The New Texas Caucus Lies

2nd Update: You must now be saying, but what happened to the first update. Well, it mysteriously disappeared. I just wanted to thank those that Rec'd me. Although, I'm not sure what it will mean for you. I also want to thank Student Guy for finding this comment from KTinTX the host of Burnt Orange Report disparaging any claim of candidate inspired fraud in the caucuses. It's time we had some honesty in this debate.3rd Update: Thanks for getting me up the Rec List again. Hope more people will question both myself and Alegre. I just don't respect someone that makes outrageous claims based on minimal evidence. Happy Last Primary Day!4th Update: Since I'm still up here. I think it is only appropriate that as we near the end of the primary, at least this diary if not all the diaries on the Rec List, should congratulate and acknowledge the hard work and great passion of Hillary Clinton and her supporters. I hope that we are all joyful in the result of the November election, since we have been so divided in the results of the primary election. Thank you for your intelligence and dedication.

Finally, here's (.pdf file) the evidence of which I've been asking Pacific John.  For months now, I've been asking Pacific John for some proof of his malicious allegations.  And now it has finally been delivered to me in a diary by Alegre. And so I read the document expecting to be persuaded by all the evidence of illegal activity, but it was not to be so.  I saw in two seconds that this document and the "incidents" that are reported have holes through which I can drive a Buick.  And it turns out that the only campaign that might have done something untoward is Clinton's (Check out the end for more info).

First, Alegre says that this "legitimate" claim of fraud comes from a "neutral" observer.  This same "neutral" observer has a on the homepage a huge banner stating "Count their votes now," with big pictures of Michigan and Florida.  Very neutral indeed.

Second, the document is pathetic.  There is no indication of who produced the document.  No labeling of its author or the organization for which it was produced.  The only thing aside from the "incidents" reported is the number A/72472998.2.  I googled and searched yahoo for that number and came up with nothing.  Alegre or Pacific John or another completely unidentified and unaccountable individual could have made this report.  But it is unlikely to be an official document of the Clinton campaign, the TDP or the Secretary of State, because if I've learned one thing since I've got involved in politics and interested in government it is that organizations like those stamp their name all over their documents.  So how are we supposed to believe that these events actually happened?

Next, three out of the first five "incidents" reported are so pathetic that they can be dismissed without me doing much research at all.  The first "incident" claimed says that in Precinct 56 Obama supporters did all manners of unethical activity, including writing in Obama's name on blank sheets and allowing out of state people to vote and telling people to leave.  This "incident" report even claims that the person posing as "the highest ranking official in the Democratic Party" somehow kicked out a news outfit from Channel 7.  You know it's funny, I remember staying up pretty late and I cruise numerous news outlets, but I don't remember any reports of a news agency getting kicked out of a caucus.  So I googled "Texas Caucus Precinct 56" and I received no mention of that precinct in any negative light, except for Alegre's diaries.  See if you can find something I missed.

In Precinct 61, a 19-delegate precinct, the Obama supporters a minority somehow managed to get 34 delegates appointed to go to the district caucus apportioned 18 for BO and 16 for Clinton.  And they expect us to believe them?  How is heaven's name did a minority of the Obama supporters manage to appoint 15 delegates more than the precinct was awarded?  Especially when they didn't even stay to name delegates?

An Obama supporter in Precinct 36 managed to grab the roll and somehow managed to allow Republicans and out of staters to vote.  The "incident report" says that a gentleman named Javier was lucky enough to run into a Fox News Reporter and he gave an interview.  So I wandered over to Fox News' much maligned website and did a search for Texas Caucus Fraud and I received 20 hits.  Not a single one of them mentioned any fraud by Obama at the caucus and most didn't relate to the 2008 Texas caucuses.  I did another search for Precinct 36 and received about 30 hits.  Not a single one of them related to the Texas Caucus.  So no thank you very much to Alegre who made me have to go to foxnews.com.

In all my searching I did find one article that discussed shenanigans during the Texas Caucus.  It was by Marc Ambinder and it relayed the story of only one incident in El Paso.  This incident had no verifiable proof mind you, but the accusation by the Clinton campaign of Obama precinct workers taking the packet in precinct 87.  Ambinder ends his blog post with this:


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

Don't you get it there was definitely major issues of accountability in the Texas caucus, but there is not evidence of fraud.  There has never been a single neutral or objective observer to mention the possibility of fraud.  There has been not one peep out of the Texas Democratic Party of anything untoward happening.  There have been no complaints followed up on by the Secretary of State or any other official in Texas.  There has been not one document from the Obama campaign outlining any plan to commit such a massive fraud.  And all this incident report does is accuse Obama voters of questionable activity.  Not a single Obama staffer is even implicated, but that doesn't stop them from screaming that it goes all the way to the top.

Finally, I decided to go to the Burnt Orange Report to check out these claims of fraud in El Paso.  And it turns out that not only is Obama's campaign full of criminals, but they are also incompetent.  Because they did all this fraud and thuggery and couldn't even get a better delegate breakdown to the state convention than 157-18 for Clinton.  There are challenges, though.  22 of them in fact all on behalf of Obama.  Now, I don't mind you insulting my intelligence with these idiotic charges, but I will not let you insult Hillary Clinton's intelligence and competence.  There is no way a woman as accomplished as Hillary Clinton is going to lose the Democratic nomination to someone who is so incompetent that they couldn't even with the use of fraud get a better delegate breakdown than 157-18 for Clinton.

I also decided to do a search of Burnt Orange Report of the Texas Caucus Fraud.  The search did not turn up one incident reported to the blog of any questionable activity by the Obama campaign.  In fact, it happened to turn up an interesting diary that actually has a source.  It seems that there is an article by the Dallas Morning News describing Clinton caucus training materials:

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 serves as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness.

This Texas caucus fraud stuff is just nonsense and anybody who embraces it are liars.  It has been disproved in all ways possible to disprove a negative.  The more people cling to it the more desperate you sound and the less likely any Democrat will be able to win in November.  Please provide evidence or STOP LYING.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Texas Democratic Party (all tags)

Comments

162 Comments

Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies; this time by Alegre

The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill, and suspicion can destroy, and the thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own; for the children, and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to The Twilight Zone.

by libertyleft 2008-06-02 11:34PM | 0 recs
I know she's been reduced to

self-parody but "For the record, prejudices can kill," is pretty hilarious for someone who now sees a racist as a role model for the party.  Glad to see her screed has disappeared from the rec list.

by gchaucer2 2008-06-03 05:07AM | 0 recs
Tips for sanity...

because we need to beat back these lies one at a time.  I know there will be Obama supporters who wished I hadn't said anything in the interest of allowing Clinton supporters to "vent."  But I cannot let someone blithely accuse our nominee of criminality.  If we let this go, then the Republicans may pick up on it and we'll have to deal with it all over again in the General Election.

by nklein 2008-06-02 11:35PM | 0 recs
You were right to post this

The Clinton "supporters" are going to whine and moan whatever we do.  We should be rational and nice to the real supporters but they won't bring up lies and crap like Alegre did.

by Student Guy 2008-06-02 11:45PM | 0 recs
Re: You were right to post this

Alegre does not represent Clinton supporters.

by Deadalus 2008-06-03 12:28AM | 0 recs
I know...

there are just some people who have invested too much in the sucess of another person.  I don't really care who the person is in the office, just that they do the things that need to be done.

by nklein 2008-06-03 12:41AM | 0 recs
I've just reviewed this diarist's claims....

First off, the diarist calls out Alegre in the headline. Troll status before I even get into the text.

Secondly, any comments relating to the basic reality that it's the Clinton campaign workers filing the complaints should be noted as such. Are they neutral? No. But, realistically, is the Obama campaign going to file a complaint against itself? Of course not.

Third, I started looking into the numbers as this diarist is claiming they're distorted, and in virtually every instance it's this diarist that's misrepresenting the facts, not Pacific John. Not Alegre.

These complaints are quite valid. This diarist is one of the most obnoxious Obama trolls on this blog. And, before you criticize my statement, read their stuff...objectively.

Does Alegre go over-the-top? Of course. But, in this instance, I'm finding her comments to be pretty damn accurate, save for a little hyperbole. In fact, as far as the material facts are concerned in this instance, IMHO, it is this diarist that should be taken to task for distorting reality, however.

So, follow the diarist off a cliff with your pats on their back in your comments to this diary. But, clearly, there's something legitimately questionable going on here with regard to the Obama campaign's activities in Texas, and the authorities are, indeed, following-up on it aggressively now, too; and for good reason.

This diarist is a hater, in quite the most basic sense of the word. I've been following the diarist's comments for quite some time, too. This is the truth. So, for the sake of a little unity, checkout this diarist's claims about some of the more substantive issues relating to this matter before you go making idiots of yourselves and accepting what this diarist is saying at face value. Clearly there's major distortion occurring here as far as this diarist's actions are concerned.

And, more importantly, it's self-evident that the state authorities in Texas now give serious credence to these charges, too.

Apparently, the only person--after spending some time on a search page today--that thinks these are hollow claims being put forth by the Clinton campaign is this diarist!

After looking at some of this diarist's counterclaims, for all intents and purposes, I find them totally without merit! (And, anyone with an IQ higher than the temperature on a cold winter day would be compelled to agree with me if they did their homework, as well!)

Shame on you MyDD'ers that claim you're seeking unity when you pat this diarist on their back. You are encouraging lies and propaganda and total disunity come the Democratic Convention and the GE by doing that.

by bobswern 2008-06-03 01:27AM | 0 recs
Re: I've just reviewed this diarist's claims....

So, to summarize your arguments:

"Nuh-uh!"

"I know you are but what am I?"

and the slightly more erudite:

"No, the truth is as I say, and it is self-evident. Which is good, since I will not be providing any evidence of any sort!"

(Hey, I even got the Drudge-like bold text going!)

by nathanp 2008-06-03 01:38AM | 0 recs
Re: I've just reviewed this diarist's claims....

you are accurately describing this diary in fact.

by zerosumgame 2008-06-03 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: I've just reviewed this diarist's claims....

Yes, a thoroughly researched and sourced diary is exactly like "Well, I think YOU'RE the one distorting reality".

by Okamifujutsu 2008-06-03 11:42AM | 0 recs
So you used all the verbiage to not refute...

a single claim I made.  Is logical that in a caucus where there are 80 Clinton supporters and 15 Obama supporters, Obama's supporters suddenly gathered the ability to appoint 15 more delegates than were awarded to that caucus?  It doesn't make sense.

And it divisive for me to question (harshly) the veracity of claims that Obama [our potential next Democratic nominee] is a criminal, but it is unifying to make those claims.  That's just disingenuous.  Oh and it wasn't me who hid you.  I don't think I should od that to someone who questions my integrity.  That's for others to judge.

by nklein 2008-06-03 01:55AM | 0 recs
Re: I've just reviewed this diarist's claims....

The diarist is a "hater"?  You refute by providing opinion not fact.  Show some facts that this is real problem and not a imaginary story blown out of proportion to help a crippled campaign.  Where is your research?

by temptxan 2008-06-03 04:26AM | 0 recs
Almost all diarist's claims are refuted in the...

...summary document which he presents to us. READ IT, please. Just one example, what the diarist describes as "#2." The document explains exactly what occurred, up to and including the awarding of something like 15-16 more delegates than are supposed to be awarded for the district in question.

If others here are not even going to look into the source material provided--already--which undermines much of the diarist's claims, in and of itself, what's the point of even "supporting claims?"

by bobswern 2008-06-03 05:39AM | 0 recs
I notice you don't like to respond to me...

since you are attacking me, but to answer your question.  In my diary, I point out the absurdities of the summary document, but even if you believe the summary document is correct, how can you trust it?  There's author provided or organization named that provided it.  I just don't see how you accept it blindly.  Is it because Alegre is vouching for it?

by nklein 2008-06-03 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I've just reviewed this diarist's claims....

Oh, Bob, verbose as always. Hey, wait a minute- didn't you write an entire diary calling people out by name? And that was a-okay?

Who's the hypocrite?

by ragekage 2008-06-03 05:41AM | 0 recs
Back to your old tricks "unity man?"

My diary which you falsely claimed "called people out," in fact didn't mention anyone...at all.

When you have to lie or misrepresent to support your claims, what do you have? Nothing.

What I did was copy comments and post them, without any comments from me identifying anyone. The comments posted spoke for themselves. We are all accountable for our actions and our hypocrisy when blog. Even you...when you regularly call other bloggers out by name.

Your own comment, to which I'm responding now, just like your ongoing interweaving of calls for unity in-between extremely provocative and troll-ish comments and posts, speaks for itself.

by bobswern 2008-06-03 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Back to your old tricks "unity man?"

Ahhh. I guess the part where you editorialized at the beginning and then called people out on their "trollish" behavior, doesn't amount to calling them out if you structure it in that manner, right?

Give me a break on the semantics, Bob, you're usually smarter than this. Given what you've said about yourself, I find it incredibly mind numbing that you can still engage in this level of intellectual dishonestly. Hell, in that diary, you accused me of being a hypocrite, and posted a comment I made about Alegre as proof (in a diary where I defended MyDD from other Kossacks), given that I've always called Alegre for what she is- a troll.

But heck, Bob, don't let that get in your way. Fall back on the verbosity and try to make it look like you've actually made a point. We ain't fallin' fer it.

by ragekage 2008-06-03 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: You were right to post this

She doesn't? But she represents the Clinton supporters on MyDD, right? After all, she often has 3 diaries on the reclist at once - out of 5.

by X Stryker 2008-06-03 04:05AM | 0 recs
The obnoxiousness of this comment...

...is not worth the dignification of a response.

Alegre no more represents the Clinton supporters on this blog than the diarist of this horrible piece represents the Obama supporters on this blog.

To state that is, in and of itself, troll-ish.

by bobswern 2008-06-03 05:47AM | 0 recs
Re: The obnoxiousness of this comment...

Actually, I gotta agree with Bob on this one. Alegre doesn't represent anyone on this blog- she doesn't even represent her candidate. Alegre is a troll, nothing more.

by ragekage 2008-06-03 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: The obnoxiousness of this comment...

Then why does she own the rec list?

by X Stryker 2008-06-03 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: The obnoxiousness of this comment...

She gets people who don't contribute to this site to come in and rec-bomb her. It was supplemented in the past by some of the Clinton supporters here, yes, but now most of them have become embarassed by what she's become and her diaries have had a real hard time staying on the rec list at all. Hell, I had a diary the other night that was written maybe a half hour after hers... and slammed it right off the rec list.

by ragekage 2008-06-03 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: The obnoxiousness of this comment...

OK, I feel better about MyDD Clinton supporters now.

by X Stryker 2008-06-03 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: You were right to post this

Woah, I go to bed, wake up, and wow, I'm troll-rated for this comment?

Folks, come on!

by Deadalus 2008-06-03 07:18AM | 0 recs
Diarist regularly posts some of the worst...

...Hillary-hate trash that's available or otherwise hidden on this blog!

I've researched this diarist's rants--and with regard to virtually ALL MATERIAL FACTS--the diarist is comprehensively engaging in distortion of the truth.

The authorities are following up on these charges, and it's because they're very thoroughly documented.

Hey, if Alegre was wrong, I'd be the first to say something. Is there, generally, hyperbole in Alegre's diaries (or, diaries, in general)??? Perhaps sometimes. But, for the most part, not this time, and not in this diary at least with regard to the major, substantive issues therein.

Shame on this diarist for attempting to railroad Alegre. And, shame on everyone here joining the frenzied crowd tonight walk through these proverbial brick-paved roads with their kerosene torches afire (like a scene from an old Frankenstein flick).

If the Obama folks want to win in November, they better start respecting the Clinton campaign and its supporters, unlike this Hillary-hater's post to which I'm responding now.

Yes, this diarist is one of the most offensive Hillary-haters ever to post here. Support his rants at your own risk.

I'm telling you this diarist is engaging in seriously erroneous rants right now.

by bobswern 2008-06-03 01:34AM | 0 recs
"Most offensive Hillary-Hater"...

That's quite a statement.  You've written probably over 300-400 words in this thread and have yet to dispute a single claim I made.  Why not question just one thing I wrote instead of the invective?

by nklein 2008-06-03 01:57AM | 0 recs
(crickets)

by nightsweat 2008-06-03 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: "Most offensive Hillary-Hater"...

All he does is call Obama supporters Hillary haters.  He's done it to me, he's done it ragekage, he's done it to Sun dog, and now you.  It's a pattern.

by The Distillery 2008-06-03 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Diarist regularly posts some of the worst...

Check out this offensive comment from one of his diaries!

But to the point of this diary.  This is a congratulations to her and you for all the hard work that you have put in supporting her and working for her election.  I have been here consistently and I've seen the work that alegre, NewHampster and others have put in on this blog and on calls and walking.  You two and others that due not immediately come to mind (but have done no or not much less) have done a lot in what I know is a labor of love for a truly esteemable candidate.

Yes, he hates Hillary so much, he had the temerity to congratulate her supporters after Hillary's PA win!

Seriously, scan his diaries - "Hillary hater" is a ridiculous allegation, unless you define it as "Obama supporter".

by X Stryker 2008-06-03 04:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Diarist regularly posts some of the worst...

It really doesn't work to make these harsh accusations without a link or quote. It just makes you look like an amateur troll.

by rhetoricus 2008-06-03 06:22AM | 0 recs
kudos to you

as another texas caucusgoer who attended a clean caucus, i am so sick of the fraud accusations flying around.  the texas leader of team clinton helped craft our caucus rules, yet team clinton claimed to have little understanding of the process.  bullshit.  they just tried - once again - to change the rules in the middle of the game.

now i do agree that our prima-caucus system in texas needs serious reform, but it is what we have right now and i really wish team clinton had shown more respect for the process.

and that seems to crop up constantly.  they don't respect the process AT ALL.  

by annatopia 2008-06-03 04:28AM | 0 recs
Oh, I'm sorry I should have been clearer...

I'm not a caucus-goer (Californian), I just called people for the caucus.  I know how well Obama organized for it and to call it fraud really angers me.

by nklein 2008-06-03 05:01AM | 0 recs
sloppy language on my part

yea, i know you weren't there.  what i tried to say - perhaps not so eloquently - was that i am among many texas caucusgoers who are disgusted with the fraud claims.  thank you for being so diligent on this issue. i also called PJ out on his accusations, and never got anything.  this pdf you've got here, it's a joke.  it's also sad to see wampum pushing this crap.  MB is another longtime progressive blogger who i hold in high regard.  i'm not sure how i feel about them - or PJ, or anyone else pushing this crap - any more.

by annatopia 2008-06-03 05:14AM | 0 recs
I know...

and this is supposed to be proof positive of illegality?  It just shows someone who has not been involved in electoral politics for a long time.  Because anybody who has ever dealt with elections, secretary of states or ballots cast knows that there are always complaints.  But by the measure of normal complaints, these are pretty ridiculous.

by nklein 2008-06-03 05:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Tips for sanity...
If there's something there, and I'm not certain there isn't, the Republicans have already picked up on it. I live in Texas, and attended a caucus on election day as a Clinton supporter. Obama supporters overwhelmed the precinct in larger proportions than the actual vote. They literally surrounded the Precinct Chair like security guards. No matter where he went, they were there. Only Obama supporters "supervised" the crucial sign-in sheets. I know this sort of thing occurred in at least 5 other precincts according to friends. Unfortunately, I don't have friends all over the state, and I can't speak for the rest of the state. So, I'd say Clinton had reason to suspect some kind of foul play. P.S. Before someone asks, no, I will not provide statistics or any further information. It wouldn't do any good anyway.
by zenful6219 2008-06-03 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Tips for sanity...

nklein, this is fantastic.  Thanks for doing all the work.

Point of information, I think in Texas one would drive a chevy through those holes, not a buick.  (Or a ford if you one is so inclined.)

by The Distillery 2008-06-03 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies; this time by Alegre

Thank you for setting the record straight.

Shame on Alegre.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-06-02 11:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies; this time by Alegre

Why should a proven lier like alegre be allowed to post here and smear our Democratic candidate? She will find her own kind at any Republican blog and be welcomed with open arms.

by ImpeachBushCheney 2008-06-03 12:19AM | 0 recs
Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies; this time by Alegre

McClinton voters dishonnor Hillary and everything she stands for.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-06-03 04:59AM | 0 recs
I knew there wasn't anything

to the reports because the BOR didn't cover it.  They do a damn fine job of political coverage, Karl did an awesome rebuttal in Alegre's diary about it.

I so can't wait for Obama to hit 2118 and for this to be over.  All of the lies and smears sent out into the world.

Heartily recced.

by Student Guy 2008-06-02 11:43PM | 0 recs
Where?

I looked, but I couldn't find anything.

by nklein 2008-06-03 12:00AM | 0 recs
Uggh I waded back into the filth

to dig this gem up:
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/6/2/22 4459/0925/140#140

To my response saying that the BOR hasn't touched this because it is BS

by Student Guy 2008-06-03 12:03AM | 0 recs
Thanks...

sorry for the swim through Pacific John's first smear.

by nklein 2008-06-03 12:44AM | 0 recs
Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies; this time by Alegre

Great diary, thanks.  Although I'm guessing you might get in trouble with the site administrators because you "called out" Alegre.  

by bosdcla14 2008-06-02 11:59PM | 0 recs
Whatever...

if they want to endorse that trash, then I will accept whatever they send my way.

by nklein 2008-06-03 12:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Whatever...

I really dont expect them to make issue over some interpretation of the guidelines here when the rest of them are being mostly ignored.

Since it is a free-for-all though, this has become an interesting battleground.  There are obvious trolls trying to change the narritive here posing as Clinton supporters.  (and sometimes as Obama supporters, just to play both sides against the middle)

But really I think it works to our (as in progressive Democrats) advantage.  We dont have to go somewhere else to deal with these stupid claims and negative accusations.  They come here.  This way we can do research (like you have done) state opinions, and further solidify our point of view.  Etc.

Plus anyone that reads this that has any common sense and an open mind sees both sides and can make their own decision.  

by herenow 2008-06-03 10:08AM | 0 recs
Feels so good to read factual diaries.

Recommended.

by Firewall 2008-06-03 12:04AM | 0 recs
I wonder if she will get any

reprimands for blatantly lying, and we are supposed to hold our moses at it.

heh, I called for calm after the RBC but when stuff like that gets put up it should be swatted down fiercely.

Just like I swat down anything TD posts by posting some stuff that illuminates her intentions

by Student Guy 2008-06-03 12:06AM | 0 recs
Arrgh

that should be noses.

by Student Guy 2008-06-03 12:23AM | 0 recs
It's good either way n/t

by nklein 2008-06-03 12:44AM | 0 recs
I see campweasel

is merrily at it with TRs -- absolute immunity for ratings abuse must be a heady thing.

by gchaucer2 2008-06-03 05:14AM | 0 recs
Re: I see campweasel

stop abusing other posters and you may not get so many TR's, all you McBloggers are weeping a lot today

by trytobereal 2008-06-03 09:06AM | 0 recs
You see this is what a responsible person...

does when they TR.  They explain why and don't run through a thread Tring that person over and over again.  I'm TRing you for calling gchauser2 a "Mcblogger."  That person has been on this blog longer than you have and has proven to be a rowdy, but committed Democrat.  Who are you?

by nklein 2008-06-03 10:17AM | 0 recs
This is a person who jumped my thread

yesterday to start a fight and then tr'd all of my comments.  

"I don't think people know the half of it (1.50 / 2)

I was around the campaigns in person for a year in Iowa.  By the last couple of months, I couldn't believe any of them were still on their feet.  That was BEFORE the grueling six months that have followed.  The schedule is unbelieveable.  The snippets we see in the media make it look easier, by far, than it is in real life.  

Both Hillary and Barack are kind of health freaks, otherwise this would have gone down very differently.  She's older than he is and he's an athlete on top of it.  For her to have kept pace like this, on a personal level, is incredibly impressive to me."

That, apparently was a troll worthy comment in the eyes of this one.  Seems like someone just looking to make things difficult for Democrats at a difficult time.  

by Sun Dog 2008-06-03 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies by Alegre
Great work.  Thanks.
Alegre's just preaching to her choir now, and has achieved Limbaugh-like status by Limbaugh-like means.
by haystax calhoun 2008-06-03 12:50AM | 0 recs
Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies; this time by Alegre

Starting tomorrow, Jerome really needs to clean up this place. People like alegre and TexasDarlin can go post their crap at Free Republic once Obama clinches the nomination this week.

by MJJLWolf 2008-06-03 01:01AM | 0 recs
Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies; this time by Alegre

Won't happen. And I'm not holding my breath on getting rec/rate back, even though I've given out a total of one (1.00) and one (0.00) - and the 0 was to someone overzealously attacking Alegre.

Seriously, look at what Jerome's written over the last few months and ask yourself if you think this place is being managed well.

by really not a troll 2008-06-03 01:09AM | 0 recs
Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies; this time by Alegre

As soon as I read that Alegre was using as a source "one of the only remaining highly respected neutral voices in the liberal netroots" I knew that the source would not be neutral.

Which answers all that I need to know about Alegre, except for one thing - was she or a member of her family expecting a job in a Clinton administration and is she bitter that that wrong horse has been backed.

by My Ob 2008-06-03 01:21AM | 0 recs
Hmmm

It seems the thrust of all of your counter arguments are "I couldn't find that on the internet and I didn't see it on the news."  


"I googled and searched yahoo for that number and came up with nothing."

"The search did not turn up one incident reported to the blog of any questionable activity by the Obama campaign."

"I did another search for Precinct 36 and received about 30 hits."

"So I wandered over to Fox News' much maligned website and did a search for Texas Caucus Fraud and I received 20 hits."

"I cruise numerous news outlets, but I don't remember any reports of a news agency getting kicked out of a caucus."

"I decided to go to the Burnt Orange Report to check out these claims of fraud in El Paso."

"So I googled 'Texas Caucus Precinct 56' and I received no mention of that precinct in any negative light."

The bizarre incongruence of primary results and caucus results render the caucuses presumptively suspicious.  You will learn about this in Torts when you study negligence and the concept of res ipsa loquitur.  

Hence, those defending against the allegations have the burden of disproving them.  Saying "I didn't see it on the news and it wasn't on Google" says more about someone's research skills and access to information (I wouldn't have TX insider info either, so no offense) than the actual merits of the allegations.

But I will look for a tip jar-esque comment from you and give you mojo for not saying "hearsay."  

by BPK80 2008-06-03 01:56AM | 0 recs
imo

The bizarre incongruence of primary results and caucus results render the primmary presumptively suspicious.  

by libertyleft 2008-06-03 02:11AM | 0 recs
Re: imo

Actually, the results were not that different. And that isn't evidence of fraud at the caucuses.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-03 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmmm

The reason that the caucus results differed substantially from the primary results is because the Texas system gives greater weight to districts which are consistently democratic in their voting patterns. So Travis county where I live gets greater weight than say Moore county in the Panhandle because Travis is a democratic stronghold and Moore has about 20 democrats left all of whom are over 70yo.

That's your discrepancy so stop making shit up.

by Skex 2008-06-03 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmmm

No, the precint by precint comparisons show congruence where there were safeguards and an active legal team while where there were not, there were wide discrepancies.  You realize the delegates in the primary are also selected using an amplifier based on past voting behavior, yes?

by BPK80 2008-06-03 07:40AM | 0 recs
Uhh, anyone remember that the Primary was OPEN

meaning that Repubs could vote for a Dem.  And do you think Repubs would go to a caucus?  Or, if they were to cause muckrakery, do you think they would rather just go into a private booth and pull a lever?

Considering this, along with other posters responses, it seems quite evident there are a myriad of possibilities as to why the primary results were not similar to the caucuses, none of them pointing to fraud by Obama's camp.  

Even though I doubt there has ever been a fraud case that initially placed the burden of proof on the defense, I have nonetheless given you some facts that destroy any preponderence of the evidence, or 50 + a feather, for your case.

by KLRinLA 2008-06-03 11:21AM | 0 recs
Adorable

The skews are so off the wall in the caucuses that they evoke the Torts doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.  They are presumptively suspect.  Hence the burden would be on the defendant to explain that there was an absence of wrongdoing rather than vice versa.

But there is no court or legal arguments to be made here; it's just differing opinions.  I have mine and you have yours.  

by BPK80 2008-06-04 03:40PM | 0 recs
You are Adorable

and obviously ignorant of true legal analysis...since I just showed you that there is another reasons why the results are skewed beyond your thought of caucus cheating (an Open primary would make a republican vote in priamry but not join in the caucus) your theory that the thing speaks for itself is automatically knocked out, thus you must use another theory such as proving the intentional act of fraud.

Good try buddy, but finish law school before arguing with a lawyer

by KLRinLA 2008-06-05 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Hmmm

What ever. I actually went to a Caucus in Texas and it was amazingly boring and calm the Obama folks (who outnumbered the Clinton people 3 to 1) didn't even raise a fuss when the Clinton camp insisted on having co chairs and 2 secretaries so they wouldn't feel like they were rail roaded.

Over a million people took part in a process that never really mattered before then and based on that fact itself I'd say that there were very very few even alleged violations.

Hell in many cases you had spouses on different sides of the battle like the older woman in line with me who's husband was on the Clinton side.

Clinton got devastated in the democratic strongholds of Texas because Texas Democrats by and large sided with Obama. Clinton only won districts that traditionally go Republican so take that for what its worth.

by Skex 2008-06-03 10:01PM | 0 recs
On Research skills

I thought the research method used here was valid.  I do lots of research that involves comprehensive literature review and I've been comparing results of "official" databases to Google and Google Scholar results.  There are definitely situations where the advantage goes to Google.

by GreenHills 2008-06-03 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmmm

That may be the worst legal analysis I've ever seen.

by rfahey22 2008-06-03 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmmm

Heh...I wasn't going to say it, but I'm glad you did. It kind of had that smug 1L "I just learned this so now let me unleash it on a blog!" attitude.

I will say this, MyDD never fails to entertain. Like watching a train wreck, get pushed back on the rails, wreck again, get pushed back on the rails...

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-03 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmmm

Yeah, it's one of those places where anyone can be an "expert," just because we're supposed to take anonymous users at face value.

by rfahey22 2008-06-03 08:28AM | 0 recs
My torts prof could kick your

torts prof's ass. He taught us that if you're claiming res ipsa, you probably don't know what you're doing. As in this case, where you have completely ignored the part where the Obama campaign didn't have exclusive control of the instrumentality. Oh yeah... and using a negligence doctrine to prove fraud. That's a wee bit problematic.

I agree with the person below who characterized your post as perhaps the worst legal analysis ever. But I wanted to clarify a bit why. In honor of my torts professor, who really did kick ass.

by Mobar 2008-06-03 07:54AM | 0 recs
Hehe my torts prof stunk

but I still could do a better analysis than this tool.

The presumption that caucuses and primary votes should HAVE to parallel each other when it's been obvious in all the analyses that the caucuses attract those "activists" that Senator Clinton scorns sort of puts your legal construct in jeopardy right off the bat.

Hope you weren't a judicial clerk anywhere....

by Regenman 2008-06-03 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Hehe my torts prof stunk

You misconstrue the issue.

It's not that caucuses and primaries need to parallel each other entirely, but there should be no 25% skew either way.  

"but I still could do a better analysis than this tool."

That's cute.  You get a gold star for being prince of the internet today.  

by BPK80 2008-06-04 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: My torts prof could kick your

Thanks, but my Torts professor died suddenly and tragically the night I submitted my final paper as an upperclassman in one of his seminar classes.  

by BPK80 2008-06-04 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: My torts prof could kick your

On res ipsa, it's a comparison of theory.  There is no actual court in session here.  It's a battle (futile) of online opinions.  

by BPK80 2008-06-04 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: My torts prof could kick your

It's a useless comparison. You like res ipsa because once you've made your prima facie case, the negligence is proven without identifying the specific negligent act. That's a highly unusual circumstance in a tort, which is why the doctrine of res ipsa is narrower than "oh, somebody had to have fucked up, let's sue!" By ignoring that the doctrine is narrower than you suggest, you have failed to make a meaningful or compelling comparison. And that's even before we discuss proving fraud with a negligence doctrine.

The more apt legal comparison given the substance of your argument is that, to paraphrase Justice Stewart, you know fraud when you see it.

by Mobar 2008-06-05 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmmm
"those defending against the allegations have the burden of disproving them" I couldn't let this one pass. Rather obviously, the burden of proof is on the person making the allegations. Otherwise it would be a valid tactic for me to assert that you are a Nazi, and everyone should assume that it is true unless you can prove otherwise. And that would, of course, be absurd.
by laird 2008-06-03 05:38PM | 0 recs
I can't allegations that are not made...

There is nothing, but a document that came out of nowhere to support this claim of fraud.  How in any form of suit is the Obama campaign cupable of fraud?  There is nothing to refute, because there is no evidence.  I can't refute a Channel 7 report that doesn't exist.  I can't refute a Fox news article or video that doesn't exist.  An allegation that includes ridiculous claims and no author is not believable.  There is no source anywhere to confirm this claim and the claim is not believeable on its face, because there is no author of the document.

Finally, is this not a torts issue?  There is no breach of contract occuring here?  The claim is fraud on an electoral process.  This criminal law, not torts law.  And in criminal law you need a witness with name to stand up.  We have no sources to back up this ridiculous claim that apparently thousands of media personnel in that state.

by nklein 2008-06-03 02:05AM | 0 recs
The above was in response to BPKO n/t

by nklein 2008-06-03 02:06AM | 0 recs
Huh, you and alegre have been yanked from the

wreck list?

Curious.

by grass 2008-06-03 02:35AM | 0 recs
Looks like...

I was warned, too.  I just don't get why we can't call out blatant lies and smears.  Everyday, they pass by, but the admins do nothi

by nklein 2008-06-03 02:43AM | 0 recs
So I clicked post before I was done...

What I was saying was "Everyday these smear diaries pass by, but the admins do nothing.  Well, if the diary accomplished one thing, it got that horrible diary yanked off the Rec'd list.

by nklein 2008-06-03 02:45AM | 0 recs
Re: So I clicked post before I was done...

I guess you'll just have to allude to her name if you ever need to correct something again - "a certain Hillary supporter beginning with A and ending in egre."

by grass 2008-06-03 03:43AM | 0 recs
Texas Caucus fraud is obvious
people voted twice - fraud! caucus results diff from  primaries - Huge fraud.
very simple, dude.
by engels 2008-06-03 04:12AM | 0 recs
My hand is six inches from my wrist to the tip...

of my middle finger.  Some turtles are six inches in length.  My hand is a turtle.

The argument I just laid out makes about as much as sense as the argument you laid out.  The difference in primary and caucus results by they very fact of there being a difference does not prove fraud.  There are other explanations, such as a possible turnout by Rush Limbaugh supporters for Hillary Clinton in the primary, but not wanting to wait to caucus.  That's just one of many explanations that do not involve fraud.  

I'm starting to wonder if people understand what fraud means?

by nklein 2008-06-03 04:22AM | 0 recs
i am starting to wonder if you have understanding

by engels 2008-06-03 04:35AM | 0 recs
Re: i am starting to wonder if you have understand

It's already obvious you don't, so, don't worry.

by ragekage 2008-06-03 05:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus fraud is obvious

That's the way the system works - there are two steps. It's been that way for along time. You may not like the system, but it's not fraud.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-03 05:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus fraud is obvious

And if Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must give Hillary the majority of the Texas delegation.

by maxomai 2008-06-03 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus fraud is obvious

so since you use South Park as source material you must also be a denier of Global Climate Change and think Al Gore is just chasing mythical creatures. So why is an obvious RW MCBlogger like you doing with enough mojo to view hidden comments, and I guess we can also take it as a given that the 6 people who rec'ed you are also McBloggers then.

by zerosumgame 2008-06-03 08:10AM | 0 recs
That's actually from Seinfeld n/t

by nklein 2008-06-03 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: That's actually from Seinfeld n/t

nope, it is from a SP episode mocking Jonny Cocran (after he was safely dead) with his so-called "Chewbacca" defense. get your RW references straight next time, you are transparently RW

by trytobereal 2008-06-03 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus fraud is obvious

I congratulate you on your ability to leap over logical chasms.

Unfortunately, you're not only wrong, but by virtue of having made so many assumptions with one fell swoop, you are now a proven complete drooling idiot.

Have a nice day.

by maxomai 2008-06-03 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Texas Caucus fraud is obvious

It never fails to amaze me and really makes for some good entertainment reading some of the claims, accusations, and "logical" assuptions made by some of the people that post here... trying so hard to make any kind of connection that fits their narritive.

And if they cant make the message work, they attack the messenger.

Every single time.

by herenow 2008-06-03 10:15AM | 0 recs
That was some poor analysis

but if you disagree then it would also means you are a McBlogger, because you obviously watch so much South park to know so much about it...d'oh!

petard anyone?

by KLRinLA 2008-06-03 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies

And, as I asked Alegre, if there are so many problems, why isn't the Clinton campaign protesting them?

The TX state convention is coming right up. If there were complaints of corruption from the Clinton campaign, they'd be talking about it. But none of them are.

Surely they have not come down with an attack of shyness.

by politicsmatters 2008-06-03 05:13AM | 0 recs
Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies

Alegre is a lost cause. She has become a caricature of the sad, Quixotic crusader.  She will be charging the windmills long after Clinton concedes. Don't waste the bandwidth refuting her delusions.

by rf7777 2008-06-03 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies

Excellent diary. I notice all the deadenders studiously ignore the known shady things that occurred, like when the Clinton supporters challenged every one of Obama's caucus delegates at the county convention, causing them to have to stay until the wee hours in the morning- the story I read was about a pregnant woman breaking down in tears because she was so painfully uncomfortable having either sit there and wait it out, or leave and give the Clinton supporters a win.

by ragekage 2008-06-03 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies

Yup, I just posted Melody Townsel's diary about it below. But I'll do it here too. :)

by rhetoricus 2008-06-03 06:18AM | 0 recs
Don't you get it?

Lack of evidence for the conspiracy just means the conspiracy is really good at covering itself up!  The only thing more convincing than evidence of the conspiracy is NO evidence of the conspiracy!

by JJE 2008-06-03 06:04AM | 0 recs
Here's another view..

into the Texas process by the patriot who stood up to John Bolton.

by rhetoricus 2008-06-03 06:17AM | 0 recs
I asked Pacific John

repeatedly for his evidence back when he was posting his allegations, and his only response that he wasn't going to "name names" on a blog, and that he would "share [his info] with reporters" if any were interested. Of, course, I didn't want names, I just wanted some vague idea of what the hell he was talking about. The irony, of course, was that the only willful flouting of the rules in El Paso was at the county convention when the Clinton supporters who controlled the committees refused to allocate the at-large delegates based on the convention sign-in - a direct violation of both the rules of the TDP and of a clarifying directive sent out by the state rules committee not two days prior to the county convention. Same thing happened at a few other county meets as well, apparently.

As Karl-Thomas has noted at BOR and here, these issues are being rectified at credentials meetings around the state this week, and Obama may very well have the delegates he needs to get 38 rather than 37 of the 67 at-large delegates at the state convention this weekend.

The Clinton ground strategy after the Texas caucuses was simply to scream and holler and throw sand and make vague threats of litigation. Frankly I expected better considering the team she had put together down here - veteran Texas Democrats who should all have been quite well-versed in the rules of the process.  Ridiculous.

by SuperTex 2008-06-03 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: I asked Pacific John

Pacific John and OJ are also looking for the real killers.

by rfahey22 2008-06-03 07:26AM | 0 recs
Caucuses are not the best system

In the future, we should examine not using caucuses. There are a lot of reports that caucuses are not as inclusive as primaries. A caucus would not be acceptable in the general election, why should we use them in the primary? Shouldn't the Democratic selection process be as above board, inclusive and democratic as the General Election?

by maxstar 2008-06-03 06:47AM | 0 recs
Honestly, I have a primary...

and I'm happy with it.  Caucuses wouldn't work in California (and they may not work in Texas either: too big).  But in the end isn't it up to the states to make that decision.  I can disadvantages to the caucuses (low turnout, difficult accountability) and the positives of the caucuses (party revitalization, volunteer recruitment).  The problem in the end is that our system is federal and allows states to choose whichever way they want to apportion delegates.  And I'm not going to force any other state to pick one system until we get rid of NH and IA most favored state status.

by nklein 2008-06-03 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies

Thank you for the research and the refutation. I knew of the Dallas Morning News story,I just didn't have the energy to post an entire well thought out refutation,Ya done good.

by Ida B 2008-06-03 06:53AM | 0 recs
Lets talk real numbers

http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDia ry.do?diaryId=5864

Texas Democratic Party rules say that in order to vote at the caucus, you must have first voted in the Democratic Primary.

To register to vote in Texas, you must list an address.

According to BOR, there were:
682,728 minimum confirmed caucus goers
598,861 with complete addresses

So. 13.3% of those people attending, or about 1 out of every 7 people, didn't follow Texas Democratic Party rules at the caucus.

The process at the caucuses worked like this.

1. Primary election ended.

  1. Primary sign in sheets were given over to the caucus.
  2. Caucus attendees were checked off against the voter sheets from the primary.

How is it possible that almost 84 THOUSAND PEOPLE didn't follow the rules of the election?

You still want to insist there was nothing wrong?

by mrstas 2008-06-03 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Lets talk real numbers

Before you go off half cocked and making up wrong assumptions like other people on this site.

That comment is in regards to the data entry of data off of the sign in sheets. Given that it was handled by a data processing vendor, the remark about complete addresses is a comment on how many units of information came back with full address information. It's entirely possibly that the data was not or could not be fully transcribed (and lord knows as we've seen from using the email addresses, there are typos).

If anyone had an issue with the sign in sheets at the precinct level convention, they wold have to be taken up with the county credentials committee back in April. We are waaaay past that now.

by KTinTX 2008-06-03 07:52AM | 0 recs
you dumb fuck

i'm sorry, i am just done being nice to you people who keep pushing the fraud bullshit.  

"Texas Democratic Party rules say that in order to vote at the caucus, you must have first voted in the Democratic Primary."  

Show me one instance where someone was found to have caucused WITHOUT participating in the primary and was still counted among the precinct level final delegate totals.  YOU CAN'T.

"To register to vote in Texas, you must list an address."

No brainer.  Doesn't every state require a complete address when one is registering to vote? What does this have to do with anything?  

"682,728 minimum confirmed caucus goers
598,861 with complete addresses"

all this means is that the address portion of the sign in sheet at the caucus was not filled in completely. it does NOT MEAN - as you suggested - that 84K attendees somehow magically registered to vote without giving up a home address.

god you people are fucking ridiculous.

by annatopia 2008-06-03 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: you dumb fuck

LOL a new McBlogger troll stiring it up, reporting you on your abuses.

by zerosumgame 2008-06-03 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: you dumb fuck

Um, sorry to break it to you but anna has a loooooong history in the blogosphere.

And there is only one true McBlogger.

by KTinTX 2008-06-03 08:59AM | 0 recs
grow up

go ahead and report me. i don't give a fuck.  my life does not hinge on my posting abilities here or elsewhere.

by annatopia 2008-06-03 09:27AM | 0 recs
This seems a little off-base

I can understand a TR for calling someone a "dumb fuck." But if by "McBlogger" you're insinuating that this poster is a Republican provocateur, that's just ridiculous.

by kydoc2 2008-06-03 09:46AM | 0 recs
TR right back at you

because YOU are the abuser here.  now stop stalking me all over mydd.  grow up.

by annatopia 2008-06-03 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: you dumb fuck

Once again, rather then address the content of the message, you attack the messenger for the way it was said.

Dont you have any facts that you can use in an actual argument that supports your case?  

Obviously not.

Anyways, ya... sometimes after hearing people push the same bs over and over... some people get pissed off and state it in "colorful" language.

Just because after pushing peoples buttons you got your emotional response that you can redicule, does not in any way support your argument.

Nice try though.

by herenow 2008-06-03 10:23AM | 0 recs
thank you

"Anyways, ya... sometimes after hearing people push the same bs over and over... some people get pissed off and state it in "colorful" language."

yup, that's pretty much what happened. i can only take so much bullshit before i begin to push back forcefully.  i have made honest, calm inquiries about this issue to several folks.  some responded rationally, some did not.  some keep pushing the claim of fraud although there is no evidence.  and those folks are going to receive the brunt of my anger every time they post their lies.

by annatopia 2008-06-03 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: you dumb fuck

I'll ignore your insult and respond to what you've said.

According to Texas Democratic Party rules, every person checked into the caucus was supposed to have been checked off on the roll of registered voters who had voted in the primary.

Since that document already has everyone's address (since they had to have one, to be a registered voter), why are there so many addresses missing???

I understand a typo here and there, a sheet not filled out in full ... but one out of every seven? 84,000 missing addresses?

Get real.

What that says to me is that 84,000+ people voted without providing the information required by Texas Democratic Party rules.

The burden is on you to explain why that's ok.

by mrstas 2008-06-03 10:45AM | 0 recs
no

the burden is on YOU to get your facts straight.

youare lying again.  the people holding the sign in sheets can only verify against the rolls.  and guess what?  it's not an address verification!!  it's a verification of whether the caucus attendee has voted in the primary.  it has NOTHING to do with addresses or voter registration.

by annatopia 2008-06-03 01:07PM | 0 recs
and to answer your strawman

"Since that document already has everyone's address (since they had to have one, to be a registered voter), why are there so many addresses missing???"

it is against the rules for the sign in sheets to be manipulated after someone's signed in.  that is most likely why the precinct chairs (or others running the caucus) didn't complete the addresses.  

by annatopia 2008-06-03 01:11PM | 0 recs
Logic not a strong suit...

From what I can see Burnt Orange and KTinTX are Obama supporters so, using your logic, they must be disregarded just as Clinton supporter sites and people are disregarded by you.

So, because your internet searches couldn't find anything, no fraud existed. The document is "pathetic"-now there's a serious objection. Did you attempt to contact any of the reporters on that document. Just becasue something is not considered newsworthy and thus not reported does not mean it didn't happen. I don't have as much faith in the media as you apparently do.

I don't have a dog in this fight to any great extent but I do have many reservations about the D primary process which have come to the ugly light of day because of the unique nature of this particular election. It seems to me on a simply logical basis that a Caucus system is simply more prone to and more ripe for abuse than a normal election.

As an attorney I often do research of all kinds so I just devoted 15 minutes to see what I could find out about the caucus process in TX and whether anything I found out would lead to the conclusion that the process was easy to manipulate and thus could be used to favor a particular candidate. We all know that Obama people prided themselves on preparing for the various caucuses while Clinton people had pretty much ignored them until it was too late.

So, what did I find:

Dallas Morning News, Feb 26th warnings about the process:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/ dws/dn/localnews/columnists/gjeffers/sto ries/022708dnmetjeffers.319fbbb.html

...Mr. Richie put out a warning just the same.

"We understand that in the past it may have been customary to take home the sign-in sheets and try to fill out your delegation if not enough people attended your precinct convention to meet your delegate allotment," Mr. Richie said in a memo to Democrats. "This is contrary to party rules, and therefore you should not do that." ...Show up on time: The conventions start at 7:15. You want to be there on time to avoid having the business of the evening taken care of before you enter the door.... But if supporters of a particular candidate feel like they have a majority in the room, there is little motivation for them to wait for their rivals to get there. Also, early voters can participate....If you gain possession of the packet, you can appoint yourself temporary chairman, get a friend to nominate you as permanent chairman and then quickly elect a secretary. If you do this, you control the flow and pace of the meeting. That could make a difference, especially if you're dealing with late arrivals and those not familiar with the process....Be careful. At these affairs, candidates have walked in with a majority of delegates only to see their rivals outmaneuver them and leave with more.

Dallas Morning News April 15th

Texas Democratic Party officials received at least 50 challenges to caucus results -- a higher number than usual -- as Texas' presidential delegate selection system moved into its next phase, a party spokesman said Tuesday.

"We had a few dozen challenges ... coming from both sides, coming from different parts of state," said party spokesman Hector Nieto. "This is definitely a much larger number than we have seen in the past." ...Of the challenges filed with the state party, the largest number appears to be the 25 or so that came from Tarrant County, where Obama prevailed in last month's senate district caucuses....The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported Tuesday on Clinton supporters who had filed challenges from Tarrant County questioning the legitimacy of some delegates.

County convention caucus challenges also have arrived from Dallas, Harris, El Paso and Bexar counties, Nieto said. ...

There are a number of YOUTUBE videos about Texas Caucus problems-here's one where a woman is being told that she needed voter registration card and then was forced to turn her camera off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRO3KO6Ws 34

Fox News Video about Caucus problems affecting Clinton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LASNtFcqF 4g&feature=relate

Article in todays's Fort Worth Star Telegram about continued Obama campaign interference in the Texas process:

AUSTIN -- A Texas Democratic superdelegate who endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president disputed assertions Monday by state party officials and an Obama aide who say she may no longer be a superdelegate after the state party convention this weekend...Roy LaVerne Brooks of Fort Worth, vice chairwoman of the state party, said she got a call last week from an Obama campaign worker who tried to persuade her to get out of the race for state Democratic chair against the incumbent, Boyd Richie, to avoid a divided Texas convention....She said she told the Obama aide, Rudy Shank, "I will not play that type of politics with you."

Brooks said Shank told her that she would lose her superdelegate status once the state convention ends Saturday. That's because she is expected to be replaced through an agreed-upon rotation system for vice chair between the black and Hispanic caucuses if the state chair is Anglo....

Then there's the lovely court case where the Dem party argued it's process is NOT subject to the Voting Rights Act-how nice:

Texas Dems: Federal Law Doesn't Cover Our System
AUSTIN (AP) ― The Texas Democratic Party says its presidential delegate system is not subject to the federal Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voters.

Attorneys for the Democrats made that argument in a lawsuit filed by the League of Latin American Citizens and others who claim the system discriminates against Hispanics.

LULAC and the Mexican American Bar Association of Houston sued this month in federal court in San Antonio.

U.S. District Judge Fred Biery has indicated he may rule as soon as this week.

The lawsuit targets the complicated Texas delegate system -- which included a March 4th primary and caucus and senate district caucuses March 29th.

Final delegate distribution is to be determined at next month's Democratic Party's convention in Austin.

And since time is runnign out , one last article from The Moderate Voice:

http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/pri maries/18196/texas-caucus-the-view-from- one-precinct-in-austin/

That disorganization was certainly evident tonight in my precinct Democratic Party caucus. The photo above shows the most organized part of the evening, when people filed into the combination cafeteria/gym. There were questions about party rules regarding whether voters had to remain after signing in for their preferred candidate, and the Obama volunteers were loudly insisting their supporters remain so they could dominate the debate because the Clinton volunteers were supposedly going to challenge the vote count for delegates to the county convention.

It has been reported that the Clinton campaign was behind the curve in organizing for the caucuses in Texas, and that was evident in the lower numbers of Clinton volunteers than Obama volunteers, well out of proportion to the ratio of supporters of each candidate at the caucus. Unfortunately, the Obama volunteers were rather obnoxious, and the ill manners were not limited to the young cohort.

What I found is not definitve evidence of specific fraud. Rather, consistent reporting of conditions that make fraud easy to occur. This makes specific allegations not "pathetic" but deserving of further investigation and the process itself deserving of being deep sixed.

by berkshiretrueblue 2008-06-03 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Logic not a strong suit...

So the question is, what is being done about any of this? Credentials hearing have been going on all week. Blog posts on MyDD are meaningless other than just whining if no one's doing anything about it at credentials.

by KTinTX 2008-06-03 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Logic not a strong suit...

yes, that is my opinion of this diary as well

by trytobereal 2008-06-03 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Logic not a strong suit...

This diary was to address a previous diary that accused Obama of massive coordinated election fraud, which needed to be addressed.  It would not have needed to be, if there was some sort of varifiable evidence of the claims of criminal activity by the Obama campaign.  If you read them both, maybe you will realize that the entire point of this diary is simply to show that the evidence used in the arguments and accusations made in the first diary have little to no verifiable proof.

by herenow 2008-06-03 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Logic not a strong suit...

I hesitate to engage in this, but I'll hope for the best.

Not one of the El Paso irregularities I helped investigate was filed as a complaint, and I'm sure that the vast majority of irregularities across TX were not turned in to official complaints. Regular voters are simply not equipped to deal with complex TDP procedures.

Many irregularities were caught when local TDP offices audited sign-in sheets and double checked delegate calculations. Nearly all of the El Paso irregularities were resolved during the audit without requiring formal complaints.

Now, there was the Williams complaint, but it had nothing to do with irregularities election night, but with the way the rules were executed at the county convention. My role in this process ended the night before the convention, so I am largely in the dark about the current round of challenges; I can only talk about what I saw and investigated.

But, as a couple of posts indicate, objective third parties like my former member of congress and the bloggers at Wampum think my account is credible.

I'm surprised this doesn't give Obama partisans at MyDD pause.

by Pacific John 2008-06-03 09:17AM | 0 recs
Except the 22 outstanding complaints?

So are you saying that one of you is telling a mistruth?

Are there 22 complaints pending in El Paso or not?  Or is 22 just not a significant number.  Or do you not consider those complaints "formal".

Trying to parse the differences here.

by Regenman 2008-06-03 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Except the 22 outstanding complaints?

I do not know if there are any complaints pending in EL Paso. The only one in the pipeline I'm aware of was resolved a couple of days ago.

What I am saying is, the dozens of irregularities I investigated did not become complaints, but were resolved in the pre-convention audit.

by Pacific John 2008-06-03 09:35AM | 0 recs
So you are telling me that there isn't even a real

complaint?  You're just accusing Obama of fraud with no evidence of the campaign's complicity for the hell of it?  Why were so many of the Obama complaints approved?  Why is it that on election CNN showed the caucuses in El Paso going heavily for Clinton?  Your accusations are not valid and not sound.  For whom do you work?

by nklein 2008-06-03 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: So you are telling me that there isn't even a

You have a lot of questions, none of which make it look like you are interested in discussing the merits of this story.

I will be happy to talk about this if you act more rationally and stop calling me a liar.

by Pacific John 2008-06-03 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: So you are telling me that there isn't even a

So... attack the messenger (for the way he words his questions) and not address the actual questions.  That makes your argument look that much more solid.

by herenow 2008-06-03 10:43AM | 0 recs
What are the merits of the story?

I asked you question on the merits of the quetion and you didn't explain it.  Don't you have to prove your claims.  Obviously there are a whole bunch of people who don't believe you.  If you have evidence why don't you show it to us.  What are you waiting for?  Your already making the accusation, why not provide the evidence?

by nklein 2008-06-03 11:13AM | 0 recs
So you're the author of this document...

Wouldn't that have been nice for Alegre to mention when she put this document out?  Nobody told us who wrote this document, so please forgive if I'm not putting all my faith in the validity of an anonymous work.

So now that you are and have put out your evidence, you have made a serious charge and I have seen no evidence of fraud on the behalf of anyone on the Obama campaign at the very least.  So let me just ask you three questions:

1. Is there any document or recorded evidence or witness reports of Obama staffers or the campaign linked to any inappropriate or illegal activity?  Because so far, I've see no evidence of the conspiracy of Obama campaign that you are suggesting.  There isn't even evidence of a single Obama staffer doing anything untoward.  But there is a Clinton document which tells Clinton caucus attendees to seize control of every caucus either by chair or by secretary.  And you were a volunteer so you would have know about this strategy.  So how about it?  What's up with that?

2. How did so much fraud by the Obama campaign lead to a 157-18 advantage for Clinton going to the state convention?  Is that not a little ridiculous to assert?  Why were there so many challenges by Obama supporters that were approved in El Paso?  How is that in Precinct 61 Obama supporters managed to seize control of the caucus (even though that were outnumbered 87 to 15) and appoint 15 more delegates than that caucus was awarded?  I know because I have been to caucuses and watched them on television that all caucus attendees are alerted to how many delegates are assigned to that caucus.  For the most logical reason that they pick those delegates.  So how did they manage to appoint those extra 15 delegates?

3.  And finally who are you?  For what organization were you working?  You know that would inform on your credibility a little, wouldn't it?  And help us discern the reliability of your reports.

Please answer in any fashion you would like.

by nklein 2008-06-03 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: So you're the author of this document...

I'm not quite the author of the incident summary, but as I wrote earlier I was a volunteer investigator on the team that produced it. I've been clear that I was a volunteer, first as an area captain, then as a volunteer investigator.

Is there evidence? Tons. I have dozens of phone numbers of witnesses, as do Wampum and others who have copies of all of the documents, not just what they have redacted and published. That's why they vouch for them. Corrente and Wampum have everything, and stand by this.

A couple of questions for you: does it give you pause that my original letter helped convince Rep. Capps, who knows me, to immediately back away from her endorsement, in spite of being related to the Obama campaign nat. communications director? Does it give you pause that I am comfortable disclosing evidence to superdelegates and objective third parties (like Wampum, Corrente and others who have not yet published) who can double verify this story?

by Pacific John 2008-06-03 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: So you're the author of this document...

You are so full of shit.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-03 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: So you're the author of this document...

I usually don't respond to insults, but the irrational response here fascinates me.

What do you question about my previous post?

by Pacific John 2008-06-03 10:45AM | 0 recs
To answer your questions....

Except for Rep. Capps, I don't know who those people are.  So, no I don't care that you feel so sure of your assertions that you could tell superdelegates.  Your claims were suprising and concerning to myself as well.  But as it turns out Lois Capps is still endorsing Obama, so there are three logical explanations: 1) She looked into the evidence and found nothing or 2) She didn't investigate this and just ignored you or 3) she learned that it was true and is so corrupt that she is ignoring it and is still supporting Obama.  Since I don't believe she is corrupt, I don't believe it's true.

How about answering some of my questions?  What's your evidence?  Is it all affidavits?  Do you have any documents from the Obama campaign attesting to fraud?  Do you video of an Obama staffer acting inappropriately?  The type of evidence that you leads credibility to your claims and so far you have not provided anything, but your word.  

How about the breakdown of delegates?  Doesn't that taint any suggestion of fraud by Obama's campaign?  Is he really that incompetent?

Your assertions without confirming evidence is not sufficient for me.  I DON'T KNOW YOU.  I have my own relationships with elected officials and I've heard nothing of this.  Why should I completely change my opinion about somebody who right now is a hero of mine because you say so?  If you want me to believe you, why don't you just give me your name?

by nklein 2008-06-03 10:42AM | 0 recs
lol

N, you are the last person in the world I would give my name to.

by Pacific John 2008-06-03 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: lol

So... you are accusing (or at least others are concluding based on the evidence that you have provided) that the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination of fraud... and this is the entirety of your proof of these claims?

Name or not, do you not at least feel that something a little more solid is needed here?

Or is this all you've got.

by herenow 2008-06-03 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: lol

This is getting tedious, and I think I'll bow out here unless this conversation gets more civil.

To be clear, the evidence I have is affidavits that no one has yet chosen to publish, and a summary of incidents with a few dozen witnesses. A number of people have the witness contact information. If you have a credible third party who would like to review documents and talk to witnesses, let me know.

This is a lot. I have never seen an election where there were so many witnesses to so many irregularities, and that s saying something. I (and Rep Capps) have gone up against some pretty dirty opposition.

by Pacific John 2008-06-03 11:05AM | 0 recs
How about this? Me.

I'm a credible party that would like to see the evidence.  Or are you refering to your "incident report."  Why am I supposed to believe you?  I don't know who you are.  Why can't you find a single neutral observer to at least verify your claims?  You can't just assert that here are my allegations, I'm the only person who will attest to it, even though I didn't witness any of it and oh you can't know who I am.  And then expect people to believe you.

by nklein 2008-06-03 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: How about this? Me.

No, you are not credible or objective. This diary, for example, seems to be designed to discredit claims of irregularities.

by Pacific John 2008-06-03 11:24AM | 0 recs
Please give me evidence of irregularities...

if you won't give me your name, then your word that these irregularities occurred is not evidence.  That's what I'm doing here questioning evidence.  If it's ture, it shouldn't be that hard to defend.  Why don't you defen it?

by nklein 2008-06-03 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Please give me evidence of irregularities...

This is, as you indicate, an easy case to make, everyone who has talked to witnesses and looked at the unredacted documents agree. But let's be clear here, you have been the single most partisan person in the MyDD discussions, so I'm not going to disclose personal information to you.

If you want to pursue this, talk to people who have seen the evidence, like Corrente or Wampum. If you can suggest any neutral superdelegates or journalists who would like to review this, let me know.

by Pacific John 2008-06-03 11:45AM | 0 recs
How about Nancy Pelosi? How about Rahm...

Emanuel or Steny Hoyer?  How about my state party chair Art Torres?  Can you contact any of these delegates and get there reactions for me?  Or why don't you tell me why Lois Capps didn't change her mind about Obama?  Or how about you just describe the nature of your evidence.  Can't you tell me whethere there is more than affidavits?

by nklein 2008-06-03 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: How about Nancy Pelosi? How about Rahm...

Rahm and Art are good suggestions. I'll write to them later today.

Pelosi is a hack.

Did you actually read Lois' comments?

by Pacific John 2008-06-03 11:57AM | 0 recs
First, you didn't provide her comments...

Second, can you answer even one of my questions?  Can you at least tell me if you have evidence aside from affidavits?  Is that really so hard to answer?  How about on the delegate breakdown?  Why with such rampant fraud did Obama get such a horrible breakdown going to the state convention?  Also, if Rep. Capps was so disturbed by your allegations, then why didn't she switch from obama to neutral or to Clinton?  The fact that you say that Rep. Capps believes you does not make it so and logic does not bear out your claim.  If you can prove it, please do so.  That's what I've been asking for for the past two months.  How hard are my questions that you are unable to answer them?

by nklein 2008-06-03 12:13PM | 0 recs
LOL!!!!

Tools like Pacific John will soon be gone from MyDD.

The fact that he can't provide any evidence and insists in pushing a delusional and busted talking point says all you need to know about him.

FULL OF SHIT.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-03 12:51PM | 0 recs
Procedural cases aren't fraud

Learn the difference before you make insufferable inferences.

You do realize that states have certain sovereign powers right?  Remember that what the Civil War was nominally about?

Your first link you claim is "interference" in the Texas process.  Which process are you talking about?  How does this implicate fraud, an Obama staffer telling an Obama super-delegate that she will lost her superdelegate status. So your logic is that Obama losing a superdelegate vote is fraud committed by Obama.

Let's reiterate that. Obama losing a delegate vote with knowledge is Obama committing fraud (against himself???).  Wow, nice logic gap.

Also, one of the lawsuits you posted about concerns the primary combined with the caucus system.  There's no inherent claim of fraud in that lawsuit but it's based on a dislike of a combined system.  

Your last point was a general "boohoo" post of Obama supporters being better organized.  Wow, who would have imagined that scenario since Senator's Clinton campaign collapse was due to her shoddy campaign organization.

In essence, you just outlined why Senator Clinton last in a nutshell.  A lack of concern and forethough about each state's primary structure.  That might constitute gross negligence on the part of her campaign but does not impute fraud on the part of Obama's.

by Regenman 2008-06-03 09:23AM | 0 recs
Uh, you kind of missed my point....

I said I would try to find information about the process in 15 minutes-I wasn't trying to prove a particular point and I never said I found any fraud. Perhaps you have a comprehension disability? I'm not boohooing. The only thing insufferable is your attitude.

Overall, I see the system as quite flawed and easy to maniupulate and thus prone to error and not resistent to fraud. That's it-not a big concern of mine as I live in MA. Just seems like a stupid system and one that would not surprise me to have resulted in fraud or shennanigans less than fraud but more than would be able to occur in an honest and transparent process.

Obama supporters just can't accept anything that paints him other than as the annointed prince. He's a crass politician gaming the system-no different, no better than the rest and many of his supporters sound like brain dead groupies trying to shout louder than everyone else to make it all stop and just crown him already.

My point is that in 10 minutes I found plenty of articles, news reports etc pointing to all kinds of issues with the TX system so why do Obama supporters have to dismiss fraud claims as "pathetic"-I saw nothing that would make those claims impossible or even unlikely. If I had lots of free time and an actual interest in this subject I might go farther but I don't see the point-there's no reasoning with Obama supporters and it's clearly irrational to try.

by berkshiretrueblue 2008-06-03 09:49AM | 0 recs
The reason I dismiss it is because the claim...

is not valid.  It has no basis in facts.  This is the reason why Regenerman jumped on your implication and the reason I respond so forcefully everytime someone asserts fraud.  Your implication with the article about the superdelegate was that Obama's just trying to mess with the process.  That has no basis in reality because you are trying compare apples and oranges (by comparing the primaricaucus and superdelegates).  

And those articles you describe show issues, not fraud.  I have a problem when anyone of our presidential candidates get accused of criminal behavior, because this is how the opposition have disparaged our candidates since Jefferson.  I hate it when the Right accuses Clinton of murdering Vince Foster or when its Pacific John accusing Obama of stealing votes.  Either one is wrong and has no basis in reality.

by nklein 2008-06-03 10:03AM | 0 recs
Yes...that's the ever loving point...

Was there confusion? Yes.  Massive confusion.  That's what you get when you have over half a million people caucus when they were expecting close to 100,000 people.  And the Clinton supporters were behind the curve on the rules as your last article indicates.  That's why I'm not suprised that there were so many Obama challenges that were successful in gaining him more delegates.  And this basic fact demonstrates that these claims might be specious.  I have heard of allegations from the Clinton campaign and even the attorney on Fox News called them only that.  Allegations with no evidence should not characterize a person.

But in the end, I'm not arguing fraud.  I'm arguing that there's no evidence of fraud.  That's what I've been trying to do since this lie popped up from Pacific John months ago.  And the only thing they put out to establish some illegality or untoward actions is this ridiculous document, which has no author, no organization which claims accountability for the charges made and no confirmation of the claims.  And it's obviouse that this document was not written by anybody who knows about either Texas's or any caucus delegation process.  So you put a lot of effort into saying exactly what I am saying, just in a different tone.

Finally, my objections were more than just the word pathetic.  I questioned the validity and sourcing of the document.  I questioned the validity of several claims.  And I provided circumstantial evidence to demonstrate the claims have no basis in reality.

by nklein 2008-06-03 09:24AM | 0 recs
I couldn't find it on Google

Are you kidding? That's a pretty (*&^&%^ weak argument, don't you think?

Just sayin'

by NJ Liberal 2008-06-03 09:55AM | 0 recs
Do you have a report from Channel 7 of the fraud..

discussed in the document?  Do you have the report from Fox News?  There not provided just asserted.  Fine, you want me to assert something ridiculous; i'll assert something ridiculous.  There is a rumor that Hillary has been offered McCain's VP slot and is considering taking it.  There I just started a rumor.  Deny it.  Try to deny it.  I dare you to deny it.  How could it not be true I just stated it's true?  That is what you people sound like.  If you give me evidence I will be concerned that people I respected are acting so inappropriately, if you don't I'm going to dismiss it.

by nklein 2008-06-03 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Do you have a report from Channel 7 of the fra

I googled and searched yahoo for that number and came up with nothing.

So I googled "Texas Caucus Precinct 56" and I received no mention

I was not making any judgement at all about the claims of fraud in Texas. I'll leave that argument to those who think it's worth arguing. What I was saying is that basing any part of your argument on those two Google searches is bullshit.

If one of my researchers based his work product on negative results from a Google search, he'd be looking for a new job sooner rather than later.
   

by NJ Liberal 2008-06-03 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I couldn't find it on Google

The point was he couldnt find anything anywhere.  There is no evidence provided, just a bunch of claims.  No formal complaints.  No documentation at all other then one with no cited source.

by herenow 2008-06-03 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: I couldn't find it on Google

ANYWHERE? He googled and came up empty. Hardly an exhaustive search.

by NJ Liberal 2008-06-03 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: I couldn't find it on Google

Did you read the diary?  He searched in multiple ways to verify some of the claims made and came up with nothing.  If the claims made have no other source other then the claim then what evidence is there?  That is the entire point.  It's not up to this diarist to provide evidence to support the claims made.  He tried.  And obviously those that have made them have tried too... because no other facts have yet to be provided.

by herenow 2008-06-03 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies

well I haven't responded to this diary cause it seems like you and Pacific JOhn have an on going tiff or something. But as a worker in El Paso, I can attest that there was irregularities about the caucuses and also attest that most of these irregularities did not make it into complaints. My two irregularities did not make into complaints because I was certain that I had conducted my caucus ethically and in the boundaries of the rules.

My first irregularity: Two workers claiming to be lawyers on behalf of Sen. Obama disrupted our caucuses throughout the entire procedure. Trying to relay results to their 'headquarters' they were disrupting the roll call processes and the tallying process. the permanent Chair asked the 'lawyers' (i dont think they were lawyers; one of them was dressed in a skanky uncle sam getup) to remove them selves from behind the secretaries and give them room. They did not heed the chair's warning. The Chair warned them he would call the police, which then resulted in one of the lawyers to get up in the Chair's face. Shoving and pushing resulted and then the lawyers made a phone call. they then removed themselves from behind the secretaries.

Second irregularity: IN a nearby precinct we were notified that the procedures were occuring ouside of the rules. The workers just passed around the sheet of paper with out first checking residency and party/voter status. After hearing this, alot of the members want to use this method, it was faster and we were already 2hrs behind schedule. I was against it, and me being the only one who was trained, my word was what we went by.

--Im not saying that Sen. Obama was behind these irregularites (maybe the first one if they were working on his behalf) but fraud did exist particularly in the second instance. I dont believe that the first irregularity resulted in any kind of fraud and that is why I did not report it. The second irregularity, it was not within my authority to report it as it did not happen in my precinct and felt that I would be out of my reach if I did report it.

---+++Precinct 120. SD 29.Temporary Chair and Permanent Secretary+++---

by alyssa chaos 2008-06-03 01:26PM | 0 recs
That's not fraud...

due to the internal caucus methods of knocking off caucus-goers who didn't vote in the primary or was caucusing in the wrong precinct.  I can understand your concerns.  Those are definitely highly suspicious activities, but I think that both was just a misunderstanding of the rules by people who were trained about the rules, but it seems didn't completely understand them.  Thank you for letting me know about the chaos of that night.  I've heard all types of stories about the chaos.  I just dislike the impuatation of motive and the accusation of criminality put forth by Pacific John and Alegre.  You are absolutely right to point out what you saw that was suspicious.  Thank you for doing so.

by nklein 2008-06-03 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: That's not fraud...

I made sure to say 'irregularity'; im not sure what happened to the second claim, as I was not the precinct chair for that particular precinct.

I think the second irregularity, doesn't neccesarily constitue fraud, but definetly is outside of caucus procedure and merited investigation. SD. 29 knows that if it works outside the rules it merits disqualification of the results, but im certain that it probably went for Clinton anyways.

by alyssa chaos 2008-06-03 04:47PM | 0 recs
That's entirely true...

but you don't make the leap that some like Alegre and Pacific John did, which is to claim illegality or a conspiracy.  And there are always at both primaries, caucuses and general elections questionable activities at some precincts.  I mean in general elections hundreds of millions of people are trying to do the same thing.  And this massive amount of people coming together for something so important sometimes leads to conflicts and confusion.  Thank you for being so reasoned in your outlook of the confusion at your caucuses.  I'm sure that the whole sign-in sheet was checked against the primary rolls and knocked off anybody trying to play shenanigans.

by nklein 2008-06-03 05:22PM | 0 recs
Unless you personally attended a caucus in Tx

please shut up!

I live in Texas and I personally saw what happened and there was fraud! Every single Obama supporter was let in without any proof of indentifcation or that they had voted in the morning primary while Clinton's were scrutinized and turned away. I was the driver for 4 elderly women and 1 man and they were verbally abused and confronted and accused of being racists - it got so unpleasant that they asked me to take them back home because they were frightened to be push and fall. That's a fact and I reported it to the Clinton headquarters in Austin! This is the reason why I will never, ever support a candidate that sanctionned fraud!

by suzieg 2008-06-03 03:25PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads