Is the TDP Going to Get Sued by the Clinton Campaign for the Caucuses?

Outrageous (2.00 / 1)

Texas Democrats have been waiting a generation for this much enthusiasm in the voting process and now a cold bucket of lawsuit water is fixin to be dumped on us?

---

by: citizenx @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:19:22 AM CST

A Pox on the House of the Campaign... (3.40 / 5)

...that sues TDP over the same primary and caucus process that have been in place for years, under which each campaign's supporters have operated on for years, and under which each campaign's supporters have at times helped craft.

And a pox on the house of the campaign that sues TDP over the implementation of the process, which TDP staff and officers have never ever put as much effort and expense into ensuring as smooth of an implementation as humanly possible.

The possibility that either campaign would have suddenly woken up after Super Tuesday stunned that Texas was coming up on the schedule, and clueless as to what to do about that, is testimony to the arrogance of that campaign, whichever campaign it is. If anybody now blames TDP's process for their own inability or unwillingness to work within a system that has been known, public, and vetted since before either of these candidates ever filed for office, it simply proves that they never even wanted to come to Texas in the first place, and Texas voters should respond in kind with their "don't let the screen door hit you in the arse" votes.

Hopefully this is all just some uptight hyper-sensitivity on the part of a campaign bean-counter back at the home office...I would hate to see some lawyer who is over-representing his or her client cast a shadow over either TDP or these two excellent candidates.

Senators Obama and Clinton should both immediately and publicly say TODAY that their campaign isn't going to sue anybody -- that instead they're reserving all their energy and resources going after the votes of Texans, and that's it.

If they don't, I guess the real meaning of the "Texas Two-Step" slogan commonly used right now is:

Step one: try to win.
Step two: if you can't win, sue somebody.

LettersFromTexas.com

---

by: Harold Cook @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:35:19 AM CST

Wordy word word! (0.00 / 0)

Indeed.  

---

by: Crispini @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:52:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

According to a comment on TPM Election Central... (2.50 / 2)

The issue is whether or not to allow overflow rooms for the evening's caucuses.  Now, I'm just citing some random comment on another site, but it jives with what's been written - especially when you consider Obama's comments re: "every eligible voter" being allowed to participate.  

Click here.

This is all about a rule in the Texas caucus system that allows for moving the caucus out of the room it's being held within if the room overflows capacity. Apprently, the Clinton people want to be able to lock out overflow by locking the doors at a specific time.

so the real problem is, they suspect Obama supporters will so outstrip Clinton supporters that in many districts clinton will be unable to reach the 15% viability threshold. By locking out Obama supporters as soon as the room fills to capacity, they can gain delegates.

---

by: Fine Bottled Water @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:05:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Excellent (0.00 / 0)

Thanks -- I'd heard about this, but had no sort of way to source this.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:07:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Of course .. (0.00 / 0)

At this point it is just a single comment.  But I expect it's correct.

---

by: Fine Bottled Water @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:12:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Nothing good ever came (0.00 / 0)

...from people trying to win an election by preventing participation. It's un-American, it's un-democratic, and it's just gross. I'm sure neither campaign is trying to lock out anybody who is eligible to participate. That would make them...um....Republican-like.

LettersFromTexas.com

---

by: Harold Cook @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:09:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The same crap they pulled in Nevada (0.00 / 0)

In Texas late comers are welcome at any time in the process but they cannot change what has already transpired.  In other words once the percentages for each candidate have been announced that is the cutoff for anyone new participating.  Also a convention can be moved by a majority vote of attendees.  Our job is to follow the rules as closely as possible and let either campaign sue at their own risk.

---

by: bb1 @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:42:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That is not what I have been hearing. (0.00 / 0)

I have been hearing and reading from others, that the Clinton camp is fine w/ overflow, but they want all agreements and adjustments written and agreed to by ALL parties.  Not just an oral/handshake agreement, that can be said to "be open to interpretation" if a precienct chair or other offical deems so w/in the "framework".

That has been the hold up, and if you read the article closely it's what they've been saying all along.

---

by: TXDem08 @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 13:33:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There is an agreement (0.00 / 0)

The rule is you have to sign-in at the posted location. Once all sign-ins are done and the math has been done to divvy up the proportions, you can move -- but not until then.

This is already in the rules. There is no oral/handshake agreement about any of this. Their campaign either (1) just doesn't know the rules, or (2) is trying to set a media narrative that the process is unfair.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 13:35:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What you're missing is... (0.00 / 0)

It's not particularly down to moving the caucus for overflow.  It's everything.  How will precienct chairs handle signs made/delivered inside the caucus room?  How will chairs recognize the greeting/directing caucus go'ers to the respective spots.  Etc., etc.  They want to try and make it a uniform application(which is hopeless IMO-it's politics, and it's Texas), and they want it in writing, so that there will be no Nevada type questions or insinuations.  And if they are made, the agreement can be referenced and if the agreement was broken, then the consequences can be pursued.

The rule of law, is after all, applicable to everyone.

---

by: TXDem08 @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 19:15:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes (0.00 / 0)

I agree that a uniform application is ridiculous. Democracy at this grassroots of a level is messy -- it's suppose to be. The idea is that everyone follows a broad structure, but there's no machine. We're people, and the hope is that we all respect each other and the process enough to make things work.

Holding out for a script behavior and trying to make everyone behave like robots is not good, IMO.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 23:17:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Current polls may make this less likely (0.00 / 0)

Last week it was thought that Clinton would get the majority of votes but not the majority of delegates due to the way the caucus delegates are allocated.  But with recent polls showing Sen Obama up 48 to 42 over Sen Clinton, any allocation of delegates just based on the voting results would also give Sen. Obama the majority of delegates, so there should be no reason to change the results.  

---

by: Argus @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:37:12 AM CST

Come on! (0.00 / 0)

I know you're (BOR) endorsing Obama, but this is ridiculious.  First, it's an un-named 'source' saying the Clinton campaign is going to challenge.

Second, Dunn sent letters to BOTH campaigns, yet the Headline reads only Clinton, and BOTH spokesman from the campaigns have indicated they have no inclination to pursue leagal action.

I would suggest an adjustment to the header, I mean this is getting outrageous.

---

by: TXDem08 @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:41:45 AM CST

Whatever (2.00 / 2)

I injected absolutely no bias into my post. I took everything pretty much verbatim from the article -- and the article leads with the question of the Clinton possibly being the one that is considering a lawsuit. Ignoring the opening sentence in the original source is useless and trivial.

I've written positively about both campaigns. You've written almost entirely negative about the Obama campaign. I'm not going to worry about a complaint of fairness from someone who has been nothing but biased.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:57:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Assumptions (3.00 / 1)

The article leads with advisors to Clinton mentioning a lawsuit. The article goes on to state that,

Both campaigns have made it clear that they would go there if they had to, but I think the imminent threat is coming from one campaign," said one top Democratic official, referring to the Clinton campaign. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.

Phillip, you have been very fair to the Presidential primary race, but the information in the title and quotes you have provided doesn't give us the full story. I didn't get a sense that Obama's campaign has also contemplated suing until I read the article.  

---

by: Pat C. @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:38:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Correction (3.00 / 1)

Sorry Phillip, the post does hint at Obama contemplating a lawsuit against the TDP. The imminent threat may change if Clinton wins Texas.

---

by: Pat C. @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:41:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Then rate my comment a "1" (0.00 / 0)

Just like you rate everyone else's a comments a "1" for absolutely no good reason.

I lead with the lead in the article. There is a clear discussion in the article that Clinton's campaign is the one most likely to file a potential lawsuit. Why pretend otherwise? What purpose does that serve?

I included quotes from both campaigns in my post. That's fair enough. If the Clinton campaign (or Obama campaign) want to play hardball and even mention a lawsuit, I'm not going to lie down and let it happen. This is a disgusting idea to even be brought up.

I agree with Harold -- both candidate should unequivocally denounce AND reject the idea of a lawsuit for anything other than the traditional, clear violations of a voting problem. Suing over the very nature of the caucus is total crap, and this story isn't going to get buried by a bunch of wishy-washy equivocation.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:44:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Your post deserves a "1" (0.00 / 0)

but I dont know how to rate a post a "1" Your comment does not warrant that rating. I rate comments based on my opinions. I thought the language in Joe's posts are sometimes "unproductive" in discussing Texas politics. I'm sorry you disagree.

I lead with the lead in the article. There is a clear discussion in the article that Clinton's campaign is the one most likely to file a potential lawsuit. Why pretend otherwise? What purpose does that serve?

Why pretend otherwise? Pretend what??? Both campaigns have contemplated a lawsuit...who's more likely to sue or not is irrelevant until we see who wins Tuesday. Both have stated they wont sue before the Tuesday, which will not effect voter turnout. Voter turnout is effected because posts like this one which begins this speculation. It's a BIASED post

---

by: Pat C. @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:53:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Nope (2.00 / 2)

First of all, you're lying. You rated Joe's comment about who should be featured on the front page of BOR on Election Day a "1." So stop lying.

Secondly, the lead paragraph mentions Clinton. The quotes in the article says:

"Officials from Senator Clinton's campaign at several times throughout the call raised the specter of 'challenging the process,' the official said. "The call consisted of representatives from both campaigns and the Democratic Party."

There is bias in my post in that I chose to use a certain words, because typing one words requires judgment of what word should be typed. In that sense, yes, I accept that it is a biased post because I used my brain to write the post.

But I also used my brain to read the article, and Senator Clinton is featured more prominently in the article, so I asked the question in the headline -- since the chance seemed greater that it was about her. I don't think any objective observer would disagree.

What's interesting is how you don't want to discuss the real issue and are attempting to hijack this thread into a "bias" argument. There is a discussion of a possible lawsuit against the TDP b/c of the caucus system. That is completely insane. Why aren't you expressing outrage towards both campaigns about that -- as I did at the end of my post -- instead of trying to knock me down a peg?

You can rate my post a "1" by ignoring it and not reading BOR. I'll accept discussions of fairness on most days. But this is too huge of a discussion to lay down and play footsie with what's actually going on.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:00:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Unproductive (2.00 / 1)

I am reffering to the language he used in that exact same comment you are reffering to. Is "nutjob" a productive characteristic when discussing Texas politics? Watch who you call a liar, unacceptable.

What's interesting is how you don't want to discuss the real issue and are attempting to hijack this thread into a "bias" argument.

There should be no real discussion and I'm hijacking nothing.  If you didnt think your post could be construed as biased, you didnt use your brain when writing it. Your post is unproductive and bad for Texas politics, voters, and the TDP. This is speculation at the moment, and BOTH campaigns have stated that they WONT file a lawsuit before March 4th, which wont effect our voter turnout. I shouldnt have to ignore your BIASED post, it shouldnt be on here to begin with. Start the discussion after the speculation.  

---

by: Pat C. @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:11:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Thank you (3.00 / 1)

Thank you for your argument and your viewpoint. I disagree, for reasons stated above.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 10:25:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

fwiw (4.33 / 3)

I apologize for calling Dan Patrick, Phil King, Betty Brown and Charlie Howard n*tjobs.  I didn't realize how offensive the term was, and I don't know what came over me, assuming that members like Dan Patrick and Betty Brown are rightwing n*tjobs.  They are nothing of the sort.

Thank you for policing every comment made by me to ensure that I do not insult those esteemed Republican lawmakers.  Regardless of the fact that they want to buy babies for $500, cut teacher pay, gerrymander districts, allow school groups to bash gays, completely eliminate the Children's Health Insurance Program, and allow police officers to stop citizens for having dark skin.  There is nothing about those policy stances that is conducive to being a n*tjob.

Finally, I apologize to Phillip for hijacking this thread and talking about n*tjobs.

Back to the point of this post - what kind of n*tjob would try to win an election with a lawsuit?

---

by: Joe @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:56:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Your right, I apologize. (0.00 / 0)

I logged on here first on the way to the office, before checking the other sites while at the office.  I realize you just posted what was already there on the other sites.

I have rated comments fairly coming from either side as long as they were productive, yet when I've posted I have been responding and pointing out innaccuracies and comments save for one.

---

by: TXDem08 @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 13:22:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You know what...after doing some searching (0.00 / 0)

I have quickly reviewed your 455 posts since '06, and found 2 or 1 if you don't count Hillary's position post, where she is mentioned favorably.  Your favorable post...she won Nevada.

Now while you haven't been actively attacking her, you are for sure quick to carry the story (even if it names and anonymous source) and post it here.

---

by: TXDem08 @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 13:57:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Didn't Obama sue Nevada (3.00 / 1)

for the same thing?

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:57:19 AM CST

No idea (0.00 / 0)

I just posted the article that I saw in the minutes before a major Econ final.

Also, this is TX. I care more what happens here than in other places -- as you can tell by the number of more posts I have about TX than NV.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:58:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

BIG difference... (0.00 / 0)

In Nevada, there were MANY major irregularities in the voting.  The Clinton campaign owned the establishment and thus were able to bend and often BREAK the rules (closing doors early, turning away Obama supporters, etc) in some caucuses in order to benefit Clinton and harm both Obama AND Edwards.  Honestly, that, more than anything else, contributed to Edwards having to suspend his campaign.

---

by: David O. @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:59:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

one major irregularity (3.00 / 1)

Clinton wins the vote, gets less of the delegates...

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:04:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Scorched Earth... (0.00 / 0)

Sadly, I am not particularly suprised.  The Clinton campaign has proven MORE than willing to destroy the party in order to win.  Fighting to break the established rules and allow in Michigan and Florida has already hurt the national party.  This seems to have been their standard MO for their entire time in Washington; during the 90's they OFTEN pushed the Democratic leadership in the congress under the bus in order to "win" battles with the Republican leadership (and by "win" I mean accept everything the Republicans wanted but call it a Democratic plan).  They even named it "triangulation" (who do you THINK they were triangulating with if not the Republican leadership in congress and the DEMOCRATIC leadership... triangulation is defined as identifying your position relative to two other positions).  

(steps back from the keyboard and awaits the onslaught of negative ratings/responses calling me every name in the book from Clinton supporters...)

---

by: David O. @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:57:30 AM CST

triangulation (0.00 / 0)

some call it compromise, which I believe is what Obama is running on, though he calls it political unity.  

I continue to be amazed at BO supporters' lack of understanding of the 1990s...

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:04:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually, not my understanding of Obama... (0.00 / 0)

My understanding of Obama is that he isn't going to "compromise," but instead he's going to create a policy that addresses ALL of our concerns (allowing the public to watch the proceedings and allowing everyone a place at the table during the discussions about the policy) and then use rhetoric and speeches and whatnot to go on the road to "sell" the idea to the public to create a working majority for change.  Fundamentally, on the ISSUES, Americans ALREADY agree with us on almost everything.  He's just going to get the public to put pressure on their Reps and Senators to ensure THEY vote with the people and not with the lobby and special interests.

---

by: David O. @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:57:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

hand waving, imo (5.00 / 1)

Interesting, it's the first time I've seen this clearly articulated in this fashion.  thanks.

But if that is indeed the model, it's not going to create political unity, because it's vulnerable to too many points of attack.  The American public is in agreement with our party on many (but not all) of the large issues of the day: Iraq was a bad idea, the economy hasn't worked for the average Joe and Jill, we need to do something about healthcare, etc.  But there is no agreement on the solutions to these problems.  Democrats will have to fight the Republicans (as they have each other in this primary) on the specifics.  

The model requires several things: 1) Republicans (and dissenting Dems) will make a good faith effort to participate in any debate without poisoning the well.  2) Obama will be able to sustain a policy debate about specifics in the public eye for a long period of time (so far he's been good at capturing enthusiasm for his candidacy, but it's not like the average Obama rally attendee (or political endorser for that matter) is riffing off details of his policies).  3) Obama campaigning against MOCs who don't support his policy won't ignite a firestorm of partisan counterattacks.  4) To get everybody at the table, we won't have to make significant policy concessions that water down the effectiveness of the legislation. 5) The policy specifics we come up with will be actively and enthusiastically supported by a broad range of the public.

There is a significant bias against action built in to our political institutions.  At each step in the process, it's a lot easier to gum up the works than to achieve success.  For this reason, I think we need a skilled political operator at the helm more than we need someone who inspires the public.

just my opinion...

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 11:05:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's been done (5.00 / 1)

by one of my least favorite people, Ronald Reagan. Reagan got his agenda passed by Congress not by winning the debates in the Senate, but by appealing to the people, who would then pressure Congress. As he used to say repeatedly, "if you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat".

Using oratory to go over the heads of Congress is a lot different from triangulating to get a package that will get 50%+1 of Congress (Bill Clinton), or of using the bully pulpit to demonize your opponents (GW Bush). Done right, it's a damned effective tactic.

Another political lesson that Reagan understood was plateau bargaining. Propose something and settle for half. Say "thank you" and come back a little later and ask for the second half. Settle for a quarter. Then come back and ask for the rest. With some patience and a willingness to let the other side look good, you can often get everything you want.

A third was the value of finding common ground on some issues without giving ground on others. That's what got us Social Security reform (with Pat Moynihan's help) and tax reform (the Bradley-Gephart plan), even while Pat Moynihan, Bill Bradley and Dick Gephart opposed most of Reagan's program.

Reagan did a lot of appalling things as president -- I haven't forgotten and I haven't forgiven -- but he thoroughly understood how to use presidential power. In that, we should learn from him.  

---

by: LSadun @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 18:18:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

interesting and informative, as always (0.00 / 0)

You should be a college professor, sir :)

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 19:23:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Has HRC conceded Texas? (0.00 / 0)

If it is true that HRC's camp is preparing to sue, then is it possible that she has conceded Texas already (at least privately)?

I like HRC and don't hate her like many out there (don't understand that). She is just not my first choice.

Don't flame me. * ducking *

---

by: M. Eddie Rodriguez @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:07:38 AM CST

No flames, but no (0.00 / 0)

Liz Carpenter endorsed her today.  I myself wish she was more aggressive here in Texas, but I guess the campaign is focusing on Ohio?  dunno, but I've been pretty disappointed by the campaign's strategy for most of the race.  

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 09:11:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]