The New Texas Caucus Lies

2nd Update: You must now be saying, but what happened to the first update. Well, it mysteriously disappeared. I just wanted to thank those that Rec'd me. Although, I'm not sure what it will mean for you. I also want to thank Student Guy for finding this comment from KTinTX the host of Burnt Orange Report disparaging any claim of candidate inspired fraud in the caucuses. It's time we had some honesty in this debate. 3rd Update: Thanks for getting me up the Rec List again. Hope more people will question both myself and Alegre. I just don't respect someone that makes outrageous claims based on minimal evidence. Happy Last Primary Day! 4th Update: Since I'm still up here. I think it is only appropriate that as we near the end of the primary, at least this diary if not all the diaries on the Rec List, should congratulate and acknowledge the hard work and great passion of Hillary Clinton and her supporters. I hope that we are all joyful in the result of the November election, since we have been so divided in the results of the primary election. Thank you for your intelligence and dedication.

Finally, here's (.pdf file) the evidence of which I've been asking Pacific John.  For months now, I've been asking Pacific John for some proof of his malicious allegations.  And now it has finally been delivered to me in a diary by Alegre. And so I read the document expecting to be persuaded by all the evidence of illegal activity, but it was not to be so.  I saw in two seconds that this document and the "incidents" that are reported have holes through which I can drive a Buick.  And it turns out that the only campaign that might have done something untoward is Clinton's (Check out the end for more info).

First, Alegre says that this "legitimate" claim of fraud comes from a "neutral" observer.  This same "neutral" observer has a on the homepage a huge banner stating "Count their votes now," with big pictures of Michigan and Florida.  Very neutral indeed.

Second, the document is pathetic.  There is no indication of who produced the document.  No labeling of its author or the organization for which it was produced.  The only thing aside from the "incidents" reported is the number A/72472998.2.  I googled and searched yahoo for that number and came up with nothing.  Alegre or Pacific John or another completely unidentified and unaccountable individual could have made this report.  But it is unlikely to be an official document of the Clinton campaign, the TDP or the Secretary of State, because if I've learned one thing since I've got involved in politics and interested in government it is that organizations like those stamp their name all over their documents.  So how are we supposed to believe that these events actually happened?

Next, three out of the first five "incidents" reported are so pathetic that they can be dismissed without me doing much research at all.  The first "incident" claimed says that in Precinct 56 Obama supporters did all manners of unethical activity, including writing in Obama's name on blank sheets and allowing out of state people to vote and telling people to leave.  This "incident" report even claims that the person posing as "the highest ranking official in the Democratic Party" somehow kicked out a news outfit from Channel 7.  You know it's funny, I remember staying up pretty late and I cruise numerous news outlets, but I don't remember any reports of a news agency getting kicked out of a caucus.  So I googled "Texas Caucus Precinct 56" and I received no mention of that precinct in any negative light, except for Alegre's diaries.  See if you can find something I missed.

In Precinct 61, a 19-delegate precinct, the Obama supporters a minority somehow managed to get 34 delegates appointed to go to the district caucus apportioned 18 for BO and 16 for Clinton.  And they expect us to believe them?  How is heaven's name did a minority of the Obama supporters manage to appoint 15 delegates more than the precinct was awarded?  Especially when they didn't even stay to name delegates?

An Obama supporter in Precinct 36 managed to grab the roll and somehow managed to allow Republicans and out of staters to vote.  The "incident report" says that a gentleman named Javier was lucky enough to run into a Fox News Reporter and he gave an interview.  So I wandered over to Fox News' much maligned website and did a search for Texas Caucus Fraud and I received 20 hits.  Not a single one of them mentioned any fraud by Obama at the caucus and most didn't relate to the 2008 Texas caucuses.  I did another search for Precinct 36 and received about 30 hits.  Not a single one of them related to the Texas Caucus.  So no thank you very much to Alegre who made me have to go to foxnews.com.

In all my searching I did find one article that discussed shenanigans during the Texas Caucus.  It was by Marc Ambinder and it relayed the story of only one incident in El Paso.  This incident had no verifiable proof mind you, but the accusation by the Clinton campaign of Obama precinct workers taking the packet in precinct 87.  Ambinder ends his blog post with this:


Objectively, the process seems very messy and the state party seems in over its head.

Don't you get it there was definitely major issues of accountability in the Texas caucus, but there is not evidence of fraud.  There has never been a single neutral or objective observer to mention the possibility of fraud.  There has been not one peep out of the Texas Democratic Party of anything untoward happening.  There have been no complaints followed up on by the Secretary of State or any other official in Texas.  There has been not one document from the Obama campaign outlining any plan to commit such a massive fraud.  And all this incident report does is accuse Obama voters of questionable activity.  Not a single Obama staffer is even implicated, but that doesn't stop them from screaming that it goes all the way to the top.

Finally, I decided to go to the Burnt Orange Report to check out these claims of fraud in El Paso.  And it turns out that not only is Obama's campaign full of criminals, but they are also incompetent.  Because they did all this fraud and thuggery and couldn't even get a better delegate breakdown to the state convention than 157-18 for Clinton.  There are challenges, though.  22 of them in fact all on behalf of Obama.  Now, I don't mind you insulting my intelligence with these idiotic charges, but I will not let you insult Hillary Clinton's intelligence and competence.  There is no way a woman as accomplished as Hillary Clinton is going to lose the Democratic nomination to someone who is so incompetent that they couldn't even with the use of fraud get a better delegate breakdown than 157-18 for Clinton.

I also decided to do a search of Burnt Orange Report of the Texas Caucus Fraud.  The search did not turn up one incident reported to the blog of any questionable activity by the Obama campaign.  In fact, it happened to turn up an interesting diary that actually has a source.  It seems that there is an article by the Dallas Morning News describing Clinton caucus training materials:

The materials say in part, "DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles."

It goes on to say, "If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serves as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness.

This Texas caucus fraud stuff is just nonsense and anybody who embraces it are liars.  It has been disproved in all ways possible to disprove a negative.  The more people cling to it the more desperate you sound and the less likely any Democrat will be able to win in November.  Please provide evidence or STOP LYING.



Display:


Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies; this time by Alegre (2.00 / 8)

The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill, and suspicion can destroy, and the thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own; for the children, and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to The Twilight Zone.


by libertyleft on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:34:59 AM EST

I know she's been reduced to (2.00 / 2)

self-parody but "For the record, prejudices can kill," is pretty hilarious for someone who now sees a racist as a role model for the party.  Glad to see her screed has disappeared from the rec list.


by gchaucer2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:07:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Tips for sanity... (2.00 / 31)

because we need to beat back these lies one at a time.  I know there will be Obama supporters who wished I hadn't said anything in the interest of allowing Clinton supporters to "vent."  But I cannot let someone blithely accuse our nominee of criminality.  If we let this go, then the Republicans may pick up on it and we'll have to deal with it all over again in the General Election.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:35:42 AM EST

You were right to post this (1.82 / 17)

The Clinton "supporters" are going to whine and moan whatever we do.  We should be rational and nice to the real supporters but they won't bring up lies and crap like Alegre did.


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:45:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You were right to post this (1.77 / 18)

Alegre does not represent Clinton supporters.


by Deadalus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:28:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I know... (1.85 / 7)

there are just some people who have invested too much in the sucess of another person.  I don't really care who the person is in the office, just that they do the things that need to be done.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:41:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I've just reviewed this diarist's claims.... (1.00 / 17)

First off, the diarist calls out Alegre in the headline. Troll status before I even get into the text.

Secondly, any comments relating to the basic reality that it's the Clinton campaign workers filing the complaints should be noted as such. Are they neutral? No. But, realistically, is the Obama campaign going to file a complaint against itself? Of course not.

Third, I started looking into the numbers as this diarist is claiming they're distorted, and in virtually every instance it's this diarist that's misrepresenting the facts, not Pacific John. Not Alegre.

These complaints are quite valid. This diarist is one of the most obnoxious Obama trolls on this blog. And, before you criticize my statement, read their stuff...objectively.

Does Alegre go over-the-top? Of course. But, in this instance, I'm finding her comments to be pretty damn accurate, save for a little hyperbole. In fact, as far as the material facts are concerned in this instance, IMHO, it is this diarist that should be taken to task for distorting reality, however.

So, follow the diarist off a cliff with your pats on their back in your comments to this diary. But, clearly, there's something legitimately questionable going on here with regard to the Obama campaign's activities in Texas, and the authorities are, indeed, following-up on it aggressively now, too; and for good reason.

This diarist is a hater, in quite the most basic sense of the word. I've been following the diarist's comments for quite some time, too. This is the truth. So, for the sake of a little unity, checkout this diarist's claims about some of the more substantive issues relating to this matter before you go making idiots of yourselves and accepting what this diarist is saying at face value. Clearly there's major distortion occurring here as far as this diarist's actions are concerned.

And, more importantly, it's self-evident that the state authorities in Texas now give serious credence to these charges, too.

Apparently, the only person--after spending some time on a search page today--that thinks these are hollow claims being put forth by the Clinton campaign is this diarist!

After looking at some of this diarist's counterclaims, for all intents and purposes, I find them totally without merit! (And, anyone with an IQ higher than the temperature on a cold winter day would be compelled to agree with me if they did their homework, as well!)

Shame on you MyDD'ers that claim you're seeking unity when you pat this diarist on their back. You are encouraging lies and propaganda and total disunity come the Democratic Convention and the GE by doing that.


by bobswern on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:27:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've just reviewed this diarist's claims.... (1.91 / 12)

So, to summarize your arguments:

"Nuh-uh!"

"I know you are but what am I?"

and the slightly more erudite:

"No, the truth is as I say, and it is self-evident. Which is good, since I will not be providing any evidence of any sort!"

(Hey, I even got the Drudge-like bold text going!)


by nathanp on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:38:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've just reviewed this diarist's claims.... (2.00 / 2)

you are accurately describing this diary in fact.


by zerosumgame on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:04:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've just reviewed this diarist's claims.... (2.00 / 2)

Yes, a thoroughly researched and sourced diary is exactly like "Well, I think YOU'RE the one distorting reality".


by Okamifujutsu on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:42:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So you used all the verbiage to not refute... (2.00 / 8)

a single claim I made.  Is logical that in a caucus where there are 80 Clinton supporters and 15 Obama supporters, Obama's supporters suddenly gathered the ability to appoint 15 more delegates than were awarded to that caucus?  It doesn't make sense.

And it divisive for me to question (harshly) the veracity of claims that Obama [our potential next Democratic nominee] is a criminal, but it is unifying to make those claims.  That's just disingenuous.  Oh and it wasn't me who hid you.  I don't think I should od that to someone who questions my integrity.  That's for others to judge.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:55:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've just reviewed this diarist's claims.... (2.00 / 4)

The diarist is a "hater"?  You refute by providing opinion not fact.  Show some facts that this is real problem and not a imaginary story blown out of proportion to help a crippled campaign.  Where is your research?


by temptxan on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:26:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Almost all diarist's claims are refuted in the... (1.50 / 4)

...summary document which he presents to us. READ IT, please. Just one example, what the diarist describes as "#2." The document explains exactly what occurred, up to and including the awarding of something like 15-16 more delegates than are supposed to be awarded for the district in question.

If others here are not even going to look into the source material provided--already--which undermines much of the diarist's claims, in and of itself, what's the point of even "supporting claims?"


by bobswern on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:39:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I notice you don't like to respond to me... (1.80 / 5)

since you are attacking me, but to answer your question.  In my diary, I point out the absurdities of the summary document, but even if you believe the summary document is correct, how can you trust it?  There's author provided or organization named that provided it.  I just don't see how you accept it blindly.  Is it because Alegre is vouching for it?


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:18:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've just reviewed this diarist's claims.... (1.80 / 5)

Oh, Bob, verbose as always. Hey, wait a minute- didn't you write an entire diary calling people out by name? And that was a-okay?

Who's the hypocrite?


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:41:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Back to your old tricks "unity man?" (1.66 / 3)

My diary which you falsely claimed "called people out," in fact didn't mention anyone...at all.

When you have to lie or misrepresent to support your claims, what do you have? Nothing.

What I did was copy comments and post them, without any comments from me identifying anyone. The comments posted spoke for themselves. We are all accountable for our actions and our hypocrisy when blog. Even you...when you regularly call other bloggers out by name.

Your own comment, to which I'm responding now, just like your ongoing interweaving of calls for unity in-between extremely provocative and troll-ish comments and posts, speaks for itself.


by bobswern on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:53:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Back to your old tricks "unity man?" (2.00 / 5)

Ahhh. I guess the part where you editorialized at the beginning and then called people out on their "trollish" behavior, doesn't amount to calling them out if you structure it in that manner, right?

Give me a break on the semantics, Bob, you're usually smarter than this. Given what you've said about yourself, I find it incredibly mind numbing that you can still engage in this level of intellectual dishonestly. Hell, in that diary, you accused me of being a hypocrite, and posted a comment I made about Alegre as proof (in a diary where I defended MyDD from other Kossacks), given that I've always called Alegre for what she is- a troll.

But heck, Bob, don't let that get in your way. Fall back on the verbosity and try to make it look like you've actually made a point. We ain't fallin' fer it.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:12:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You were right to post this (1.66 / 3)

She doesn't? But she represents the Clinton supporters on MyDD, right? After all, she often has 3 diaries on the reclist at once - out of 5.


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:05:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The obnoxiousness of this comment... (2.00 / 1)

...is not worth the dignification of a response.

Alegre no more represents the Clinton supporters on this blog than the diarist of this horrible piece represents the Obama supporters on this blog.

To state that is, in and of itself, troll-ish.


by bobswern on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:47:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The obnoxiousness of this comment... (2.00 / 1)

Actually, I gotta agree with Bob on this one. Alegre doesn't represent anyone on this blog- she doesn't even represent her candidate. Alegre is a troll, nothing more.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:17:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The obnoxiousness of this comment... (none / 0)

Then why does she own the rec list?


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:22:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The obnoxiousness of this comment... (2.00 / 5)

She gets people who don't contribute to this site to come in and rec-bomb her. It was supplemented in the past by some of the Clinton supporters here, yes, but now most of them have become embarassed by what she's become and her diaries have had a real hard time staying on the rec list at all. Hell, I had a diary the other night that was written maybe a half hour after hers... and slammed it right off the rec list.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:25:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The obnoxiousness of this comment... (none / 0)

OK, I feel better about MyDD Clinton supporters now.


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:23:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You were right to post this (2.00 / 3)

Woah, I go to bed, wake up, and wow, I'm troll-rated for this comment?

Folks, come on!


by Deadalus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:18:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

kudos to you (2.00 / 10)

as another texas caucusgoer who attended a clean caucus, i am so sick of the fraud accusations flying around.  the texas leader of team clinton helped craft our caucus rules, yet team clinton claimed to have little understanding of the process.  bullshit.  they just tried - once again - to change the rules in the middle of the game.

now i do agree that our prima-caucus system in texas needs serious reform, but it is what we have right now and i really wish team clinton had shown more respect for the process.

and that seems to crop up constantly.  they don't respect the process AT ALL.  


Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:28:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, I'm sorry I should have been clearer... (2.00 / 4)

I'm not a caucus-goer (Californian), I just called people for the caucus.  I know how well Obama organized for it and to call it fraud really angers me.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:01:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

sloppy language on my part (2.00 / 6)

yea, i know you weren't there.  what i tried to say - perhaps not so eloquently - was that i am among many texas caucusgoers who are disgusted with the fraud claims.  thank you for being so diligent on this issue. i also called PJ out on his accusations, and never got anything.  this pdf you've got here, it's a joke.  it's also sad to see wampum pushing this crap.  MB is another longtime progressive blogger who i hold in high regard.  i'm not sure how i feel about them - or PJ, or anyone else pushing this crap - any more.


Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:14:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I know... (2.00 / 3)

and this is supposed to be proof positive of illegality?  It just shows someone who has not been involved in electoral politics for a long time.  Because anybody who has ever dealt with elections, secretary of states or ballots cast knows that there are always complaints.  But by the measure of normal complaints, these are pretty ridiculous.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:24:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips for sanity... (none / 0)

If there's something there, and I'm not certain there isn't, the Republicans have already picked up on it. I live in Texas, and attended a caucus on election day as a Clinton supporter. Obama supporters overwhelmed the precinct in larger proportions than the actual vote. They literally surrounded the Precinct Chair like security guards. No matter where he went, they were there. Only Obama supporters "supervised" the crucial sign-in sheets. I know this sort of thing occurred in at least 5 other precincts according to friends. Unfortunately, I don't have friends all over the state, and I can't speak for the rest of the state. So, I'd say Clinton had reason to suspect some kind of foul play. P.S. Before someone asks, no, I will not provide statistics or any further information. It wouldn't do any good anyway.
by zenful6219 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:33:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips for sanity... (none / 0)

nklein, this is fantastic.  Thanks for doing all the work.

Point of information, I think in Texas one would drive a chevy through those holes, not a buick.  (Or a ford if you one is so inclined.)


by The Distillery on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:41:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies; this time by Alegre (2.00 / 13)

Thank you for setting the record straight.

Shame on Alegre.


McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.
by Lefty Coaster on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:40:45 AM EST

Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies; this time by Alegre (1.66 / 3)

Why should a proven lier like alegre be allowed to post here and smear our Democratic candidate? She will find her own kind at any Republican blog and be welcomed with open arms.


by ImpeachBushCheney on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:19:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies; this time by Alegre (1.66 / 3)

McClinton voters dishonnor Hillary and everything she stands for.


McCain's occupation plan will achieve victory when it bestows liberty to the freedom loving people of Iraq and their freedom loving oil.
by Lefty Coaster on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:59:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I knew there wasn't anything (2.00 / 10)

to the reports because the BOR didn't cover it.  They do a damn fine job of political coverage, Karl did an awesome rebuttal in Alegre's diary about it.

I so can't wait for Obama to hit 2118 and for this to be over.  All of the lies and smears sent out into the world.

Heartily recced.


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:43:55 AM EST

Where? (2.00 / 1)

I looked, but I couldn't find anything.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:00:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Uggh I waded back into the filth (1.85 / 7)

to dig this gem up:
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/6/2/22 4459/0925/140#140

To my response saying that the BOR hasn't touched this because it is BS


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:03:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks... (1.80 / 5)

sorry for the swim through Pacific John's first smear.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:44:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies; this time by Alegre (2.00 / 4)

Great diary, thanks.  Although I'm guessing you might get in trouble with the site administrators because you "called out" Alegre.  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:59:55 AM EST

Whatever... (1.88 / 9)

if they want to endorse that trash, then I will accept whatever they send my way.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:00:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whatever... (2.00 / 2)

I really dont expect them to make issue over some interpretation of the guidelines here when the rest of them are being mostly ignored.

Since it is a free-for-all though, this has become an interesting battleground.  There are obvious trolls trying to change the narritive here posing as Clinton supporters.  (and sometimes as Obama supporters, just to play both sides against the middle)

But really I think it works to our (as in progressive Democrats) advantage.  We dont have to go somewhere else to deal with these stupid claims and negative accusations.  They come here.  This way we can do research (like you have done) state opinions, and further solidify our point of view.  Etc.

Plus anyone that reads this that has any common sense and an open mind sees both sides and can make their own decision.  


by herenow on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:08:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Feels so good to read factual diaries. (2.00 / 7)

Recommended.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:04:37 AM EST

I wonder if she will get any (1.72 / 11)

reprimands for blatantly lying, and we are supposed to hold our moses at it.

heh, I called for calm after the RBC but when stuff like that gets put up it should be swatted down fiercely.

Just like I swat down anything TD posts by posting some stuff that illuminates her intentions


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:06:41 AM EST

Arrgh (2.00 / 1)

that should be noses.


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:23:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's good either way n/t (2.00 / 1)


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:44:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I see campweasel (1.75 / 4)

is merrily at it with TRs -- absolute immunity for ratings abuse must be a heady thing.


by gchaucer2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:14:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies by Alegre (1.75 / 12)

Great work.  Thanks.
Alegre's just preaching to her choir now, and has achieved Limbaugh-like status by Limbaugh-like means.
by haystax calhoun on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:50:41 AM EST

Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies; this time by Alegre (1.80 / 5)

Starting tomorrow, Jerome really needs to clean up this place. People like alegre and TexasDarlin can go post their crap at Free Republic once Obama clinches the nomination this week.


by MJJLWolf on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:01:18 AM EST

Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies; this time by Alegre (1.80 / 5)

Won't happen. And I'm not holding my breath on getting rec/rate back, even though I've given out a total of one (1.00) and one (0.00) - and the 0 was to someone overzealously attacking Alegre.

Seriously, look at what Jerome's written over the last few months and ask yourself if you think this place is being managed well.


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:09:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies; this time by Alegre (1.83 / 6)

As soon as I read that Alegre was using as a source "one of the only remaining highly respected neutral voices in the liberal netroots" I knew that the source would not be neutral.

Which answers all that I need to know about Alegre, except for one thing - was she or a member of her family expecting a job in a Clinton administration and is she bitter that that wrong horse has been backed.


by My Ob on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:21:17 AM EST

Hmmm (2.00 / 2)

It seems the thrust of all of your counter arguments are "I couldn't find that on the internet and I didn't see it on the news."  


"I googled and searched yahoo for that number and came up with nothing."

"The search did not turn up one incident reported to the blog of any questionable activity by the Obama campaign."

"I did another search for Precinct 36 and received about 30 hits."

"So I wandered over to Fox News' much maligned website and did a search for Texas Caucus Fraud and I received 20 hits."

"I cruise numerous news outlets, but I don't remember any reports of a news agency getting kicked out of a caucus."

"I decided to go to the Burnt Orange Report to check out these claims of fraud in El Paso."

"So I googled 'Texas Caucus Precinct 56' and I received no mention of that precinct in any negative light."

The bizarre incongruence of primary results and caucus results render the caucuses presumptively suspicious.  You will learn about this in Torts when you study negligence and the concept of res ipsa loquitur.  

Hence, those defending against the allegations have the burden of disproving them.  Saying "I didn't see it on the news and it wasn't on Google" says more about someone's research skills and access to information (I wouldn't have TX insider info either, so no offense) than the actual merits of the allegations.

But I will look for a tip jar-esque comment from you and give you mojo for not saying "hearsay."  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:56:50 AM EST

imo (2.00 / 6)

The bizarre incongruence of primary results and caucus results render the primmary presumptively suspicious.  


by libertyleft on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:11:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: imo (2.00 / 1)

Actually, the results were not that different. And that isn't evidence of fraud at the caucuses.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:15:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmmm (2.00 / 4)

The reason that the caucus results differed substantially from the primary results is because the Texas system gives greater weight to districts which are consistently democratic in their voting patterns. So Travis county where I live gets greater weight than say Moore county in the Panhandle because Travis is a democratic stronghold and Moore has about 20 democrats left all of whom are over 70yo.

That's your discrepancy so stop making shit up.


by Skex on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:27:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmmm (2.00 / 1)

No, the precint by precint comparisons show congruence where there were safeguards and an active legal team while where there were not, there were wide discrepancies.  You realize the delegates in the primary are also selected using an amplifier based on past voting behavior, yes?


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:40:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Uhh, anyone remember that the Primary was OPEN (2.00 / 1)

meaning that Repubs could vote for a Dem.  And do you think Repubs would go to a caucus?  Or, if they were to cause muckrakery, do you think they would rather just go into a private booth and pull a lever?

Considering this, along with other posters responses, it seems quite evident there are a myriad of possibilities as to why the primary results were not similar to the caucuses, none of them pointing to fraud by Obama's camp.  

Even though I doubt there has ever been a fraud case that initially placed the burden of proof on the defense, I have nonetheless given you some facts that destroy any preponderence of the evidence, or 50 + a feather, for your case.


Democrat for the democratic nominee
by KLRinLA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:21:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Adorable (none / 0)

The skews are so off the wall in the caucuses that they evoke the Torts doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.  They are presumptively suspect.  Hence the burden would be on the defendant to explain that there was an absence of wrongdoing rather than vice versa.

But there is no court or legal arguments to be made here; it's just differing opinions.  I have mine and you have yours.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:40:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are Adorable (2.00 / 1)

and obviously ignorant of true legal analysis...since I just showed you that there is another reasons why the results are skewed beyond your thought of caucus cheating (an Open primary would make a republican vote in priamry but not join in the caucus) your theory that the thing speaks for itself is automatically knocked out, thus you must use another theory such as proving the intentional act of fraud.

Good try buddy, but finish law school before arguing with a lawyer


Democrat for the democratic nominee
by KLRinLA on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 05:04:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmmm (2.00 / 1)

What ever. I actually went to a Caucus in Texas and it was amazingly boring and calm the Obama folks (who outnumbered the Clinton people 3 to 1) didn't even raise a fuss when the Clinton camp insisted on having co chairs and 2 secretaries so they wouldn't feel like they were rail roaded.

Over a million people took part in a process that never really mattered before then and based on that fact itself I'd say that there were very very few even alleged violations.

Hell in many cases you had spouses on different sides of the battle like the older woman in line with me who's husband was on the Clinton side.

Clinton got devastated in the democratic strongholds of Texas because Texas Democrats by and large sided with Obama. Clinton only won districts that traditionally go Republican so take that for what its worth.


by Skex on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:01:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

On Research skills (2.00 / 1)

I thought the research method used here was valid.  I do lots of research that involves comprehensive literature review and I've been comparing results of "official" databases to Google and Google Scholar results.  There are definitely situations where the advantage goes to Google.


by GreenHills on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:11:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmmm (2.00 / 6)

That may be the worst legal analysis I've ever seen.


by rfahey22 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:23:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmmm (2.00 / 5)

Heh...I wasn't going to say it, but I'm glad you did. It kind of had that smug 1L "I just learned this so now let me unleash it on a blog!" attitude.

I will say this, MyDD never fails to entertain. Like watching a train wreck, get pushed back on the rails, wreck again, get pushed back on the rails...


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:46:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmmm (2.00 / 2)

Yeah, it's one of those places where anyone can be an "expert," just because we're supposed to take anonymous users at face value.


by rfahey22 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:28:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My torts prof could kick your (2.00 / 4)

torts prof's ass. He taught us that if you're claiming res ipsa, you probably don't know what you're doing. As in this case, where you have completely ignored the part where the Obama campaign didn't have exclusive control of the instrumentality. Oh yeah... and using a negligence doctrine to prove fraud. That's a wee bit problematic.

I agree with the person below who characterized your post as perhaps the worst legal analysis ever. But I wanted to clarify a bit why. In honor of my torts professor, who really did kick ass.


by Mobar on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:54:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hehe my torts prof stunk (2.00 / 1)

but I still could do a better analysis than this tool.

The presumption that caucuses and primary votes should HAVE to parallel each other when it's been obvious in all the analyses that the caucuses attract those "activists" that Senator Clinton scorns sort of puts your legal construct in jeopardy right off the bat.

Hope you weren't a judicial clerk anywhere....


by Regenman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:09:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hehe my torts prof stunk (none / 0)

You misconstrue the issue.

It's not that caucuses and primaries need to parallel each other entirely, but there should be no 25% skew either way.  

"but I still could do a better analysis than this tool."

That's cute.  You get a gold star for being prince of the internet today.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:47:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My torts prof could kick your (none / 0)

Thanks, but my Torts professor died suddenly and tragically the night I submitted my final paper as an upperclassman in one of his seminar classes.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:41:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My torts prof could kick your (none / 0)

On res ipsa, it's a comparison of theory.  There is no actual court in session here.  It's a battle (futile) of online opinions.  


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:43:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My torts prof could kick your (2.00 / 1)

It's a useless comparison. You like res ipsa because once you've made your prima facie case, the negligence is proven without identifying the specific negligent act. That's a highly unusual circumstance in a tort, which is why the doctrine of res ipsa is narrower than "oh, somebody had to have fucked up, let's sue!" By ignoring that the doctrine is narrower than you suggest, you have failed to make a meaningful or compelling comparison. And that's even before we discuss proving fraud with a negligence doctrine.

The more apt legal comparison given the substance of your argument is that, to paraphrase Justice Stewart, you know fraud when you see it.


by Mobar on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:52:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmmm (2.00 / 1)

"those defending against the allegations have the burden of disproving them" I couldn't let this one pass. Rather obviously, the burden of proof is on the person making the allegations. Otherwise it would be a valid tactic for me to assert that you are a Nazi, and everyone should assume that it is true unless you can prove otherwise. And that would, of course, be absurd.
by laird on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:38:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I can't allegations that are not made... (2.00 / 8)

There is nothing, but a document that came out of nowhere to support this claim of fraud.  How in any form of suit is the Obama campaign cupable of fraud?  There is nothing to refute, because there is no evidence.  I can't refute a Channel 7 report that doesn't exist.  I can't refute a Fox news article or video that doesn't exist.  An allegation that includes ridiculous claims and no author is not believable.  There is no source anywhere to confirm this claim and the claim is not believeable on its face, because there is no author of the document.

Finally, is this not a torts issue?  There is no breach of contract occuring here?  The claim is fraud on an electoral process.  This criminal law, not torts law.  And in criminal law you need a witness with name to stand up.  We have no sources to back up this ridiculous claim that apparently thousands of media personnel in that state.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:05:46 AM EST

The above was in response to BPKO n/t (2.00 / 1)


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:06:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh, you and alegre have been yanked from the (2.00 / 2)

wreck list?

Curious.


by grass on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:35:32 AM EST

Looks like... (2.00 / 4)

I was warned, too.  I just don't get why we can't call out blatant lies and smears.  Everyday, they pass by, but the admins do nothi


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:43:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So I clicked post before I was done... (2.00 / 4)

What I was saying was "Everyday these smear diaries pass by, but the admins do nothing.  Well, if the diary accomplished one thing, it got that horrible diary yanked off the Rec'd list.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:45:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So I clicked post before I was done... (none / 0)

I guess you'll just have to allude to her name if you ever need to correct something again - "a certain Hillary supporter beginning with A and ending in egre."


by grass on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:43:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies (2.00 / 3)

And, as I asked Alegre, if there are so many problems, why isn't the Clinton campaign protesting them?

The TX state convention is coming right up. If there were complaints of corruption from the Clinton campaign, they'd be talking about it. But none of them are.

Surely they have not come down with an attack of shyness.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:13:31 AM EST

Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies (2.00 / 4)

Alegre is a lost cause. She has become a caricature of the sad, Quixotic crusader.  She will be charging the windmills long after Clinton concedes. Don't waste the bandwidth refuting her delusions.


by rf7777 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:41:02 AM EST

Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies (2.00 / 7)

Excellent diary. I notice all the deadenders studiously ignore the known shady things that occurred, like when the Clinton supporters challenged every one of Obama's caucus delegates at the county convention, causing them to have to stay until the wee hours in the morning- the story I read was about a pregnant woman breaking down in tears because she was so painfully uncomfortable having either sit there and wait it out, or leave and give the Clinton supporters a win.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:48:58 AM EST

Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies (2.00 / 2)

Yup, I just posted Melody Townsel's diary about it below. But I'll do it here too. :)


by rhetoricus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:18:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't you get it? (1.75 / 4)

Lack of evidence for the conspiracy just means the conspiracy is really good at covering itself up!  The only thing more convincing than evidence of the conspiracy is NO evidence of the conspiracy!


by JJE on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:04:09 AM EST

Here's another view.. (2.00 / 3)

into the Texas process by the patriot who stood up to John Bolton.


by rhetoricus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:17:17 AM EST

I asked Pacific John (2.00 / 5)

repeatedly for his evidence back when he was posting his allegations, and his only response that he wasn't going to "name names" on a blog, and that he would "share [his info] with reporters" if any were interested. Of, course, I didn't want names, I just wanted some vague idea of what the hell he was talking about. The irony, of course, was that the only willful flouting of the rules in El Paso was at the county convention when the Clinton supporters who controlled the committees refused to allocate the at-large delegates based on the convention sign-in - a direct violation of both the rules of the TDP and of a clarifying directive sent out by the state rules committee not two days prior to the county convention. Same thing happened at a few other county meets as well, apparently.

As Karl-Thomas has noted at BOR and here, these issues are being rectified at credentials meetings around the state this week, and Obama may very well have the delegates he needs to get 38 rather than 37 of the 67 at-large delegates at the state convention this weekend.

The Clinton ground strategy after the Texas caucuses was simply to scream and holler and throw sand and make vague threats of litigation. Frankly I expected better considering the team she had put together down here - veteran Texas Democrats who should all have been quite well-versed in the rules of the process.  Ridiculous.


by SuperTex on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:39:59 AM EST

Re: I asked Pacific John (1.66 / 3)

Pacific John and OJ are also looking for the real killers.


by rfahey22 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:26:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Caucuses are not the best system (2.00 / 2)

In the future, we should examine not using caucuses. There are a lot of reports that caucuses are not as inclusive as primaries. A caucus would not be acceptable in the general election, why should we use them in the primary? Shouldn't the Democratic selection process be as above board, inclusive and democratic as the General Election?


by maxstar on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:47:41 AM EST

Honestly, I have a primary... (none / 0)

and I'm happy with it.  Caucuses wouldn't work in California (and they may not work in Texas either: too big).  But in the end isn't it up to the states to make that decision.  I can disadvantages to the caucuses (low turnout, difficult accountability) and the positives of the caucuses (party revitalization, volunteer recruitment).  The problem in the end is that our system is federal and allows states to choose whichever way they want to apportion delegates.  And I'm not going to force any other state to pick one system until we get rid of NH and IA most favored state status.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:28:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The New Texas Caucus Lies (2.00 / 1)

Thank you for the research and the refutation. I knew of the Dallas Morning News story,I just didn't have the energy to post an entire well thought out refutation,Ya done good.


Ida B. The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane.-Mark Twain
by Ida B on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:53:38 AM EST

Lets talk real numbers (2.00 / 1)

http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDia ry.do?diaryId=5864

Texas Democratic Party rules say that in order to vote at the caucus, you must have first voted in the Democratic Primary.

To register to vote in Texas, you must list an address.

According to BOR, there were:
682,728 minimum confirmed caucus goers
598,861 with complete addresses

So. 13.3% of those people attending, or about 1 out of every 7 people, didn't follow Texas Democratic Party rules at the caucus.

The process at the caucuses worked like this.

1. Primary election ended.

  1. Primary sign in sheets were given over to the caucus.
  2. Caucus attendees were checked off against the voter sheets from the primary.

How is it possible that almost 84 THOUSAND PEOPLE didn't follow the rules of the election?

You still want to insist there was nothing wrong?


by mrstas on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:39:20 AM EST

Re: Lets talk real numbers (2.00 / 2)

Before you go off half cocked and making up wrong assumptions like other people on this site.

That comment is in regards to the data entry of data off of the sign in sheets. Given that it was handled by a data processing vendor, the remark about complete addresses is a comment on how many units of information came back with full address information. It's entirely possibly that the data was not or could not be fully transcribed (and lord knows as we've seen from using the email addresses, there are typos).

If anyone had an issue with the sign in sheets at the precinct level convention, they wold have to be taken up with the county credentials committee back in April. We are waaaay past that now.


Follow Texas Politics at Burnt Orange Report
by KTinTX on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:52:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you dumb fuck (1.40 / 5)

i'm sorry, i am just done being nice to you people who keep pushing the fraud bullshit.  

"Texas Democratic Party rules say that in order to vote at the caucus, you must have first voted in the Democratic Primary."  

Show me one instance where someone was found to have caucused WITHOUT participating in the primary and was still counted among the precinct level final delegate totals.  YOU CAN'T.

"To register to vote in Texas, you must list an address."

No brainer.  Doesn't every state require a complete address when one is registering to vote? What does this have to do with anything?  

"682,728 minimum confirmed caucus goers
598,861 with complete addresses"

all this means is that the address portion of the sign in sheet at the caucus was not filled in completely. it does NOT MEAN - as you suggested - that 84K attendees somehow magically registered to vote without giving up a home address.

god you people are fucking ridiculous.


Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:16:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you dumb fuck (none / 0)

I'll ignore your insult and respond to what you've said.

According to Texas Democratic Party rules, every person checked into the caucus was supposed to have been checked off on the roll of registered voters who had voted in the primary.

Since that document already has everyone's address (since they had to have one, to be a registered voter), why are there so many addresses missing???

I understand a typo here and there, a sheet not filled out in full ... but one out of every seven? 84,000 missing addresses?

Get real.

What that says to me is that 84,000+ people voted without providing the information required by Texas Democratic Party rules.

The burden is on you to explain why that's ok.


by mrstas on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:45:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no (2.00 / 1)

the burden is on YOU to get your facts straight.

youare lying again.  the people holding the sign in sheets can only verify against the rolls.  and guess what?  it's not an address verification!!  it's a verification of whether the caucus attendee has voted in the primary.  it has NOTHING to do with addresses or voter registration.


Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:07:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and to answer your strawman (2.00 / 1)

"Since that document already has everyone's address (since they had to have one, to be a registered voter), why are there so many addresses missing???"

it is against the rules for the sign in sheets to be manipulated after someone's signed in.  that is most likely why the precinct chairs (or others running the caucus) didn't complete the addresses.  


Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:11:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Logic not a strong suit... (2.00 / 2)

From what I can see Burnt Orange and KTinTX are Obama supporters so, using your logic, they must be disregarded just as Clinton supporter sites and people are disregarded by you.

So, because your internet searches couldn't find anything, no fraud existed. The document is "pathetic"-now there's a serious objection. Did you attempt to contact any of the reporters on that document. Just becasue something is not considered newsworthy and thus not reported does not mean it didn't happen. I don't have as much faith in the media as you apparently do.

I don't have a dog in this fight to any great extent but I do have many reservations about the D primary process which have come to the ugly light of day because of the unique nature of this particular election. It seems to me on a simply logical basis that a Caucus system is simply more prone to and more ripe for abuse than a normal election.

As an attorney I often do research of all kinds so I just devoted 15 minutes to see what I could find out about the caucus process in TX and whether anything I found out would lead to the conclusion that the process was easy to manipulate and thus could be used to favor a particular candidate. We all know that Obama people prided themselves on preparing for the various caucuses while Clinton people had pretty much ignored them until it was too late.

So, what did I find:

Dallas Morning News, Feb 26th warnings about the process:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/ dws/dn/localnews/columnists/gjeffers/sto ries/022708dnmetjeffers.319fbbb.html

...Mr. Richie put out a warning just the same.

"We understand that in the past it may have been customary to take home the sign-in sheets and try to fill out your delegation if not enough people attended your precinct convention to meet your delegate allotment," Mr. Richie said in a memo to Democrats. "This is contrary to party rules, and therefore you should not do that." ...Show up on time: The conventions start at 7:15. You want to be there on time to avoid having the business of the evening taken care of before you enter the door.... But if supporters of a particular candidate feel like they have a majority in the room, there is little motivation for them to wait for their rivals to get there. Also, early voters can participate....If you gain possession of the packet, you can appoint yourself temporary chairman, get a friend to nominate you as permanent chairman and then quickly elect a secretary. If you do this, you control the flow and pace of the meeting. That could make a difference, especially if you're dealing with late arrivals and those not familiar with the process....Be careful. At these affairs, candidates have walked in with a majority of delegates only to see their rivals outmaneuver them and leave with more.

Dallas Morning News April 15th

Texas Democratic Party officials received at least 50 challenges to caucus results -- a higher number than usual -- as Texas' presidential delegate selection system moved into its next phase, a party spokesman said Tuesday.

"We had a few dozen challenges ... coming from both sides, coming from different parts of state," said party spokesman Hector Nieto. "This is definitely a much larger number than we have seen in the past." ...Of the challenges filed with the state party, the largest number appears to be the 25 or so that came from Tarrant County, where Obama prevailed in last month's senate district caucuses....The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported Tuesday on Clinton supporters who had filed challenges from Tarrant County questioning the legitimacy of some delegates.

County convention caucus challenges also have arrived from Dallas, Harris, El Paso and Bexar counties, Nieto said. ...

There are a number of YOUTUBE videos about Texas Caucus problems-here's one where a woman is being told that she needed voter registration card and then was forced to turn her camera off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRO3KO6Ws 34

Fox News Video about Caucus problems affecting Clinton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LASNtFcqF 4g&feature=relate

Article in todays's Fort Worth Star Telegram about continued Obama campaign interference in the Texas process:

AUSTIN -- A Texas Democratic superdelegate who endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president disputed assertions Monday by state party officials and an Obama aide who say she may no longer be a superdelegate after the state party convention this weekend...Roy LaVerne Brooks of Fort Worth, vice chairwoman of the state party, said she got a call last week from an Obama campaign worker who tried to persuade her to get out of the race for state Democratic chair against the incumbent, Boyd Richie, to avoid a divided Texas convention....She said she told the Obama aide, Rudy Shank, "I will not play that type of politics with you."

Brooks said Shank told her that she would lose her superdelegate status once the state convention ends Saturday. That's because she is expected to be replaced through an agreed-upon rotation system for vice chair between the black and Hispanic caucuses if the state chair is Anglo....

Then there's the lovely court case where the Dem party argued it's process is NOT subject to the Voting Rights Act-how nice:

Texas Dems: Federal Law Doesn't Cover Our System
AUSTIN (AP) ― The Texas Democratic Party says its presidential delegate system is not subject to the federal Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voters.

Attorneys for the Democrats made that argument in a lawsuit filed by the League of Latin American Citizens and others who claim the system discriminates against Hispanics.

LULAC and the Mexican American Bar Association of Houston sued this month in federal court in San Antonio.

U.S. District Judge Fred Biery has indicated he may rule as soon as this week.

The lawsuit targets the complicated Texas delegate system -- which included a March 4th primary and caucus and senate district caucuses March 29th.

Final delegate distribution is to be determined at next month's Democratic Party's convention in Austin.

And since time is runnign out , one last article from The Moderate Voice:

http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/pri maries/18196/texas-caucus-the-view-from- one-precinct-in-austin/

That disorganization was certainly evident tonight in my precinct Democratic Party caucus. The photo above shows the most organized part of the evening, when people filed into the combination cafeteria/gym. There were questions about party rules regarding whether voters had to remain after signing in for their preferred candidate, and the Obama volunteers were loudly insisting their supporters remain so they could dominate the deb