I've never been to a caucus and know next to nothing about the rules for counting votes there, etc. I am glad to see you are taking a "wait a minute, let's examine this more closely" approach. How SHOULD or ARE the roles of Chair and Secretary determined? Are there fixed rules, or is it basically a free-for-all? It doesn't seem quite right that the role of secretary (and I'm not sure what authority the position holds) should be determined by asking the "temporary chair" to allow the Hillary (or Obama) supporters to assume the role.

Does someone out there know a bit more about how this is supposed to work, or is it Texas, and still the wild wild west?

Brad

You are missing something, that's what I think. In Nevada, Clinton's instruction books told supporters to come early and for Clinton precinct captains to close the doors at 11:30.

And that's what a lot of them did in Clark County. Problem is the Nevada Dem Party had clear instructions that doors would be open til noon. I've seen lots of firsthand accounts of this. Read comment toward the bottom of the link by niasbff.

Compare the instructions the Dem party gave to all camps [screenshot #1] to the orders given to precinct chairs for Clinton [screenshot #2] ...

Puts a little more perspective to the directions to Texas partisans to have "control of the sign-in sheets."

OT: I just saw Hillary on BBC speaking in Fort Worth. She had the most amazing Texas drawl I've heard in a long time. Pretty good acting. I lived in Dallas, and it could have fooled me! Maybe she should run for Senator of Texas after she gives this run up.

Dear Brad,
Reading through this I notice that you speak in terms of possible majority Obama supporters holding the Chair so only reasonable for Clinton supporters to try to get the Secretary position to ensure fairness. The discrepancy here, I think, is that the Clinton memo speaks of the importance of holding BOTH positions which to me doesn't seem outrageous as a possible red flag. (Excuse my borderline coherence but I'm gonna trust that you get my meaning cuz it's late, I'm tired, and you're smart).
David Lasagna

Well, Brad, a lot of us tinfoil spacesuit wearers dread that Hillary has gone Rovian, not just Rove going Rovian on her behalf. She has disappointed many by playing as dirty as she has, making it harder to stay levelheaded about it. We're a flighty bunch in the best of times and now that we're in the worst of times, it's getting really hairy. There have been enough sickeningly-familiar anomalies to set off all our conspiracy theorizing alarms.... We just have to keep it down to a dull roar so we can try to be on top of it when/if it happens tomorrow.

I've lined my office with outward-facing mirrors on top of living in my reflective spacesuit just to keep my head clear of bad juju.

Now I will turn around three times and spit.

Joan -

In Nevada, Clinton's instruction books told supporters to come early and for Clinton precinct captains to close the doors at 11:30.

Oh, I recall what went on in NV. Even covered it a bit here. But what happened in NV is nothing like what the TX handbook is calling for.

Mind you, there may be other dirty tricks in store, or even under way, for all I know. I'm just saying that the breathless shouts that she's "stealing" and "suppressing" votes and trying to "steal the election", as based on the report from the Dallas Morning News don't seem to have much substance to them, and tend to help marginalize *real* concerns about the election.

If Hillary wins Ohio and Texas by 10% (or perhaps even more) in spite of polls that indicate this should not happen, what will Obama do?

Why, the same thing we all did in 2000 and 2002 and 2004 and 2005 and 2006, of course.

It's proportional anyway, like it should be in our congress, not winner take all.
With a democracy like this...you know.
I'm for Obama, but I'm not going to take my ball and go home if she gets the nod.

What is going on in all these primaries and caucuses is a basic problem of any democratic process. How do you ensure fairness? How do you avoid e.g. the ruling side to change the rules to maintain their rule? Think about the Texas district redistribution or the attempts to change the Electoral Allocation in California. And now compare these two things to what we are talking about here. It's peanuts, really. The Democrats should concentrate on beating "1000 Years Of War" McCain!

Did anyone else not receive their guarantee in the mail, signed in triplicate, that Hilary and possibly Obama also won't cause 1000 yrs of war?

The enemy was never Eurasia it was always Eastasia

Brad's calm interpretation of Clinton's materials seems inconsistent with this directive: "DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles."

Here is the original posting from the Morning News blog, including some very interesting comments:
http://trailblazers.belo.../03/caucus-strategy.html

If we had a better election system then all this craziness could be avoided and maybe, just maybe, we could focus more on what the candidates bring to the table.

John Edwards for President --- Real Leadership, not all this other garbage!

I agree with what Joan said said on 3/3/2008 @ 6:56 pm PT...
Documented shenanigans in Nevada. Also remember this:
"And, Ari Berman wrote about this last spring:

A host of prominent Republicans fall under Penn's purview. B-M's Washington lobbying arm, BKSH & Associates, is run by Charlie Black, a leading GOP operative who maintains close ties to the White House, including Karl Rove, and was a partner with Lee Atwater, the consultant who crafted the Willie Horton smear campaign for George H.W. Bush in 1988. In recent years Black's clients have included the likes of Iraq's Ahmad Chalabi, the darling of the neocon right in the run-up to the war; Lockheed Martin; and Occidental Petroleum. In 2005 he landed a contract with the Lincoln Group, the disgraced PR firm that covertly placed US military propaganda in Iraqi news outlets.

Black is only one cannon in B-M's Republican arsenal.

Penn works for Clinton.

Black works for McCain.

And Black works for Penn." ~ by Joe Sudbay (DC)

Sorry, it is not a mistake, it is part of the insider machine.

GREAT THREAD!

I've been a Texas precicnt chair for many years. The rules state that the chair and secretary are elected by majority vote. The majority can elect those people for whatever reason but secret deals are not allowed, such as "let's get 1 Obama and 1 Clinton person" in fairness to supporters of other candidates or uncommitted. The rules are designed to allow the group with the majority to run the meeting. Normally they elect supporters to both positions.

Hey 99, my x brought back a juju stick from Kenya. I used to joke "I'll make em see with it." Now mind you, raised catholic, honorary jew that I am, my girlfriends make a whole lot of EARTH sense now!

I don't trust Hillary or her supporters. When it comes to vote tallies, the Clinton people should be watched vigorously. It's obvious Hillary is losing the battle for the nomination and she can't be trusted to act in good faih. We have seen the many sleazy tatics from the Clinton campaign and her willingness to pull anything - legal or illegal. So let's be vigilent and keep a watchful eye on the Hillary campaign until it's finally over.

I also have a 200 year old Buddist medicine Buddha I got in Oakland.
Do you know, Suffi's believe in UNITED DIVERSIFICATION.

Hey 19...been waiting to say that, THE PRICE FOR DEMOCRACY IS ETERNAL VIGILANCE!

Clinton cannot win a fair election. The dems. haven't done anything to fix the deplorable election system we have in America because the clintonistas wanted to do it themselves. That wing of the democratic party has fought Howard Dean every step of the way. HIllary is saying she doesn't have to follow the rules of the party re. Michigan and Fl.That debacle has already gone to court and Dean won. Now they are trying to go to court again. Face it. The Clintons are just as bad as repubs.

Brad:

The majority controls the caucus. The leadership positions are determined by the majority, who nominates their party representatives for state party leadership. I was elected to represent my district at the state and national conventions in 1984. The chair and secretary are determined prior to the caucus, and if there is any challenge to the leadership, we can expect some ugliness. This is just sad; yet another Clinton campaign attempt to change the rules of the game. Yes, like Florida and Michigan and Nevada. This is more of the 'kitchen sink' from Mark Penn's outhouse. I'm surprised that you're defending this.

One of my favorite works is the I Ching though, that means CHANGE. And wasn't this country founded on religious freedom?

Isn't this @#$%^ lovely...Her Repugnuss is showing under that pant suit!

"Clinton Says She and McCain Offer Experience, Obama Offers Speeches" (BuzzFlash)

Clinton supports McCain

I don't know about the Obama supporters, but the photo looks like Ms. Clinton has been indulging in something a bit more jangly than caffeine...

Strike
1 ~ murdock money & fundraser
2 ~ Lack of face time on progressive radio.
Fowl ~ The fear card around NH
3 ~ The 3:AM fear card

One of Hillary's biggest assets not used enough is Chelsae she looks and sounds great and is one their biggest success and Hope for the future. IMHO

Shit, I got the tomb stone blues.

Jimijazz #19 said:

I don't trust Hillary or her supporters. When it comes to vote tallies, the Clinton people should be watched vigorously.

When it comes to anybody the election should be watched vigorously. There is no reason to have to trust anybody in such things, which is why we fight so hard for full transparency --- for everybody --- here.

Fade2Bluz #23 -

The chair and secretary are determined prior to the caucus, and if there is any challenge to the leadership, we can expect some ugliness. This is just sad; yet another Clinton campaign attempt to change the rules of the game....I'm surprised that you're defending this.

If she's trying to change a rule, I'd certainly have a prob with that. It was unclear that Chair and Sec. are determined *prior* to the caucus. How are they determined?

Not doubting you, just not understanding (clearly) the TX system. Not clear why she would be encouraging folks to become Sec. at caucuses where their supporters were outnumbered if the decision would have been made, somehow, before hand, as you suggest.

Ancient ~ ditto, it's not hillarious . . .

There still some time to till her under . . .

Well put by Stephanie Miller "she makes me feel dirty"

Well, We have seen the results of the latest primaries and anybody that thinks Hillary Clinton won these fair and square is fooling themselves. I'm tired of the Hillarites defending the Clintons. Her own dirty and mucky behavior is just that - her own. That's what the Clintons do - try to drag you in the sewer with them. Well count me out. I have never been a democrat and have always been an independent voter. Which is to say I vote for the better candidate and Hillary Clinton is NOT the best candidate to say the least. The Dem. establishment is going to learn the hard way that you can contrive or manufacture a nominee for the general election. That's why the republicans have dominated the White House for the last 30 years. You Hillarites are so deluded you can't see day for night. More Power to Ralph Nader.

There was attempted voter suppression in my precint and the two other precincts that caucused last night (in Collin County). Clinton supporters (one of whom was precinct chair and I believe the election judge) attempted to prevent people without voting receipts or stamped cards from caucusing. The Democratic party had made it clear (I have seen the provisions) that the list of those who voted in the caucus was provided to election judges in order to verify the eligibility of those without receipts or stamps.

The election judge was SUPPOSED TO (was directed by the party) provide copies to all precincts. I have a copy of the email from the party saying this. All judges would have received it. In fact, everyone on the email list should have received it.

This was not done. The person who had this list (who was a Clinton supporter and who I believe to have been the judge) also refused to release this list so that voters could be checked in. At first, she and other Clinton supporters told people that those without receipts (MOST PEOPLE WHO HAD EARLY VOTED, AND MOSTLY OBAMA SUPPORTERS) that they could not caucus. I and a few other people (who had served as judges previously) challenged that and said the list provided was to check them in. I called the Democratic Party to confirm.

She made these people wait until everyone in her precinct had caucused and then checked their eligibility, which seemed an attempt to run them off, as they had to wait much longer than everyone else.

She also ran two separate totals with and without these voters (as though they were provisional, when clearly the rules said they were eligibile--provisional was only those who were not on the list and had no receipt or stamp).

We checked back (as we were in another precinct) at the end of the caucus and told her again she was supposed to count those votes. When questioned, this person told me that she was "directed by the campaign" not to count them.

We prevented anyone from being disenfranchised in our precinct, but we had Clinton supporters repeatedly trying to stop this, saying that those without receipts were not eligible.

Similar incidences were reported on the local news. THIS DOES seem to have been a coordinated attempt to disrupt the caucus and to disenfranchise early voters, who, it was known went largely for Obama.

I know the Clinton campaign was aware of the rules of the caucus, because as news reports have stated, they intended to use them to challenge the validity of the caucus if they did not like the outcome.

SOOO if they directed their volunteers NOT to follow procedures, we can only conclude it was deliberate.

BRAD SAYS "...When it comes to anybody the election should be watched vigorously. There is no reason to have to trust anybody in such things..."

Boy, you took the words right out of my mouth. Our problems run far deeper than the individual candidates.

Our country is insidiously being stolen from us by the "monied".

I'm always reminded at election time of Gore Vidal's comments: "Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so"..."It makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people"

Hmmm... Ole Hill musta' had the kielbasa for lunch.

BE THE MEDIA. (Somebody's got to) . . .

I can see why Obama supporters would be freaked out... in fact, I can see why anyone but the most obstinate Clinton supporters and her paid representatives would be freaked out: Clinton seems committed to gaming the election.

On the one hand, she maintains that caucuses are "undemocratic" because they are not open elections.

On the other hand, if the superdelegates to grant her the nomination in spite of the popular vote and Obama's pledged delegate lead, well, she is in support that... Because they are more "loyal representatives of the party"... in other words... they are a highly exclusive caucus she feels she can win.

On the one hand, she moans about how corrupt the process is. But, whenever things tip in her favor, she becomes an outspoken "defender" of "election integrity."

I was quite happy when I thought she was going to win... but now that she has started to lose... We are seeing a realy, really dark side emerge.

Hillary Clinton's Old Church Plans Same-Sex Union Blessings
By Ken Shepherd | February 15, 2008 - 13:22 ET

Given the lack of media concern over the teachings of Barack Obama's church, I don't expect much media interest in this either:

Clinton is hoping on a strong showing in the March 4 Democratic primaries in Ohio and Texas. Neither state's voters are all that keen on gay marriage. In fact, at the same time Buckeye State voters rejected John Kerry in 2004, voters overwhelmingly approved (62%) a state constitutional amendment to clarify marriage is between one man and one woman. Texas voters followed suit a year later (75% in favor).

—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters