm just wrong with no backup to their assertions, which are just opinions. i'm giving an objective source that can be viewed, look at obama yourself on youtube. there he is being racist, making racist comments, hello? i guess people choose to ignore that, but it is totally unprofessional and should be in the news... maybe people are afraid to call it like it is. beneath a slick veneer, he is a deeply disturbing candidate, and i don't think mlk jr. would be proud of his divisiveness.

Posted by tabatha | March 5, 2008 1:23 PM

i forgot stephen, the all-knowing,
why should kids be allowed to play games like mortal combat where the command is 'finish him,' and then the character gets beheaded or thrown in front of a train? i have no problem with making the games less accessible to kids. a lot of these games are misogynistic or gratuitously violent, hardly like tetris, millipede or q*bert, which were always my favs.

Posted by tabatha | March 5, 2008 1:28 PM

For Stephen the all-knowing:

Sen Clinton has spent much of her adult life trying to protect children. It doesn't surprise me that she would work with Sens Brownback and Santorum to initiate a congressional investigation as to whether video games are harmful.

I think Sen Obama might approve of the idea. He seems to be advocating a "we society" instead of a "me society" Maybe we adults can back off on the types of games we play if it protects our country's children. Didn't he also say last night that parents should put books in their children's hands instead of video games at least once in a while?

If Sen Obama expects to reduce the polarization in Washington he too will have to work with the likes of Sens Brownback and Santorum.

Ironic isn't it that Sen Clinton has a longer and deeper working history with Republican Senators to use as a platform to negotiate legislation with bipartisan support?

Posted by Anne in NYC | March 5, 2008 2:21 PM

I'm getting really sick of Obama's cult followers.

These people won't even let Hillary blink incorrectly before they pounce on her.

BREAKING NEWS: OBAMA IS RUNNING A NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN TOO!

Anyone who believes otherwise is an absolute fool.

Obama is the biggest two-faced liar I've ever heard speak in my entire life. He's a politician, and a dirty one at that.

He says on thing and does another.

Pigs will fly and Hell will freeze before I EVER vote for Barack Obama.

Posted by Kyle | March 5, 2008 2:43 PM

totally agree with you Kyle, although I will most likely vote for him if it comes down to it.

I would also like to say that here in San Antonio TX, there was an Obama person from Washington DC who got a hold of an orange envelope in the neighboring precinct. And was signing up only Obama supporters during the day telling them they didnt need to come back. The state attorneys were called and they found him doing the same at other precincts. They interviewed him, took his picture and told him to stay away.
How someone not even from Texas much less that precinct got the envelope is beyond me!

Posted by leni | March 5, 2008 3:03 PM

oh I would just like to add not just anyone can get the packet, only the precinct coordinators.

Posted by leni | March 5, 2008 3:05 PM

tabatha,

Thank you for your response.

If I thought, based on said response, that you actually had a firm grasp on the issues I might believe you were judging Obama and Clinton on something other than race or sex (not that there's anything inherently wrong with doing so). And I also have reservations believing you given your pejorative name-calling (NObama?).

As to the facts,

Point 1 - Barack Obama did not talk to Canadian officials about NAFTA, Austan Goolsby did. This is the equivalent of saying Clinton brought up teenage drug use by Obama instead of Bill Shaheen.
Point 2 - Barack Obama has not called for a full and immediate withdrawal of forces from Iraq. He has called for a phased withdrawal to conclude by the end of 2009.
Point 3 - "(H)is positions sound like a high school candidate who is extremely naive and lacks experience"? Please be specific instead of throwing out juvenile, unsubstantiated charges (opinions?).
Point 4 - Bill Clinton did not simply say "Obama's record on Iraq was a fairy tale" and then get charged with racism. This claim is disingenuous at best and an outright lie at worst.
Point 5 - If you are refering to Obama's victory speech in South Carolina, I have no idea how you come to the conclusion Obama was speaking only about African-Americans ("our own people"). On at least three occasions in the final 10 minutes of the speech he specifically refers to all Americans - regardless of race - being one America.
Point 6 - I'm not sure you should be attempting to speak for Dr. King, given your apparent dissembling in this conversation.

Posted by Michael Nash | March 5, 2008 3:13 PM

What is happening with the final caucus vote in Texas? The CNN news as only 37% posted.

Posted by Janet | March 5, 2008 3:46 PM

I am in Precinct 147 in Collin County and was a Precinct Captain for Hillary. (I was her Precinct Captain for my precinct. Each side has Precinct Captains) The interactions I had with Obama supporters were very positive...even laughing going on as we muddled through this nightmare of a system. However...I have been reading up on how to conduct a Precinct Convention for weeks. Here is what went wrong in ours:
The two Obama supporters who got the election packet from the judge honestly did not know what to do so they set up a table, had everyone line up and sign the sign in sheets (this was not to be done first, and is done after a nomination and vote of who will run the caucus) and then told people they could leave. I wrongly assumed they knew what they were doing and did not want to be pushy so when I went to sign the sheet, I asked the self-appointed guy in charge where we would be caucusing after the sign in. He responded "this is the caucus". It was a nightmare. I explained that no, we had to nominate and elect delegates based on the delegate count after everyone signed in. They had no idea, but thankfully we miraculously had a total of 12 people out of the 71 who signed in remaining to meet our threshold to hold a caucus. I had a huge, organized notebook with all of the info from the Texas Democratic website and they listened to me because I was the only one who knew how the hell the thing worked. We worked together politely and it was a good experience, but I wonder how many clusterf*cks happened elsewhere. How it SHOULD have worked was...1) Whoever gets the packet from the election judge is the Temporary Precinct Chair and can start the meeting 2) Everyone present then can nominate and vote for the Permanent Precinct Chair who runs the show. This may or may not end up being the person who initially got the packet.(A permanent secretary is also elected...and I DO think it is fair and a good idea to have them each be from opposite sides for oversight.) 3) THEN and ONLY THEN do people start signing the sheet for who they support. 4) The totals for each candidate are counted and there is a math formula to calculate how many of the possible delegates each candidate gets. 5) Then ACTUAL LIVING, BREATHING people in attendance are nominated and voted as in delegates, as are an equal number of alternates. No one understood that delegates are YOU and I...real people, and your candidate has to have to have delegates move up through county and state conventions then on to the National Convention to vote for their candidate. Delegates are not just names on paper. I explained we had to actually caucus for the benefit of both of our candidates. I am not a politician... I am a registered nurse and did not know squat about caucuses (also called Precinct Conventions) until I TOOK THE TIME TO STUDY IT AND EDUCATE MYSELF ABOUT IT!!! There is all the info you need available on the internet if you take the initiative. If you are going to run a caucus you should at least know what you are doing. I do not think people were trying to cheat, they just did not understand a very complex system.

Posted by Dawn | March 5, 2008 4:00 PM

thanks for your time, but i have checked and rechecked my facts and have included my sources, that means direct quotes from the horse's mouth. btw, i have a right to say no-bama, because it's my opinion.

you are very condescending in your messsage to me, saying that i don't know my facts, when most of these comments are from clips on youtube. interestingly, you say nothing about obama's corrupt friendships. people on this blog who claim he has a positive campaign make me laugh. they are dirty, dirty, dirty, and there's evidence of it all over the net.

point 1-it's obama that's been bashing hillary. obama has tried to paint hillary as a nafta supporter, and yet who is the supporter? it says on wtkk. on ctb news "don't worry. this is just campaign rhetoric." obama then LIED and said there was no contact... and then the memo from the meeting came out in the ap. first he said they never met and then when caught he admitted it. you can HEAR HIM YOURSELF on the wtkk clip on youtube. BARACK HIMSELF SAID THERE WAS NO MEETING, UH LIAR... are we too afraid to call a liar, a liar??
point 2-this was in the san francisco chronicle in a spread about the candidates.
point 3-again, you are condescending calling me juvenile. did i ever once cut you down in my communication? no. i will quote bill clinton who called him a 'kid' and rightfully so as he is a jr. senator with no experience.
point 4-from the Washington Post and MSNBC. YOU'RE INCORRECT ON THIS ONE TOO; please watch the youtube news clips. clinton's fairy tale clip is on youtube, and so is the msnbc newscast. in bill clinton's clip, he said that obama said his position in 2004 was the same as president bush and then recanted and removed that speech from his website, later claiming as of 2005 that he always opposed the war. cnn's donna brazile him racist following this, and the anchors of msnbc called it dicey and the dumbest comment made by a political pundit that week. so no, bill didn't say anything but the fairy tale comment and was called a racist. in response to these attacks bill clinton said he has to keep fairly silent during his wife's campaign because of the way his words were being twisted by obama supporters. that last bit about clinton was in the washington post, where i first read the facts. yes, what i wrote is based on facts.
point 5-the clip from youtube is not specified, but he is surely not talking about all americans. talk about outrageous! i've seen a lot of people do this, mention two groups americans and our people. you might try watching the clip to see what speech it may be from. he's standing in front of an african american choir in blue and white robes. anyone can talk about being one america, by the way, and talk is cheap!
point 6-condescending and not worth addressing except to say that dr. king made truly believable eloquent comments that spoke to all americans. i don't hear that being carried on. if i heard it, believe me, i would be a supporter, but like i said, i don't. i believe he is a phony, and his speeches are fairy tales. and his supporters are blind followers and frightening to boot. what happens when the elderly vote dies off? what then?????

Posted by tabatha | March 5, 2008 4:54 PM

This sort of mischief is typical of Obama and his supporters. He got a judge to sign an order to keep the polls open in a predominately black county of Ohio. When the Secretary of State got a hold of it she over ruled it because their was no basis for his request other than he was losing. By the time it was over turned, the people of the county had an additional 82 minutes.

He will try any thing to get elected. I feel sorry for the young girl who tried to caucus and was afraid of being beat up. Is this what the supporters of Obama are like. Is this what we want are children to witness? Is this America?

Furthermore, an Obama supporter calls a man's wife the fat lady. What happened to respect? The caucuses are not a fair determination of the voters. They aren't designed for people that work nights, have kids, or the elderly. The system should be changed and primaries are a true reflection of the voters concensus.

Posted by Nanci | March 5, 2008 4:55 PM

I attended a caucus in Plano, Texas. Our city is known for diversity and education. However, we needed Super Nanny to rescue us!!!!! It was UNREAL!!!!!

God Bless ALL of the volunteers for trying! It was worse than an overcrowded, snowed in group of airline passengers. What happened?

Posted by L.R. | March 5, 2008 5:01 PM

In response to the comment from SG:
I am not completely clear on what you are stating in your comment. I am the precinct chair for 3127 in San Antonio and I was the one who received the packet. You are right about me not being from Texas. I was born in Missouri and moved here around the time that I was two years old in 1977 or 1978.

Once the meeting had started and everyone had signed in, I told the entire crowd, not just the Obama supporters, that they could leave if they didn't want to be a delegate or vote on the resolutions. I could see that the meeting was going to take a while. As far as being reported to election judges and having attorneys dispatched in search of me, I have no idea what you are talking about. My name, address, and phone number are listed on the party's website, so I am not that hard to find. Did you write down the wrong precinct number in your post when you accused me of wrongdoing?

Overall I think it was a slow and hectic process, but beautiful to see so many people participating. I want to publicly thank all of those who participated for showing up and doing their civic duty, and for being so civil and courteous to one another. I will always remember this experience. It was a pleasure and an honor serving as your chair.

Mario Bravo

Posted by Mario Bravo | March 5, 2008 5:01 PM

Anne in NYC,

"Ironic isn't it that Sen Clinton has a longer and deeper working history with Republican Senators to use as a platform to negotiate legislation with bipartisan support?"

Not really "ironic" because it's not the case Clinton has a longer history of working with Republicans to negotiate legislation with bipartisan support. She's only held elective office since 2000 whereas Obama has held elective office since 1996 and he was extremely well regarded by those from across the aisle for his bipartisanship in Illinois and continues to have such a reputation in the United States Senate.

Posted by Michael Nash | March 5, 2008 5:13 PM

Check the facts out about all three candidtes on the website called the "The Middleclass.org. It is very enlightening. All three candidates are graded regarding their Senate accomplishments.

Posted by Nanci | March 5, 2008 5:53 PM

I voted in precinct 11-1 in Kendall County. Our meeting did not start until almost 9 pm. We had 3 precincts sharing our location. We could not start at 7:15 because the election judge had to reconcile the votes and close out the balloting for the primary before we could start.

Our problems were simply that we had an amazing turnoutfor the primary and the caucus! Our county is overwhelmingly Republican(we don't even have Democrats running for 95% of the positions in our county), and the polls were flooded with unexpected democratic voters.
We heard that there are usually about 6 people who show up to caucus and we had around 200! Other precincts in our county also reported remarkable turnouts! We had to take turns going into the small room to meet.
I did not feel that either side tried to take advantage of the other. Each side tried to accomadate the voters and make the process work in an incredibly confused situation.

We all signed in and selected our candidates and were allowed to decide whether we wanted to stay to be a delegte and vote on the resolutions.

If any of the required processes were not followed exactly; it was not because of any malfeasance. Our officials tried to accomodate everyone.

And importantly, I did not hear any voter from either side say they felt cheated, intimidated or disenfranchised.

Posted by Kelley | March 5, 2008 6:12 PM

Update neither candidate can get to the magic number of 2025 with the delegates left.

Florida Governor Crist(R)is convening a special committee to get our delegates seated at the Democratic Convention.

Florida is the 4th largest State in the U.S. I don't know what Michigan plans to do.

Posted by Nanci | March 5, 2008 6:15 PM

tabatha,

The first words I saw from you here were calling someone "hopelessly naive". I don't think you are entitled to pity points regarding any perceived condescending words.

As for "corrupt friendships", I don't think you really want to go down that road. The friends of the Clintons who have gone to jail for corruption are legion in number.

YOU said Obama talked to the Canadians. He did not. YOU lose point.

"SF paper" needs some sort of citation. YOU said Obama wants an immediate withdrawal and that is factually incorrect. I suggest you go directly to the source for his plan in Iraq. It's readily available on Obama's website.

I did not call you juvenile. I said the charges you made were juvenile. There is a meaningful distinction.

Donna Brazile's primary complaint about Clinton was his use of the word "kid" refering to a man in his mid-40s and a United States Senator. BTW, Clinton was the same age as Obama when he first ran for President so it seems kinda hypocritical now, doesn't it? But Donna Brazile is one person. The main "racism" charges leveled against Bill Clinton and reported everywhere from the NY Times to The National Review and commented on every television channel and major online news source was in response to his dismissive "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88" comment.

Go to YouTube and type in "Obama our own people". I did so because that was your choice of words. Watch the first clip. You'll see what I mean.

Yes, you have been dissembling and you can call that condescending if you like but I'll simply use your retort that it's my opinion. But it's really not. It's fact.

I've been involved in politics my whole adult life. At one time I worked for the Clintons and am proud to have done so. In nearly 30 years of political activism I've never met anyone like Obama (save, maybe, Paul Wellstone) or witnessed anything like the Obama political phenomenon (save, maybe, Ronald Reagan).

Frankly, what happened here in Texas is a near-miracle. I recognize it's being spun as a win for Hillary (though she's likely to lose the delegate count) but real Texas pols (not dimwit pundits chasing ratings butterflies) are stunned by what has happened.

Posted by Michael Nash | March 5, 2008 6:17 PM

I would like to say to all republicans that listened to Rush and voted for Clinton, you are the biggest idiots on the face of this earth. Giving any edge to H. Clinton is plain stupid. I won't listen to RL anymore either. I'm a republican and I'm voting for Obama when the general election comes around.

Posted by Tony | March 5, 2008 6:36 PM

tabatha.....don't bother responding. the obamazombies you are trying to educate are all brainwashed into believing this tool could be our next president.....

Posted by cory | March 5, 2008 6:46 PM

cory,

Name calling is the resort of the simple-minded.

Congratulations.

Posted by Michael Nash | March 5, 2008 9:11 PM

Nanci,

Acutally a candidate CAN reach the magic number without Florida or Michigan. Should Obama simply split the remaining Superdelegates as well as pledged delegates from the remaining states and territories, he will pass the threshold necessary to secure the nomination.

Also, there are plenty of stories here in Bexar County about intimidation and shenanigans at the caucuses by Clinton supporters. Should I paint all Clinton backers with a broad (no pun intended) brush?

Posted by Michael Nash | March 5, 2008 9:18 PM

WE ARE SO LUCKY TO HAVE 2 GREAT CANDIDATES.

Let's recognize that in a few months, we will all have to agree to support one or the other to meet our collective objective.

Encourage your preferred candidate to continue to communicate only their issues, and not wallow in the mud.

It was great to see so many Democrats out at the polling place and again at the Texas Caucus last night!!!

Posted by DemsDaBest | March 5, 2008 10:03 PM

LMAO @ TABATHA:

First of all, you'd better freaking believe that I've researched all of my facts on both candidates.

Frankly, the Clintons (and yes I'm mopping Bill and Hillary up together in this one) have a sordid history of flagrant dishonesty, immorality (I'm a very Christian girl), "flip-flopping" on very important matters (homage to The Missing Link we have in office atm), ugly scandals, judicial run-ins (for both Bill and Hillary), and association with an overwhelming assortment of skeevy but extremely wealthy corporate criminals. Hillary continues to manage to officially cut her ties with them once they get caught thus legally getting away scott-free which is even more despicable if ya ask me. Then again she was a first lady, and if Bush can get away with outright treason then she can easily get away a little embezzlement and dirty money trades.

Frankly, Obama's association with Rezko DRAMATICALLY PALES in comparison to Billary's association with corporate characters who are far, far worse! Realistically speaking, Hillary is nothing but more of the same. Despite the fact that she's a woman, she is just like the bastards we've been struggling to get out of office - only more passionate about her glory than her money. She is driven by whatever crazy insatiable hunger for power it is that drove her to remain with Bill Clinton throughout the 20someodd years of sex scandal after sex scandal. The same greed that drove her to invest and accept endorsement and fundraising from embezzlers and criminals. The same greed that has been driving her to continuously throw-out the below-the-belt punches at Obama and his campaign throughout this tough race. (Sorry for the sentence fragments and run-ons, I'm not proof-reading this crap.) Regardless of what any SNL pig may say (they massively phail at comedy ever since Ferrell left anyhow - Tina Fey needs to stick to freaking writing teen movies for Lindsay Lohan) Obama's jabs (yes, he has thrown his punches as well) are no where near the dirty sort that Hillary and her campaigners have been throwing out there from day one. Frankly, many young people like myself - nerds, gamers, intellectuals - would NEVER want someone like that representing US to the world or in charge of OUR future.

And sorry to break it to you Tabetha, but despite my love for gaming I am rather well informed as to the issues and am also rather hard to brainwash (as are my colleagues). I am a member of MENSA International - Greater New York Chapter. I am also a member of the American Philosophical Association, the American Anthropological Association, the American Psychological Association, and the International Early Psychosis Association. Anyone wanting to belong to any of the groups that I just mentioned could NOT possibly allow themselves to remain in ANY way uninformed.

The fact that I and my fellows chose to remain politically abstinent until now is NOT in any way reflective of some kind of political ignorance. Ohhh no... we are most likely more informed and enlightened as to the goings-ons of our world than you are, dear Tabetha. So next time, don't assume that you're talking to some kind of ignorant, drunken, college geek who doesn't know her right from her left.

Sorry to break it to you but this entire race is a game.... Nonetheless, it is not a war. Yet, you Clinton backers seem intent on creating one and that's what turns us off of Clinton and onto Obama.... The overwhelmingly contrasting tactics. It's as if Hillary's Campaign Tactics Guidebook is nothing but her notes on highschool notes on Machiavellian political strategy. This war-mongering just feels like dirty old Washingtonian politics mixed in with a little of that old British leap-over-your-chair-and-punch-your-opponent-in-the-face style politics. Now, if it's war that you guys want... well be careful what you wish for. We could EASILY dig up some of the ugliest, ugliest truths on Billary and blast them across the freaking world. We have a base 10,000 strong of hackers, gamers, and freaking geniuses, all willing and ready, and all of whom back Obama. Your silly "Obama's a Muslim omG!" e-mails would look like Christmas cards by comparison. But you see... Obama doesn't want that. So, we're trying to play a fair game and no matter what we'll never have to sink to your level....
Get off your high wooden horse, chica. This is real. No one that matters is going to fall for the same yellow propaganda that you guys are trying so desperately to shove down our throats via the media and the internet. The internet is our domain! LOL W3 R G4M3RZ N W3 Wi11 BAROCK U!

Posted by Rebecca again. | March 6, 2008 2:05 AM

I was on the ground in Houston, and helped organize a caucus that constituted three precincts in Houston. It was a total mess - 2,000 people sat waiting for the process to start for hours; no rooms were clearly marked for what precincts went where. the polls were open well past the supposed 7pm close time, and therefore caucus-goers waited til after 9:30pm before they could even sign in, and that's before the caucus began. People arrived to caucus at 6:15pm and many left finally at 1am. It broke my heart to see 70 and 80 year old men and women, most Clinton supporters, many who were not English speakers, wait for 6.5 hours without dinner.

TEXAS CAUCUSES were the worst run ever. The precinct judge disappeared for all of the night, and when she did appear, had no idea what to do, had no idea what was in the packet.

For all of you commentators who judge from afar - the CAUCUS system is undemocratic, and easily open for cheating - we had tons of people who walked in and signed their names, but when no judge is overlooking, and when its an "honor" system that these people actually participated in the primary, you never know if they're being stacked.

Obama's campaign was rebuked in Ohio for trying to get poll workers who didn't have the right credentials to get hired - in Texas, Latinos complained that poll workers trying to explain to them the voting machines, hit the Obama button and when the person protested saying they planned to vote for Clinton, the poll worker shrugged - "oh well, it's been done." If you want evidence, call La Tremenda radio, 1050 in Houston. The voter complained that this happened to several others as well.

Obama's campaign in Texas was bullyish - the Clinton campaigns signs were taken down, vandalized and replaced by Obama's. It was horrendous.

Again, for those of you who didn't witness this, your "opinion" really holds little weight.

Posted by bbln | March 6, 2008 3:24 AM

Although I am an Obama supporter and will vote for him if he gets the nomination, I have to admire Hillary Clinton's "comeback". As a woman that was great to see. The only question I have is at what cost? Dirty politics has always been off putting. Unfortunately, after the smoke clears and the dust settles, this battle will fracture the democratic party. This race will ultimately come down to super delegates and the democratic party is unlikely to recover.

Posted by denise | March 6, 2008 3:53 AM

Although I am an Obama supporter and will vote for him if he gets the nomination, I have to admire Hillary Clinton's "comeback". As a woman that was great to see. The only question I have is at what cost? Dirty politics has always been off putting. Unfortunately, after the smoke clears and the dust settles, this battle will fracture the democratic party. This race will ultimately come down to super delegates and the democratic party is unlikely to recover.

Posted by denise | March 6, 2008 3:53 AM

Although I am an Obama supporter and will vote for him if he gets the nomination, I have to admire Hillary Clinton's "comeback". As a woman that was great to see. The only question I have is at what cost? Dirty politics has always been off putting. Unfortunately, after the smoke clears and the dust settles, this battle will fracture the democratic party. This race will ultimately come down to super delegates and the democratic party is unlikely to recover.

Posted by denise | March 6, 2008 3:53 AM

thanks to cory. it's seeming less and less worthwhile to speak up and stick to what i've read without insulting anyone or being condescending, so i'll try to keep in mind what you said!

denise, do you think obama isn't dirty? have you read the entries here?

to mr. nash, i re-checked my facts very well, see below... the blogger i was initially responding to said the days when race matters in a candidate are over, so i am completely within my rights to say that view is hopelessly naive. we are certainly not past the days when race is an issue; if that particular writer feels he is, that's great! are we past it as a nation? i think not. people seem to think obama is a golden boy in part because of his race, for example. can we stay focused and not be so awed by so-called charisma that we stop critically thinking?

source for (your) point one
wtkk broadcast from voting day, which is on the net.
the most important thing is that obama lied about the contact with canada, as he has lied about many points. if you want to make an issue about who spoke to canada and say because of this i have 'no grasp of the facts', go ahead. that is a sideline to obama lying. why should we support a candidate who is openly lying on several fronts? how does that represent change in our political system, or maybe change is a vague lie or 'campaign rhetoric'? what is obama's change anyway? can you define it? does anyone know? or is it so persuasive for people, because they can fill in the blanks themselves...
http://wtkk.everyzing.com/viewMedia.jsp?e=19261189&col=en-all-pod_wtkk-ep&q=wtkk&match=QUERY&index=1&seek=6.179

source for point two the chronicle jan 27 issue in voters' guide
of course, obama says he's the only one who opposed the war from the beginning which is a joke. see bill clinton's comments about that and the contradictory speech he made in 2004 which he subsequently removed from his website. clinton also noted that just because people signed the resolution in congress doesn't mean they were ever pro-war. the resolution outlined certain criteria that was necessary before going to war. the fact that the republicans lied about meeting that criteria is the big point, not that na-na they voted for war and i-i did-n't stance that obama has taken, which is very juvenile according to bill clinton. (i happen to agree with that!) obama wants immediate withdrawal, 16 months is immediate and final and well, talk is cheap. i find this naive! as to bill clinton's other comments, i'm still researching.

source for point three President bill clinton, who i trust and has the right to say such things.

source for point four
youtube clip
BARACK OBAMA CAMPAIGN CALLS BILL CLINTON A RACIST
you said bill clinton wouldn't be called a racist for saying the fairy tale comment. well, he was. (i'm not going to say things like i win that point, because this isn't a contest but a good exercise).

generally, i'm not stunned by hillary's victories. many republicans voted for her as well as her supporters. i don't know if i want to keep up a dialogue too much longer, but out of curiosity, in what capacity did you work for the clintons and why are you no longer supporting them?

p.s. to rebecca, why get so personal, and why be a blowhard and list credentials, especially since your entry has nothing to do with facts or 'research?' it's not my intention to make blood boil, just to discuss, and i'm sorry for whoever has bought a line about obama, whether a person claims genius status or not. pc-rhetoric has protected him from criticism, and he's hardly had enough experience to flip-flop yet he did about the war (see above and my earlier entries). he was aligned with bush in his views or so he said in 2004 and then suddenly after removing the speech from his website 'changed' into... "the ONLY candidate who was against the war all along," give me a break! a former president tried to criticize and was called a racist, after all. i think obama is too public of a figure to rewrite history like a winston smith (1984), and it shows his inexperience in my view.

incidentally, if the six or so speeches where obama found a person who was feeling faint in the front and 'helped' them doesn't smack of covered wagon traveling medicine man days, i don't know what does! (what kind of a man says, hmm, i believe that's a good trick to employ in my speeches and if i appear to take time out like that to notice an audience member, maybe it will look like i care... good one!" do i respect the speaker, think well of his judgment? do i think he respects his audience? that's the real joke, because obama supporters may respect him immensely, but does he respect his audience, or only part of his audience? on the contrary, i think, what will this person pull next if he pulls this?) well, perhaps a few geniuses were once persuaded by traveling medicine men and even worse... after all, the obama camp said that these stunts weren't scripted, sure! never mind the fact that this faint person just happened to be in the same place during each speech, about 5-10 rows back a little to the left of obama!! oh but those on such a high horse must dismiss him for everything, even including plagiarism since his friend let him copy his homework. did john edwards let him copy too? weren't speeches supposed to be his strong point? can i listen to his speeches without wondering what's bs after seeing these things? at any rate, people who revere him must keep him on his pedestal, and i stand in awe of you, or rather disbelief at the cult-like lot of you... and i worry for when the candidate is better at it and not so transparent.

excuse me, keep telling yourself they all flip-flop, but has hillary flopped on health care for everyone or on protecting children? you can't claim she's flopped on major issues that are dear to her heart, because she actually has one. she's not just interested in telling people what they want to hear. isn't that what obama's mystique is, that he makes people feel that they're doing the right thing, above others, in the club (which is apparently very important to rebecca), and progressive simply by supporting him?

btw, i don't stereotype about gamers, a beloved brother who voted for hillary is one, but it's tangential and frankly not all that interesting, and that's not why i'm on the blog. (i was and am responding to the content of your entries, which you referred to as crap).

finally and most importantly, how are those caucuses in texas, anyway? leave it to texas to have and keep a system like that, which seems like a re-vote once the kids go to bed (just to be sure), and i'm sorry that exploitation of the process may hurt a good candidate who deserves to not have her victory obscured!

Posted by tabatha | March 6, 2008 10:54 AM

tabatha,

You miss the distinction. You did not call david's VIEWS hopelessly naive, you called DAVID hopelessly naive. You then turned around and complained about others being condescending when your very first sentence in the conversation literally dripped with condescension.

You miss another distinction. You stated that Obama spoke to the Canadians. He did not. Austan Goolsby spoke to a Canadian ambassador, not Barack Obama.

You claimed Obama wanted immediate withdrawal. Immediate withdrawal is pretty clear. It means immediate. Both Clinton and Obama have proposed a phased, not immediate, withdrawal of combat forces from the region. The only candidate suggesting immediate removal of all forces is Ron Paul.

Anyone has the right to say just about anything. At the same time, I, or you, have the right to claim the statements as juvenile. Bill Clinton has said many juvenile things over the years. Does this mean he is an idiot or that we should not listen to what he has to say? Of course not. But, again, you or I have the right to say what he has said is juvenile.

That's quite different than claiming HE is juvenile.

Thanks for the link to YouTube. It reiterates my point, while bringing up another. Who did the folks at Morning Joe cite as calling Bill a racist? Donna Brazile, who is not affiliated with the Obama campaign - despite what the title of the clip at YouTube claimed.

Now, you said Bill Clinton was called a racist for saying Obama's anti-war stance was a "fairy tale". But that's not all he said. He also called Obama a "kid" while they were campaigning in South Carolina, where the term has real meaning when applied by a white man to a black man. Donna Brazile, and only Donna Brazile to my knowledge, publicly took exception to the entirety of the commentary - not just the "fairy tale" bit, which you disingenuously cited without also mentioning the "kid" part of the comments from the former President.

The coverage of this incident paled, though, in comparison to the coverage of Bill's "Jesse Jackson" statements and those were the ones that got him in hot water with his wife's campaign.

I worked for both of Bill Clinton's campaigns in Texas as a community organizer, voter registration drive leader, GOTV representative and poll watcher. I also did talk radio spots, debates and trained others for such roles. However, I have not supported Hillary in this campaign. Not because I believe she is horrible, wrong on most issues or a poor representative of the Democratic Party. Far from it.

I have not supported her thus far because I believe Barack Obama represents the future of the Democratic Party while Hillary Clinton, fairly or unfairly, represents a continuation of the divisive relationship that permeates Washington and has stifled progress. To use one of her phrases, she needs to "get real" if she thinks the GOP is going to reach across the aisle to her or is going to be accepting of her Presidency and goals. This is not simply my personal feeling. It is the expressed view of GOP legislators and operatives I know.

Obama represents something entirely different and you can see/feel the difference in mood, facial expression and tone when those same GOPers talk about Obama. They literally FEAR what he can do to their coalition and for the future of their Party with Obama in the White House.

Lastly, regarding the primary/caucus process, the Bill Clinton campaign was actively involved in creating this process. They won the state twice using this process. They knew well how it worked prior to the campaign here but only whined about it when the tide turned against them and it was no longer going to be the 20-point blowout they assumed it would be.

In fact, they lost. I understand the current narrative in the media is that Hillary won the popular vote and so she's the "comeback girl". But the fact is that the people of Texas will award more delegates to Obama than Clinton and delegates nominate a candidate.

Posted by Michael Nash | March 6, 2008 12:26 PM

@ TABATHA:

Your arguments against Obama have an abundance of both logical and factual fallacies. You provide no credible sources to back up your statements. You simply say "Obama is a liar - Obama is evil OMG!" and then post a Youtube freaking link?! lol C'mon Tabatha!

And if a kid like that Cory could inspire you then that simply saddens me. Frankly, your argument is extremely empty and unconvincing. As Nash has said again and again, cite some sources, argue the FACTS, not contrived and biased generalizations. You sound like a Yellow Journalist who has lost their ability to convincingly manipulate the truth.

Posted by Rebecca again II | March 6, 2008 1:22 PM

to michael nash, i respect hearing your perspective on why obama is inspiring to you. i'm trying to understand what is inspiring to people and feel that because he's so new, he's a bit of a wild card, which may be a reason for the fear you mention, fear of what might happen if he were to lead us.

at least this discussion is encouraging in that it can be productive and encourage specificity about the points. to be more clear, i never said obama wanted to withdraw completely. let me specify, what bothers me about obama's timeframe is that he has a specific endpoint, which is inevitably arbitrary like a construction project deadline and would most likely be meaningless when confronted with the realities of the situation once he were to enter office. hillary clinton did not give a specific endpoint to withdrawal, and while some people may see that as vague, i see it as more realistic. the chron reported:
"Would draw up a phased withdrawal plan within first two months, with the goal of having most troops out by the end of her term in 2013. Careful not to promise a complete withdrawal and would keep residual forces in Iraq to combat terrorists, deter outside military intervention and aid the Iraqi army, but not prop up the Iraqi government."

incidentally, i didn't mean to focus on donna brazile. the issue of bill using the word kid came up in discussion on morning joe, but i took their point that many seasoned politicians use the term for a newbie. i don't think this has to be taken racially or that it necessarily should. part of this being an historical election is that people are talking about issues afresh and so it's hard to be sensitive. i can't even imagine being under such a microscope where any word can be taken and distorted. it's nothing like the comments about hillary 'pimping' her daughter on the campaign trail, which can't be viewed from any angle as benign. even if bill was the same age as obama when he first ran, he is now seasoned two terms and eight years later, and he can call a newbie a kid, can't he? i don't see why that's racist, because how can we have an effective dialogue about experience if words like 'fairy tale' and 'kid' get people up in arms.

i just watched the jesse jackson comments bill made, but they did not catch my eye at the time. is it so terrible to compare the two candidates? is that really racist? he's saying that the state has a tradition of support, and they needed to band together to try to win. bill has always been a friend to the black population, and it bothers me that people are turning on him now to distance themselves from hillary. (aside - it's ridiculous how bill's called a liar for personal information that he shouldn't have had to answer to. he should never have been questioned by starr. the whole line of questioning was irrelevant; meanwhile, the bush administration can lie about conditions in iraq and get away with that? no wonder a vague 'change' works as a slogan in 08, but people shouldn't assume what that means!)

back to brazile, i focused on her because the original set of articles i read were from the washington post around the time of the virginia primary are hard to find in the archives and after spending more time than I meant to, trying to recreate my search i gave up. what began as a brief comment turned into more, and that's okay but there are limits. i did find the sf chron article but had trouble with the post...

in regards to the caucuses, what are the strong points of having this system? should it be revised again? how did it change in the 90s?

what do you think of obama 'helping faint people' in the crowd? is it cheap to point it out? is it so commonplace? why doesn't this bother anyone? i may be naive, but that turns my stomach...

further, do you think that some of the proposals he has outlined are extreme, for example his economic ideas, are not so very parallel with hillary as people suggest?

i was just reading the detroit free press that obama is questioning hillary's foreign policy credentials, saying that she hasn't written treaties or handled crises, yet what are his credentials?

btw, i worked very hard to weed out all condescension from my communication and should have specified the view was hopelessly naive. i can admit this without a problem, (and my apologies to david). with all due respect, the whole string of comments contains slurs and condescending remarks, although they don't scale the heights of other blogs on the site which have turned into a cuss fest. i've just been trying to keep the conversation on a higher, more interesting ground and keep it from being personal!

when you say more about about your view that obama has the ability to cross the aisle and hillary doesn't, i think that says less about the candidates than it does about our society, which is unfortunately much more sexist than it is racist. it seems that men are threatened by the idea of a woman being our leader. i appreciate that you say fairly or unfairly. should a less experienced man be ahead of a more experienced woman? female public figures in this country are in quite a bind because they're supposed to behave like a stereotype as in shut up, disappear, cry... i admire her tenacity, and i think the comments about her being demented and obsessed are ridiculous distortions like a political cartoon. doesn't everyone with political aspirations need to have tremendous drive? i think people see in hillary distortions about feminism (many unfairly negative) and in obama people see distortions about idealism (unnecessarily and unjustifiably) and a lot of this seems to be very superficial. do you mind saying more about what inspires you personally? it sounds as if 'everyone's doing it,' but why is he inspiring to you?

thanks again for the dialogue!

to rebecca, many links i cited are CLIPS OF OBAMA AND PUNDITS SPEAKING, so you can't say 'oh, it's on youtube and is therefore invalid.' how could i quote a radio broadcast otherwise, as not all programs are archived for ready downloading? youtube is a tool and part of a commentary about what i've learned from various sources. there's nothing wrong that some source information happens to be repeated in this day and age on youtube. it's not perfect, as things can be taken out of context, but it's not totally improper either. this is a blog, not a research paper. are you saying i have no sources and are you lumping in the sf chronicle and the washington post? save your breath please... no one would agree those are poor sources.

a dialogue with such a self-impressed person isn't worth it, and we are in the same field btw, as if that's relevant. it's worth noting the way you have repeatedly put such inflammatory phrases in my mouth (coupled with omg as if i'm some kind of valley girl)... having studied psychology, i find it interesting that your main weapon against me is projection, and your entire commentary is about yourself, who you just can't seem to get enough of.

lastly, i wouldn't venture to guess as what inspires other people, and you haven't the first clue of what i find inspiring. the only thing you can assume in a blog such as this, is that obama fails to inspire me, and the whole reason i'm going through this exercise is that i'm trying to understand what people see in him as a candidate, why people are making such ridiculous comparisons between him and historical figures... why are people crying, (and i'm not asking so that i can sign up)...

unfortunately, it seems you are more interested in personal attacks and pretty feeble attempts at ridicule, so i'm pretty tired of the part of the conversation that involves you and don't see it as productive for anyone.

Posted by tabatha | March 6, 2008 3:44 PM

tabatha,

The Right's fear about Obama has nothing to do with his supposed lack of experience. It has to do with what he represents - real change in all its forms and the fact that their standard dirty campaign tactics will look even more disgusting when flung at Obama versus someone like Hillary.

I can only hope you can trust me on this but the Republican pros I've talked to are terrified of campaigning in their usual way against Obama and they have no positive trends or history to run on - not when oil is at $106 a barrel, people are losing their homes, recession is looming if not already here and the Republicans are the prime backers of a hugely unpopular war that will cost somewhere between $3-$5 trillion dollars.

You asked why Obama inspires me. Well, short of writing a novel I'll simply say, in hopes it has a big impact with you, he reminds me of a young Bill Clinton in many ways - his challenging upbringing, academic success, his ability to connect with people and to inspire them with a message of hope (remember The Man from Hope?). Even moreso than Bill, not to say Bill did this but Barack's message is different coming from an African-American, the fact that Barack's message is universal instead of appealing to identity politics as Dems are wont to do.

More importantly, though, is the fact that Obama has consistently shown an ability to inspire and persuade those who do not initially agree with him. The classic example, though there are plenty more in and out of politics, is the way he shepherded legislation in Illinois ensuring interrogations and confessions be videotaped by police.

Republicans and, more importantly, the Illinois police were aghast. Things like, "how can we protect your children" were bandied about by the up in arms police unions - actions which usually cause legislators to curl up in a fetal position. After the bill initially failed, by sheer force of his voice of reason and right, Obama was able not only to pass the legislation but by a margin of 35-0 and secure the support of the police unions for his future campaigns.

No matter how one cares to slice it, that's real change. You may want to take a look at the following article for more background: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

As for Hillary crossing the aisle, I don't think her being a woman has anything to do with why it will be difficult to do so. Instead it has everything to do with the fact that her name is Clinton - which might as well be Bill or Hillary Icometostealyourchildren to those in the Republican Party.

As for foreign policy credentials, I'm pretty sick of that argument. The President of the United States of America is the single most powerful person on Planet Earth. That's really all the foreign policy credential the officeholder will ever need. What matters in the selection of President is the temperament of the individual, the judgment of the individual and the goals of the individual. These are why the current POTUS has failed, not because he did not have "credentials". Frankly, Abraham Lincoln didn't have squat for experience to be Commander in Chief and he managed to do OK.

Sorry if I did not answer all your questions but hope you got an insight as to why I've decided to back Obama.

Posted by Michael Nash | March 6, 2008 6:16 PM

tabatha,

Hmmm. Looks as though NAFTA-gate takes a new twist: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080306.NAFTA06/TPStory/National

Also, Hillary saying today she and Senator McCain bring a "lifetime" of experience while Senator Obama brings "a speech" as bona fides for CinC seems to imply she'd rather have John McCain as President than Barack Obama. This is not good for Democrats (nor is it accurate - it implies that other than a speech, Obama has done little with his life).

Lastly, Mr. Wolfson conflating a request for the Clintons to release their tax returns to Ken Starr-like tactics is beyond the pale.

Methinks Hillary is seriously over-playing her hand and will pay for these dearly. Obama does not have to attack her, he can now attack her tactics as destructive for the Democratic Party.

Posted by Michael Nash | March 6, 2008 9:27 PM

Some of these posts are really disheartening to me. I'm a Hillary supporter and I have say that our caucus location was cramped and confusing, but the precinct captains from both sides really worked hard together to make sure everything was as fair and as efficient as possible. All of us were relieved that it didn't turn into the nightmare we all feared. The problem with a process like this is that you always hear the horror stories, and as hard as the campaigns work to try to make sure everyone knows whats going on, we all know there are some sleeper whackos just waiting to screw it up for everyone. With little (or no) control from the party at the precinct convention level, they just don't work. I am hoping that we'll trash this caucus system, for the sake of everyone. Although, I have to say it was nice getting to unite as democratic neighbors....

Posted by What A Mess | March 6, 2008 9:29 PM

@ Tabatha:

...wth are you yapping on about? Personal attacks? lol Okay. This is cyber-space, my dear. This is not personal so get over it. Projection? What in hell would be my motivation to utilize a defense mechanism? No, my dear, that is not projection at all... that is simply a harsh rebuttal. Don't take it personally. I feel that your comments are full of logical and factual fallacies based off of manipulated truths and blatant untruths. Me? "Self-impressed"? lol If you insist. Perhaps it's my game-face attitude or perhaps it's simply my condescending terminology. I would say that it's more of the latter and so I apologize if I was insulting. However, don't assume that I am "self-impressed", as you like to put it. No, Tabatha I'm simply dramatically un-impressed with you, thus the condescension. It bothers me very much when an obviously biased and uninformed individual insists on speaking authoritatively and carries on a debate with a very obviously well informed individual as you do with Nash.

As I said before cite some bullet-proof sources (I don't care about Youtube links showing Obama taking offense to Bill Clinton's name-calling - I want some freaking meat) and fill that empty argument up with some solid, infallible facts.

Until then enjoy destroying the Democratic Party alongside your Hillary. Damn shame.

btw If you decide to take offense to this as well... well then you are beyond hope. Good day to you.

Posted by Rebecca again III | March 7, 2008 2:11 AM

I believe that caucuses are a good thing because at least some parts of Texas did have massive Republican crossover voting that probably was meant to prop up Hilary Clinton. A few friends frequently served as poll watchers pointed out that the Democrats in many East Texas towns were nearly 100% African American.

The real reason I think they "Rushed" for Hilary was the fear of losing "the Clintons" than any grand strategy. Hilary and Bill have spent so many years in becoming symbols of what some of their opponents feel is wrong with America that have become indespensible.

That could partly explain why the results in the caucus, where people are seen and recognized by their friends and neightbors vs the open primary where anyone can vote for anyone whether they really support them or not.

I attended our local caucus in Texas. Everyone I saw was treated respectfully and it was a nice way to reconnect with neighbors that I had not seen for a while. Attendance was a very large majority of Obama supporters. It soon became obvious that the two people introduced themselves as the the temporary chairperson and secretary and got elected to the positions for the night were Clinton supporters.

When the signatures were counted and collected and checked and the delagate assigned were 17 for Obama and 9 for Clinton. Even though I wasn't sure that these accurately reflected the overwhelming Obama presence in the crowd, I was satisfied because I believed it did reflect the way our neighborhood probably voted.

Posted by D Lawler | March 7, 2008 1:43 PM

Tabatha, if you would have listened to the republicans that voted for Hillary, you would have found out that they did so because they felt McCain had a better chance of beating her in the general election. They said that they were not going to vote for her in the general elections. So who do you think they feel can win the Presidental election?? It's certainly not Hillary!!

Posted by JLC | March 7, 2008 2:24 PM

I have to wonder, considering how poorly Sen. Clinton has done in so many caucuses, while doing so much better in primaires, if this sort of thing hasn't been going on for some time now? And in how many other states?

There will certainly be investigations into these charges. If this "Caucus-Gate" in Texas turns out to be true, and worse, if this sort of thing has been going on for awhile now, giving Obama states that he would not have won, what happens?

More repeat elections? Charges of some kind, and against who?

I don't believe that Sen. Obama knew of any of this or would have allowed it if he knew. Still, he will be the one held accountable, if not by the courts, then certainly by many Americans who have yet to vote.

I had noticed a sudden change in mood, post Super Tues. Jr.'s elections. I had written his somber mood off to his disappoinment in not wrapping up the nomination that day. Now I'm wondering if it's not something much, much worse.

Ironically, brought on by people who actually thought this sort of thing would help him win.
I'm sorry, but how stupid is that?

Thanks to those few Obama supporters who clearly value democracy over any candidate, and who have told the truth about what happened at the caucuses. KUDOs!

I don't support Sen. Obama, but I do admire most of his supporters, and believe Sen. Obama's supporters want what I want, to see the best nominee chosen to run for our party. We also share a devotion to real democracy.

In their rush to make Obama our party's nominee, a few of Sen. Obama's more radical supporters may have done him a terric ammout of harm.
Not to mention the damage it will do to our democracy and our entire nation.

If it's true, I actully feel sorry for Sen. Obama.
This may well be the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign.

Posted by D. Piland | March 8, 2008 8:59 PM

D. Piland,

The uncertainty regarding the caucus process was rampant in Texas. Supporters of both Obama AND Clinton engaged in behavior that was unfortunate but the probability of any lawsuit or change in the count is nil. Also, Texas is not necessarily representative of caucuses throughout the country. The other states that have a caucus have been doing so for many elections and were/are far more familiar with the process.

The ultimate irony is that the Clintons are not new to this process and Bill's campaign was active in the development of the hybrid primary/caucus in Texas. It is little more than sour grapes that they are complaining about it.

Posted by Michael Nash | March 9, 2008 4:22 AM

Well, I think it is interesting how Obama has had bbq parties for the african american community and offered to pay them to go to the caucuses not only in their area but others too. His people came back before the caucuses and had another bbq party and they practiced how to caucus. There was some precincts that had thugs causing problems where Clinton supporters were intimidated and the police had to come. Sounds like a Republican tactic for stealing the election.

Posted by Joe | March 9, 2008 10:26 AM

to jlc,
thanks but i'm aware of how crossover republicans strategically voted for hillary in tx, but they did so partially because a close race is better for the gop. personally, i was glad to see her stay in the race and was trying to look on the bright side.

to michael nash,
thanks for your comments, posts and links, especially in the last two messages. also, it took a while to post, as i've been to a family reunion this weekend.

it's not logical that the clintons wouldn't back off a little after this week's victory, and i feel that the way news stories were running, it was inevitable that they would turn quickly again, from 'it worked' to criticism. btw, wolfson said he's been notified that the obama campaign plans to go after hillary's record, per this week's chronicle, even if you think he doesn't need to do this.

also re: nafta, i'm not familiar with the canadian news source you forwarded. here's a bit more about obama and nafta... that i just happened to find when reading about another issue. "Senators Clinton and Obama are not making any meaningful commitments to trade reform. While they have shown themselves to be very adept at dancing around the trade issue they will apparently say whatever their audience wants to hear.

"They seem to debate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) constantly, not the merits of free trade, instead they bicker over who hates NAFTA the most. ... Obama doesn't think it's 'realistic for us to repeal NAFTA'. ...To his credit, Senator Obama recognized that free trade deals help corporations not citizens, but apparently he plans to do little to change it. Talk is cheap."

how is obama representing real change from the status quo here? that was from the organic consumers association but rang true to me and is in line with sentiment in the chronicle this morning... "it is promising that even one presidential adviser (goolsbee) - however clumsy - acknowledges our trade policy's underlying depravity..." i'm not seeing change here.

btw, i'm not sure i agree with you that the presidential candidate shouldn't need foreign policy experience, because gw, for example, has certainly damaged foreign relations by his lack of it. i guess one way to dismiss a flaw in your candidate is to diminish the importance of the experience. the clintons have tremendous respect of world leaders and after the bruising we have taken in the world at the hands of gw for the last 2 terms, it would be nice to be led by someone respected in the world for a change!

when you say, "sorry if i didn't answer all your questions," i notice that you did not address racial payback. when you talk about fear, couldn't some of it have to do with fear, or perhaps dread, of racial payback? i'm not seeing how obama's message is universal, as it's unclear and very vague. people seem to be responding to a feeling about him, positive or negative, rather than something that's been outlined. to me it's scary that people fill in the blanks and then get swept up by emotion. that's why i'm trying to examine your perspective on him and value hearing about it. (btw, police reforms on a statewide scale sound good, and i hadn't heard of that. sf has been going through that at the city level and have taken some abusive officers off the force). i'd welcome other examples...

regarding his integrity, please address the clips of several of his speeches regarding people who he claims are feeling faint, not necessarily an easy thing to observe from a distance, not to mention these people just happened to be in the exact same spot in audience after audience? could some of his 'effect' on people be hype of his own making, like a covered wagon medicine man style, or of the media's? 'the speaker was so riveting i almost fainted...' didn't fainting go out of fashion 100 years ago?

do you have any information as to why the primaries in florida in michigan can't be counted, why the states weren't allowed to move their primaries up? other states, like california moved up, and it seems a huge waste to go through the motions of a primary without being tallied in the end. so much for everyone having a vote?!

finally, i see an npr article about a texas caucus lawsuit but can't pull it up. has anyone else had any luck or know more about the lawsuit?

Posted by tabatha | March 9, 2008 5:44 PM

Joe,

Please substantiate this claim of people being "paid" to caucus.

Posted by Michael Nash | March 9, 2008 6:00 PM

tabatha,

The link provided you earlier comes from The Globe and Mail. It is the second largest circulation newspaper in Canada and the print arm of CTV - which originally broke the NAFTA stories in Canada. Since it is national in focus, most consider The Globe and Mail to be Canada's paper of record and they continue to report that the chief aide to the Canadian Prime Minister claims the Clinton campaign contacted the Canadians with assurances about the bluster regarding NAFTA being just talk.

As for Obama and change, must he represent policy change from Clinton on each and every issue? If so, why would they be running for the same Party's nomination?

I did not say the President does not need foreign policy experience. I said it is less important he/she have it than proper temperament, judgment and goals and a lack of these qualities are why Bush has been a failure moreso than any lack of foreign policy experience. And flat out, Hillary Clinton does not have a resume which clearly shows a deeper grounding in foreign affairs than Barack Obama and, in fact, she clings to current policy when it comes to working with other nations who do not like us and she failed in the biggest foreign policy decision she's ever made. She gave Bush authorization to use force in Iraq and acknowledges she failed to read the NIE prior to her vote.

That was a blunder of epic proportions. Almost 4000 of our military dead, nearly 30000 wounded, one third of all combat troops returning with PTSD or depression and a cost to the United States estimated to be between $3-$5 trillion.

"Racial payback" was not addressed in my last response to you for two reasons: 1. because you did not ask about it in your previous post and 2. I have no idea where you are getting the idea that Barack Obama wants some sort of "payback" for African-Americans.

Regarding fainting at rallies, I've attended dozens of them in my life and have seen people faint on many occasions. I looked at a couple of the clips on YouTube and there were occasions where the camera panned to the audience at an Obama rally and, in fact, there was someone being attended to by others. I also noted that there are at least a couple of instances where people have fainted on stage while Bill Clinton has been campaigning for Hillary. As far as I am concerned, this is a complete non-issue.

The only lawsuits of which I am aware regarding the Texas caucus were actually just legal threats by Clinton aides (specifically, Guy Cecil, Clinton's political director) against the Texas Democratic Party PRIOR to March 4.

By moving ahead of Super Tuesday, Florida and Michigan flaunted rules they agreed to when it was decided by a full vote of the DNC that no states would move their primary or caucus ahead of that date. The campaigns all agreed to the rule and Michigan and Florida had representatives who participated in drawing up and voting on the agreement. California, on the other hand, did not break the rules. Michigan and Florida did. By the way, that's why none of the candidates campaigned in Michigan or Florida.

If a voter violates election law or does not register, his or her vote should not count right? Why then should Michigan and Florida be rewarded for breaking the rules? Personally, I'd be fine with Michigan and Florida having a do-over. But the states should pay for it, not the DNC, since the states broke the rules. Also the states should be able to decide if they want a primary or caucus - not Hillary Clinton. What gives her the right to say she "will not accept a caucus in Michigan" if that is what the state wants to do?

Posted by Michael Nash | March 9, 2008 8:05 PM

regarding florida and michigan, i can't agree with you that the states are like individuals who break rules, because these are states made up of individuals who followed the rules, went to the polls and deserve to have their votes counted. every citizen deserves to have their votes counted, and the delegate count is inaccurate without them. perhaps some of these same floridians are the ones who voted for gore and whose ballots were taken. i'd be kind of disillusioned about democracy if my vote was thrown out twice, wouldn't you? also, problems on a small scale throw off the big picture and the whole process, especially in a close race.

it's ironic to think about the possibility of a caucus in michigan. aren't the problems associated with caucuses the reason for this article and the reason why people clicked on this site in the first place? i think it would be irresponsible to add a caucus in such an important race when it is bound to further complicate the results, in addition to the re-vote which is complicated enough to pull off by itself.

see below for a bit more about hillary and the nie... the text you wrote sounds like you're blaming her for the war, in a very dramatic fashion. as if she's not sorry for lives lost! it reads that she was so negligent and uninformed that her actions resulted in these statistics. isn't that laying too much blame on her?

also, obama DID support the war even if he wasn't a senator then. it's kind of like obama is getting a pass simply because he wasn't a senator at that time. what about his 2004 speech saying his views were like bush's that he subsequently pulled from his website? how convenient that he can rewrite history like that and have people buy it.

btw, i would like to obama's 2004 speech/read text from it...

bill clinton argued that the resolution was regarding looking into criteria that was necessary for the war, and the resolution was voted on by people who were opposed to war. unfortunately, lies were told to make it look as if the criteria were met. that's the real problem, not hillary's vote. makes sense to me! it's too easy (and false) to hold hillary totally responsible when all the senators were presented with bogus facts and lies regarding the inspections. she was in a catch-22, because she would have been out of step with her state to vote no at the time. think of all the flag-toting citizens out there who were excited about the war. there were so many media stories at the time about how this would be costly and drag on and backfire, but public opinion was completely for it anyway. she was in a catch-22. if she had voted against the resolution, for inaction, she probably wouldn't have been re-elected. the tide has turned now, of course, but pinning her to the wall for representing her state at that time does no one any good. it's just a false prop for obama, and i'm not buying it. according to the speech he pulled from his website, can we be so sure he would have voted differently?

Sen. Obama Misleads on Hillary, NIE

3/2/2008 4:51:44 PM

Today in Ohio, Sen. Obama attacked Hillary Clinton by making a highly misleading statement about the Iraq war resolution:

Now I have to say, when it came to making the most important foreign policy decision of our generation - the decision to invade Iraq - Senator Clinton got it wrong. She didn't read the National Intelligence Estimate. Jay Rockefeller read it, but she didn't read it.

Sen. Rockefeller voted for the war resolution, not against it, as Sen. Obama suggested to the people of Ohio. On national television, his top strategist also falsely claimed that Sen. Rockefeller voted against the war resolution.

Sen. Clinton explained to Tim Russert, "I was fully briefed by the people who wrote [the NIE]. I was briefed by the people from, you know, the State Department, the CIA, the Department of Defense." Sen. John Kerry, a supporter of the Obama campaign, echoed these sentiments this summer saying, "I didn’t read the full report because I got it from them straight."

the implication from the obama attacks is that hillary didn't bother to inform herself, and that's not only incorrect but also offensive. looking at her speech from the time, voting for the resolution, she's saying that neither voting for attack or voting for inaction were not good options, that we needed to perform a thorough inspection and that she cast her vote in good faith that that would be done.

"If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us." why isn't this hillary quote out there from her speech?

the resolution was simply to get more information by inspection; not to do so would have been irresponsible. she cites that hussein could not be trusted and that bill clinton took a four-day action against him before for the same reasons.

whose fault is it that the warmonger gw who cheated to get elected in fla and other states and shouldn't have ever been in office, and then with his staff misrepresented the facts to suit his ends (and his father's)?? what were hillary's alternatives? where was anyone's alternative? where was the resolution to perform an inspection and to reconvene? she had to take into account the state she was from and the sentiment at the time, and so to repaint the picture now and make obama gleaming is a distorted joke. people have short memories and are looking back with a distorted lens.

Posted by tabatha | March 10, 2008 8:59 AM

tabatha,

The Democratic Party of Michigan and Democratic Party of Florida moved their primaries up on the calendar in contravention of DNC rules to which they had previously agreed. They did not do so in secret and the consequences of such action were fully understood at the time. Bitching acout it now is nothing more than sour grapes.

Speaking of disenfranchisement, there are any number of states whose primaries/caucuses have not "mattered" for decades because the presumptive nominee has been chosen well ahead of those states' voters actually casting their ballots. In this case, however, Michigan and Florida took direct action against party rules.

If Texas or California decided that they were going to move election day to some date in October instead of November, do you think those folks who go to the polls in October should have their votes counted simply because they went to the polls? No, and the people of Michigan and Florida are misplacing their anger.

If the people or Democratic Party of Michigan want a caucus, they should be able to have a caucus. Period. Hillary declaring she would not "accept" a caucus in Michigan is the height of arrogance as well as anti-democratic.

Laying too much blame on Hillary for the war? I don't think she's any more or less to blame than any other Senator or Representative who voted "yea". However, she is finally suggesting she'd like to have a do-over for her vote. What does this imply? She's acknowledging she screwed up, that her vote authorized the POTUS to invade a country that did not harbor Al-Qaeda, was not a direct threat to the US, allowed us to take our eyes off of the real threat in Afghanistan/Pakistan and has led to those grim statistics I provided.

In the greatest foreign policy decision of her elected office tenure, she failed. Oh, by the way, when Obama suggested he agreed with Bush's current course it was 2004. The war was already well underway. It's one thing to agree with how the war is being prosecuted and another thing entirely to agree with actually going to war in the first place.

Obama misspoke when he mentioned Jay Rockefeller, that's all. Bob Graham was actually the chair of the intelligence committee at the time. He is the one who urged Hillary to read the NIE and Graham did vote against the war authorization. Rockefeller, on the other hand, also did not read the NIE and voted for the authorization. He has since then recognized it was a mistake and in large part this is now why he now supports Barack Obama for President.

Oh, and don't kid yourself. The authorization clearly gives the POTUS the right to go to war with Iraq, no matter how much Hillary, Kerry or anyone else wants to spin it. At the time of the vote, every single person in Congress knew full well what they were authorizing. HOPING the POTUS would continue to conduct inspections was pure political cover and not an act of leadership. If Hillary or Biden or Edwards or Kerry were to have shown true leadership, they would have emphatically stated this is the wrong course of action and backed it up by not voting to give the President authorization to invade Iraq.

They failed this test of leadership.

Posted by Michael Nash | March 10, 2008 10:59 AM

Don't you doubt the 'caucus process'? It appears that results do not reflect the voice of the people. Primary results were different from the caucus results. Which one is more democratic? I wonder?

Posted by ferragamo | March 11, 2008 5:15 PM

I attended a Texas Caucus in north texas and it was crowded. However, people behaved well and were patient. The chair and Secretary were Obama supporters elected by both Obama and Hillary supporters. One Hillary supported insisted that she be secretary even though the audience didn't elect her. The chair and secretary allowed her to oversee the process (looking at all documentation including sign in sheet) to make sure no cheating occurred. It is fair to say that Hillary has lost almmost all the cuacuses which puts her at a disadvantage. Also, the large turnout at caucuses were unexpected. Since the causcus has disadvantage Hillary in the race, I think that her campaign and supporters are going to complain about unfairness which is unfortunate. It is not the time to change the rules or cry unfair in the middle of a campaign when the DNC wrote the rules before the election to which all parties agreed and caucuses in Texas has been held since 1968 without a problem.

Posted by sjmarie | March 11, 2008 11:26 PM

I think caucuses should be outlawed, as they are held in Texas, because people are voting twice. They allow the wishes of a small, dedicated minority to alter the wishes of the majority. It allows one faction of people who feel very strongly about a candidate to swing the vote in a different direction, and in a close race, it can make the difference. I would like to know more about how and why they were started in the first place.

Posted by adrian | March 12, 2008 10:50 AM

at least someone is telling it like it is... but i guess in this day and age that makes one a racist. that's the mystique behind the texas caucuses too and other caucuses to be sure! wonder what percentage the black vote was in the caucuses...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080312/pl_nm/usa_politics_ferraro_dc

Former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro on Wednesday stood by her comment that Democrat Barack Obama is only where he is because he is black and said the reaction by his campaign was dividing the party.
ADVERTISEMENT

"My comments have been taken so out of context and have been spun by the Obama campaign as racist that it's doing precisely what they don't want done -- it's going to the Democratic Party and dividing us even more," Ferraro said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America."

Ferraro, the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 1984 and the only woman ever nominated by a major party for either of the top two U.S. political offices, ignited a flap by telling a California newspaper that "if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position."

"And if he was a woman he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept," Ferraro said.

Ferraro, who is supporting Hillary Clinton's campaign to become the Democratic nominee in November's presidential election, told ABC she believed that was true and that she was hurt by reaction by the Obama campaign that she said painted the comments as racist. She said she has fought against discrimination for 40 years.

"My concern has been over how I've been treated as well and hurt, absolutely hurt by how they have taken this thing and spun it to imply that in any way, any way I am racist," she said.

When asked about Ferraro's remarks, Obama said that being an "African American man named Barack Obama" was not the quickest path to becoming U.S. president.

"Anybody who knows the history of this country I think would not take too seriously the notion that this has been a huge advantage, but I don't think it's disadvantaged either," Obama said.

Obama, who would be the first black U.S. president, rode a wave of heavy black support to victory on Tuesday in a primary race in Mississippi and extended his lead over Clinton in pledged delegates to the August nominating convention. The Illinois senator also won on Saturday in Wyoming.

Clinton, who would be the first woman U.S. president, said on Tuesday she did not agree with the comments and called them "regrettable," but the Obama camp accused her of a double standard for refusing to rebuke Ferraro and remove her from her finance position with the campaign.

An Obama foreign policy adviser resigned last week after telling a British newspaper Clinton was "a monster."

Posted by tabatha | March 12, 2008 10:58 AM

tabatha,

Do you honestly believe that Obama is lucky to be who he is?

If so, I defy you to find 10 white people and ask them if they would honestly prefer to be African-American in this society.

Ferraro's comments about if Obama were white he would not be where he is are demonstrably false. A young governor gave the Keynote Address at the Democratic National Convention in 1988. By 1992, as a 46-year old, he had the audacity as a relatively minor player to use his incredible oratorical skill to run for President of the United States - and won.

You know who that Man from Hope is don't you??? Pretty much shoots a fat hole in Ferraro's racist argument.

Also, it's pretty easy to do some research on this but I'll save you the time and clue you in on something regarding caucuses and the African-American vote - in none of the Democratic caucus states does the African-American vote constitute anything remotely close to a majority. Have you ever been to Iowa, Wyoming, Alaska, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska or Maine? The African-American population in those states is probably less than 5%, likely closer to 1% in some of them, and Obama won them all.

Wanna try another excuse to explain away why Hillary is losing?

BTW, Mrs. Ferraro is finally acknowledging her choice of words was unfortunate. In the meantime, she's done the exact same thing you have done in this very conversation - namely confusing the difference between words being defined and a person being defined. Words can be racist or sexist or homophobic, for example, without the person who uttered them being racist, sexist or a homophobe. In this case, her words were clearly racist. She flat out said it is because of Obama's race and some sort of preference his being African-American gives him that he is where he is.

That's pure, unadulterated garbage and potentially a really sad epitaph to her political career.

Posted by Michael Nash | March 13, 2008 12:26 AM

adrian,

http://origin.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/18407749.htm

Posted by Michael Nash | March 13, 2008 12:37 AM

You Obama people need to show some class, I will not vote for BO if he should be the only democrat left because of his division, he can't even unite his people,all African-Americans on this side and the whites over there, and I am African American.
His wife can't speak without bringing up something racial, but does our side cry about it, no, try promoting your candidate diplomatically, the rest of us are turned off by the behaviour of his followers.
"Hillary For President"

Posted by Missy | March 13, 2008 8:29 AM

Missy,

A small piece of advice: you win more over to your side with honey rather than vinegar.

As but a small example: I am white, my wife is Latina. My wife has always voted Republican. My 60-year old neighbor and his wife have never been involved in a political campaign in their lives, they are white. My father has never voted for a Democrat in his life, he is also white. All of us supported Obama in the primary and will do so in the general election.

My precinct is majority white and majority Republican. Obama beat Clinton here.

I'm sorry you seem so off-put by behavior by some Obama supporters but I can promise you that if you took off your blinders you would find that this has been a contentious, emotional campaign and there have been abuses on both sides.

But I'm going to suppose there are reasons why you support Hillary other than the fact she is a woman. If you do support her on the issues I think if you do a little research you will find that she and Obama are much closer to wanting the same things for our country than they are to John McCain.

And we cannot as a nation afford another term with someone at the helm wanting to steer the same course...

Posted by Michael Nash | March 13, 2008 9:00 AM

i confess i'm a little tired of the conversation at this point but will continue for now. i understand that you and i have been having a conversation, but it also seems that you are acting as moderator on this site. are you a moderator, if not it just seems a bit much. but on the other hand, i see the conversation as productive, in part because i see the gop as hoping the two halves of the democratic party will tear each other to shreds and hurt the party maybe to the point that mccain can actually win.

btw, as a fan of bill clinton, who has been a friend to the african-americans of this country only to be later called a racist by those who wish to distance themselves from him (and hillary of course) in favor of obama, those who have such short memories, i do not accept comparisons between obama and bill clinton. i have kept mum so far, but it is offensive and inaccurate. you have gone from saying that they were the same age during their run for president to saying they are alike to trying to play on why obama is like the man from 'hope,' implying what, that obama brings hope too? i have NO illusions about obama being a bringer of hope to anyone but the african-american community (and not even the whole african-american community at that!- though the whole race is being called on to support him because he is black).

I Absolutely Believe That Obama Is Lucky To Be Who He Is (In The Right Place At The Right Time, as if he doesn't know that himself, even as he smugly suggests otherwise on the evening news) AND I STAND IN AGREEMENT WITH JOSEPHINE FERRARO WHO IS NOT APOLOGIZING FOR HER REMARKS IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. this is not a sad epitaph, hardly! she has always been herself and said what she believed in, and she has not changed. I'm so proud of her for doing so in the face of this horrible pc shroud everyone wears.

in fact, she shows how glaringly afraid people have become to speak their minds because of what, a cheap race card that gets used whenever a person happens to disagree with an african-american? "Is it just us, or does Barack Obama seem a mite too quick to play the race card when facing criticism from political opponents?" writes The Wall Street Journal editorial board. (this is why i brought up donna brazile, who used the race card so erroneously that even television commentators called her laughable, and you said she wasn't a spokesman for the obama campaign... she is however, playing the same game in a more clumsy way.)

as stated above i absolutely believe that obama is lucky to be who he is, and his smug appearance on the news to address ferraro's comments illustrates my point. he commented that he is hardly lucky to have his path being an african-american and having the name barack obama. yeah, sure, to the contrary! he gets to use advantages available to him in this day and age and then pull out a victim card or a 'racist' label whenever it's convenient to use, like in cases of disagreement. he has plenty of people to do this for him, and it's not only obama who is troubling as a candidate, it's the many angry people with their hostile, threatening behavior who are surrounding him. (i'm not suggesting that that african-americans haven't suffered, but how long will it be before we move on and judge people solely on their merits)?

"Mrs. Ferraro is finally acknowledging her choice of words was unfortunate." i haven't heard this. her words are not unfortunate but true, and she stood by her words! josephine ferraro has not apologized for any of her points as of her live appearance on diane sawyer yesterday morning, and here are the highlights:

* it's about time someone said something about obama's appeal. it's clearly not his experience or because he's distinguished himself in his stance on the issues, she said.

* ferraro quipped that she wasn't chosen as running-mate in 1984 because she was gerald ferraro...). this had nothing to do with her qualifications. "could i have done the job as vice-president? absolutely." she said to diane sawyer that her comments had nothing to do with obama's qualifications, that she was commenting on an historic presidential race. she is the perfect person to comment on the advantages afforded someone because of race or sex, having experienced such advantages herself.

* she said that she has fought discrimination in all forms for 40 years and that it is offensive that her comments were taken out of context (spoken about the historic nature of the presidential race), twisted and used as an attempt to hurt hillary clinton.

*she said no one can open their mouths, bill clinton, herself without being called a racist. (see above comments on race card and below)

this last point is key, i believe, because either the community supporting barack has such short memories that they can't remember the gains under clinton or they have a larger agenda, namely to promote themselves and step on anyone, including those who have helped them on the way. the only explanation of superdelegates such as civil rights leader davis in AL who changed his superdelegate vote is that the clintons' time has passed.

i think the point above is illustrated by social psychology articles from my phd program. article after article was about bias of confederates against other confederate groups. whereas white people listened to messages regardless of the speaker, white people's own messages were discounted and dismissed by many african americans, simply because of the speaker's race (not to do with the message content). i see evidence of this around me more and more, and it is unique in that whatever gains have been gained have not dampened anger and resentment in some african-americans but quite the opposite. i feel that white people (esp those in favor of obama) are naive and oblivious, while they feel that they are being progressive, but really they are being oblivious. and do you think you will be congratulated for being so progressive? do you think you will be considered in the future? how was bill clinton thanked? has was geraldine ferraro thanked for her efforts over the years? (she has experienced several threats and nasty messages in the last two days to her office).

for example, as informed as you are, you don't see obama's candidacy as having anything to do with racial payback. i mentioned in the beginning that it might be good to look in the atlantic's archives for the article on racial payback and how it is taught today in black colleges and by black professors. it doesn't need to be spoken in the election, and obama can say whatever he needs to say to appeal to other demographics. but his very presence means a promise of payback to many african-americans and they expect it. that's why i think people who vote for him outside of that demographic are fools who think they are being progressive and helping advance america. but they are just fooling themselves and dividing not uniting!!

to quote you, "I defy you to find 10 white people and ask them if they would honestly prefer to be African-American in this society." this is an old argument often used in college courses, but it is not necessarily true anymore. tell that to my generation where coveted spots to elite colleges are used for affirmative action. (not even mlk jr. felt that affirmative action should continue indefinitely)...

as of this morning ferraro has stepped down, but let me pre-empt any ideas that she did so because she wants to rollover to the bullying she's been receiving from the obama campaign. "She made the decision that she wants to continue talking about this and didn't want to do this in a way that would cause the campaign problems," a Clinton campaign source told ABC News. Thank God someone was willing to take a fall and talk, and I commend her 100%!

finally, you might call this a tangent, but i think my personal experience is relevant here, because it explains why i am wary. however, if the right african-american candidate were out there, i would support him or her! but obama is not it! i live in oakland and have had four close african-american friends over the years who i trusted and thought cared about me in return but tried to use me for their own gains. one exploited me in a job situation, and our friendship fell apart in the oj trial after her sickening comments, 'nicole was a ho and deserved to die,' and that oj deserved to get away with it. (these were actually the sentiments of many during that time and was the subject of the atlantic article i keep referring to, which was so brilliant. i keep meaning to order it!) the second was brilliant harvard-educated said she had never been closer to a white woman except her mother, and that she was withdrawing from the friendship because it had gotten too close for comfort and that she had learned all she could from me as her mentor. the third became more wealthy having married a white executive, and her mother began to make derogatory comments about me and my mothering. her brother was incredulous as to her treatment of me, which i appreciated. but these friendships and countless encounters with angry people in college, in cars and in public have left me with an understanding that i never sought out or wanted to know. at least two of the 'friends' above do not believe it's possible for a black person in this culture to be racist, and isn't that convenient? then the person is beyond reproach and can be racist and angry as much as they please.

there are two main tactics, bullying to the nth degree and if that doesn't work, play the race card...

if people like josephine ferraro don't speak up, and if naive people continue to be oblivious in the guise of being progressive, then what?

if i felt that obama was a sincere candidate with everyone's interests at heart or that his wife wasn't angry and racist herself, i would feel and vote differently. i believe that hillary is the better candidate, on the issues and as a person, and i am sorry that so many people in our country are more sexist than they are racist! also, the media is extremely sexist and is continuing to hurt her.

Posted by tabatha | March 13, 2008 1:36 PM

tabatha,

I tire of the conversation, too, and will end my participation at the close of this message.

Coursing through every message you've written here is a thinly-veiled dismissal of Obama due to his race and you've finally provided the clear evidence of your disdain for African-Americans. I thank you for sharing your experience but think it a shame you seem to paint an entire people with such a broad, skeptical brush and am entirely wary of your claim you would support the "right" black man.

That's my opinion but it's based on what you have written.

BTW, the lady's name is Geraldine Ferraro, not Josephine. She ripped Jesse Jackson in a racist fashion 20 years ago and she's still at it with her recent remarks about Obama. Again, I seriously doubt Gerry Ferraro is a racist, but what she said clearly was racist. And there IS a difference even if you do not wish to acknowledge it.

Yes, Gerry is backing down. Yesterday she admitted her use of the word "lucky" was a poor choice. If you don't think it was a racist comment you can at least see that it was outrageously misguided and foolish.

Take care and remember, whether it's Obama or Clinton, the main thing is that John McCain cannot be allowed to take the White House.

-Michael

Posted by Michael Nash | March 13, 2008 6:50 PM

i had a feeling that's where you would go, because it's easy to assume i'm being racist (without saying it) and dismiss me, isn't it? i almost wrote a caveat about how i don't generalize but wanted to see for myself. no, i'm not painting a broad brush to say that this attitude is true of everyone, but it does seem to be a common one! i think that my experiences have hurt me and made me understandably skeptical. a lot of people aren't even open to getting very close where i come from (texas).

i don't overgeneralize and go on a case by case basis, and i just don't see it in obama. i don't admire the way he's flip-flopped in such a short record, and i don't feel his speeches are particularly moving. i don't like the way the media soft pedals, and i don't like the way the campaign plays the race card. i can't stand his response to ferraro. BUT don't assume i wouldn't support the right candidate, because i absolutely would! if there was an mlk jr. whose speeches still make me cry, i'd be right there. i keep my mind open, and believe it or not, it still is. i just haven't been impressed by him, as he seems arrogant and like he's posturing. i think a lot of the people obama surrounds himself with, like his minister and others in his campaign, are racist. i don't believe geraldine's (yes, that was an unbelievable typo) comment was racist, and i think people are all too ready to pounce on anything and call it so. i wish you well and appreciate the dialogue.

Posted by tabatha | March 13, 2008 9:55 PM

New York Times Link
Ferraro Is Unapologetic for Remarks and Ends Her Role in Clinton Campaign

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/us/politics/13ferraro.html?em&ex=1205553600&en=c32e1091707eac04&ei=5087%0A

nowhere does it say she's sorry for any of her words. i'm not sure where you got that from. i've been looking...

Posted by tabatha | March 14, 2008 12:08 AM

from savage politics.com; wake up about obama.

i'm sorry in a way i told you i was tired of the conversation, but then the info below is good for anyone out there. to michael nash, while you were comparing obama to bill, the minister near and dear to obama denounces clinton. clinton was a totally different candidate, and a good one. obama is a good argument for the end of affirmative action, and i cringe to see where he would lead us with his own thinly veiled racism. it's interesting that anyone who doesn't agree with or support this man is racist... when it should be crystal clear to anyone with sense that he's a phony!!

what you said earlier today is like the tactics of the obama camp, to label anyone who disagrees. my husband said, 'you shouldn't be surprised. he's just doing the same thing on a smaller scale what the obama camp is doing.' no, i don't need your approval, but if people are silenced and can't speak freely without being labeled, although 'disdain' is pretty mild, it's in the ballpark to say i have negative feelings about all people of a race. that's preposterous!! i tried to explain that there is a negative attitude that takes whatever goods this country or whatever individual is offering and then resents it all the more and then discuss evidence of that attitude. would i be foolish enough to say that attitude exists in all african americans? no, but it is a common attitude systematically taught and promoted in many colleges today! and you want to back a candidate who has this attitude (and it shows in his statements) and doesn't even look good on paper. hello?

how can obama be so spiritually inspired by a minister who tries to denounce the legacy of the man called hope and then call his own book the audacity of hope, hearkening back to bill? and he's got people like you to say he's like bill, when the joke is on well-meaning, educated people like you, who buy into this falsehood. apparently obama's supporters are not just saying bill clinton's time has passed, behind his back they're saying a lot more, in the form of inflammatory garbage. audacity indeed, and not because of obama's race but because of his audacity to compare himself to a good man and support those who denounce him at the same time!

Tax Troubles and SP News

March 13th, 2008 J Cifre, J.D. Posted in American News | 42 Comments »
*Barack H. Obama and his pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright*

The IRS has begun an investigation into Barack Hussein Obama’s church (Trinity United Church of Christ) for violations to the ‘Federal tax code’, which prohibits religious institutions from directly participating (intervening) on political campaigns and/or election matters. If the church is found to be at fault it could lose it’s tax exempt status. It’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright, has been constantly recorded making references to Barack Obama as a new Moses and comparing his life to Jesus’ upbringing, all clearly made to influence his congregation into supporting one of their own members for the Presidency of the United States (something the tax code frowns upon). Mrs. Marsha Ramirez, IRS director, EO Examinations, recently wrote in a certified letter to the mediums that “Our concerns are based on articles posted on several Web sites including the church’s which state the United States Presidential Candidate Senator Barack Obama addressed nearly 10,000 church members gathered at the United Church of Christ’s biennial General Synod at the Hartford Civic Center, on June 23, 2007. In addition, 40 Obama volunteers staffed campaign tables outside the center to promote his campaign.”

Among many of Mr. Wright’s sermons (including his most recent before he retired) he made clearly ethnocentric and sometimes racist comments about White people and Jews (similar to the ones his friend and mentor Louis Farrakhan produces) which many of Obama’s own followers have found deeply offensive. Here are a few lines from last Christmas’ sermon: “Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people, Hillary would never know that! Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.” Continuing this ‘love fest’ a month later, Wright said: “Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.” As most of us know, Barack Obama’s book “The Audacity of Hope” was taken from one of Reverend Wright’s many sermons and he has been credited with the Presidential candidate’s religious ‘enlightenment’. Is this preaching “hopeful” and “inspiring”? We all know that in this Country his opinions are strongly protected, but it is the fact that he is Obama’s pastor and mentor (who actually married Barack and Michelle Obama) that actually brings plenty of concern for those ‘White constituents’ he claims to represent throughout the Midwest. How come Geraldine Ferraro had to step down for simply pointing out her opinion regarding Obama’s political rise (attributing herself with the same benefit when she ran for vice President by the way) but Obama’s pastor has never been rebuked by Obama himself? Clearly the connection between this pastor and Obama is deeper than Ferraro’s to Clinton.

Posted by tabatha | March 14, 2008 8:50 AM

more about this minister, who is an ex-nation of islam leader, whose sermon served as the inspiration for obama's book...

from savagepolitics.com 'obama's faith'
more interesting is the fact that Barack Obama, who has stated to the Associated Press that “I’ve been going to the same church for 20 years, praising Jesus,” actually belongs to a racialist and evangelical church from Chicago named Trinity United Church of Christ, which was re-founded in it’s new image by Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., an ex Nation of Islam member who apparently decided to spread the same hateful message of Elijah Muhammad through a Christian medium. As we can tell by the history and aims of Obama’s Church, their politics and ideology are far removed from the traditional American protestant Christian practices which have been part of our Country’s history, since they openly praise and honor those who have declared their belief in the destruction of the United States.

Posted by tabatha | March 14, 2008 9:22 AM

check out the stories at:
http://www.obamatruth.org/

more about rezko and why he's relevant and not in the news
http://www.suntimes.com/news/blogentries/index.html?bbPostId=B4BYvm4Nakx2CzAY5hLF7JT49B8AECbXn4sCGCzDP0hPeqTnd6&bbParentWidgetId=B8k88rWwXopuz5STgLeVwBLu
Rezko is known by the Chicago press as a “fixer” who can make things happen for a price. Little is done out of the goodness of his heart. He’s on trial for bilking up to $6 million from the people of Illinois through kickbacks while working for the administration of current Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Did Rezko find jobs for Obama supporters? That is one of the questions the Chicago press wanted to ask before Obama cut short a recent press conference.

Why is this important? In a political era that decries the use of negative campaigning, it seems bringing something like this up might merely be one of those mudslings that all too often dirty up politics during an election year, however, I think it is relevant due to the fact that Obama has made his supposed integrity on financial matters in particular one of the hallmarks of his campaign. We hear constantly about the money that other candidates have supposedly taken from lobbyists, how Obama will somehow “fix” Washington by not doing the same– hopefully “the fixer” Rezko isn’t going to be the means through which Obama carries out that promise– by all appearances, he seems far worse than a lobbyist.

Obama supporters no doubt would take issue with the putting Obama and Rezko in the same camp simply due to the fact that the latter has financially backed the former throughout his political career. For the most part, I don’t have a problem with that argument except that its precisely the kind of argument that Obama and his supporters use against Clinton and McCain– constantly. We hear time and time again at Obama rallies how financial backers are somehow indicators of integrity– indeed, this was the basis for the recent NYT/McCain “scandal” hit-piece– and about how Obama’s squeaky clean record on the matter somehow means that he deserves the office of President more than anyone else. Looking into his past, however, we find that Obama has a more, not less, shady financial history.

Rezko, after all, is accused of fairly widespread financial indiscretions. By all accounts, it seems like the Rezko trial should be on the front page of every newspaper in America– especially given the fact that many have openly questioned whether or not Rezko “bought” Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war. (So much for this being a selling point, if indeed it is shown that this was the case). Obama himself may have had a connection to the Oil for Food scandal via– who else?– Rezko. While I’m not prepared to at all endorse either of these theories, it seems like investigating the very recent relationships between Rezko’s dealings with Obama and the Senator’s political actions should be far more important and relevant an investigation than the dealings between McCain and a lobbyist decades ago.

This isn’t a smear campaign we’re talking about here, as many of Obama’s supporters have claimed. What we’re talking about is a true-blue scandal involving a major political candidate that hasn’t been given much attention in the mainstream press. Even if it could be shown that Rezko had no scandalous dealings with Obama, the fact that Rezko and Obama had such extensive dealings at all should be enough to expose the hypocrisy of Obama’s claim to ride a high horse on financial ethics– amongst other things.

One this is for sure– Obama’s days of using that high horse to derail the campaigns of his opponents, be they Republican or Democrat, are over. Obama has thus far based almost his entire campaign and nearly all of his rhetoric on this his supposedly bulletproof ethics. The Rezko affair should end that bit of political posturing, leaving the Obama camp with little other than actual policy debate left as a means to make his case. Since Obama hasn’t spent much time doing that as of late, I think that this issue, if it unfolds as it looks very much like it might, could finally mean the end of the Obama candidacy.

America, I think, will be much better for it.

Posted by tabatha | March 14, 2008 12:15 PM

Tabatha you are great! Like you I have a hard time understanding why people vote for Obama. The media has played a hand in that. They have been so ugly toward Hillary that's it's just terrible. All I can hope and pray for is that people will wake up and see the light. Go HILLARY!! Jean

Posted by Jean | April 3, 2008 9:21 AM

Tabatha you are great! Like you I have a hard time understanding why people vote for Obama. The media has played a hand in that. They have been so ugly toward Hillary that's it's just terrible. All I can hope and pray for is that people will wake up and see the light. Go HILLARY!! Jean

Posted by Jean | April 3, 2008 9:22 AM

Barack is a scape goat and if elected will ensure the republican party maintains control for the next 20+ years. If Obama is elected and cannot deliver his promises. "which he can't" Gas prices will continue to raise and the un employment rate will keep growing, more people are going to loose their homes. Everyone will blame it on the African American president. Sure Mccain can't fix it either. So why should a democrat vote for him? The country is going to crumble under the leadership of either Mccain or Obama. Let the republican take the fall for the hole Bush dug us into.. Then vote Clinton in 2012! The only chance we had to
how quickly everyone forgets the national deficient, and how Bill was able to dig us out of a dept that was considered near impossible to pay in off 100 years, and Bill did in less than 8

btw, what happened to popular vote?

Posted by NoDemocracyHere | June 19, 2008 6:14 AM

Caucus Problems In Texas

Comments (132)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives