Double Standards

By Big Tent Democrat

About mail in primaries, David Axelrod said:

[O]bviously there are concerns about a mail-in vote. I mean, there are concerns about eligibility, ballot security[.]
(Emphasis mine.) Never mind that Barack Obama is a proponent of mail in balloting. It gets funny when Hillary Clinton is concerned about voter eligibility and signature verification. This top rated DKos diary claims attempted disenfranchisement by Clinton. Citing the Dallas Morning News:

As final results from the Texas Democratic caucus remain unknown, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign wants signatures from the March 4 contest verified before party conventions are held around the state later this month.

In a letter sent to the state Democratic Party late Friday, the Clinton campaign requests the March 29 count and state Senate district conventions be postponed until the eligibility of an estimated 1 million caucus-goers are double checked.

(Emphasis supplied.) The dkos reaction to Clinton's concerns about VERIFYING the eligibility of the caucus participants and the signatures of the caucus participants?



< Pelosi: The Voters Do Not Matter | Mukasey Personally Opposes Death Penalty for al-Qaeda Detainees >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Goose (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:34:03 AM EST

    Could you explain this more? (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:34:15 AM EST
    Which rules exactly is Clinton trying to break?  Please provide links and solid evidence to back up your statement.

    I think the commenter is referring to (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:45:53 AM EST
    Clinton campaign's request the eligibility of TX caucus voters be verified.  However, she raised the same concern before the TX primary/caucuses.

    None (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:10:27 PM EST
    Clinton is proposing any rule.  The rules have always held that a state that is stripped of it's delegates has the right to appeals to the credentialing committee or develop a process to seat it's delegates i.e. vote.  The states, candidates and DNC are going throught the process.  The credentials committee will be unable to reach a supermajority decision as the committee is sat according to delegate apportionment.  Stalling is being used so no process can be developed in time.

    In reality (none / 0) (#97)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:04:24 PM EST
    No one, including the Obama campaign, thought the pledge required the campaigns to take their names off the Michigan ballot.  This has been discussed many times here.

    No (none / 0) (#99)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:58:43 PM EST
    It means I do not run ads, campaign, etc. Which none of them did in MI. It does NOT say "I shall remove my name to make people in Iowa and New Hampshire like me more." It also does not say that if that short sighted move backfires later I get to claim the votes don't count.

    How is (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:51:33 AM EST
    Checking the validity of the signature (essentially confirming the rules were followed) exactly BREAKING the rules.

    Wow we have now entered into Orwellian territory as far as Clinton hate goes.


    Orwellian? (1.00 / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:17:59 PM EST
    Bad reference in this case.

    First off it is not about checking the validity of signatures it is rechecking the validity of signatures.

    Second, suggesting that people will cheat the government is a good argument for big brother.

    So if anyone is making a case for surveillance, by your argument it is HRC.


    That wasn't the reference (none / 0) (#74)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:23:42 PM EST
    It was redefining words to mean the exact opposite. Like to follow the rules and check the validity is CHANGING the rules.

    And let me understand: what is you position on Sen Obamas "concerns" on vote fraud for a redo? Because if you think its valid then in once case concern for fraud is good, in the other its bad.


    Well If Redefining Words (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:34:16 PM EST
    Is your main concern,  you are the one guilty of doing that. The correct words would be re-verify, but that would weaken your argument.

    Using Orwell does not help your argment in any way, especially when you yourself are being misleading.


    If you say so (none / 0) (#82)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:35:39 PM EST
    I think you missed my point, but no worries.

    As you can see (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:36:42 AM EST
    I am not a participant in the dkos boycott.

    I would not give up the entertainment value of the diary list for anything.

    And I like the Front page.

    I don't boycott them either but selectively scan (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:54:36 AM EST
    I think the original diary was stating they were on a diary writing strike until the site became civil again. Then there was a diary wanting to out everyone who recommended the first diary and make them known to the public. And you know how that is. Then BIPM, who I do read, said he was boycotting Strike diaries as a pun. And in the meantime people were calling for a boycott against Jermone Armstrong as DKos is bigger, and it would hurt Jerome more. Now, these are our fellow Democrats? This whole primary thing over there is like when you had way too much to drink, said the most horrible things imaginable, and then have to face them when the primary is over and you need them again.

    Wow (none / 0) (#79)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:32:12 PM EST
    I missed the outting diary. But then again I rarely read dkos now and never comment there. Although I did recommend alegre's diary, so I guess I still have some hope for the place.

    But wouldn't outting all those recommenders be a gross violation of Kos's long-standing policy against that sort of thing?


    Maybe that is why it was taken down (none / 0) (#83)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:38:08 PM EST
    I only read in one of the updates that it existed and was taken down. I never saw it so I do not know how long it lasted but apparently it was gaining traction. Very bad indeed. Ha, my name was right next to Jerome's on the rec list. But I am a proud Democrat and now I am a proud Hillary supporter. I wasn't always, but I am now.

    I like about 2/3 of the front page. nt (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Joelarama on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:57:03 PM EST
    May we have a warning first? (none / 0) (#4)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:38:16 AM EST
    You mean grow a beard (none / 0) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:39:13 AM EST
    since I never participated or read in Dkos, now my action is a political action? Hoorah.

    ugh.... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:40:11 AM EST
    subject line...idiocy with Safari

    Except (none / 0) (#71)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:18:37 PM EST
    that what is at stake is not a game...

    What is happening is serious and depressing. Sorry BTD, can't laugh any more at this.

    There far too much entertainment at the expense of
    the serious challenges and issues facing us and that
    will determine the future of this country.

    I cannot stomach anymore DKos, MSNBC and the irresponsible circus out there.


    BTD (none / 0) (#88)
    by ghost2 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:04:44 PM EST
    You like the front page?  Honestly?

    The same front page that had 6 posts on Ferraro in a single day, and probably nothing on Rev. Wright?  (I have walked out for good, I can be excused from assuming, from precedence, that they wasn't any discussion of Rev. Wright's comments, that is, except blaming Clinton for it.)  Even before I walked out, I hardly checked the front page anymore.  It was just blabbing Orwellian arguments against Hillary Clinton.  

    DailyHowler has a post (of the variety: it would be funny if it wasn't depressing) on Josh blaming Hillary Clinton for this latest episode on Wright!  It's right there on the blogging classics as kos stating that he voted for Obama b/c "I can't stand Terry McAuliff."    


    Voter verification and Obama history (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:38:13 AM EST
    Obama in his first political contest disqualified all his opponents by having their petition signatures disqualified. So, he is a believer in this and good at it.

    Calculated (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:13:45 AM EST
    Next you will hear this was an evil calculated move by 'you know who' to bring out his past and make him look like a typical pol. Bwa ha ha

    There is. (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by ghost2 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:13:16 PM EST
    Theonion is going out of business. First, there was Bush, and now bloggers.  

    Read Dailyhowler on STEPFORDIZATION of Josh Marshall.  Apparently, Josh is blaming Hillary for the latest episode of Obama's 20 year old relationships that haven't turned out well?  I kid you not.  

    MARSHALL (3/13/08): If Obama's the nominee, we will see no end of this kind of stuff. And there's probably some small benefit of getting a preview. But the simple fact is that we wouldn't be seeing this stuff now if it weren't for the fact that this is the kind of campaign Hillary Clinton's campaign has decided to wage--often directly and at other times indirectly by not reining it in in her supporters when it crops up on its own. Wright is news today because Ferraro's been news yesterday.

    BTW, doesn't Obama tout his judgement at every opportunity?  What does it say about his judgement that he has two 20 year old relationship with unsavory chracters?  For a man who says he has the judgement to be president, he sure has lousy judgement in picking long term friends.  


    I wish I could laugh (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:51:21 AM EST
    and maybe I could, if I didn't know - or suspect - that it will be only a matter of time before some talking head picks up that "Hillary's so desperate that she's willing to disenfranchise voters" charge, plops it out there and allows it to stand as if it were true.

    Honestly, I cannot get over how consistently lazy so many members of the media are, but then, an awful lot of the people who are tuning in to see them, or picking up newspapers and magazines to read them, are even lazier.

    I cannot remember a time when I found myself saying with such frequency, "excuse me, but that's not exactly true" to total strangers I hear discussing the latest misinformation they heard.  It's astounding to me the level of ignorance that is out there, and worse, that the media are contributing to it instead of dispelling it.

    As for Texas, given the huge disparity between caucus results and primary results, I would want the process validated, as well, and exposed for the undemocratic process that is clearly is.  

    Maybe it will take us one step closer to ending the caucus system for good.

    Knowledge vs. Information (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:57:42 AM EST
    The media throws out random bits of disconnected information of on a subject. If you want to gain knowledge to make a decision on a subject you have to dig. In every subject that you have some knowledge beyond the info bit, it's physically impossible to read the papers, magazines or watch the tv.

    the rules are now codified (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:59:08 AM EST
    The new Clinton / Obama rules according to Left Coast

    the short version...

    If Obama gets the nomination and loses, it will be the fault of Hillary and her supporters. If Hillary gets the nomination and loses, it will be the fault of Hillary and her supporters.

    that snippet comes from VastLeft at Corrente but was the progenitor to the first link.

    The rules have always been (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:17:26 AM EST
    1.  If Obama gets the delegates he should get the nom.

    2.  If Obama gets the popular vote he should get the nom.

    3.  It is always Clinton's fault.  Didn't you know it is her fault the sun disappears every night.

    well (none / 0) (#39)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:27:01 AM EST
    if Obama gets enough delegates ('pledged' + 'super')  to secure the nomination, he wins...those are the rules.

    if he is short of reaching enough delegates ('pledged' + 'super') then all bets are off...those are the rules.

    As for the sun disappearing every night...that is not true everywhere...we tend to limit our thinking artificially.


    It is worth noting (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:33:01 AM EST
    that at this point in time, without taking MI, FL or the rest of the contests into account, that even if Obama were to get all the remaining unpledged Super D's, he still would not have enough for the nomination.  Same with Clinton.

    So, going forward, these last few contests are critical.  I would go so far as to say that they will decide the nomination.  If Clinton has big wins and momentum on her side, then she takes it, no matter what Pelosi has to say.  Voters are of the "what have you done for me lately" variety.  They won't buy the "but, but, but, he's got more pledged delegates!" when the appearance is that she is knocking these last few states out of the park.

    Another reason for Obama to fight FL.  If he loses FL, then he very well might lose the nom.  Rules won't matter when it's down to the wire.  Appearances will.


    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:26:39 PM EST
    if he is short of reaching enough delegates ('pledged' + 'super') then all bets are off...those are the rules.

    that is at the core of this process: it is not about plurality and has never been. It is about majority.
    Those are indeed the rules. Pelosi doesn't seem to know them though I think she is just trying to re-write them on the fly. What a disgrace.

    We have all read about all the dirty tricks in Texas
    at TalkLeft; all those forms distributed adhoc
    outside the caucus forum. The Clinton camp has
    every right to make sure only those forms whose signatures can be verified are counted. To do otherwise would be an insult to those people who
    put in all those long hours, their time and effort to be present at the caucus itself.

    All those who game the system and played dirty trick  should and must be indeed "disenfranchised" (here to me disqualified for cheating).


    last sentence (none / 0) (#78)
    by Andy08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:29:11 PM EST
    should read

    All those who gamed the system and played dirty tricks  should and must be indeed "disenfranchised" (here to mean disqualified for cheating).


    Very well put; thank you, A08 (nt) (none / 0) (#100)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:07:37 AM EST
    And where did the Obama camp ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:14:11 PM EST
    get the "blame Clinton" idea from?

    The Republicans.

    On 9/11 (the day itself) I was talking to a friend and he said:  "Somehow they're going to find a way to blame this on Clinton."

    Of course, only a few days later Republicans were doing exactly that.

    And I bet if Obama gets the nom, and is elected President, this will continue. Every mistake or problem he has in office will somehow be blamed on Bill and Hillary.


    "blame Clinton" (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by mm on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:53:10 PM EST
    Bush campaigned as the anti-Clinton candidate.  Now 8 years later Obama is running as the anti-Clinton.

    Some change.


    Good stuff... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:45:59 AM EST
    ...this was particularly interesting:

    "...he has so far already won in states with 193 electoral votes, while Clinton has only won in states with 263 electoral votes"

    George Will talking about the "rococo" rules Dems have set up to ensure 'fairness' which, I presume, includes proportional awarding of delegates.


    Asking for enforcement of the rules (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by suskin on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:10:13 AM EST
    Let me get this straight, people are attacking Hillary for wanting the eligibility of the Texas caucus voters determined before the convention -they say this position is an attempt to "break the rules".  Wouldn't this fall into the category of advocating enforcement of the rules?  While the MSM has completely ignored the abuses of the caucuses - not to mention their undemocratic nature - the people in the blogosphere are aware, right?  Everyone knows that bus loads of voters descended upon the Iowa and Washington caucuses minutes before the doors closed overwhelming the people in charge of verifying eligibility.  Everyone knows that in states permitting same day registration and re-registration, people voted without so much as having their IDs checked.  Everyone knows that long longs and delays turned thousands of caucus goers away.  The integrity of the caucus delegates (if not the entire primary) is at issue - or should be - and people are decrying verification of eligibility?  Troubling to say the least.

    And as to mail in voting - while I don't personally have an opinion on this - I think it has to be said, that if caucuses are subject to abuse as they have been in this primary, mail in voting is far more susceptible to abuses.  I think it goes without saying that mail-in-voting will be abused game-fully.

    Google Alice Palmer and Obama (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:15:34 AM EST
    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:15:56 AM EST
    And they wonder why they are lampooned.

    You would think! (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:17:27 AM EST
    There are times when "enforcement of the rules" equates to disenfranchisement in disguise.  For example, when you send partisan poll watchers to aggressively challenge voters' credentials on Election Day, hoping to intimidate people from voting.

    Sending an after-the-fact letter to the state Democratic Party is, of course, nothing of the sort.


    Indeed (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:22:06 AM EST
    Axelrod's opposition to a revote in FL and  MI is an attempt to disenfranchise because it is before the fact.

    The vote in the Texas convention are cast already. The question is are they all valid? Presumably that can be determined.


    It's actually the way ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:21:08 PM EST
    rules are always applied, in any context.

    Fouls and penalties aren't assessed before a football game is played.

    A Talk Left post that violates TOS cannot be deleted before it's posted.

    It seems Obama supporters are attempting to apply a "Minority Report" style of justice.


    Two points on mail-in voting (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:23:18 AM EST
    One - people vote absentee by mail all the time, so presumably, states have a process in place to handle it.

    Two - at least one state - Oregon - conducts all of its voting by mail, and I do not recall hearing about problems with fraud or abuse of that system.

    I completely agree with you that the caucus system has got to go, and it disturbs me greatly that Obama seems to have found a way to game that process in a way that, at least in my mind, de-legitimizes the results.

    If only I had the feeling that he gamed the system because he thought it would benefit the people, and not just one person - himself.  I do not believe the tactics reported were the result of over-eager organizers - I think this came from the top levels of the campaign.  I have a feeling that it won't be much longer before we hear from some now-disillusioned Obama organizers, and then it's really going to hit the fan.


    The more I stay away from dk (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Fabian on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:15:46 AM EST
    the more sanity I retain.

    I've lost a lot of my respect for people who have gone unapologetically partisan over there.  It's pretty easy to do in an echo chamber though.  teacherken wrote a diary on Obama winning/Hillary losing - should we call it already?  Not many people were arguing that the process was just as important as who wins or loses.  Many were preoccupied with the "bad press" meme.  I even pointed out that every state that has both candidates organizing and campaigning in is yet another opportunity to build the party and organize Democrats - but they went back to the recurring meme of divisive, mud slinging politics.

    I'm not ready to crown anyone the victor yet and I don't understand why anyone else is in such a hurry.  To me it speaks of fear and insecurity and not confidence in the process or their chosen candidate.

    They Only Know One Note Of The Tune n/t (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:20:46 AM EST
    I thought your last paragraph (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:22:34 AM EST
    referred to crowning a victor at DK.  I've got a list of nominees in mind.

    Victor of what? (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Fabian on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:35:30 AM EST
    Most fervent and fervid Obama supporter?

    I couldn't tell you.  I stopped reading those diaries for a good reason - I couldn't stop myself from mocking the commenters who are evidently faith-based supporters.  That kind of unthinking, emotional support appalls me.  It's hard not to wonder if those are the same people who thought Dubya was a Nice Guy.  


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:29:21 AM EST
    Surely they don't think Clinton is stupid?  Evil, horrible, nasty-yeah, but stupid?  If there was no way for her to win this race, she would have dropped out already.

    So, there must be a way to win it.


    They're all Justice Scalias now (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Decal on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:32:37 PM EST
    Remember how it was an outrage in 2000 that Scalia and the Supreme Court insisted that enforcing arbitrary deadlines was more important than counting votes? Yet now Obamaphiles agree with Scalia that enforcing arbitrary rules takes precedence over counting votes (in MI and FL).  Oh, except when it doesn't, because it would be wrong to enforce Texas' voting rules if it hurts Obama.  Ignoring one's own previous recorded opinions to obtain the desired results--it's not just for right-wing Supreme Court Justices anymore.  

    I'm opposed to mail-in... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:39:50 AM EST
     or internet.. or rolling voting, or no excuse absentee and all of the various measures promoted as ways of increasing participation in all elections of every kind.

      If we want to get more people to vote the answer should be making more people think it is important and will make a difference.

    In my opinion (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:44:52 AM EST
    There should be one polling station in each state, at most.

    And it should be hitched to the back of a moving vehicle so people have a hard time catching it.

    Also, there should be some sort of poisonous animals inside the voting booth.

    Then we'd find out who REALLY cares about democracy!


    Who (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:20:59 AM EST
    OK, that was funny.  You do realize that people would then ask.... Who gets to drive.  You're just trying to skew it to your candidate.  What kind of fuel will be used.  I'm sure there were kick backs involved.  The stop lights were rigged so the vehicle was in your neighborhood longer.  You cut down a tree to block the road.  Stop throwing eggs at the car, you are intimidating voters. etc.

    Don't (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:27:41 AM EST
    say that too loud or some politician will try to make it a law. You can see how helpful it would be in getting rid of all those pesky seniors that think they still have a right to vote.:)

     And thanks for the laugh. I needed it.


    Another very funny post from Steve M! (none / 0) (#75)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:25:14 PM EST
    But his joke does point to the fact that those who reject enfranchising principles are just one slippery slope away from poll taxes or poll tests.

    Did you like the Texas caucuses? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:41:05 AM EST
    Having chaired our primary convention, (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by ivs814 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:56:27 AM EST
    I can tell you that they are a joke.  It became quite obvious that the Texas Democratic Party never intended for the voters to come in droves to participate, it was always intended for those favored party activists.  Consequently, most conventions were totally disorganized and I have not doubt that many were turned away because the precinct chair was not trained and/or willing to take this disaster by the horns.  

    To answer your question, I absolutely hate the Texas conventions.  


    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:04:46 AM EST
    No one in their right mind would hold a caucus for so many people.

    It is absurd.


    It seems clear that the point of caucuses (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:20:01 AM EST
    is to provide maximum utility to those who work the gears.

    You have to give props to Obama's campaign for working those gears so effectively.

    You have to be concerned as a Democrat that the process might not be all that effective at selecting the best candidate.


    It certainly bears no resemblance (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:23:02 AM EST
    to a general election.

    of course not (none / 0) (#43)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:28:48 AM EST
    because it seemed obvious that Edwards would have a major lead against McCain at this point.

    Except when the Supreme Court ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:26:40 PM EST
    decides a general election.

    Then ...


    I'm biased against caucuses. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Fabian on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:28:48 AM EST
    Fortunately, my state doesn't have them.  I spend most of my working life on the off shifts and even laws meant to give people time off to caucus seem ludicrous when I consider things like hospitals and law enforcement and every other 24/7 employer.   Two hours off in the middle of a shift is a scheduling nightmare.

    Yes, caucuses do sound like the perfect tool for a political machine, not a means for ensuring the most voter input and participation.


    Heard that the TX party (none / 0) (#59)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:57:03 AM EST
    is sitting on over 2000 filed complaints arising out of the caucuses.  They're probably hoping it will just go away.

    Their stupid (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Sunshine on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:32:05 AM EST
    No, I did not like the Texas caucuses, they were designed to override the voters will, this was put in place years ago and should be removed.. Very people in Texas even knew we had a caucus because the nominee has always been decided by the time the primary got here...  But then too, I am a delegate for Hillary Clinton...  We had no problems in our caucus but I understand that some of them were quite messey...

    Caucuses should be discounted in TX (none / 0) (#84)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:40:27 PM EST
    As far as I'm concerned. Hillary won the state, no if ands or buts about it. The lunny tunes TX caucus was decided by people who got to vote twice, like if you're able to take time both to vote in a Primary and Caucus you should be counted as twice as important of a person. All of TX's delegates should be counted in regards to the Primary results.

    I bet you won't like my idea then (none / 0) (#10)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:45:34 AM EST
    A $25 dollar tax credit for voting in the primary and a $15 dollar credit for the GE.

    And so each candidate (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:47:24 AM EST
    will promise to UP the voter tax credit if they're elected....

    So much for the tax base.


    As I recall (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:50:29 AM EST
    the Dem governor of Arizona proposed a lottery, where every voter gets issued a ticket.  Vote, and you could win a million bucks!  I don't believe it passed, which is a pity because it's an awesome idea.

    That is a great idea (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:52:40 AM EST
    I like it! (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by ding7777 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:06:45 AM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:12:15 AM EST
    It would also get voters to demand a paper trail for all votes.

    My Belgian friend (none / 0) (#40)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:27:17 AM EST
    said there, if you DON'T vote, you "go to jail".

    I don't know quite how that works, but I gather you are supposed to get down there and vote.


    In Europe (none / 0) (#52)
    by themomcat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:40:16 AM EST
    most elections are held on Sunday, when most everyone is off from work. So there is little excuse for not voting. There are primaries a couple of weeks prior to the general election where ALL candidates in ALL the political parties are considered by the ENTIRE electorate. The top two vote getters go to the general election. This way who ever wins, wins with a majority of votes, i.e., greater than 50%. Sounds pretty fair.

    Donuts (none / 0) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:48:37 AM EST
    Donuts will bring out people, free food, the tool of the community organizer from way back. But, you have to make sure they vote before they get the donut.

    but do we really want (none / 0) (#23)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:07:56 AM EST
    the homeless and the working poor to vote?  Might skew the results, dontcha know.

    Bribing people to vote? (none / 0) (#45)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:29:19 AM EST
    Doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I thought we wanted well informed voters.

    Bases on the MSM? (none / 0) (#68)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:14:34 PM EST
    Taking the William Randolph Herst approach or even Judith Miller? Both with responsibility of encouraging a war.

    Your links need to be (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:03:50 AM EST
    properly formatted.

    I will give you a few minutes to copy/paste your comment do you can try again.

    McCain clearly was involved in a (none / 0) (#41)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:27:32 AM EST
    quid pro quo with the Keating 5.

    Where is the quid pro quo here? At best so far, all you can do with this is call into question Obama's judgment (which is fair IMO), however, if that is the standard

    Other prominent Democratic politicians (who shall go nameless as this is about Obama) also had unsavory friends, which might reflect on their judgment. This is the sort of double standard which can bite.

    I think BTD's original admonition that Rezko should not be an issue is a good one.

    OK - I'll bite (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:45:47 AM EST
    quid pro quo, since we have McCain in the reference...

    When asked if his money had bought the Senators' services, Keating replied, "I certainly hope so." Says Common Cause President Fred Wertheimer: "Keating has confirmed the public's worst fears."

    The only difference I see is the lack of confirmation or perhaps the absolutely naive belief that since there is no known quid pro quo, it doesn't exist.

    But why the need to link McDougal and cattle when you state that this was about Obama? Sleight of hand attempt to deflect.

    Clearly James McDougal suffered for his mistakes.

    Susan McDougal was the recipient of extremely harsh treatment for a political witch hunt.

    I really wish you wouldn't come here and obliquely smear HRC.


    I'm not smearing anyone (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:02:52 PM EST
    I object to the characterization. If you bothered to check (which you won't) you will see I have been quite favorable to Hillary overall and have criticized Obama more- mainly for the unity thing because I don't believe Republicans -the elected ones, which are the only ones we need to be concerned with on this point-  will compromise.

    I've been here  a long time and have a long posting history. I've never noticed you until the other day.


    FWIW (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:20:35 PM EST
    OK - object to the characterization...but the fact is that this was simply about Rezko and whether there was quid pro quo and references to McDougal, etc. were simply unrelated except for smearing purposes.

    I haven't noticed that you've been favorable to HRC but perhaps I'll stumble into one or two in time.

    I hadn't noticed your postings here until yesterday but I'm a guy and I can step over dirty underwear lying on the floor so that doesn't mean much.

    I haven't been here all that long but I just checked...my earliest recorded comment seems to be from 1/13/2008 (approximately 2 months). Is this a DK status thing where the lower ID# means more status?

    To be honest, I am bothered by the fact that I just don't believe that you are indifferent to the candidates...it's simply not possible at this stage to be politically active and yet still indifferent. I don't argue with your unity schtik.


    Not surprised (none / 0) (#87)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:59:12 PM EST
    you can't follow the logic. I won't bother to repeat it, you can read a few more times and maybe it will sink in.

    I also object to be compared to dirty underwear.

    I was an Edwards voter. So it is quite possible not take sides. I am not emotionally invested in either candidate. I am invested in winning in November. Nothing else politically matters to me. I also recognize without more and better Democrats in the congress (especially the Senate) a lot of promises will be unfulfilled regardless who is elected.

    I think Paul Krugman (and thus Hillary is right) about mandates. I think Obama can't have mandates for children and credibly claim mandates are bad for adults. What do you notice about my critiques? They are on policy not BS character attacks. We are electing a president, not an archbishop. Character flaws go with the territory. I don't think either are flawless and I don't think either fundamentally flawed in character (I do think McCain is fundamentally flawed).

    Jgarcia (who I haven't seen here in awhile) would dispute your claim that I am an Obama partisan.

    I used to think Obama supporters on blogs were the most obnoxious. However, some HRC partisans, want to claim the title. I tried to tone down my fellow Edwards supporters from time to time on Mydd, but eventually gave up. I haven't fallen in love with a candidate in a long time- I am a Democrat, I know better than to set myself up to fall.  

    Now I have given you more than you are due. Next time it will be a straight up pogue mahone.


    sorry (none / 0) (#90)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:18:23 PM EST
    I didn't mean to compare you to dirty underwear and don't think I did.

    I was trying to give you the limitations of my observation powers.

    How is it that we are both Edwards supporters, completely incredulous at BHO's silly arguments about health care mandates and arguing here?

    I support Hillary because I think that she gets us closer to the ideal position than does Barack. It seems impossible to be this far down the line and not supporting someone unless you are simply not engaged at all.


    Health care won't get passed without more better (none / 0) (#92)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:41:01 PM EST
    Dems in congress.

    According to EJ Dionne, they opposed it in 1992 because they knew it would do for the 1992 Democrats what Social Security did for 1932 Democrats- give them a 20 year lock.

    I have no faith in this slim Democratic majority to stand up to pressure once the health care debate begins. There is only one answer and it is elect a Democrat as president and elect a larger majority to congress.

    A larger Democratic majority would probably cure Obama's mandate problem. There is safety in numbers and they would probably begin to act more like Democrats and less like Bill Nelson (Spineless- Florida).  



    agreed (none / 0) (#95)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:14:34 PM EST
    but I did see a glimpse of hope this week in the House (FISA).

    The Senate of course is an entirely different matter as we have seen time and time again (FISA being only 1 major disappointment).

    There will always be the issue of Republican's marching lock step and blue dog Dems and the obvious answer is safety in numbers.

    In some ways, winning the White House only assures Dems of a few things though I'm not going to downplay their importance...

    • SCOTUS - (some of the 'liberals' are getting quite old). This alone makes it an imperative that the Dems win the presidential election.

    • Iraq - (though one has to wonder how deep Obama's commitment to getting the forces out of there in light of comments by Samantha Powers)

    • Veto power - what's the point of passing legislation such as FISA or health care if it get's vetoed?

    • Limiting or suspending the AUMF which has been used as political cover by Bush for many of his transgressions.

    That said, it would appear that Dems will pick up at least 2 seats in November with the possibility of 4-6

    For all of the posturing of the candidates on Health Care, it remains a mystery what the legislative possibilities actually are and at the end of the day, a president only has bully pulpit and veto power.


    I can't disagree with 99% of this (none / 0) (#96)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:39:10 PM EST
    Judicious reply to an injudicious (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:04:35 PM EST
    comment.  Good job.  

    Thank you (none / 0) (#65)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:07:42 PM EST
    oops (none / 0) (#57)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:52:16 AM EST
    meant to provide Link to Time article from 1990 concerning what he thought he was getting for his 'contributions' to various Senators campaigns.

    Its a question of judgment (none / 0) (#60)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:57:12 AM EST
    its fair, if applied evenly. And that was my point. However, I am not surprised YOU missed it.

    According to Chicago Trib., Obama (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:01:04 PM EST
    is cleaning up all questions about his ethics and judgment in order to launch a full on attack on HRC re ethics.  Stay tuned.  

    Oh My.... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:16:22 PM EST
    And I was worried we may be heading into a boring patch. This should be fun to watch. I would use the cliche of going to a gun fight with a knife, but I think this will be much much uglier than that.

    Trying to attack the Clinton's, this has worked out well historically.....


    That's his standard MO (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:29:25 PM EST
    according to Lynn Sweet of the Sun Times:

    Politically Expedient Ethics

    This is Obama's third ethical conversion of convenience -- taking on a higher standard, but only when it appears to be politically expedient. Obama is making government transparency and ethics a centerpiece of his presidential campaign.

    The Obama record:

    • * Obama took 23 subsidized rides on corporate jets in 2005, the first year he was in office. In January 2006, the very week he became the lead Senate Democrat on ethics, his office announced that in the future, his political war chest would pay the entire cost of using private planes.

    • * Obama took donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees for his House and Senate races and his own Hopefund political action committee. He only stopped taking this political money -- speaking out against it -- when he launched his presidential campaign in February 2007.

    • * Obama did disclose earmark requests he made in 2007; however, his office has been refusing since June, without explanation, to disclose earmarks Obama had sought previously. Thursday's decision to disclose came on the very day the Senate voted on a one-year earmark moratorium. It failed 71-29. Clinton and Obama voted in favor.

    This is not a "new" politician - this is someone who thinks we are all drooling idiots who will look no farther than the last thing he said.


    Its not a fight anyone wants to engage (none / 0) (#63)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:03:51 PM EST
    in if they are smart. Including Obama.

    Getting back to DKos (none / 0) (#85)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:46:59 PM EST
    Marcos has a big head to head fight with the DCCC. He was never for Obama from the start but when it came down to the last 3, (Even when he said he likes Hillary A LOT) he could not vote for a DCCC candidate. And he choose Obama by default and said that Obama's speeches left him walking away wondering what he had heard. They had no substance. But, he wants to win against the DCCC and that is a shame because it does not stop him from saying to his flock, play nice.

    I still check up on what's happening on DKos because being informed is important. I just skip the bad diaries and find myself only finding 1 to 3 to read. Sometime I get suckered in by a headline, but after the first few sentences I know to escape or not.