 |
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!
With all this going on we will see another Republican mandate… Even after 8 years of Bush Jr.
Un-Fu**ing-belivable…
I think this helps the Democrats to have things go all the way to the convention. Why let McCain know who his opponent is five months in advance?
Where are all the ‘count every vote’ people who oppose the electoral college? Why should Obama get more delegates when Hillary wins the popular vote? Why should he become the nominee when Hillary wins the big primaries while he wins caucuses where Hillary’s voters have to be at work?
Just when I think she’s going to be a conciliatory and graceful loser, I read another story like this. Yikes!
One (wo)man, one vote. Direct election now!
I recommend the law firm of “Dewey Cheatim and How!”
They never loose!
What the HELL!! What paranoid schizophrenic came up with the Democrats nominating process. Caucasus, hybrid primary/caucasus, proportioned primaries, etc., etc., etc. How about a simple system ONE MAN ONE VOTE!!! The candidate gets the percentage of delegates corresponding to the percentage he won in the state. Just think instead of trying to manipulate strategic areas in a state they would have to appeal to a more wider audience. My God democracy might spring out.
She is never graceful, just a vindictive poor sport southern loser who’ll aid & conspire to kill or quiet anyone who gets between her and her goals. The true face of Hillary is showing.
After Obama wins the nomination, I wouldn’t be surprised if Hillary keeps running as an Independent.
She feels the Presidency is her destiny and Bill wants to get some more chubby intern action in the White House.
I wish Al Gore would step in to save the country and I wish Bloomberg would have announced too. The more there are them more entertainment for the rest of us. It’s all a spectator sport/reality show anyway.
Remember, this whole election process was thunk up before electricity, the phone, or even the steamship. It was used back when news traveled by sailing ship and town criers.
It’s just all rooted in ancient tradition that makes us look like some kind of third world banana republic. Every state has different rules that are different for each party.
I just wish they would come up with some consistent voting rules to be applied uniformly across the entire country.
And the Electoral Collage joke. I am so tired of the so called battleground states getting all the attention and perks during national elections.
Don
Remember how everybody hated Bush for challenging the Florida vote?
Now we have Bush times three with Hillary!
Florida, Michigan, and now Texas, and we’re not even half way through!
#9:
There’s no way Hillary would keep running as an independent. As much as she wants to win, she knows that running as an independent would hand the election to McCain on a silver platter.
#3 The exact opposite is true. Obama is getting the popular votes nationwide, but Clinton is getting a bigger share of the “Superdelegates”. If she wins on superdelegates, there will be a rebellion in the Democratic party.
I agree with Clinton, the primary-caucus hybrid is stupid, but not worth getting all lawsuit happy about.
I suspect some major reforms in the primary process will be implimented between now and 2012. Too late to change the process now.
It’s all so meaningless anyway. Neither her nor Obama are going to get elected.
And no, I’m not a Republican and I don’t favor McCain… I just call them like I see them.
Standard tactic of all scumbag politicians, especially the Clintons If you can’t win fairly, then try and change the rules. As predicted, the Clintons are pulling out all the stops to win. What’s next,pictures of Obama having sex with a horse?
“Most are voting for Obama because they want to keep Clinton out of the White House, he said.
“We’ve always had our quota, plus some, of Hillary haters. T hey think they can drive a stake through her presidential heart, and they are hammering away with gusto,” Murray said.”
I wish them LUCK!
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/502960.html
AUSTIN — The Texas Democratic Party is warning that its primary night 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.
In a letter sent late Thursday to both the Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns, Texas Democratic Party attorney Chad Dunn warned that a lawsuit could ruin the Democrats’ effort to re-energize voters just as they are turning out in record numbers.
Where can you buy those funky pantsuits that she wears? Do designers make em for her?
@#14 “Neither her nor Obama are going to get elected.”
I think Obama will be the next president regardless of whether or not Team Clinton finds some way to screw him.
(She won’t, but even if she does, it is my opinion there is a quid pro quo with Michael Bloomberg to fund Obama as an indepedent if he is somehow robbed. But he won’t be robbed.).
Hillary cannot run as an independent. She is certainly a dependent. She doesn’t get any independent vote and her entire candidacy is based on trying to use Clinton democratic party infiltration to stack the deck in her favor.
McCain lacks deep enthusiasm. Many of the Republican primaries he “won”, were with unimpressive plurarity votes like “43%” or “37%” in 3-way splits with Huckabee and Romney before he dropped out.
McCain is the Bob Dole or Walter Mondale of 2008. He is the “default” candidate if no one good arises (and for the Republicans, no good candidate arose from the process).
I don’t see how McCain has any chance of becoming president regardless of who the Democratic nominee is.
Maybe it will be some incentive for the Democrats to simplify their rather bizarre delegate process.
There is a problem with the story. It opens claiming the Clinton camp are threatening an “imminent” lawsuit. Yet nowhere in the story does it back up that allegation. It was the Democratic Party lawyer that raises the possibility, not Clinton. In fact, the Clinton camp even denies it.
Yes I know. The idiotic right wing nuts like #2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16 (X2) and 17(X2) can’t read well or comprehend what they read anyway.
How the hell did idiots like these ever get the vote?
Catshit, according to the article “aides to White House hopeful Hillary Clinton raised the specter of an “imminent” lawsuit”.
Yes, there is an idiot on this blog, Catshit….
#13, Obama’s lead in delegates comes from doing well in caucus states. If we look at just primaries, he is actually trailing Hillary.
Hmm, it would be ironic if the self-proclaimed champions of “saving the planet” were to implement a “scorched Earth” policy.
The superdelegates are just another primary, like Democrats Abroad, which gave Hillary half a delegatge to Obama’s 2.
C’mon guys… it’s really simple:
Texas will send a total of 228 delegates to the Democratic National Convention. 126 delegates will be assigned based on primary results in 31 state Senate districts (instead of allocating delegates by its 32 congressional districts like many states). The number of delegates in each Senate district varies based on previous Democratic turnout in the last two general elections. The delegates from each Senate district are assigned to candidates proportionally based on the percentages they receive on primary day. Of the remaining 102 delegates, 67 are determined through a convention process that begins at precinct conventions (caucuses) on the night of March 4 and culminates with delegate allocation based on each candidate’s delegate strength at the state convention on June 6-8. Of those 67 delegates, 42 are “at large” rank-and-file delegates and 25 are pledged party leaders, legislators, and local elected officials. The remaining 35 delegates are “unpledged” delegates, including 32 so-called “superdelegates” who are DNC members, members of Congress, a former House Speaker and a former DNC chair. Three other delegate slots are reserved for highly-honored state Democrats, such as respected former officeholders. 126 senatorial district level delegates allocated by primary results. 42 at-large delegates and 25 pledged party leaders, Democratic mayors and legislators, all allocated by the presidential preference of delegates attending the State convention (with a 15 percent threshold). 32 superdelegates made up of members of Congress, members of the DNC, past House Speakers and former DNC chairs. 3 unpledged delegates (Add-Ons) elected through a three-tier, post-primary convention process.
#22, oh ya,
…according to the article “aides to White House hopeful Hillary Clinton raised the specter of an “imminent” lawsuit”.
Really? Look asswipe, point us in the direction where someone from the Clinton camp or someone else with a name said:
You can’t because it isn’t there.
Adrienne Elrod, Clinton’s top Texas spokeswoman, said campaign and party officials had merely discussed primary night procedures and that the campaign was merely seeking a written agreement in advance.
That is a direct quote. There appears to be nothing suggesting any “imminent lawsuit”.
“Officials from Senator Clinton’s campaign at several times throughout the call raised the specter of ‘challenging the process,’
Challenging the process? How does that become a lawsuit? I think the National Committee would be the proper forum for a challenge. Besides, WHOM said it? Oh, an anonymous source.
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.
“Veiled threats”? What are they? And coming from an anonymous source too. I don’t see the lawsuit part.
Spokesmen from both campaigns maintained there were no plans to sue before the March 4 election.
Geeze a denial. Naaa, can’t be true.
C’mon asswipe. Where in the article is your damn statement? The only use of the word “lawsuit” came from the writer. A critical reading shows this to be either a badly written piece or very poorly edited.
It is bad enough for you armpits to make rash, ill informed comments. It is beyond even that when you have to resort to invention to make your arguments.
Effen morani.
Ooopps, Geeze I screwed the pooch with my own editing in #27. I put the quote first then the sentence. If you rearrange the first two lines it will make sense.
Sorry.
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.
Looks like she’s gonna shoot herself in the foot again. This is just the kind of strategy that can have serious consequences if it fails. I guess it’s hard for anyone who’s watched this womans career to imagine her bowing out of the race gracefully. She’ll go kicking and screaming, if she goes…