(This would be an appropriate step in getting the El Paso SD-29 delegation properly adjusted to the right delegate allocation and correct the incorrect at-large distribution there. - promoted by Karl-Thomas Musselman)
Obama supporter, Black Democrats of El Paso President and former Family Court Judge Don Williams and El Paso County Democratic Party Chair Danny Anchondo were guests on a local talk radio program Saturday morning to discuss the March 29 convention in SD29, during which Williams announced he intended to officially challenge the seating of the El Paso delegation to the State Democratic Party Convention.
Mr. Williams opened his remarks by stating that he is first and foremost a Democrat, that he would vote for the Democratic candidate in November, and that this dispute is, largely, a "family" dispute. As with any family that has disputes, we Democrats are, first and foremost, a family that unites in common purpose.
But he went on to say that as a 50-some odd old black man, he had some serious issues with oppression, and he characterized what went on at the Senate district caucus as "oppression."
He then stated he had filed and intended to pursue, an official challenge to the El Paso delegation with the Texas Democratic party. He gave Chairman Anchondo and the radio host a copy.
So even if one accepts HRC's terms that the start time is when Obama became a senator in Jan 2005, Obama's Jan 18, 2005 questions and statements criticizing Iraq occupation failure directly to Condi Rice precedes in the Senate Foreign Relations e Committeeprecedes Clinton's Jan 26, 2005 paper I guess this misrepresentation could be a back-handed, "OK, you were right" semi-apology, the one where one carefully doesn't admit to being in error.
In 2005, I worked for Bill Richardson in Florida for Moving America Forward his 527. Now why, you may ask, would Bill Richardson, the Governor of New Mexico, pay someone to work for him in Florida and at least four other swing states? Beyond his '08 political aspirations, I respected what Bill Richardson was attempting; doing what no other individual Hispanic or otherwise has been able to do, empower and unify various Hispanic cultures and the Native American communities. He would attempt to do this through voter registration, education and protection of their vote.
Unifying the Hispanic community is difficult. Beyond the obvious cultural and dialect differences, for years the Hispanic community has been unengaged politically in comparison to the size of their population. The easiest response is to say that the community has not realized their vote potential or that the majority are not eligible to vote because of their citizenship.
However, the reality is that campaigns and state parties have limited resources and they have to prioritize the allocation of those resources. A campaign can't be expected to spend all their resources on potential voting populations; they have to concentrate on those Hispanic that already vote. And while it might also be easy to blame state parties, without the right strategy , or a viable state wide race that needs the votes, smaller districts with large Hispanic populations already vote Democratic. So what Richardson was doing was great; he was creating a solution and attempting to do the difficult task of going after Hispanics that have not been engaged, eligible to vote, but not registered to vote.
My present day criticism of Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama comes assuming he has one of three simplified choices, does he remain neutral until the eventual nominee was more evident not attempting to expend what political collateral he has on either candidate, does he support Hillary, or does he support Obama?
Before anyone makes an argument that he picked the best candidate, I'll make the statement that all three choices are political decisions but with varying statements; and that Richardson made a decision as a superdelegate not as an elected governor and a presidential candidate who represent everyone's interest.
I will excuse the Democrats that like Hillary, but have polled their district, and see Hillary's negatives are too high to support, that's not the case with Richardson. The candidate that narrowly lost his home state of New Mexico is the candidate he endorsed. So he's not voting the interest of his state's Democratic popular vote.
State Representative Senfronia Thompson is an example of a superdelegate that changed her support from Hillary to advocate on behalf of her community and her district's interest. In states where Hispanics were a significant voting bloc, the Hispanic vote went for Hillary. So, Richardson is not making his decision on behalf of the people he has been working to empower by supporting their choice.
Unfortunately, I have to believe Richardson made his decision for his own personnel gain. He'll have a strong argument for the Vice-Presidential nomination. Richardson can help Obama attract Hispanic voters that Obama has not been able to persuade to vote for him; he's a very popular Governor of a swing state that he can help carry; his experience will counter Obama's lack of both internationally experience as a former diplomat and domestic experience in dealing with Congress as a former Congressman and presidential cabinet member.
I truly believe that even when a person chooses to vote Republican for a particular candidate as long as they're making an informed choice and it's not just a "because vote" I'll respect their choice. However, I took Richardson's endorsement of Obama personally disappointing. I perceived his endorsement as a "because endorsement". I'll say he endorsed Obama because he wants to be Vice-President.
Richardson's timing to endorse Obama, further alienated me from Richardson. If Richardson would like to be a voice for Hispanics he should be more sensitive to the racial oratory of Rev. Wright and Obama's judgment regarding his pastor.
Richardson is aware that he can potentially be a voice that is representative of Hispanics. Polling three years ago said the most recognizable and respected name among Hispanics was Edward James Olmos. Not a single Hispanic famous or politically was able to garner more than 20% as a potential political voice nationally, regionally or locally.
Richardson's decision puts me and should put other progressives in a dilemma. Hispanics do not have a national voice and African Americans have found a voice. However, do I continue to look the other way when Richardson or Obama justify their bad judgment because America needs change or because voices are needed in their respective communities?
Governor Bill Richardson has made his decision and for now I will be disappointed with his decision.
And away we go...on to the county/senate district conventions, whether we like it or not...
Here in Bastrop County, things went relatively well on March 4. The polls were well-staffed, and nearly all of the precinct conventions were conducted fairly and properly. I suppose we'll all know more as March 29 approaches and we see how many credentials challenges are lodged, but I believe we had a solid crop of trained caucus-goers and chairs and that should minimize problems for us as the process goes forward.
Nearly all of the problems I've seen cited, both here on BOR and elsewhere, seem directly tied to lack of preparation and leadership at the county and precinct level. With all the training sessions by county parties, SDEC folk, DFT and the like, I feel like I had adequate preparation for the process and a good background in the rules, but I understand this was not the case for a lot of those who wound up chairing PCs around the state. (I'm fortunate to live in a county that still has a relatively strong and active local party.)
Add to that the flurry of paranoid emails from the Clinton campaign to their caucus-goers (one Clinton supporter at my PC basically recited the most proliferated one line for line as we proceeded by the book), and some probably erroneous/rash instructions from Obama organizers to their ground troops about sign-in rules and order of business, etc., and there was bound to be trouble as the turnout went off the charts. By and large I think we had a lot of misunderstandings that were magnified by the contentiousness of this nomination process.
So as the TDP attempts to take advantage of this golden opportunity while simultaneously trying to wriggle out of a huge mess and sort out all the problems and find missing results, I'm not sure I should trouble them for some clarification as to how we proceed to allocate delegates from county to state. But I'm on the Rules Committee, so I hereby seek input from the BOR braintrust and peanut gallery....
As I read the rules here:
(d) At the County or Senatorial District Conventions, precincts shall elect their Delegates in accordance with Party Rules, and At-Large Delegates shall be selected by the Convention according to the following procedure:
(1) Either a written poll of Delegates or a roll call poll of the Convention shall be conducted to determine political preferences. The method to be used shall be determined by the County or Senatorial District Committee in advance of the Convention or, if it fails to act, by the Permanent Convention Chair. The written poll of Delegates may be either by ballot or by sign-in sheet on forms prescribed by the County or Senatorial District Committee. These forms shall require the signature of each Delegate, attesting to the Delegate's political preference (in non-presidential years) or presidential preference or uncommitted status (in presidential years). No Delegate may sign more than once. Final establishment of the poll, either by roll call or in writing, shall be the first order of business immediately following the election of Permanent Convention Officers and before the Convention conducts any other business.
(2) Upon completing the poll, results shall be tabulated by a committee appointed by the Permanent Convention Chair and composed of at least one person for each known political or presidential preference. The Chair then shall announce the tabulation results to the convention by number and percentages of votes received by each political or presidential preference. The tabulation then shall be written into the permanent records of the Convention and shall be reported as part of the minutes. The poll records, including the ballots, sign-in sheets, or roll call poll, shall be retained by the County or Senatorial District Chair as part of the official files of the Convention for at least six months. Such records shall be open to public inspection at reasonable hours upon request.
(3) Any written forms used in conducting such poll, or the announced method of polling, if by roll call poll, shall include all known political preferences (in non-presidential years) or presidential preferences and uncommitted status (in presidential years) of Delegates, but shall not limit the right of any Delegate or group of Delegates to indicate their preference in any manner which they choose.
(4) Poll results shall be used by the Nominations Committee and by the Convention as a whole as the basis for nominating and for electing At-Large Delegates so as to ensure the fairest possible representation of the Convention participants as a whole within the total delegation, without disturbing the Precinct Caucus election results. The threshold will be the lowest allowed by the National Committee (which at present is 15%).
It seems to confirm that regardless of who shows up at the county convention, the allocation of the county's delegates to state are basically set by the precinct caucus results - i.e., we do not 're-caucus' at the county convention - but that any at-large delegates can be allocated using the results of the county convention sign-in rolls
(subject to credentials challenges, I assume). In short, the at-large delegates are up for grabs to whichever candidate's supporters have the highest convention attendance - but it also sounds like this is entirely up to the county Nominations Committee.
Obviously I've been studying and ciphering, but I'm not a Rules Geek yet.
There is a serious problem, in Harris County, in the Houston and surrounding Districts, happening with the Obama and Clinton people that signed on as Precinct Captains thinking that they are the Precinct Chairs. This was a problem at many of the Precinct Conventions on March 4th. Nobody was able to understand that only if there was no Precinct Chair, or one that wasn't able or willing to Chair their Precinct Convention, then could any other person present, conduct the convention.
Many of the captains came in and tried to take over the conventions. This happened to mine with two underaged captains that were not even eligible to vote but signed up anyway at the convention. I've spoken to others that this happened to as well, but they didn't know what to do and thought that HCDP sent them, which is what they were telling people at the conventions. These people are not the Precinct Chairs!
If you are elegible to vote, and voted in the Democratic Primary on March 4th, you may fill out the paperwork to become a Precinct Chair in May. Other than that, if there is a Precinct Chair in your precinct, then this is the person that you must run against in May. You will have to campaign against this person in the election to become the Precinct Chair.
The facts are staggering. Close to 3 million Texans voted in the Democratic primary. More than 1.1 million went back Tuesday night to the caucuses. This extraordinary day and night was felt everywhere.
It is the proverbial thunder over the hill. Democrats are back. Everywhere.
There is a lot of loud whistling in the dark from Tom Craddick supporters about whether they gained votes or didn't lose votes or were given a low bail-bond to get out of electoral jail temporarily. And it's true that some Craddick-Ds won, but not because Democrats had a referendum on Craddick.
Instead, it's because Democrats attracted more than a million new and just-getting-informed voters to the polls. Would it have been better if anti-Craddick D's had won? Of course.
A million new people suited up as Democrats for battle. They haven't yet aimed their weapons at the most corrupt House leadership in Texas history. But that clicking sound is the sound of a million hammers being pulled back.
And by the way, as Phil wrote below, there were no real gains by Craddick. And Democrats had already gained three anti-Craddick votes since the session through special elections and party switching.
Would it have been possible to inform these new voters? The truth is, given the short fuse on this primary -- we only knew a few weeks ahead of time that the presidential hurricane was coming here -- it is highly doubtful that resources could have been marshaled. Craddick cronies were a bit lucky. They were already trying to buy their way out of trouble. And the massive spending by his corrupt contributor network just bought themselves a lot more scrutiny in November.
Brief tactical note: It's quite obvious these new voters are not political junkies, they are concerned and engaged citizens. They are not watching Hardball or Olbermann. Communicating with cable t.v. alone will not be sufficient to turn new and low information voters into repeat, high information voters.
To compare, Rick Noriega won without a runoff in this context of new, low-information voters. He spent his money on the networks. Which these new voters are watching.
The final results of a SurveyUSA Texas presidential tracking poll were released this morning.
Before the editorializing, the big numbers:
If the Democratic primary were held today, would you vote for Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? Or some other Democrat?
Clinton - - Obama - - Other
48% 49% 2%
The first interesting tidbit:
6 hours till votes are counted in the Texas Democratic Primary, contest is a Jump Ball, with Obama's momentum now slowed, and possibly stalled...
This comment seems to be based on tightening margins throughout the poll's tracking, but for those of us on the ground in Texas, there is no indication that Obama's momentum has slowed. While record early vote turnout cannot itself measure support for one candidate, it is certainly a sign that there is tremendous interest and backing for both candidates.
Another interesting note:
For Obama to carry the state's popular vote (convention delegates are not awarded as a straight function of the popular vote), Obama needs to run at least 3 points stronger than Clinton among those who vote at the precinct tomorrow.
Given Senator Obama's history with caucuses, this is certainly an achievable margin. However, the importance of Texas to the Clinton campaign has drawn a surge of Hillary volunteers both from Texas, and from around the nation. At the end of the day, however, numbers may not be able to make up for the superior organization that Senator Obama's campaign has displayed in every caucus contest.
Other takeaways from the poll include:
- The survey breaks up the results into four age groups, and Senator Clinton leads in every one, except those between the ages of 18 and 34. However, her only significant lead is with voters over the age of 65, where she has 22 percentage point lead.
- Among those who responded with a party affiliation, Senator Obama leads among those who identify Republican 60% to 36%.
- Senator Obama also has a significant lead among those that identify themselves as independents: 55% to 41%.
- Among those that identified the economy as the top issue in the election, the candidates split the votes: 49%-49%
- Where Iraq and Terrorism were identified as the top issue in the election, voters overwhelmingly preferred Senator Obama.
Iraq - - Terrorism Obama 57% 62%
Clinton 42% 30%
These voters were interviewed Saturday and Sunday, after Senator Clinton had put her new national security ad into play. However, the surveys may be too close to judge the ad's impact, if it has any.
There's more and more to take away from the poll, and I can leave a lot of that to you as you go through the numbers. In case you missed the link above, the full break down can be found here.
UPDATE
I went back to find the previous two SUSA polls, and have noted some interesting trends below the fold.
60 Minutes was doing a little wrap-up on March 4th primaries and they captured to truly poignant moments that hopefully remind us all the importance of new leadership in the White House.
I saw a grown man cry tonight.
The paper mill in which he has labored for 27 years is closing in Ohio. The same one his father labored in for a lifetime.
He doesn't know what he'll do. But he is sure he'll do something.
When queried, "And what of your health insurance?" by the reporter. This big, strong, hardworking American man's eyes welled up and his voice broke as he mentioned his wife's Multiple Sclerosis. The tear rolling down his face betrayed the tough, proud demeanor he fought to exhibit.
The guy has worked hard his whole life and played by the rules. On the back end of middle age, wife a terminally ill wife, he's been thrown to the unknown and has nary a clue about what he'll do to support his family and secure care for his wife.
Here's a few articles and points that it seems to me the mainstream media has ignored and people should read before they vote (i know its a lot but i really think its worth knowing).
These are on Joe Wilson's endorsement of hillary and a clarification of the famous "vote to go to war." He also questions Obama's ability to be president with his serious lack of experience, especially on international issues.
This is an article detailing how Obama was perceived in Chicago and the work he actually did in the state senate. Apparently, many of the bills he cites as achievements were bills that others did most of the work for, he finished up and took the credit for.
This group of links calls into question his claim that he is above 'politics as usual.' They include him giving over three times as much money to super delegates as hillary, watering down bills in favor of lobbyists, his ties with rezko and misrepresenting hillary on her healthcare plan and NAFTA. The point is not that other politicians are saints but that much of his campaign is run off the idea that he is not corrupted like the Washington insiders are. However, when it is shown that he is just as corrupt as the others if not more so because he portrays himself to be squeaky clean, I don't see any reason why we should trust him as opposed to anyone else. Everyone wants change, even McCain, it's a question of who can deliver it. And if he's not honest and if he doesn't have experience and has not done anything monumental, I don't see why he should be President.
Here's the video of his campaign speaking to the Canadian ambassador telling him that he would have to say some negative things about NAFTA but not to worry "it's only campaign rhetoric.
This is on the issue of electability (whether or not you agree with the tactics that will be used) that is written by a former CIA official who knows the way Washington and the right work.
hope you find these things useful. clearly, i'm a hillary supporter but in case you're wondering i only became one after doing the research. thanks for listening.
