 |
Star-Telegram.com – Feb. 28, 2008:
The Texas Democratic Party is warning that its March 4 caucuses could be delayed or disrupted after aides to White House hopeful Hillary Clinton raised the specter of an “imminent” lawsuit over its complicated delegate selection process, officials said Thursday night.
[…]
Another Democratic source who was privy to the often intense discussions confirmed that representatives of the New York senator’s campaign had issued veiled threats in a telephone call this week.“Officials from Senator Clinton’s campaign at several times throughout the call raised the specter of ‘challenging the process,’ the official said.
So, what’s wrong with the process? It favors Obama!
the Democratic Party in President Bush’s home state has a complicated, hybrid primary-caucus that might just be better suited for Obama
[…]
The turnout formula has assigned more delegates to urban centers with a lot of young or black voters that tend to favor Obama and fewer delegates to poorer Hispanic areas expected to favor Clinton. Austin, which includes the University of Texas, gets eight; Houston gets seven and Dallas gets six.
I wonder if she’ll sue to get the Michigan and Florida delegates!
The major irony is that the caucuses as designed in Texas were meant to disenfranchise minorities and the poor, yet they are turning out to be exactly the opposite during this election.
You can vote twice in Texas during a Primary. Once ‘regular’ and once in a caucus. In order to vote at a caucus, you have to show up at a certain time and place. This can be difficult for the ‘working class’ because of working hours, childcare, transportation and even fear of organized events. If a caucus was held at a ‘white’ church, how likely were you to show up if you were a black man or woman?
So a wealthy white man would get to vote twice almost for sure… and the less people that show up at a caucus, the more significant the vote.
Texas has a deep deep history of racism, with the electoral system being part of that legacy.
Hey, don’t forget Clinton wants the Florida and Michigan delegates seated at the convention. Remember them, moved their primary up against the DNC’s wishes, and everyone but Clinton took their names off the ballots, leaving her with a landslide…
Everyone likes to point fingers a the republicans for their dirty tatics, just goes to prove democrats and republicans opposite sides of the same coin.
As for Clinton, if this turns out to be true, I’ll vote for McCain before her.
You Americans need more parties…
This two party system is just a ploy to maintain the same ol’ people in charge. And, let’s be frank, none will do shit about the misconduct of a previous Government, cause next time maybe the shoe will be on the other foot…
that’s the trouble with Democracy…it tends to bi-polarization. And that’s no good for Democracy.
#10…Don….no, the Democrats thunk this one up on their own and since 1985. They went proportional/weird and came up with the superdelegates as well.
#13..Ariane…your partially correct. While Obama is slightly ahead in actual votes cast for him and in the number of states won(because he was smart enough to organise in all of the caucus states), Hillary has won all of the large heavey populated states except Illinois. Also, Obama is winning a lot of those caucuses in *Red* states that he won’t carry in November.
#15…gquaglia….YOU have those pics too?
#19…HMeyers….you really need to stop reading only Liberal/Democratic blogs and news. McCain not has a damn good chance of winning, it might even be a big win.
Study politics….look around you and then and only then make those kinds of predicitions.
#20…Rick Cain….you got that right. This whole process was set up to favor the favorite with the money. Only this year, the one with the money happens to be the outsider. A simple, proportional result, based on the vote. Maybe you can do what the Republicans do and add a few delegates to states that voted for their guy in the last Presidential election, or like in California, proportional by congressional district and a bonus of 15 for the statewide winner.
#21…Mr. Catshit…..this pains me….but that’s the point I was planning to make. Clintons people never made any such threat, it was the Texas party’s lawyer who came up with that tid bit on his own. He’s obviously an Obama man, because this was a set up to make Hillary look bad. Just like the Somali dress up garb and a few other tricks.
This guy may be a novice when it comes to actual policy, but he’s a slaick as Bill Clinton ever was, in fact, slicker.
#22..Ah_Yea….I read the actual transcript of the meeting and it wasn’t Clintons people. On all of the conservative blogs(who hate Hillary like the plague) they all read the same thing I did and all agree that it was the Texas parties lawyer, NOT Clintons who made that statement.
#31…Awake….actually your right on the disenfranchise part. Plus, you can’t vote in the caucus unless you also voted in the primary. So, someone who couldn’t get to the poll that day and didn’t get the little sticker thingy, can’t vote in the caucus.
The whole caucus scenerio is a voter suppression idea. In states with caucuses a very small fraction, usually no higher 2 or 3% of the entire parties voters actually get to choose the nominee. If the parties(especially the Democrats, who ALWAYS scream voter supression) wanted a truely all encompassing vote, then the states would be required for Presidential elections at least, to have a str8 up or down, one person….one vote election.
I forgot….SN…..she shouldn’t or probably won’t have to sue over Florida and Michigan. The Govenors of those states are making a great case over how can the party disenfranchise almost 7 million Democratic voters and expect to win those states in the fall.
I read that they just might try to do a quick cacus thing in both states in June, but some party people(unaffliated to either candidate) say no way…a full primary or go with what has already been voted.
Thank you, Joshua for presenting a valid point with reasonable verification. I stand corrected.
I also thank you for doing so in a proper, respectable, and classy way.
It’s good to discuss. It’s good to debate. It’s even better to see someone who does these things as well as you have.
The courts appointed GW Bush to office. Look how well that went!
Remember how, back then, Democrats severely criticized Gore for not doing what it takes to win. They had a similar complaint with Kerry for not fighting the clearly fraudulent Ohio vote in the courts.
Now, we finally have a candidate who is willing to fight like hell, and the Democrats aren’t happy with her either.
You can bet that McCain and the Republicans won’t hesitate to lie, cheat and steal to get elected again. It’s going to take someone like Hillary Clinton to battle their slimes, schemes and slander.
@34 “HMeyers….you really need to stop reading only Liberal/Democratic blogs and news. McCain not has a damn good chance of winning, it might even be a big win.
Study politics….look around you and then and only then make those kinds of predicitions.”
That was my own opinion. I do study politics and I will state the reason for my belief:
McCain managed to win 3-way primaries not because of his politics, but because of his brand name.
What are McCain’s stands on the issues?
Well, aside from Iraq and campaign finance reform, I can’t say I really know. McCain has been around for 20 years and it’s just not very clear.
Now, you may say, “Why does this matter?”
I don’t think McCain has deeply held beliefs on things that matter today. I don’t believe he is in touch with the common man, students trying to get through school, the job market, intellectual property issues, some of bad side of a more insensitive world more dominated by corporations.
McCain is a Washington insider living the easy life. I believe of that Hillary as well.
We live in a real world with real problems. McCain is a thoughtful and considerate guy. He is likable.
But the problems of our nation that need addressed the most are on the domestic side.
There is a strong argument for a laissez-faire approach to domestic issues, but ONLY within limits.
The next president of the United States needs to adddress where laissez-faire does not work, but not over do it.
Obama is the clear choice of someone who believes laissez-faire is not by itself sufficient. Hillary is against laissez-faire, but is scary as hell in the micromanagement talk she does. McCain, as far as I can tell, is close to entirely laissez-faire.
The economy and the culture of the USA are out of balance. Balance needs restored. Republicans typically do not recognize this need for balance.
Leaving corporations and the economy with too free of a hand to do as they please leads to the situations we see in the lending markets, with outsourcing and in other areas.
The country is very much in need of an entirely different approach than we’ve seen during the past 2 administrations.
I think Obama’s lack of Washington is his greatest asset, honestly.
Unless the rules in texas have changed in the last few weeks hillerys people have no excuse. the fact that they do not understand them ‘or at least that is what I am reading, is another reason not to vote for her. if she can not manage a campayn how can she manage a country?
Mister Catshit, by your standards, most of the posters on this blog ar eidioits everytime they repeat a story that the media gets wrong. For example, that whole Rove in Alabama story.
Why do people assume she will lose? What ifshe wins Texas and Ohio and Rhode Island?
#29. Oh ya,
It’s called Plausible Denial. The Clinton’s are very good at it. This must be willing ignorance on your part.
Hey Catshit, you’re abusive nature is showing again! Why is it that you can’t have a real discussion without getting offensive. It sounds like the ranting of a very sad, small man.
#40 MikeN,
Mister Catshit, by your standards, most of the posters on this blog ar eidioits everytime they repeat a story that the media gets wrong.
The idiots are the ones that can not differentiate between news, opinion, and comment. Those who only look at the headline and automatically dispense garbage.
Quite often we read the word “sheeple” on this blog. It means those who follow blindly without thought. That is what this specific post is. A sheeple magnet.
I like that part about …“plausible denial. The Clinton’s are good at it”. An automatic response to something that didn’t happen. Yup, the Clinton’s hands are dirty, just look at this opinionated piece. Yup. That confirms it.
I know, there is a real guy at the North Pole named Santa Claus, Bush didn’t lie about Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Alberto Gonzalas didn’t know what he signed.
NEWS FLASH !!!
Not everything you read on the internetwebtubies is true. It is the idiots that don’t try to check the accuracy.
Note: Oh Ya,
Actually, I am a relatively large man. And quite happy thank you. One of the things that make me most happy is knowing I don’t need to make something up, I rely on accuracy and truth.
With attorneys holding the majority of the offices of the Judicial, Legislative and the Executive Branches of government, doesn’t anyone see a problem? One group of people making 3 branches of government, one with no branches.
The real Thirteenth Amendment, which has not been repealed, states that “No Title of Nobility” is to hold any government office.
Wake up people, your rights have and will continue to violated as long as all three branches of government are monopolized by the Bar Association.
Get the attorneys out of government and replace them with ethical, every day common man or woman and we might be able to get back to a country of FREEDOM with God given rights that no one can take away.
Dear Mrs Clinton while you were dodging sniper fire.
“SHIT HAPPENS”