Chairman of the TDP Endorses Obama

(Burnt Orange Report has the scoop as they do with all things Texas).

I don't write too many diaries and I don't really record which superdelegate endorses whom.  It's just not a major concern of mine which specific figure is giving Obama a greater delegate lead, but the Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party is particularly important to me.  The reason being is that I was particularly disturbed by a diary written by Pacific John.  In that diary Pacific John accused Barack Obama's campaign of committing fraud on the entire state of Texas.  He provided no evidence (except for hearsay).  

After repeatedly seeking either evidence or a retraction, I decided to post my own diary which further elaborated my great anger at these false accusations and pointing out that the Pacific John's diary was unsubstantiated.  Pacific John and I have continued this disagreement and I even received an e-mail from Pacific John questioning why I continued to ask him for evidence.  To all my questions regarding where the evidence was located, Pacific John would respond that the Texas Democratic Party had all the evidence and the affidavits proving fraud by the Obama campaign.  So imagine my great joy and suprise when I went to DemConWatch and saw that both the Chairman of the TDP and his wife (who is also a superdelegate) has endorsed Obama.  I guess there wasn't evidence to prove fraud after all.

My absolute favorite part of Richie's endorsement announcement is this:

"I am also grateful for Senator Obama's commitment to help build the Texas Democratic Party. Senator Obama and his campaign understand something that Texans have known for at least a couple of years - that when Democratic candidates invest the time and resources necessary, Texas Democrats have the numbers to compete and win across every region of our great state. We made progress in 2006, and in 2008, the Texas Democratic Party is more energized, better organized, and we are poised to make significant gains this fall."

Here's to blue future in Texas and clean campaigns by all the candidates.

Update [2008-5-30 0:31:12 by nklein]: So I was reading through another diary and came back to the homepage and noticed that I was on top of the Rec List. That was really unexpected and I'm not entirely sure I warrant it, but thank you just the same. You guys rock!

Tags: Barack Obama, Betty Richie, Boyd Richie, Pacific John, superdelegate, Texas Democratic Party (all tags)

Comments

80 Comments

Tips for no fraud n/t

by nklein 2008-05-29 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips for no fraud n/t

Good for you...you beat me to it...Virtual mojo...

by hootie4170 2008-05-29 07:48PM | 0 recs
Had to do it one time...

You right so many good diaries; I just got a lucky break this time.

by nklein 2008-05-29 08:35PM | 0 recs
I must be tired, because that should be...

"write" not "right."

by nklein 2008-05-29 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Had to do it one time...

Thank you nklein!!!

by hootie4170 2008-05-29 09:05PM | 0 recs
Or alternatively:

"Where's your fraud now?"

by Shem 2008-05-29 08:16PM | 0 recs
Be nice (eom)

by maxomai 2008-05-29 08:21PM | 0 recs
Hearsay

"In that diary Pacific John accused Barack Obama's campaign of committing fraud on the entire state of Texas.  He provided no evidence (except for hearsay)."

This comment is to clarify any confusion engendered by the diarist's deliberate misrepresentation of the hearsay concept.

For the record, most forms of what one would consider "hearsay" are admissible in court either under one of the myriad exceptions to the prohibition against hearsay or because they don't conform to the very narrow & precise definition of what constitutes hearsay, a definition that happens to vary from state to state and is likewise distinct if one is practicing in a federal court.  

The diarist's attempt to nullify and diminish the accusations of fraud in the Texas caucus rests on a willful distortion of a evidentiary concept that is, to put it mildly, a very basic component to any respectable attorney's repository of knowledge.  

by BPK80 2008-05-29 10:33PM | 0 recs
The evidence offered by Pacific John...

is his testimony of a conversation he had on a telephone of events happening in another caucus.  In no court in the United States would that be admissable evidence.  But nice try.

by nklein 2008-05-30 12:36AM | 0 recs
Re: The evidence offered by Pacific John...

What layer of the so-called "hearsay" do you assert is inadmissible in a U.S. or state court?  It wouldn't be too hard at all to craft an argument for its inclusion.  That's the point I make.  The prohibition against hearsay is a sieve; almost anything can get through it with good lawyering.  

The analogy may be a bit misplaced though, because superdelegates' consciences, the RBC, and other intraparty decisions don't seem to be subjected to the kind of Rules of Evidence one would find in court.

FYI, I only criticize your mischaracterization of "hearsay" because it promotes overly rigid uses of evidentiary standards that are out of synch with what actually flies.  Non-lawyers tend to be pugnaciously unreasonable in their demands for "evidence."  

by BPK80 2008-05-30 01:44AM | 0 recs
Your criticism is not well-taken...

and is unnecessary unless your going to say that the hearsay of which I speak is acceptable under the penumbra of exceptions to the hearsay rule.  There's a law against killing somone.  When a homicide is committed, people don't say "well it can't be murder, because there are exceptions for self-defense to the murder statute thus it can't be murder."  They look at the evidence presented to them and decide whether it is murder, manslaughter, a lesser charge of homicide or noone is cupable at all.  You're telling me there are exceptions to the hearsay rule, so this must be or could be admissable.  If you think so, why don't you read Pacific John's diary and tell me under what exception this hearsay evidence would be admissable.  Because I've read it, I know the hearsay rule pretty well and I've never heard of similar facts being admissable.  So if I'm wrong, prove me wrong.  If not, stop questioning my diaries on this subject without facts.

by nklein 2008-05-30 02:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Your criticism is not well-taken...

IIRC, the last time we had a debate that you initiated, you insulted me without basis and then ignored my response.  I see no point in continuing dialogue with you only to have this scenario repeat yet again.  Whatever it is you think we are fighting for,

"Congratulations.  You win."

Without attacking you personally, I must simply caution the community here to avoid relying on your um... unusual evidentiary standards.  No further comment.

by BPK80 2008-05-30 07:24AM | 0 recs
How would you know what my...

evidentiary standards are?  You haven't looked at the evidence.

by nklein 2008-05-30 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: How would you know what my...

Yes, I did.  We had this discussion the first time you made an assault on the Texas Caucus Fraud story.  

Secondly, I asked you which layer of the hearsay you were challenging, and you neglected to respond.

When you start talking about hearsay as though it's some sort of monolithically inadmisibble category of evidence, you promulgate a misconception.  

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rul es.htm#Rule801

That link above should connect you to the Federal Rules of Evidence.  Most states' evidentiary rules begin with a near carbon copy of those rules with miniscule changes and a few changes dictated by local flavor.  

by BPK80 2008-05-30 04:21PM | 0 recs
If I say murder is illegall, does that mean I'm

saying that it is a monolithic law which allows for no exceptions?  No.  I'm saying it's illegal.  If I say that hearsay evidence is inadmissable, I'm not saying that there are no exceptions to that rule.  I am saying that this does into one of those exceptions.  And if you disagree with me tell me which exception this evidence falls under.  Is it an excited utterance?  A dying declaration?  As a lawyer or law student (I can't remember which you are), you would know that a lawyer objecting to hearsay evidence does not say "oh but it does fall into this exception for the hearsay rule."  If you think this evidence falls into an exception, tell me whcih one it is.  If not, what's your point?

by nklein 2008-05-30 06:19PM | 0 recs
Misprint...

"I am saying that this does into one of those exceptions."  There should be a "not" after "does."

by nklein 2008-05-30 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Misprint...

FYI, Hearsay is one of those semi-rare rules where the exceptions are so large that they swallow the rule.  It's not that most hearsay is prohibited but there are a select few exceptions.  Almost everything gets through the prohibition.  Remember that every writing is considered hearsay.  A birth certificate is hearsay.  Medical records are hearsay.  Contracts are hearsay.  All admissible.  

by BPK80 2008-05-31 12:28AM | 0 recs
Ok

"If you think this evidence falls into an exception, tell me whcih one it is."

I can't answer that until you specify which layer of assertion you're dealing with.  The diary itself?  The phone calls to the diarist?  The testimony/affidavits of the allegers independent of their discussions with the diarist?  This is very layered hearsay.  

"If I say murder is illegall, does that mean I'm saying that it is a monolithic law which allows for no exceptions?  No.  I'm saying it's illegal.  If I say that hearsay evidence is inadmissable, I'm not saying that there are no exceptions to that rule."

Murder is illegal is a truism.  "Killing" is illegal however is not, because much killing falls into categories outside the scope of murder: war, killing animals, manslaughter, euthanasia, assisted suicide, etc.  Not all killing is "murder" (murder being a legal conclusion, not a fact).  Not all second party statements are hearsay.  

And most hearsay is admissible.  

by BPK80 2008-05-31 12:25AM | 0 recs
How is it a layered hearsay?

The only evidence Pacific John offered in his diary was a phone call he had with a precinct captain.  That's it.  He did not attest to any fraud at the caucus he attended.  So, now that I have specified for you (as I have in the past, because I have always stated that the only evidence offered was a phone call), under what exception does that phone call fall?  I'm ont arguing that hearsay evidence is not admissable.  I'm arguing that this phone call is not admissable.  I have never heard of any similar facts being admissable, so enlighten me if I'm wrong.

by nklein 2008-05-31 12:43AM | 0 recs
Re: How is it a layered hearsay?

It is a diary (layer one) containing assertions of John (layer two) relaying a phone call with a precint captain (layer three).  

The phone call sounds like it would qualify as a contemporaneous observation depending on when it occurred.  These are sometimes referred to as present sense impressions.  In an actual court setting, we would have a better framework for opening many of the exceptions.  For instance, if the person making the phone call perished in unfortunate circumstances, it opens the use of the phone call to more exceptions.  If the defendant is responsible for the unavailability of the precinct captain (sounds nefarious, but it happens, hence the existence of the exception), it's a forfeiture by wrongdoing.  It can be used as an underlying basis for expert testimony without having the underlying hearsay impeached.  It can be offered to prove a prior inconsistent statement (the designation of hearsay rests on what it is being offered to prove, not just what comprises it).  If the precint captain is affiliated somehow with the DNC, the party admission exception is opened.  

I hope these examples will help illustrate just how much of a sieve the "prohibition" against hearsay actually is in practice.  If you're entering law school in the fall, the macro picture will help not only in classes like Evidence, but even more in classes where it is applied, like Trial Practice.  

by BPK80 2008-05-31 12:56AM | 0 recs
Yes, but the phone call is not offered in any of..

those veins.  It is primary evidence of wrongdoing.  It's offered to give an impression of the atmosphere surrounding the caucus night, but as primary evidence of fraud conducted by the Obama campaign.  While I can offer impressions of someone who calls me and tells me they are witnessing a bank robbery, I could not offer evidence of the robber's guilt.  Pacific John is trying to offer this phone call as evidence of guilt.  What court would except that evidence?

by nklein 2008-05-31 01:05AM | 0 recs
Hearsay Again

"While I can offer impressions of someone who calls me and tells me they are witnessing a bank robbery, I could not offer evidence of the robber's guilt."

Those impressions could be offered to prove the robber's guilt.  That's the whole point of the present sense exception.  It's not non-hearsay; it's admissible hearsay.  

FYI, When you offer something to prove a "prior inconsistent statement," you're really just find a way to sneak something through.  A jury will infer whatever it wants to from such evidence (and they sure do) regardless of what the judge tells them and regardless of what was its purported reason for offering.  

"What court would except that evidence?"

Many.

You can't analyze hearsay without context; by definition, a determination of its admissibility rests upon the conjugation of the parties, their relation to the witness, the state of the declarant, what has previously been offered, and what is the purported purpose of offering the hearsay.  These are part of the reasons why it almost always ends up admitted (except on television).  

It's best to use the term with care, rather than reinforcing myths about hearsay.  

by BPK80 2008-05-31 03:20AM | 0 recs
Honestly who cares about the specific...

rules of evidence in this context?  Perhaps my understanding of hearsay rule was not as solid as I first thought (I don't think it's too bad for someone who has not yet spent a day in law school).  But let's ignore that question for the moment.  You say you've been in many courtrooms, do you know of any case that has decided a case soley on the testimony a phone call of a witness?  Pacific John did not offer any other evidence and is suggesting something so out of character of any Democratic presidential candidate that it requires more to believe such claims.  Pacific John is accusing one of my heroes of illegality of a most heinous nature, so please forgive if I'm asking for more proof.  Because the evidence offered by Pacific John is counter to all news reports, the reports of the state party and the state officials.  My big concern is not the popular understanding of the hearsay rule, but to combat such vicious accusations.  So I will continue to castigate such flimsy evidence.  Finally, speak to the evidence presented as proof of a widespread fraud committed by the campaign?  Is it dispositive?

by nklein 2008-05-31 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Honestly who cares about the specific...

I haven't been in "many" courtrooms and I never said that.  Most attorneys don't litigate.

"Pacific John is accusing one of my heroes of illegality of a most heinous nature, so please forgive if I'm asking for more proof."

There's nothing wrong with that.  It's the kneejerk refusal to disparage and (mis)label something as hearsay that I criticized.  Non-lawyers have a tendency to have overly rigid assessments of what qualifies as evidence and what does not.  I highlight the issue from time to time when it arises.    

"Finally, speak to the evidence presented as proof of a widespread fraud committed by the campaign?  Is it dispositive?"

I don't think the phone call itself is dispositive.  From the diary, I was under the impression that Pacific John wouldn't be part of any official case (not that there even is one) but perhaps the precinct captain would speak directly.  It seemed this conversation was just one component of a case.  I believed there were over 2,000 affidavits and perhaps video footage of malfeasance.  

by BPK80 2008-05-31 02:37PM | 0 recs
But every time I asked for that evidence...

I was given videos of civil and orderly counting of votes and assurances that there were affidavits filed.  No objective source has even hinted at any criminality.  Thus, I am so angered by the accusations which feel are both malicious and unsubstantiated.  Your objection to my characterization of hearsay evidence may be valid, but even lawyers in a courtroom will characterize admitted hearsay negatively, wouldn't they?  So I don't see why you are so insistent on the minutiae of my charge and not concerned with the maliciousness of the charge made against Obama (even if you don't like him).  When people accuse either Clintons of illegality (even of murder as the douchebags at Fox News like to do), I am angered to no end and combat those charge forcefully.  Even if my opinion of the Clintons has diminished throughout this campaign, I would not stand by while people accuse heroes of the Democratic Party of criminal behavior.  I wonder why you are so silent on that same ridiculous charge made against Obama.

by nklein 2008-05-31 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: But every time I asked for that evidence...

You haven't asked me my opinon on the charges against Texas caucus administrators or candidate supporters (I don't believe Obama would be the defendant).  You've presumed that I have no empathy for your position and personal connection to the story and your presumption is false.  I am not heartless.  

by BPK80 2008-06-01 07:32AM | 0 recs
Why not address the main point of the diary...

then and allow me to know how you feel on the substance of my diary and not the minutiae?  I don't care what you call the evidence.  I just think it's flimsy and the accusation is uncalled for.  The ugliness being spread on progressive blogs advancing right-wing storylines is sad.  

by nklein 2008-06-01 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The evidence offered by Pacific John...

And lawyers tend to support anything that will win their case.  I understand their job is to win, and not to "find the truth," (this includes both prosecutors and defense attorneys) but that's an unacceptable claim in any other facet of life, IMHO.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-30 03:43AM | 0 recs
This gets three recommends?

Oy.

by catfish2 2008-05-30 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: This gets three recommends?

I am sure it was more about the ultimate motivation of lawyers than anything else.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-30 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips for no fraud n/t

Kudos!!!

by lollydee 2008-05-30 03:16AM | 0 recs
a telling article in Houston Chronicle today

www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolita n/casey/5808894.html

May 29, 2008, 11:07PM
An Obama mystery at state meet

By RICK CASEY

Texas Democratic Party Vice Chairwoman Roy LaVerne Brooks is a superdelegate who endorsed Barack Obama in March.

The longtime party activist from Fort Worth is also running to unseat current state party Chairman Boyd Richie.

Imagine her surprise Tuesday when she received a disturbing phone call from a national Obama operative who is part of a group that parachuted into Texas to work on this weekend's state party convention.

Roy says the operative, Rudy Shank, told her that unless she drops her candidacy to unseat Richie at the state convention she will not be going to the national convention as a superdelegate.

A deal is offered
She said Shank politely told her that "if there was any way I could not run, it would be appreciated because they would like a convention without hurt feelings."

Shank told her he could make a deal with her. He said Glen Maxey, the former Austin state representative whom the Obama campaign hired as its convention director, told him that if Brooks gave up her vice chairmanship to run against Richie, she would lose her status as superdelegate if she lost.

State chairs and vice chairs are automatically members of the Democratic National Committee, which makes them superdelegates. Brooks' term as vice chair ends this weekend.

A quiet rule change

more.... it gets better!

by suzieg 2008-05-30 04:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Chairman of the TDP Endorses Obama

Pacific John would respond that the Texas Democratic Party had all the evidence and the affidavits proving fraud by the Obama campaign.  So imagine my great joy and suprise when I went to DemConWatch and saw that both the Chairman of the TDP and his wife (who is also a superdelegate) has endorsed Obama.  I guess there wasn't evidence to prove fraud after all.

How does that prove there wasn't evidence of fraud??

serious question.

by alyssa chaos 2008-05-29 07:42PM | 0 recs
It doesn't really, but I assume that he would not

endorse if there had been fraud.  Moreover, there was never any evidence of fraud presented and the only organization that was supposedly investigating the fraud accused by Pacific John was the TDP.  Thus, I figure if the head of the TDP endorsed the guy who was according Pacific John conducting the fraud there must not be any fraud.  Either way I just love the irony of the fact that the one organization that Pacific John was looking to to prove the criminal activity of Obama has now endorsed Obama.

by nklein 2008-05-29 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Evidence has already been profered...

Boyd Richie had already decided and pushed to other TDP members that "any" evidence of fraud or illegal electioneering would have to be concrete "gate" type of evidence before "ANY" actions would be acted upon...not by the TDP, but by the DNC.

Affidavits or not...unless there was video along w/ audio of multiple occurances there would be no action taken.  The Texas Primary/Caucus would be "scandal" free and any "problems" will be handled at the Convention.

Well...the convention is next week.  Guess what is going to happen?

Richie has communicated this to other Texas Democratic Senators and House members, especially those running in the upcoming down-ticket races.  Bring it up, and you're on your own.  For those supers out there...well...you know how the game is played and the clock is ticking.  Beware.

Evidence and affidavits were filed with the TDP and with the DNC in regards to the actions that were being referenced.  That is not so-called 'hearsay'.  Those are actual sworn statements and legal documents that have been given to the TDP in regards to events that took place during the Primary or Caucus on the day of 4 March 2008.  I don't see how anyone...legal scholar or layman can claim those accusations are hearsay.

Richie is also running for re-election to be the TDP Chairman.  Politicans play the game.

by TxDem08 2008-05-30 07:32AM | 0 recs
Pacific John's evidence is all hearsay...

that does not mean that affidavits were not filed, but I have been given no proof of said affidavits.  No objective sources have even mentioned the possibility of fraud or illegality.  The media missed it all.  The only place I have seen people complain of fraud is here and never have I presented with evidence supporting their claims.  It's all conjecture.  It's anonymous bloggers promising that they signed affidavits attesting to fraud.  Do you know how many affidavits get filled out in every election in every state regarding some activity the person making the statement thought was suspicious?  Thousands.  That does not prove fraud.  It proves that these people thought they saw something wrong.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.  Do you have any evidence to prove it?

by nklein 2008-05-30 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Chairman of the TDP Endorses Obama

It doesn't, if you assume that the chairman of the Texas Democratic Party and his wife are also in on the fraud.  I don't believe that assumption has any factual basis for it, but, I'm sure it won't stop some people from making those assertions.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-29 07:49PM | 0 recs
It doesn't

But it does say something about his trust in Obama's campaign. One would think that one's trust would be, at the very least, badly shaken if there were any real evidence of fraud.

by maxomai 2008-05-29 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Chairman of the TDP Endorses Obama
How do you prove that Hillary doesn't eat puppies?
by Cochrane 2008-05-29 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Chairman of the TDP Endorses Obama

"It's innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent."

True, unless you are Muslim or black.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-30 03:44AM | 0 recs
And if your a Black Muslim...

fuhgedabudit (trying to sound mobster there).

by nklein 2008-05-30 03:47AM | 0 recs
Re: And if your a Black Muslim...

Heh, very true.  Well, unless you have money.  Then Bush will probably help ya out.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-30 03:56AM | 0 recs
Not if you're Kanye West though n/t

by nklein 2008-05-30 04:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Chairman of the TDP Endorses Obama

Ah, I wonder how long it would take to play the race card.

Wonderful.  See you at the convention.

by TxDem08 2008-05-30 07:34AM | 0 recs
A little more..

..of Richie's endorsement.

Richie has officially made his announcement tonight:

"Today, I am proud to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States. I believe Senator Obama is the candidate who can best provide the leadership and change Texans desire. Too many Texas families find themselves unable to make ends meet, much less save and invest in the future, due to Republican policies that burden the middle class and divide Americans. Senator Obama has the skill and ability to unite Americans from all walks of life and put our country back on the right track."
"I am also grateful for Senator Obama's commitment to help build the Texas Democratic Party. Senator Obama and his campaign understand something that Texans have known for at least a couple of years - that when Democratic candidates invest the time and resources necessary, Texas Democrats have the numbers to compete and win across every region of our great state. We made progress in 2006, and in 2008, the Texas Democratic Party is more energized, better organized, and we are poised to make significant gains this fall."

"This was a difficult decision to make, because I have great respect for Senator Clinton and her Texas supporters. I sincerely appreciate how hard she worked in Texas to deliver a message that resonated with so many voters, and I commend her campaign and the important role she played in the historic participation our Party is experiencing this year. As always, the Texas Democratic Party will conduct party business with absolute fairness and respect for every Democrat, without regard to whom one supports in the primary or convention, and I am confident Texas Democrats will unite and work together side by side to win this November."

This levels SD's in Texas 14 for Obama and 14 for Clinton.

As of now, Barack Obama needs only 41 delegates to clinch the nomination for the Democratic party.

by hootie4170 2008-05-29 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Chairman of the TDP Endorses Obama

While the evidence is some what circumstantial. I would suggest the the chair of the TX Dem. Party would know if Obama's campaign committed fraud and would hesitate to endorse.

by jsfox 2008-05-29 07:51PM | 0 recs
Burnt Orange Report is quality.

If you want Texas politics, they're the place to go.

by Shem 2008-05-29 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Burnt Orange Report is quality.

Thanks! We try to keep up the quality. It's been over 5 years now so we like to think we are doing something right. :)

by KTinTX 2008-05-29 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Burnt Orange Report is quality.

Like redistricting.  Or allowing Craddick to bulldog politicians.  Or allowing DEM State Senators to support the REP leader and not face consequences within their own party.

Yep.  We've got it down alright.  The only other place better is Chicago.

by TxDem08 2008-05-30 07:36AM | 0 recs
Global Warming

I just was reading this other political discussion site.  There was a post about 31000 "scientists" doubting global warming.  

It made me think of MyDD.

Seriously, accusing fellow Democrats of committing vote fraud is really bad.  I'm glad to see that these TX supers have done something to alleviate such spiteful suspicion.

by ottto 2008-05-29 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Global Warming

unless it actually happened, of course, and you have numerous accounts and witnesses willing to go on the record to back it up, as in Nevada.

by thereisnospoon 2008-05-29 09:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Global Warming

So, you're on record accusing Obama of fraud?  

by ottto 2008-05-30 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Global Warming

I'm on the record as saying there were affidavits and complaints filed with the TDP and they chose to stick their heads in the sand and forward them to the DNC.

Something fishy smells here and it's not the catch of the day.

by TxDem08 2008-05-30 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Global Warming

lol--accusing Clinton of fraud, or at least her backers in the corrupt Nevada State Party.

by thereisnospoon 2008-05-30 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Global Warming

Yeah, I realized afterwards that I'd misunderstood the chain of comments and logic.  

by ottto 2008-05-30 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Global Warming

I suspect that most of the crazies here (on both sides) are actually Republicans.  I guess we'll know after June 3rd.  If they continue to rail against Obama, they are officially non-Democrats.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-30 03:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Chairman of the TDP Endorses Obama

Ahh, times like this, or when I have a hankering for good steak or Mexican food, I miss living in Texas.

by ragekage 2008-05-29 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Chairman of the TDP Endorses Obama

Congratulations on a good diary.  My understanding is the Chairman and his wife are held in high regard and that says enough to quash the libelous fraud charge.  

I am happy your diary pushed another bit of libel down the rec list.  

by gchaucer2 2008-05-29 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Chairman of the TDP Endorses Obama

Boyd Richie?  Obviously you were not in the room at the last convention or during the voting for the TDP chairmanship, or you wouldn't be saying that.

Appearances can be deciving.

by TxDem08 2008-05-30 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Chairman of the TDP Endorses Obama

That's great news, and nicely served.  Thanks!

by haystax calhoun 2008-05-29 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Chairman of the TDP Endorses Obama

the diary in question lacked credibility.  This is great to know, and one more nail in the coffin of the Clintons' dead-end campaign to return to the White House and reassert DLC control over the Democratic Party.

by thereisnospoon 2008-05-29 09:13PM | 0 recs
One more rumor debunked

get Snopes on the line.

Rec!

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-29 09:14PM | 0 recs
RE: Fraud
Red meat as juicy as outright fraud would be blown up all over the media. Even if there was barely a hint that there might be evidence of it the media would be on a feeding frenzy.
.  
by USArmyParatrooper 2008-05-29 09:27PM | 0 recs
That's what I said...

but he ignored it every time that I brought that up.  The thought that fraud that widespread in an election would be so hidden when every news outlet had a correspondent there is ridiculous.  But he wouldn't listen.

by nklein 2008-05-29 10:17PM | 0 recs
Re: That's what I said...

Especially since the media desperately wants this race to go on.  A huge story like this might allow Hillary to viably stay in until the convention.  You would literally be able to see the bags of money dancing around the heads of the MSM CEOs.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-05-30 03:47AM | 0 recs
Re: RE: Fraud

Yeah.  And just now this week, the media is asking who Alice Palmer is, and that Obama used challenges to get his opponents kicked off the ballot to get elected.

Nice.

The media is not the brightest bulb in the pack.  Just look to their Iraq invasion coverage for evidence.

by TxDem08 2008-05-30 07:42AM | 0 recs
You've never been involved in petitions, have you?

If you had been, you'd know that it is a common practice to challenge signatures.  Every petition gets its signatures challenged.  If Alice Palmer was the choice of that Senate District, she would have been able to get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.  Obama got them.  Nader in 2000 got them.  This is how you get on a ballot.  People don't just get to say, "Hey, I want to be on the ballot; put me on."  There are standards.  Some states require a payment and others require signatures.  Either way if you don't get requisite qualifications, you don't get on the ballot.

by nklein 2008-05-30 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: I guess who don't know who Alice was.

Choice of that district?  She was the incumbant.  

by TxDem08 2008-05-31 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Chairman of the TDP Endorses Obama

Another great diary rec'd. I recall somewhat the Pacific John accusations about Texas.

I also recall them being posted by a different poster, on a different site, the day BEFORE Texas. Lol. Actually, it was a group of people predicting that "thugs" & "boyz" would certainly "carjack" the Texas caucus.

And, then, surprise, the next day they had posts to the effect, "I heard from a friend of mine, that his trainer has a cousin in Texas, and she got a call from a senior citizen bullied by thugs." Etc, etc. Follwed by, "this is HUGE." etc. "Let's send it to Hannity." Etc, etc.

Of course I don't have a link handy (shoots self again in head for being disorganized), so it's also good I don't recall the posters' names.

Btw, didn't 2 chairwoman of 2 other states come out & endorse Obama yesterday?

by catilinus 2008-05-29 09:36PM | 0 recs
Recced this earlier

great diary.

by Student Guy 2008-05-29 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Chairman of the TDP Endorses Obama

Great diary.  It takes a lot of effort to keep up the fight against unsubstantiated rumors, nonsense, and outright lies.  Thanks for taking the torch tonight.

Obama is now 41 delegates away from clinching the nomination.  Sadly he won't hit 2026 before the goal posts are moved by the RBC, but I love watching that number getting closer and closer to zero.  Here's to hoping that he is, indeed, banking those supers as reported so that after South Dakota and Montana (which will put him beyond 2026) he will be able to surpass whatever new number is in play.

Convention = McCain

by chinapaulo 2008-05-29 10:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Chairman of the TDP Endorses Obama

Let us see...
State Party Chairs endorsing Obama this week?
CO
OR
TX

State Party Chairs endorsing Clinton this week?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1MwKxUAY u0

by nogo postal 2008-05-29 10:47PM | 0 recs
I know who hopes from fraud in the fall

McCain, as this year will be such a dem landslide that vote fraud is the only way John McCain could win.

by Student Guy 2008-05-29 11:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Chairman of the TDP Endorses Obama

There's a Vast Democratic Conspiracy. We all know that. It's Self-Evident!

by xdem 2008-05-30 03:16AM | 0 recs
Red State Democrats

For Red State Democrats the 50 state strategy which was ridiculed and opposed by Clinton's supporters in the party is a huge shot in the arm. All the money, organization and party building that the Obama campaign has poured into the states that 'don't count' will boost downticket Dems running in red states even if those states don't go Dem at the top of the ticket this cycle.

This primary has been a showdown between the vision Dean brought to the party and the old DLC strategy and the 50 state strategy has won. Why would any red state Democratic super delegate come out for a candidate willing to right off their state as not worthy of money and organization?

by hankg 2008-05-30 04:43AM | 0 recs
Hillary trying to disenfranchise Colin Co. Texas

and it's 698,851 residents. http://startelegram.typepad.com/politex/ 2008/05/local-democrat.html

Hillary wants to count every vote, unless they are votes for Obama.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-30 04:55AM | 0 recs
denied!

collin county will be seated.

also, boyd coming out for obama is HUGE HUGE HUGE.  why?  wel, cause it's long been known that he was on team clinton.  naturally as state party chair he would not publicly say that.  but it's well known to most of us @ the grassroots level.  to have him do a reversal is just fantastic.  i guess he got sick of team clinton trying to bully the party.

w00t!

by annatopia 2008-05-30 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: denied!

That's a load.  Richie has been for whomever would guarantee him that he could be re-elected as TDP Chairman.  Richie has been schmoozing with both Clinton and Obama campaign officals.

He also chose to ignore complaints and the affidavits filed, to have the addressed at the convention.  Tell me who he's in the bag for by doing that?  

by TxDem08 2008-05-30 07:47AM | 0 recs
It doesn't matter!

Hillary is winning!  She has more votes and more delegates!  She is our next president!  GO HILLARY!

PS:  Send money!

by rf7777 2008-05-30 05:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Chairman of the TDP Endorses Obama

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metr opolitan/casey/5808894.html

May 29, 2008, 11:07PM
An Obama mystery at state meet
By RICK CASEY

Texas Democratic Party Vice Chairwoman Roy LaVerne Brooks is a superdelegate who endorsed Barack Obama in March.

The longtime party activist from Fort Worth is also running to unseat current state party Chairman Boyd Richie.

Imagine her surprise Tuesday when she received a disturbing phone call from a national Obama operative who is part of a group that parachuted into Texas to work on this weekend's state party convention.

Roy says the operative, Rudy Shank, told her that unless she drops her candidacy to unseat Richie at the state convention she will not be going to the national convention as a superdelegate.

A deal is offered
She said Shank politely told her that "if there was any way I could not run, it would be appreciated because they would like a convention without hurt feelings."

Shank told her he could make a deal with her. He said Glen Maxey, the former Austin state representative whom the Obama campaign hired as its convention director, told him that if Brooks gave up her vice chairmanship to run against Richie, she would lose her status as superdelegate if she lost.

State chairs and vice chairs are automatically members of the Democratic National Committee, which makes them superdelegates. Brooks' term as vice chair ends this weekend.

A quiet rule change
Brooks said that was news to her. About 20 years ago, then-Chairman Bob Slagle put in a rule saying that while the election for vice chair would take place at the state convention in June, the term would extend until the end of the national convention. The idea was that the vice chair should be rewarded with a national convention at the end of his or her term, not at the beginning of it.

Houstonian Carl Davis, who served as vice chairman from 1998 to 2000, went as a delegate to the convention in Los Angeles that nominated Al Gore.

"I remember seeing the rule in writing," he said.

But apparently the rule has been quietly changed in recent years.

Slagle says he recently learned of the change, though he didn't recall whether the rule was a written one or a "handshake agreement."

Under the new rule, Brooks would lose her superdelegate status if she fails to unseat Richie. But if she backs out, Richie could name her to one of three "add-on" superdelegate slots.

He is required to nominate at least two people for each of the three seats, to be approved by the nominations committee and then ratified by the convention. Traditionally, the nominations committee approves the chairman's first choice of delegates.

There are ironies in the request by an Obama operative that Brooks back off the chairman's race.

One is that she is an African-American. The state Democratic chairman has traditionally been a white male, with an occasional white female slipping in.

Another is that Brooks is casting herself as a "change" from the good ol' boy system, and Obama's campaign is all about changing the good ol' boy system. Brooks' chances of unseating Richie are enhanced by several thousand change-oriented newcomers who will swell the convention to about triple its normal size.

All of this begs the question: Why would the national Obama campaign involve itself in a state race?

Chairman Richie was not available for comment. Maxey promised to ask Shank to call me, but I didn't hear from him.

So I can only go with speculation. One possibility is that the Democratic establishment convinced the Obama folks that Brooks would not be a good enough chairwoman to help them if Texas should come into play. She would contend that Richie isn't a good enough chairman to help.

Another possibility is that a deal has been cut with Richie that could involve both his vote and the votes of the three "add-on" superdelegates.

Do you like conspiracy theories? Thursday night, two nights after Shank made his call to Brooks, Richie announced his endorsement of Obama.

Another possibility involves a "handshake agreement" Slagle put in place in the early 1980s, an agreement that has held ever since. It (accurately) presumed the chairman would be white, and alternates the vice chairmanship and the treasurer's posts between blacks and Hispanics.

"I think this is the year the vice chair is supposed to rotate back to the Mexican-Americans," Slagle said. "If it is a Mexican-American it would be for Clinton. There might be an issue there."

Maybe so, but if they're worried about losing even one superdelegate, manhandling Brooks may not help.

Brooks said she told Shank she would stay in the race.

"I made the comment that I may need to jump over to Hillary's side because I'm not going to be treated like a dish rag," she said.

I asked if she was serious.

"I'm very serious if they keep trying to get me out of the race and I learn that Obama is behind it," she said.

You can write to Rick Casey at P.O. Box 4260, Houston, TX 77210, or e-mail him at rick.casey@chron.com.

***A

by adrienne4dean 2008-05-30 12:24PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads