Clinton lawsuit could muddy Texas caucuses

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

Source: McClatchy Newspapers

Clinton lawsuit could muddy Texas caucuses

By JAY ROOT McClatchy Newspapers Thu, Feb. 28, 2008 10:54 PM

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.

In a letter sent out late Thursday to both the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns, Texas Democratic Party lawyer Chad Dunn warned that a lawsuit could ruin the Democrats' effort to re-energize voters just as they are turning out in record numbers.

Spokesmen from both campaigns maintained there were no plans to sue before the March 4 election.

"It has been brought to my attention that one or both of your campaigns may already be planning or intending to pursue litigation against the Texas Democratic Party," Dunn said in the letter, obtained by the Star-Telegram. "Such action could prove to be a tragedy for a reinvigorated Democratic process."

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/449/story/510802.html

---

Are the Clintons trying to change the rules in the middle of the game, buying time to play catch up, or is this an effort to deter voter turnout?

What kind of leader will we be getting if they want to sue their own party if the results don't go there way?

[dkf]

1. Very Ugly. I hate this stuff.

[BrightKnight]

15. LMAO - I doubt that 90% of Texas Democrats know anything about the 2nd after hours vote.

Holding a second secret primary election after the primary election polls close is creative. I'm not sure that I would call it "democracy".

[PADemD]

17. A primary vote is secret; a caucus vote is public.

[Tellurian]

25. I guess the soothsayer predictions of Hillary giving up and quitting are evidence of just more....

innocuous bloviating because they like hearing the sound of their own voices, as they are the self-proclaimed "eggspurts,"...touting their own "internals".. :rofl:

[Roland99]

31. You're proud of a heinous threat like this?

[Zhade]

120. Note the arrogant sigline. Of COURSE the poster supports cheating.

I can't *wait* to rub Clinton's loss in the face of assholes like those who believe she's the Anointed One. It's going to be AWESOME.

(Full disclosure: not an Obama supporter, just see Clinton as worse. And hate arrogant assholes.)

[sellitman]

42. I wonder.

How many DUers have you on ignore?

I bet it's a bunch. Probably some Clinton supporters too.

[Zodiak]

46. This DUer does

...and I don't put people on ignore for disagreeing with me....its for griefing.

[juajen]

60. Certainly not this Hillary supporter.

NT

[Tellurian]

117. The Obama supporters are afflicted with :

Chronic Denialitis! I'm afraid, it's incurable.

[L0oniX]

104. Yep ...he/she is on my ignore list too ...must be a trend.

[dkf]

34. If they don't know by now, with all this hullabaloo, they

must be oblivious.

[bonzotex]

41. actually, it's pretty well known.

True, a lot of voters won't bother to caucus after the primary. Still, this process is not new, exclusive or secret.

Both campaigns are telling voters to go to the caucus after the polls close. The election workers are required to inform each voter about the caucus and provide info on the location and time. The caucuses are otherwise well publicized. It does tend to be a forum for the most politically engaged and activist voters.

A lot goes on at the caucuses besides electing delegates to the State convention. Most of the time is spent voting on Party platform issues each precinct would like to advance to the State convention. It's small d democratic in a huge way -- if you show up.

[MrsBrady]

62. I live in Texas and I think this having to vote twice thing is BS...

Most people don't' know about it.
...or misunderstand it.

I consider myself an informed person. I listen to news, read news on the internet, read the Nation, the CS Monitor, listen to AirAmerica, read books...
But somehow I never heard about this until a few weeks ago. Some people are calling it
the "texas two step" to try to market it. Really stupid, in my opinion.

In Texas for Democrats, 2/3 of delegates are chosen in a primary and another 1/3 are chosen at at caucus.
That seems completely weird to me.
We do have early voting for the primary, like we would in any election....but what about the caucus??, of course not.
That doesn't seem right. We need one or the other. It seems unfair to make people vote twice. That's the whole point of early voting so that everyone has a chance.

My experience:
I voted early, asked for my Democratic ballot...went to the booth.
A guy came in behind me, asked for a Democratic ballot. The clerk asked him if he was coming back for the caucus, because they have to stamp your voter card with "democratic" or "republican", depending on which primary you vote in. You can ONLY caucus if you voted in the primary.
But 1) the clerk didn't explain that properly. 2)I don't think the voter knew there was a caucus in the evening on Tuesday, because when the clerk asked him if he was coming to the caucus, he said no..huh...huh..... you know, like he didn't know.
3)did the clerk explain the process....no! He didn't even bother to explain how the caucus worked!
I wondered if the clerk would even bother if he was a repub? Or maybe a stupid Dem?

Wouldn't you call that disenfranchisement????
This is really F'ed up, in my opinion.

My husband voted early for Obama, and I voted early for Clinton. (listen, please no opinions on this, I'm just making a point. I like them both and I had to choose, so please let's not go there now.) See, you can vote early anywhere in your county during the primary, but you have to caucus exactly at your precinct location. So, when we got home last week from voting, I went on line to look up info for caucusing for Clinton...I knew there would be a caucus, but I have never caucused!!!...anyway, I think I might end up being a precinct captain. My neighborhood and county are so read, I think they need someone to help. I live in a very red, working class neighborhood (which should be really blue). I told my husband that he should look into seeing if they need someone to be a precinct captain for for Obama, being that this place is so red, they might need a volunteer.

My husband and I are hoping that he won't be traveling on Tuesday so that he can caucus for his candidate.
I know your job can't keep you from voting legally, but if he's out of town for work...what choice does he have???

The local media does a CRAP job explaining this, by the way. They basically mention that there is a caucus, and move on. They haven't explained it, talked about it, etc.....

This is total BS...for either candidate.

The people of Texas are being disenfranchised, and they don't even know it. Our party is doing a great job of screwing itself...why wait for repukes to do it.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

93. It's not the election volunteers job to explain how the Democratic precincts convention works

That's where we caucus and both the Republican and Democratic parties hold their conventions the on March 4th after the polls close. We just happen to select our delegates then which is what is considered our caucus. It's up to your precinct chair to make sure that there are signs there explaining the process. Due to a low level of involvement in the Texas Democratic party there are many precincts that don't currently have chairs. Which I understand has caused problems in some areas.

If you feel that your precinct was in a state of disarray I encourage you to make mention of it at the precinct convention on March 4th and become more evolved in providing a solution. Who knows, you may find yourself a precinct chair in the future.

[flamin lib]

91. Not secret, it's been very well publicized and there are signs posted

at the primary polling place.

[snooper2]

105. Sure, we are just a bunch of ignorant hicks unaware of our own primary process

dumbass...


I'll have you know most everyone I've talked to has voted early so we don't have make a day of it, voting during work day and cacaus at night.

I think you need to change your handle to DimKnight

[tekisui]

39. The Clinton camp officially denied threatening to sue, and said no legal

action is needed.

[bluestateguy]

2. Let's spread this story around

This can only help Obama.

[endelfam]

4. Tell me it ain't so!

I can't believe this. I just can't believe this. I'm a Texas precinct captain for Obama and this is the first I've heard of this garbage We've been doing it this way in Texas for a loooong time. Who is she to but her nose into another state's business!

[bluestateguy]

5. The Clintons repect states rights?

Please.

As soon as California voted to approve medicinal marijuana in 1996, the Clinton Administration stuck their little mitts in the way.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

8. "The TDP has worked ...to explain the process and has ... responded to ..your requests"

The McClatchy article has a link to the Texas Democratic Party's letter sent
to both campaigns, here:
http://media.star-telegram.com/smedia/2008/02/28/20/Campaign_Letter.source.prod_affiliate.58.pdf

Is Clinton trying for a do over or something? Remember the Clinton shock over the rules that they
only "discovered" right before the election?

"As you know, the TDP has worked tirelessly to ensure this election goes as
smoothly as can be expected under the rules of The Texas Democratic Party and the
Texas Election Code. Furthermore, the TDP has worked with both your campaigns to
explain the process and has accepted and responded to many of your requests in order to
facilitate a smooth administration of the Election and Precinct Conventions....

[BrightKnight]

28. Perhaps TDP should "work to explain" it to the Carter Center. - n/t

[Zhade]

121. Yeah. Thanks, Bill. Now people like me can be FIRED for not wanting to go blind.

Dick.

[Lochloosa]

32. Welcome to DU endelfam

:toast:

[Eurobabe]

3. This stuff makes me despise the Clintons n/t

[madfloridian]

6. And a Florida lawsuit being heard on appeal...will benefit Hillary.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1864

[Zhade]

122. More cheating. She has NO shame.

NT!

[Ken Burch]

7. Well, HRC has never wanted an energized campaign anyway.

She wants another bland useless one, so that she can lose like the Beltway wants us to.

[loudsue]

61. That is how the entire DLC is: they hate the energized voters.

They only want the sheep to vote the way they tell them to.

They're really republicans in the dem party.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. Is there a docket number for this lawsuit yet?

When is it going to be argued? This weekend?

--p!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

10. its a threat right now, here's more detail

Different news article:

Feb. 29, 2008, 12:18AM
State Democrats say Clinton camp may sue
Legal action could disrupt or delay caucuses, party says

By JAY ROOT
Fort Worth Star-telegram


AUSTIN — The Texas Democratic Party warned Thursday that election night caucuses scheduled for Tuesday could be delayed or disrupted after aides to Hillary Rodham Clinton threatened to sue over the party's complicated delegate selection process.

...Another Democratic official who was privy to the discussions confirmed Clinton representatives made veiled threats in a telephone call this week.

"Officials from Sen. Clinton's campaign at several times throughout the call raised the specter of 'challenging the process,' " the official said.

The source, who asked not to be identified, said Clinton's political director, Guy Cecil, had forcefully raised the possibility of a courtroom battle.

more at:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5580749.html

[Dogmudgeon]

12. Gossip about a threat?

An unidentified source?

Veiled threats made in a telephone call (i.e., we have to believe the person getting the call)?

No verification, validation, independent confirmation of the sources?

That's what's led to five outraged threads being posted and rioting being invoked?

I'll believe it when HRC says it or, more to the point, actually files the suit.

Gossip is not your friend. Gossip is not ANYONE'S friend ... except maybe the GOP.

--p!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

13. Clinton's political director, Guy Cecil, had forcefully raised the possibility of a courtroom battle

Different news article: The reporter spoke with a democratic official.

State Democrats say Clinton camp may sue

Legal action could disrupt or delay caucuses, party says
Feb. 29, 2008, 12:18AM By JAY ROOT Fort Worth Star-telegram

AUSTIN — The Texas Democratic Party warned Thursday that election night caucuses scheduled for Tuesday could be delayed or disrupted after aides to Hillary Rodham Clinton threatened to sue over the party's complicated delegate selection process.

...Another Democratic official who was privy to the discussions confirmed Clinton representatives made veiled threats in a telephone call this week.

"Officials from Sen. Clinton's campaign at several times throughout the call raised the specter of 'challenging the process,' " the official said.

The source, who asked not to be identified, said Clinton's political director, Guy Cecil, had forcefully raised the possibility of a courtroom battle.

more at the link

[intaglio]

11. I hope this is just posturing

If it is not then Camp Clinton are showing themselves to be the worst kind of political group. Legal posturing to try and bring out your vote (or even to discourage your opponents supporters) is just allowable. Actually take actual legal action at this time is indefensible.

The right time would have been when Hillary announced her candidacy, just as the right time for her to have FL and MI seated would have been immediately after the DNC confirmed it's ruling on those states.

[rox63]

21. Posturing to what result?

Just posturing on this would serve no purpose except to piss off TX Democrats. I see an Obama landslide coming in TX, and Hillary can't face the reality that she's going to lose.

[bowens43]

14. the woman is completely obsessed with power.

HOw anyone could even consider voting for her is beyond me.

She is truly pathetic.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JustDavid]

82. Are you serious?

But...uhhmmmm.......she is a woman.

Have you ever said "the man"?

I think every single world that comes out of anyone's mouth(keyboard), people like you will find sexism in it.

"the woman is obsessed with power"

How could anyone in their right mind see sexism in that? OK OK Are we able to say Mrs.Clinton?

From now on, when speaking about any candidate, we must say "the non-gender specific person"

RIDICULOUS

[ACanadianLiberal]

95. when did you see anybody here call Mr. Obama "the man"?

BTW, there is a hiden culture issue here, "the man" tends to mean "real man", "stength", even "great"; "the woman" in certain context, e.g. in this case, works opposite.

Well this is not written contract. You can deny it, but it is rooted so deeply in our culture.

[tabasco]

98. Get a life.

Ridiculous statement.

[Megahurtz]

111. Oh please.

:eyes:

[acmavm]

16. What? Hils is the only one being bad mouthed but here's a completely

telling phrase of that article:

<snip>"It has been brought to my attention that one or both of your campaigns..."
<snip>

BOTH campaigns?

Seems like the criticism is pretty one-sided.

[Tellurian]

18. Well, yeah... Obama's people Have problems dealing with reality..

The quote from the OP clearly states;

"Spokesmen for both campaigns said there were no plans to sue ahead of the March 4 election.

"It has been brought to my attention that one or both of your campaigns may already be planning or intending to pursue litigation against the Texas Democratic Party,'' Dunn wrote in the letter, obtained by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. "Such action could prove to be a tragedy for a reinvigorated Democratic process."

These inconvenient details are often missed by the tunnel visioned zealots.

[Dogmudgeon]

63. It's calculated to stoke anti-Clinton hatred

These rumors have been going around for years, and they are extremely effective -- simply play on the "everybody knows" factor, and it's like throwing a bleeding rabbit into pack of hungry jackals.

The first hints of a similar campaign against Obama surfaced this week. People's big fear is that Obama is cynically playing the system, and sure enough, reports of a cynical off-the-record conversation with Canadian officials over NAFTA surfaced. A few workers for Team Clinton blundered into THAT tar pit.

Once the GOP (and extreme left) get started about Obama, THEN they will realize how that process works -- and how badly they screwed up in defaming the Clintons.

Debunking the lies will be accepted in lieu of apologies, all around.

--p!

[Tellurian]

118. well said!

thanks..

[Zhade]

123. I doubt Marxists and Maoists are going to "get started about Obama".

(You know, the REAL "extreme left".)

[rox63]

19. WTF is she thinking?

Just because she doesn't like the way they've been choosing delegates for years, she's going to sue? Another example of Clinton wanting to change the rules in the middle of the game. Her internal polls must be looking really bad.

[spotbird]

50. Scorched earth

There is a chance this will help her, if it doesn't, that's not her problem anymore.

[nvme]

20. This issue alone speaks volumes

I Will reserve judgment on this one. If there is a "challenge" to a state party's system it should have been mounted long ago. The state had its system in place long before the campaigns began then all candidates knew or should have known what the process entailed. I am hoping this is just vicious rumor started by a surrogate. If true this is such a divisive tactic the is worth of the lowest re-pub shit bird scumbag. This is"Deja vue all over again"circa 2000. I hope the court card is not played. I hope that all candidates abide by the rules as set forth by these states.

[LuckyTheDog]

22. Hillary should drop out now

If she were to get the nomination by changing the rules and other forms of maneuvering, she's be toast in the fall. I say let her run for governor of New York or serve some time as Senate majority leader. Either way, she'd be in a good position to run for president again.

It's time for the party to unite toward the goal of defeating McCain (which should be easy to do).

[Onlooker]

23. Don't distort, it implies Obama may sue, too!

Why don't you read the article. It's not a marketing piece and just because the OP chose not to bold this phrase "one or both of your campaigns may already be planning or intending to pursue litigation" doesn't mean you should ignore it.

More from the article:

"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."

As I read it, if Obama should lose because of the caucus system (which apparently has some built in advantages for him, but no guarantees), he may "go there" (sue) if he has to.

[spotbird]

51. Only one has made the threat,

the letter provides for that.

[Divernan]

89. If Clinton is trying to bully the Texas Dem Party into changing the formula

by which delegates are assigned (re: dependent on how many Dems voted in the last Presidential and Gubernatorial races in each district), then of course Obama will have to threaten to sue if the formula IS changed days before an election/caucus.

The story says there was a joint call involving reps from each candidate and the state party chairman. It seems clear to me that the Clinton side was trying to get some concession prior to the election and holding the threat of a lawsuit over the head of the Texas Dem party. Because otherwise, Clinton would just go ahead and sue. So Clinton was trying to bluff the Dem party into taking some action favorable to Clinton. Since that action would involve a last minute change in the rules, of course Obama's people would have to respond that they would not take that sitting down and would go to court themselves to keep the current rules in force.

The Clinton side is highly unlikely to win a suit like this, but they are so desperate enough and self-deluded enough to threaten it. She is again out of control and out of line - and not presidential material this year or any other year.

And don't come at me with "out of control" is some sexist statement. We've seen Chaney and McCain out of control too.

[bulloney]

24. I think this is why Republicans despised the Clintons so much.

They use the same tactics and beat the Republicans at their own game.

But when you look at the major accomplishments under Bill Clinton's presidency, I don't know why the Republicans are so militant and hateful toward them:

Budget surpluses
Passage of NAFTA and GATT in Congress
Banking deregulation
Welfare reform

I've told many of my Republican friends that Clinton was probably our most Republican president in the last 80 years. Then I leave the room because the room becomes a mess when their heads explode.

[Ian_rd]

33. They hate him because he stole some of their economic platform and made it his.

Bush had been assaulting the working class since day one. But Clinton gave him the bat and brass knuckles.

[coalition_unwilling]

106. Clinton was not a "Republican". He was and is a conservative

Democrat. I disagreed with him on many issues, notably welfare reform, but if Clinton is a "Republican," then the Republican party are really Fascists.

[Zhade]

124. They are.

And he is, in spirit, a "classic" conservative - just not a registered one.

[Not Sure]

26. How disappointing

First it was "let's count Michigan and Florida, now that my numbers are starting to decline" and now this? She wants to change the way things are done here in Texas because her numbers are slipping? There may be a lot of yellow dogs here in Texas, but you don't win their favor with backhanded tactics like this. This is truly shameful.

[Demeter]

27. How NOT To Win Hearts and Minds

There was a threat made--otherwise this issue would not have arisen. To argue otherwise is to assume that even Karl Rove has been upstaged by a new and rising spinmeister.

How serious a threat? Well, if one is going to make threats like that, one had better follow through, or one looks like an ass, a whiner, and a two-year-old overdue for a nap. And one better have good grounds to argue for relief.

Can't say as it looks like those grounds exist.

And this surely isn't the time to raise the issue.

To raise the issue during the process is to destroy the process, which is a long-standing one, not something thought up special for the occasion. To try to litigate after the primary/caucus is fruitless, unless one plans a rematch in 4 years. It certainly does nothing for the party in the general election, and shouldn't even be threatened until after same. Such reforms are more sensible coming from the people voting than from the outside candidates, anyway.

That sentence: "It has been brought to my attention that one or both of your campaigns may already be planning or intending to pursue litigation against the Texas Democratic Party," may in fact be true, or it may be that the phrase "or both" was added to muddy the waters about who actually made that threat.

[DrZeeLit]

29. All I could think was..."oh no... not LAWSUITS"... by the Clintons?

Wouldn't they be the LAST to go to LAWSUITS?

Okay, this is nuts.
Really.
I hope this story is incorrect or a rumor or something.
A lot of that going around these days.

Just... say it's not so....

[southern_belle]

30. If this is true, then Clinton

would be 4 more years of Bush. ;(

[City Lights]

35. "Ready on day one!"

Hillary is gonna scream FOUL because she was UNPREPARED for the primary campaign to continue beyond Super Tuesday?

You're turing into a joke before my eyes, Hillary.

Oh brother. That's exactly the type of "leadership" Washington needs less of.

:puke:

[tekisui]

36. this is a non-story.

THey aren't threatening to sue.

[Thothmes]

37. Should this have surprised anyone

My opinion is that Senator Clinton would not give a second thought to destroying the Democratic Party if she thought that it would get her elected to the Oval Office

[Vinca]

38. It's quite shocking Hillary expected no competition in this race.

I guess she expected there would be a coronation ceremony and that would be it. But, what the heck. Doesn't matter the rules were in place before it all started. Let's change them to suit her, otherwise she'll say Tom Delay moved the districts around to favor Obama.

[Honeycombe8]

40. This type of messy stuff could cost the Dems the G.E. in the fall. Hate to hear it.

But then the Clintons didn't help Kerry in '04, did they, because they were planning on running in '08? Which means they were hoping he'd lose? Which means that their goal is not to do their duty, to help the country, or concern for what's best for anyone but themselves.

I don't believe the Obama campaign is posturing in this way, also, but if it is.....I would say the same about them. That they don't have the best interests of the country at heart.

It's not about YOU, guys (altho we know you want to win). It's about US.

[Botany]

43. Once again Hillary tries to change the rules once the game was started.

Michigan, Florida, Neveda, and now this?

This will only piss off more people and add to the size of her loss
in Texas. Maybe she can do an Ann Richards & Molly Ivans "from
the other side" campaign commerical.

Come on Ohio .... let us put a stop "Queen Hillary" ASAP.

[ekwhite]

57. A gentle reminder...

The 'Queen Hillary' comment could be taken as a sexist remark by some. An unfortunate end to an otherwise good comment.

[Botany]

67. Queen as in royalty

Not queen as in female king :rofl:

BTW in 2006 I worked hundreds of hours and gave money to
a women running for congress and not because of her sex
but because of who she was. Some people are going to say that
anything that is anti Hillary is automatically sexist and nothing
I do or say is going to change them.

[JustDavid]

86. You think he's BS-ing????

Look upthread.

Someone actually took offense because a poster said "the woman" when refering to Hillary.

I shit you not.

[Zhade]

125. Yeah, by idiots bent on throwing out false charges of sexism to attack others.

(Not you.)

[Ordr]

44. ?

Is this some sort of new process that Texas has put in place? If not, didn't her stupid husband have to go through the exact same thing during his campaign? She is, in my opinion, a liar. She is woefully unprepared to campaign here because of her myopic delusion that she would have had the nomination by now. Her strategy has changed at the absolute last minute because she and her campaign are now scrambling to figure out how to stop the continuous hemmoraging of her popularity.

[JeanGrey]

45. I've said it before on this board that SHE WILL NEVER GIVE

UP. Her ego will not allow it. Expect her to sue over this, and expect her to sue over Michigan and Florida. She has no intention of losing, folks.

This are Hillary's TRUE COLORS. Is anyone surprised?

[natrat]

66. notice her slip the other day about already winning mich

the fix might be in folks

[tanyev]

47. Please, no more presidents chosen by lawsuit.

[Ordr]

49. "Please, no more presidents chosen by lawsuit."

Unnecessary letigiousness is an American right and privilege that transcends party lines. It is the great uniter of democrats, republicans, and everyone in-between, who can sue and have their voices held up high as they moan "poor me".

[spotbird]

48. Who else sues when they

don't like elections?

[madmom]

52. ONCE AGAIN.. people choose to see only what they want,...

the op says BOTH campaigns are doing this,but only ST Obama is not being bad-mouthed because heaven forbid he's the "chosen one".

READ THE WHOLE FUCKING ARTICLE!

[Ordr]

53. "Obama is not being bad-mouthed because heaven forbid he's the "chosen one"."

If Obama is doing it, he is also to blame.

[rox63]

54. No - You read the whole f&*%ing article

http://www.kansascity.com/449/story/510802.html

~snip~

Democratic sources said both campaigns have made it clear that they might consider legal options over the complicated delegate selection process, which includes both a popular vote and evening caucuses. But the sources made it clear that the Clinton campaign in particular had warned of an impending lawsuit.

"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 officials spoke on condition of anonymity.

Another Democratic official who was privvy to the discussions confirmed that Clinton representatives made veiled threats in a telephone call this week.

"Officials from Sen. 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.''

The source, who asked not to identified by name because he did not have authorization to speak about the matter, said Clinton 's political director, Guy Cecil, had forcefully raised the possibility of a courtroom battle.

~snip~

[Zachstar]

68. I have had enough of her!

No Clinton in 08 NO CLINTON in 2012

NO MORE CLINTON!

Clinton you have attempted to destroy the respect of the process and sullied it to high hell. I ask you to quit this campaign, DO NOT SUPPORT OBAMA as he no longer deserves to even look at you. And retire from politics! You disgust me Clinton!

Thankfully tho. This is strike three for you. Texans have seen you pull the crap on the rouge states, the attacks on Obama for no reason, and now you want to MESS WITH TEXAS?! HAHAHAHA bye bye Clinton. If you even get 30 percent of the vote in Texas I will be surprised now! And I look forward to Ohio also noticing that you are a piece of junk and give Obama the win so as to FINISH THIS.

YOU HAVE LOST CLINTON. WHAT IS WORSE IS THAT YOU HAVE LOST THE RESPECT!!!

DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!

[MoJoWorkin]

71. You hit that one on the head. YOU DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!

[Zachstar]

77. Well I hope yall make it said in Texas. People there deserve to see how they are being treated.

CLINTON, YOU DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS

In case anybody is wondering what that statement is about. It is the slogan of the statewide effort to get people to stop throwing trash out the window and ruining the roadways.

Edit: DU messed up the wiki leak sorry.

One thing I loved about texas was the dedication to keeping things clean where they could. The rich pine forest roads and the interesting little towns ought to be preserved without people having to view trash everywhere.

[Megahurtz]

112. Great post!

[D23MIURG23]

96. Heres the crux of it:

"Clinton campaign aides have argued that caucuses favor Obama, whose campaign organization has turned out overwhelming numbers at caucuses in other states."

Now why would this be relevent to the article if this is some kind of equal protection matter?

[Igel]

115. I'm beginning to understand why.

I want to go to the caucus on Tuesday.

It's going to be packed.

I have a kid, and people have said that taking him to the caucus would be a poor idea. The alternative is to find a baby sitter that we trust--the one we trusted is currently out of the country--and pay her for the evening. What, something like $60 to be able to caucus? (And people wonder about the poll tax's disenfranchising people.)

My wife could watch him--and not go to the caucus--but she's going to be out of the country and unavailable for child-care duties. She still won't make the caucus--there's no provision for 'early caucusing', and it's not like her employer asked her if it was convenient.

Now, if I were wealthier, the baby sitter might not be a problem. If I were younger and childless, the kid wouldn't be a problem.

As it is, I'm tempted to show up, and if people have a problem with my kid tell them to STFU.

[ekwhite]

55. This is a Mark Penn tactic for sure

This is straight out of Karl Rove's playbook. Sow fear, uncertainty and doubt by threatening to sue. This is an attempt to suppress voter turnout at the caucuses. Shame on you, Hillary Clinton!

[BigD_95]

56. I cant believe Im saying this but

I think Im starting to despise the Clintons. These are people I respected so much and argued for countless times but seeing all the crap they have been pulling Im really starting to dislike them.

Hillary Its been 11 in a row. Just end this madness before you rip apart the party.

It just makes me sick when you watch TV and see a clip of McCain attacking Obama & then you see a clip of Bush attacking Obama & then you see a clip of Hillary attacking Obama. What the hell is she part of the Republican party?

I just feel sick

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

58. Her advisor Mark Penn works with same advisor for McCain

you knew that right?

Their advisors both work for the same firm.

[MessiahRp]

59. You gotta love a campaign that is ALWAYS trying to change the rules they agreed to

AFTER the game has started. That's so classy. It's like being a cocky 5'5" guy who thinks he can school the 6'10" guy on the court and take it to the hole on them. Then they find out that the 6'10" guy is stuffing every shot they take and dominating them to the hole. So they stop the game and whine and change the rules to benefit them more. Maybe change it to Horse instead.

This is the fourth state they have done this kind of crap with.... Michigan, Florida, Nevada and now Texas.

If her campaign is not smart enough to understand the rules they agreed to before the primaries begin, how are we supposed to expect her Presidency to be smart enough to catch all the little tricks that Republicans sneak into bills to screw our country up.... oh wait... she already has proven that she isn't good when presented with questionable information (Iraq).

It seems Hillary thinks her best shot is on everything be right about it AFTER THE FACT.

She was right about Health Care AFTER THE FACT, regardless if she didn't get anything done and turned away a lot of moderates from the process.

She was right about Iraq AFTER THE FACT by criticizing Bush, regardless of the fact that her vote has killed hundreds of thousands of people and subsequent votes have supported Bush on ratcheting up the aggression with Iran and her Senate absence has helped continue Bush's assault on our civil liberties for this fake war on terror.

And now she's right about these states AFTER THE FACT because she knows it won't go her way and she's upset about it. Regardless of the fact that she knew and agreed to these rules beforehand.

I don't want an AFTER THE FACT President. I want someone who can think on their feet and handle the complexity of issues AS THEY COME.

Rp

[natrat]

64. what a graceless scumbag

[juajen]

65. What's wrong with you people. You finally get a candidate

that is not a "wimp" and you can't deal with it? She should certainly sue to right any wrongs perceived in the democratic process. Perhaps we could use a tutorial in Texas voting. I have never heard about caucuses after voting, and, if so, they certainly should not get delegates. There are many reasons why people can't stay long after an election, most of them valid. BTW, I lived in Texas for two years and have family that have lived there for over 30 years. I have never heard of this, but I hate the caucus system and believe it should be changed. Certainly, no delegates should be awarded because you come to discuss candidates. They should only be awarded for primaries.

[Ordr]

70. "She should certainly sue to right any wrongs perceived in the democratic process."

Is it possible that she was so naive at the beginning of her campaign that she completely neglected to research the ins-and-outs of every state's process? I find that very hard to believe.

[leftofcool]

72. Dems don't want a fighter in the WH

They want a golden child, someone who makes them feel good.

Left of Cool

[Zachstar]

74. In my view You want it changed because it favors change and Obama in my view.

Do you fully and publicly and on the record deny that? Because if that is not the case then you are one of the few Clinton supporters who are not about changing the rules at the last min to serve their own purposes.

The caucus system is a great system because it forces people to think a little rather than just pressing a button and slinking out of there to hide what you have done.

Remember that a political party can choose who and how it selects its candidate. There is no requirement for one type of voting. Until the general where the parties have their chance to present their choices.

Clinton at the last min wants to change the rules again. And interestingly enough this comes out right after it is known she lost the lead in certain polls.

She has LOST!

[nvme]

79. You Said "whats wrong with you ........"

This reminds me of Joe Lieberman's 06 run against Ned Lamont. He Wanted to be senator regardless if he were a democratic candidate or not. He lost the primary To Ol' Ned. I remember Hillary and bill stickin to Nasty ol' joe up until he lost the primary. The half- heartedly supporting Ned when joe started his "political party of one". Is she gonna pullout and run independent if she looses?. No she is gonna take it to court and split the party. yes Hillary can unite the country. sure right.

[TexasBushwhacker]

107. Yup, the caucuses are usually not an issue in Texas ....

because in the last several elections, the nominee was decided before the Texas primary. I've been voting for over 30 years, and this is the first election where caucuses will matter.

[The Stranger]

109. Maybe she should have been standing up to the GOP all these years like she does her own party now.

[Megahurtz]

113. No Shit! n/t

[Zhade]

126. CHEATERS SHOULDN'T WIN. That's the problem.

We hated it when b*s* stole the election in 2000, how is it acceptable for her to steal the nomination she's losing?

[Baby Snooks]

73. Sore loser...

Just amazing how she is willing to destroy a party in order to become the party's nominee for president. Her attitude of "rules are fine if they benefit me, not fine if they don't" is reflective of her character.

It is also reflective of the Republican way. Rules, and laws, apply to everyone else. Not to them. But then she is a Republicrat. And her Republican side is finally showing.

[Zachstar]

99. This is why it is time to put an end to this now.

Being weak and allowing this crap to go forward now will lead to more Bush likes in the future.

She not only needs to lose this but also her seat when the time comes. I hope voters will shut her down then too.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

75. Oh that's right. She's losing now. Time for a lawsuit.

Clinton is losing more of my respect every day with these shitty tactics.

[ACanadianLiberal]

76. Golden opportunity to bash Hillary, pile on! Obama folks

Words you can choose: worst, worst than any replublicans, the woman, worst woman, worst human being, dirtiest campaign, dirtiest woman, dirtiest whore, whorest of whores, worst among the worst in the wordd. bitchest among bitches, to list just a few........

[Ordr]

78. "Words you can choose"

As unpleasant as the words are that you listed, they absolutely pale in comparison to a single word I've heard used in conjunction with Barack (although thank God not on DU).

And, for the record, I wouldn't necessarily call her "worse than any republicans"...just worse than some.

[The Stranger]

110. She really is bringing this upon herself -- and your rhetoric is so over the top,

it hurts your credibility.

[Zhade]

127. The most accurate, though, is "CHEATER".

NT!

[rosetta627]

80. Desperate and pathetic

eot

[Stephanie]

81. I have been predicting she will litigate this election.

But I thought it would be Michigan and Florida. Maybe they're next.

[D23MIURG23]

83. She can do it by any means necessary!

and regardless of the cost.

:puke:

[UALRBSofL]

84. Actual statements from the Star-Telegram.com

Spokesmen from both campaigns maintained there were no plans to sue before the March 4 election.

"It has been brought to my attention that one or both of your campaigns may already be planning or intending to pursue litigation against the Texas Democratic Party," Dunn said in the letter, obtained by the Star-Telegram. "Such action could prove to be a tragedy for a reinvigorated Democratic process."

"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.

, about the matter on the record, said Clinton's political director, Guy Cecil, had pointedly raised the possibility of a courtroom battle.

"It is our campaign's standard operating procedure that we need to see what we are agreeing to in writing before we agree to it," Elrod said. "NO LEGAL ACTION IS BEING TAKEN. WE HAVE NO REASON TO TAKE ANY LEGAL ACTION."
*********************************************************************************************************************************
NOW THIS IS THE ENDORSEMENT MADE BY THE STAR-TELEGRAM TO BARACK OBAMA. I WOULD SAY ANY MEDIA THAT ENDORSES ONE CANDIDATE OVER THE OTHER WILL ALWAYS SHOW BIAS IN THERE REPORTING:

Texas voters have two remarkable candidates from which to choose in the March 4 Democratic presidential primary. Regardless of the outcome of this state's vote and those across the nation, history will be made.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama represent change, but in decidedly different ways.

Supportive politicians, pundits and writers of letters to newspaper editors have defined that difference as transitional vs. transformative. Clinton is the former; Obama the latter.

Right now, America needs transformation.

The Democratic candidates agree that the issues demanding immediate attention are unquestionably divisive: untangling the U.S. occupation in Iraq; shoring up a tentative economy; reforming Social Security, Medicare and immigration; finding a way for every American to get affordable healthcare; improving the environment.

Their approaches on how to address them are different. Clinton's policies are more detailed than Obama's but also more expensive.

Obama might be shorter on detail, but he is by far longer on inspirational spirit, charisma and an ability to energize previously unengaged Americans in the voting process, particularly the usually unengaged up-and-coming generations on whose shoulders America's future rests.

Although he was not in the Senate at the time of the vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq, Obama was an early critic of the war, viewing it as an unnecessary strategic mistake that would damage America. Clinton is still trying to talk her way around her support for the invasion; it's a scar that won't fade for many Democratic voters.

Obama steps up, fresh and inspirational, with a message and an energy that transcend the demographic differences among voters that the media so stubbornly focus on: race, gender, age and economic standing.

On an international stage, his face representing the United States of America would speak volumes to a world community that has turned away from assisting this great nation.

The expectation and pressure on him to deliver change on a worldwide scale will be tremendous. If he continues to deliver the kind of turnout at the polls that he has shown so far, he would move onto that stage with a commanding mandate from the American people.

The historic turnouts in the Democratic primaries and caucuses thus far can't all be credited to Obama. Clinton is a worthy and experienced opponent who has drawn her share of new voters.

But Obama is smart and experienced in working directly with low- and middle-class Americans to better their lives, and he brings a message of hope that the country needs in this moment.

Yes, we know, hope is not a strategy. But it can get people working together to find one.

THE STAR-TELEGRAM RECOMMENDS BARACK OBAMA IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY FOR PRESIDENT.

[Zachstar]

85. Note post by rox63 above.

[rodeodance]

103. This quote needs a separate thread-------They are too eager to bash Hillary without reading!!

"Spokesmen for both campaigns said there were no plans to sue ahead of the March 4 election."
http://www.kansascity.com/449/story/510802.html

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

87. From the OP link

Democratic sources said both campaigns have made it clear that they might consider legal options over the complicated delegate selection process, which includes both a popular vote and evening caucuses. But the sources made it clear that the Clinton campaign in particular had warned of an impending lawsuit.

But Adrienne Elrod, Clinton's top Texas spokeswoman, said campaign and party officials had merely discussed election night procedures and that the campaign was merely seeking a written agreement in advance. She could not elaborate on the details of the agreement the Clinton campaign is seeking.

"It is our campaign's standard operating procedure that we need to see what we are agreeing to in writing before we agree to it,'' Elrod said. "No legal action is being taken. We have no reason to take any legal action.''


Sounds like the Clinton campaign is the smarter of the two. Always get it documented in writing!

[Ordr]

88. "Sounds like the Clinton campaign is the smarter of the two."

I wouldn't necessarily go that far ;).

[Divernan]

94. Clinton's rep would "not elaborate on the details of the agreement Clinton is seeking."

What's Clinton hiding now? We know it has to do with the "complicated delegate selection process".
The rules governing that process have been in place for previous elections. There is no necessity to change them less than a week before an election.

Clinton was interviewed on PBS's evening news earlier this week. When asked whether she was surprised that the primary battle had lasted this long, she didn't hesitate a second, or bat an eyelash before saying, "Oh, no! I knew last spring it would go on. . . to Texas. And I told my staff last spring that we had to get ready for Texas."

[rodeodance]

102. and BOTH say --if lawsuits-NOT before March 4 ********

"Spokesmen for both campaigns said there were no plans to sue ahead of the March 4 election."
http://www.kansascity.com/449/story/510802.html

[Zhade]

128. See post #85 about the truth of this matter.

NT!

[L0oniX]

90. This is exactly what I expect from an asscarrot Clinton.

Hey Hillary ....go fuck your self!

[rodeodance]

100. "Spokesmen for both campaigns said there were no plans to sue ahead of the March 4 election"

"Spokesmen for both campaigns said there were no plans to sue ahead of the March 4 election."
http://www.kansascity.com/449/story/510802.html




seems you are the **s for jumping to conclusions.

quote over is from the article.

[Deep13]

92. "Spokesmen from both campaigns maintained there were no plans to sue before the March 4 election."

The headline is misleading, because it couldn't since no one is going to sue.

[Zachstar]

97. Note snip by rox63 above.

[rodeodance]

101. The OP is inflamatory ---and many are jumping to conclusions

[The Stranger]

108. If Hillary can't win -- then she will see to it no Democrat will win.

[Megahurtz]

114. So Hillary thinks she will sue her way in to the WH???

Get lost, Hillary! I have no respect for you now.

[dassix]

116. she started with such spark

now...it's a different type of "spark" :hide:

I do not believe she ever conceived to be second to Obama - in the polls at least. I just hope she doesn't split the party.

:dem:

[Zhade]

119. Why does ANYONE support Clinton trying to cheat her way out of defeat?

NT!

[humbled_opinion]

129. Hillary is going to win....

Period, end of story, everybody can just go on home now... Hillary is the Democratic nominee and we are all just going to shut up and like it...

But then She will be asking us to all come together and support her, she will be the change agent that Obama would have been blah,,, blah,,,, blah,,, 4 more years of lunatics running the country.